criterionforum.org

Those would be better, yes.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Plus I can't imagine Michael Caine requesting one of those behemoths in his contract.

No, but I could definitely imagine him politely requesting one just to see if they'll give it to him!

Can someone advise me what "thought" is in the Batman movies? There is definitely craft and, occasionally, "interesting" acting (Ledger; Holmes). But what did we "learn" from TDK? Thanks in advance.

J Adams wrote:Can someone advise me what "thought" is in the Batman movies? There is definitely craft and, occasionally, "interesting" acting (Ledger; Holmes). But what did we "learn" from TDK? Thanks in advance.

I keep hearing everyone talk about how they appreciate the fact that Nolan at least attempts to infuse his films with some form of deeper thought, but I also can't really pinpoint anything along these lines off the top of my head. I can't even think of a central theme for TDK, honestly, and that's something (as Grand Illusion o whomever mentioned earlier) even Spielberg and other A list directors are always keen to abide by.

James Mills wrote:

J Adams wrote:Can someone advise me what "thought" is in the Batman movies? There is definitely craft and, occasionally, "interesting" acting (Ledger; Holmes). But what did we "learn" from TDK? Thanks in advance.

I keep hearing everyone talk about how they appreciate the fact that Nolan at least attempts to infuse his films with some form of deeper thought, but I also can't really pinpoint anything along these lines off the top of my head. I can't even think of a central theme for TDK, honestly, and that's something (as Grand Illusion o whomever mentioned earlier) even Spielberg and other A list directors are always keen to abide by.

Really? It spent a lot of time working out (overly schematically I thought) several thematic lines, usually introduced through a few key phrases, eg. "Dent is the hero Gotham needs, Batman the hero it deserves." Pretty much the entire plot was an attempt to work through the precise nature of Batman's contribution to justice and his effect on Gotham, as well as the sacrifices necessary to maintain it, the toll that takes, and how easily a person's values can be used to push them into into immoral actions. The Joker very explicitly states that his mission is to undermine totally Batman's sense of value and worth, and by implication, undermine all heroic actions.

The movie approaches its content with a commendable seriousness, even if, as I said, it does it too schmatically (and with a bit too much surface awareness).

Well, I certainly don't want to open up this can of worms again, but The Dark Knight definitely plays around with plenty of post-9/11 post-Patriot Act imagery... and in my opinion, jumps to some rather troubling (although confused) conclusions in that regard. I say that as someone who doesn't particularly care for the films.

Cold Bishop wrote:and in my opinion, jumps to some rather troubling (although confused) conclusions in that regard.

You can say that again. And I say that as someone who loved the film.

I don't remember the film well enough to know what you guys are talking about. And I say this as someone who saw the film.

Batman was on solid constitutional footing; the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." As long as Batman didn't consult with Commissioner Gordon, he and Morgan Freeman didn't need the Patriot Act in order to spy on the Joker.

The ethical implications, of course, remain.

Tom Hagen wrote:Batman was on solid constitutional footing; the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." As long as Batman didn't consult with Commissioner Gordon, he and Morgan Freeman didn't need the Patriot Act in order to spy on the Joker.

The ethical implications, of course, remain.

The whole premise of a millionaire playboy taking justice into his own hands without any legal authority is illegal and unethical from the get-go. If you're willing to accept that, I don't see a single reason to get all uncomfortable about some phone taps. That's about the least unethical thing he does (beating a prisoner anyone?).

swo17 wrote:I don't remember the film well enough to know what you guys are talking about. And I say this as someone who saw the film.

lol, me neither, but Sausage/Cold Bishop/Tom Hagen bring up some very interesting ideas that I seem to have overlooked. I wonder if these are merely just ideas and conversation starters though rather than arguments for one particular idea or another (I was always taught that, structurally at least, a film's theme is one that cannot be indubitable or inarguable, but rather a moral or message in which the entire film seeks to support).

Mr Sausage wrote:The whole premise of a millionaire playboy taking justice into his own hands without any legal authority is illegal and unethical from the get-go. If you're willing to accept that, I don't see a single reason to get all uncomfortable about some phone taps. That's about the least unethical thing he does (beating a prisoner anyone?).

Most certainly. But one of the reasons this material didn't do much for me is because the film only seemed to focus on the consequences of the vigilantism for Wayne/Batman and his intimates; we really don't get any sense of what price society pays for trading its values for security. Gotham was/is/will be corrupt, fallen, and irredeemable, so what difference does it make if Batman goes the Cheney route in fighting evil? There's no real journey away from Eden there.

Maybe that's something that pays off in Rises.

True. Particularly if the Platonic "noble lie" about Dent and Batman unravels.

And you see the same pictures of Dent on either side of Gordon giving a speech at one point in the trailer, that you do in the montage at the end of TDK. Considering this is taking place 8 years after the last film, there are probably streets and buildings named after him in Gotham at this point.

I question whether schematically presented themes constitute thought. By which I mean: did I learn something from TDK.

In Transformers 3 DOTM Optimus tells us that in the war on Cybertron, the Decepticons wanted tyranny and the Autobots wanted freedom. The Decepticons unite behind Megatron and Earth gives in to their demands. They force the Autobots to leave in order to preserve peace, believing Megatron will only take a few resources. However, Megatron lied, and the UN finds it has made a grave mistake by alienating the Autobots in favor of perceived peace. Megatron wants the humans as slaves, and his Decepitcons kill innocents around the world to force Earth into submission.

Yes, I see that T:3 DOTM can be read as a critique of the way the UN/Obama administration treats Israel, but is that "thought"?

Surely there's a better way to get this thread to rival Tree of Life's pre-release post count without resorting to Tree of Life's post-release posting methodology

Great, now you've gone and made the strategy explicit. Thanks a lot for ruining Christmas.

domino harvey wrote:Surely there's a better way to get this thread to rival Tree of Life's pre-release post count without resorting to Tree of Life's post-release posting methodology

You could always speculate on which hot actress would make a really awesome Catwoman.

Or have we done that already?

James Mills wrote:

swo17 wrote:I don't remember the film well enough to know what you guys are talking about. And I say this as someone who saw the film.

lol, me neither, but Sausage/Cold Bishop/Tom Hagen bring up some very interesting ideas that I seem to have overlooked. I wonder if these are merely just ideas and conversation starters though rather than arguments for one particular idea or another (I was always taught that, structurally at least, a film's theme is one that cannot be indubitable or inarguable, but rather a moral or message in which the entire film seeks to support).

You were taught wrong then as a theme can be any running idea. Also I see nothing wrong with a film being a conversation starter. It's certainly better than say Haneke's tendency to say I'm right and you're wrong (this coming from someone who prefers almost universally Haneke to Nolan).

knives wrote:

James Mills wrote:...(I was always taught that, structurally at least, a film's theme is one that cannot be indubitable or inarguable, but rather a moral or message in which the entire film seeks to support).

You were taught wrong then as a theme can be any running idea. Also I see nothing wrong with a film being a conversation starter. It's certainly better than say Haneke's tendency to say I'm right and you're wrong (this coming from someone who prefers almost universally Haneke to Nolan).

Off topic, I guess, but I don't know what you mean at all. Haneke has consistently avoided making films with one correct, explicit interpretation, and his main intention is to raise questions for the viewer to ask for themselves rather than impart answers or clear "messages" that come from a place where he is right and is instructing the viewer. I also don't see how any theme (a nontrivial one anyway) could be something inarguable, where there is no room for any differences in the way viewers who are at least minimally intelligent and reasonable understand or respond to that theme.

It certainly doesn't have to be a moral or message, though. (I wanted to add this at the end of my previous post, but the "Edit" button isn't there.)

Gregory wrote:Off topic, I guess, but I don't know what you mean at all. Haneke has consistently avoided making films with one correct, explicit interpretation, and his main intention is to raise questions for the viewer to ask for themselves rather than impart answers or clear "messages" that come from a place where he is right and is instructing the viewer. I also don't see how any theme (a nontrivial one anyway) could be something inarguable, where there is no room for any differences in the way viewers who are at least minimally intelligent and reasonable understand or respond to that theme.

I think we're coming from the same place actually. My Haneke comment pretty exclusively refers to Funny Games and Benny's Video, but I agree that doesn't apply to as many of his films as my comment suggested. Poor wording on my part.

Getting back to TDKR and the recent release of the trailer, and based on what Nolan has said in the past about the rampant, excessive (unnecessary) use of CGI in modern movies, I really really hope they do something about that fake ass looking football scene w Hines Ward. It's something I expect from a Paul WS Anderson movie and not from a Nolan Batfilm. Could there be any hope they may go back and at least touch it up so it doesn't look so, uh, CGI-y?