criterionforum.org

I haven't seen The Dark Knight since it came out, but doesn't the film posit that the only way for Batman to foil the Joker and to save everyone and everything is to use the surveillance tool? How is that not endorsing its validity?

It's posited as a "necessary evil", per the scene between Batman and Lucius Fox where the latter wants nothing to do with the device but only uses it the once but promises to quit if it remains functional afterwards.

pzadvance wrote:Additionally, criticizing the color palette of the opening sequence in Rises strikes me as nitpicking and a bizarre dismissal of what makes that scene so engaging--the fact that it actually appears to be happening. I can think of no stunt that would have benefited more from a lack of green screen. That entire sequence is breathtaking for its very visceral realness--much the same as the truck scene in TDK was. I find the effect of the two scenes immensely comparable.

Meh. The sequence plays out like an over elaborate 70's era Bond type stunt... The whole time it was unfolding I kept asking myself "If Bane's such a formidable criminal mastermind how come he hasn't thought of the 100 other less complicated ways he could have accomplished this?" Nobody I went with to the theater or talked to about it at work later with thought it was done using significant live action angles in the air . Yet nobody I talked to was impressed when I told them. The live action elements revealed in the EPK don't really add to the scene, partly because there are any number of cheats employed still, like using a glider in many shots, etc. But mostly because you don't really have any sense of scale or contrast or weight up there in the air. Unlike the tractor trailer stunt where the visceral tonnage of the thing and the texture of the real surrounding streets (as opposed to generic gray skies) makes a huge impact.

I think looking at Dark Knight as a movie with strong politics but contradictory viewpoints is fair enough- it doesn't seem to be pulling the 'oh sure this is bad BUT WHAT IF THERE'S A BOMB' 24 style argument, it's doing a sort of odd 'this is bad and we'll feel like shit about it later', which sends a much less clear message. There are definitely a lot of allusions to extreme right wing or even fascistic ideology- the Roman parable Dent tells is can either be a story of justification for Bruce or an outright fascist one in which unlimited power is ok as long as it's in the right hands- but the only real message it seems to have is that human nature can't be totally cynically dismissed as self interested and murderous, and even that is largely contradicted by DKR.

tarpilot wrote:I haven't seen The Dark Knight since it came out, but doesn't the film posit that the only way for Batman to foil the Joker and to save everyone and everything is to use the surveillance tool? How is that not endorsing its validity?

Because it's effective is not in itself an endorsement. And I still can't believe people are picking at this plot point as if we weren't talking about an illegal vigilante whose main form of justice is violence and who's working outside the legal system anyway. That's cool, apparently, but a little cell-phone surveillance trick isn't? I hardly understand why the movie even bothered to have Lucius raise a complaint considering what I've just laid out. Why shouldn't Batman break that social taboo considering how free he is with all the others?

I think it's interesting to posit that this Batman, at least, believes there should be limitations on his own power- not a view shared by some of the comic book interpretations- and that he's aware that there are ethical questions beyond 'is it ok to kill people'. Though compared to kidnapping the banker out from China, more or less directly at the behest of the police, (and eventually getting the banker killed, too) surveillance seems like small potatoes.

Not to mention beating a witness for information (although the film wisely implies that this is playing a part in his own defeat). One of the themes of the movie anyway is how being made to feel your own lack of power can force you to break your own rules and deface your own values in order to get it back. It's about how good intentions can become corrupted if the right buttons are pushed (this is the Joker's explicit motive). So there's a ton of reasons why the movie isn't endorsing extreme right-wing political ideologies, but a lot of people just don't want to see them.

Mr Sausage wrote:

tarpilot wrote:I haven't seen The Dark Knight since it came out, but doesn't the film posit that the only way for Batman to foil the Joker and to save everyone and everything is to use the surveillance tool? How is that not endorsing its validity?

Because it's effective is not in itself an endorsement. And I still can't believe people are picking at this plot point as if we weren't talking about an illegal vigilante whose main form of justice is violence and who's working outside the legal system anyway. That's cool, apparently, but a little cell-phone surveillance trick isn't? I hardly understand why the movie even bothered to have Lucius raise a complaint considering what I've just laid out. Why shouldn't Batman break that social taboo considering how free he is with all the others?

The cell phone part doesn't annoy me because of political reasons, but more because it doesn't allow Batman to develop as a character. Essentially out of no where he pulls out this device that solves his problems, but we don't see him create it, not see any of the process he goes through to develop the skill necessary to create it. Poor storytelling that led to the climax and resolution feeling dry

(edited for accidental omission of words)

Arrow wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:

tarpilot wrote:I haven't seen The Dark Knight since it came out, but doesn't the film posit that the only way for Batman to foil the Joker and to save everyone and everything is to use the surveillance tool? How is that not endorsing its validity?

Because it's effective is not in itself an endorsement. And I still can't believe people are picking at this plot point as if we weren't talking about an illegal vigilante whose main form of justice is violence and who's working outside the legal system anyway. That's cool, apparently, but a little cell-phone surveillance trick isn't? I hardly understand why the movie even bothered to have Lucius raise a complaint considering what I've just laid out. Why shouldn't Batman break that social taboo considering how free he is with all the others?

The cell phone part doesn't annoy me because of political reasons, but more because it doesn't allow Batman to develop as a character. Essentially out of no where he pulls out this device that solves his problems, but we don't see him create it, not see any of the process he goes through develop the skill necessary to create it. Poor storytelling that led the climax and resolution dry.

Right. And it's exactly this kind of thing that absolutely plagues Rises from start to finish.

Arrow wrote:The cell phone part doesn't annoy me because of political reasons, but more because it doesn't allow Batman to develop as a character. Essentially out of no where he pulls out this device that solves his problems, but we don't see him create it, not see any of the process he goes through to develop the skill necessary to create it. Poor storytelling that led to the climax and resolution feeling dry

(edited for accidental omission of words)

All of Batman's little tricks are introduced the same way: Q, er, Lucius Fox shows up, shows it off, Batman puts it into practise. This one was a little different in that Batman just modified slightly something Fox had already created, but same principle. Batman's gadgets are plot devices. Always have been.

Yeah, Nolan mentions in a Rolling Stone issue that he's a huge 70's Bond fan, and it's hugely apparent in the gadget sequences- I think the innovation is meant to be more introducing moral dimensions into tech fetishism than any real questions about how the things work or how Bruce knew to alter them or anything.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Arrow wrote:The cell phone part doesn't annoy me because of political reasons, but more because it doesn't allow Batman to develop as a character. Essentially out of no where he pulls out this device that solves his problems, but we don't see him create it, not see any of the process he goes through to develop the skill necessary to create it. Poor storytelling that led to the climax and resolution feeling dry

All of Batman's little tricks are introduced the same way: Q, er, Lucius Fox shows up, shows it off, Batman puts it into practise. This one was a little different in that Batman just modified slightly something Fox had already created, but same principle. Batman's gadgets are plot devices. Always have been.

Well, I can't speak for Arrow, but what bothers me about this is less the plot device-iness of it than the abrupt Deus ex machina way in which this device saves the day. Which, admittedly, is far less of a problem here than all the myriad times something like this happens in Rises where no good guy or bad guy seems more than a scene or so away from getting what they want far too easily and all at once.

The device solves a single problem, where the Joker is. All the myriad of problems that arise after that basic bit is figured out still have to be dealt with. That is not a deus ex machina and I really cannot see how a scene of Wayne tinkering around with some wires under a desk would've improved the movie.

Mr Sausage wrote:The device solves a single problem, where the Joker is. All the myriad of problems that then arise after that basic bit is figured out still have to be dealt with. That is not a deus ex machina and I really cannot see how a scene of Wayne tinkering around with some wires under a desk would've improved the movie.

Finding him seemed rather pivotal to the conclusion of the film considering the damage he apparently was capable of inflicting.

Tinkering around with some wires may seem a bit boring, but it includes the audience in the process which results in a bigger emotional payoff, at least for me. And I suppose if it was something simple, it wouldn't be as big of a problem, but it's an immensely complex device that's significance is even magnified by Lucius' reaction to it.

Like I said, it just kind of made everything fall flat in a film that entertains by a series of rapid emotional up and downs.

That just screams of overexplanation though. We know he has an ahead of the curve tech department and these specific sort of techs. The film does explain in detail what went down and anything else would be burdening an already overstuffed film with redundant information.

knives wrote:That just screams of overexplanation though. We know he has an ahead of the curve tech department and these specific sort of techs. The film does explain in detail what went down and anything else would be burdening an already overstuffed film with redundant information.

I agree, we know about the tech stuff, but then the movie becomes more about the tech stuff then Batman when used this way. If you write yourself into a situation where you are either over explaining plot points or under explaining character points, then you write it a different way.

I think it's more of a case where you are demanding a film that Nolan has no intention of making.

knives wrote:I think it's more of a case where you are demanding a film that Nolan has no intention of making.

I probably am, but my intention in the beginning was to just explain why that part of the film didn't entertain.

knives wrote:I think it's more of a case where you are demanding a film that Nolan has no intention of making.

Well, whether one has a problem with the use of surveillance device in TDK or not, all this discussion makes me think of how much less precisely and more frustratingly Nolan uses

Spoiler

the trick of the Bat's autopilot in Rises.

So that the equivalent Rises plot device doesn't solve one tiny logistical problem as Sausage says, but this time it allows Nolan and the entire trilogy to have its hero sacrifice and eat it too.

Arrow wrote:

knives wrote:That just screams of overexplanation though. We know he has an ahead of the curve tech department and these specific sort of techs. The film does explain in detail what went down and anything else would be burdening an already overstuffed film with redundant information.

I agree, we know about the tech stuff, but then the movie becomes more about the tech stuff then Batman when used this way. If you write yourself into a situation where you are either over explaining plot points or under explaining character points, then you write it a different way.

If I recall, there is a throwaway line re: Wayne Industries investing in some form of cell phone research. It's been a while but doesn't Lucius confront Wayne about it and he dismisses it as a personal project? It would feel pretty bizarre to learn I'd made this up. I think it exists. Somebody validate my sanity.

On the one hand, it seems absurd to get hot and bothered over an issue that could so easily be remedied by a few words of dialogue. On the other, I can see how it could quell the fanboy rage (counting myself in that group) as it does show that the filmmakers are at least aware of plausibility concerns and capable of addressing them, however dismissively. I've found myself longing for an extra line or two to patch up the perceived plot holes in DKR, just to validate Nolan's storytelling competence and thereby my admiration of him, I guess. Clearly I've got some shit to work out.

pzadvance wrote:If I recall, there is a throwaway line re: Wayne Industries investing in some form of cell phone research. It's been a while but doesn't Lucius confront Wayne about it and he dismisses it as a personal project? It would feel pretty bizarre to learn I'd made this up. I think it exists. Somebody validate my sanity.

It's in there somewhere during (or before) the China sequence.

knives wrote:That just screams of overexplanation though. We know he has an ahead of the curve tech department and these specific sort of techs. The film does explain in detail what went down and anything else would be burdening an already overstuffed film with redundant information.

Boy are you right. This is one area that the film is totally justified in taking for granted. I can think of few things less interesting and more likely to bog down a film than detailed explanations of fake technology, especially if it's bound to be incoherent techno-babble anyway. Batman's tools, like Bond's, have always been plot devices, and you either accept that or not. These films have flaws enough as it is without adding pedantry to the list.

warren oates wrote:Well, whether one has a problem with the use of surveillance device in TDK or not, all this discussion makes me think of how much less precisely and more frustratingly Nolan uses

Spoiler

the trick of the Bat's autopilot in Rises.

So that the equivalent Rises plot device doesn't solve one tiny logistical problem as Sausage says, but this time it allows Nolan and the entire trilogy to have its hero sacrifice and eat it too.

Spoiler

When the Bat is introduced in DKR, Lucius essentially tells Bruce that there's no autopilot but that he, Bruce, could probably make one, so it's not out of nowhere. It's more that it's weird that Lucius assumes that it still hasn't been taken care of, really, but there's no other reason that would have been in the movie.

Mr Sausage wrote:

tarpilot wrote:I haven't seen The Dark Knight since it came out, but doesn't the film posit that the only way for Batman to foil the Joker and to save everyone and everything is to use the surveillance tool? How is that not endorsing its validity?

Because it's effective is not in itself an endorsement. And I still can't believe people are picking at this plot point as if we weren't talking about an illegal vigilante whose main form of justice is violence and who's working outside the legal system anyway. That's cool, apparently, but a little cell-phone surveillance trick isn't? I hardly understand why the movie even bothered to have Lucius raise a complaint considering what I've just laid out. Why shouldn't Batman break that social taboo considering how free he is with all the others?

This is the thing that sets it apart and allows us to nitpick. This isn't a Batman that is outside our world, he is directly influenced by the politics of our times and Nolan specifically and deliberately decided to do this for dramatic reasons. It turns out with Rises he had nothing to say and only was doing this as a way to pull us through the story. I personally don't feel that that's ok. TDK is very obviously pointing to the War on Terror and the Joker represents terrorism itself. A game without rules. The argument TDK makes is that sometimes extreme measures are needed for extreme circumstances, such as taking over everyones private cellphones in order to perform surveillance to get the bad guy but when that is done the good guy in all his benevolence will stop with this violation of rights because it was only a temporary necessary evil. Essentially excusing the Patriot Act and all the rest. This is not a stretch, its a direct contemporary reference that Nolan certainly must be aware of. That said I don't really care, not everyone has to believe the way I do but at least it's a clear formulation and dramatic tension. In Rises he throws political allusions and imagery at the screen with no consideration for what it means and in the end you walk away feeling like the whole enterprise meant nothing. I didn't place these lofty expectations on the franchise Nolan did and he decided to play with fire and walks away like a chickenshit saying he didn't have political goals. It's like someone who starts an argument over a politicians policy, gets trumped in the argument and says, "Well I'm not a political person, I hate talking about this stuff." It's disingenuous, sad and insulting.

I don't at all think that TDK was making the 'this is all ok as long as the Right People are doing it for the Right Reasons' argument- obviously it alludes to that ideology and plays with it, but it also frequently has the Patriot Act/fascist style extreme measures blow up in the heroes' faces- and as Sausage pointed out, the Joker's raison d'etre is essentially to push people into using those tools in the first place.

Besides, the white knight hero of the whole piece turns out to be a murderous crazy person when pushed too far. That's not at all in line with the ideology you're ascribing.