*** Official BATMAN BEGINS Discussion Thread - Page 10

I love that car

Hey, I can accept that, at least on a thematic level. I do appreciate the symbolism and themes running throughout the movie. I like how all the themes and images linked together with Bruce's personal struggle. This is why I think it is a great movie.

And though I like the fact that the emphasis was placed on Bruce/Batman rather than the villians, I do wish more thought was given to the villians' motivations and plans. I still don't know what Scarecrow was after. What was he to gain in all this? Why was he doing it? Saying that villians are crazy is just a cop-out (but unfortunately, this explanation is built into future movies, given the ending).

To a large extent, the validity of Bruce's struggle comes from the validity of what he is fighting--his goal, his purpose. What is fantastic about this movie is that his purpose is so multi-faceted: he is struggling with his own guilt and anger, fighting to save Gothem, fighting for the idea that some good remains in his city, that "evil" can't infect everyone with apathy and inaction, that his father's ideals are not false. He is also fighting against the temptation to seek revenge rather than justice, and against his own fear. These facets of his struggle are serious, legitimate, and inspiring.

Unfortunately, another facet of his struggle is to save the city from a ridiculous vaporizor, and the silliness of this one facet doesn't stand up next to the others--in some way it undermines them just like the silly one-liners undermine the seriousness of the rest of the movie. It wasn't good enough that Batman is saving people from their own fear of evil by turning fear back on the criminals (which is COOL!), but Batman is ALSO fighting a literal Fear Machine. I wish it had remained a symbolic battle, rather than a literal one. Any time you take a sophisticated symbolic struggle and turn it into a literal one, you've got to be very careful how you implement it. Nolan was not careful.

Someone above said that this was done intentionally to retain the comic book feel, so that later movies wouldn't look silly with guys running around in costumes. If that's true, then why did Nolan so masterfully craft a first half that transcended the comic-book genre? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Nolan could NOT have been thinking that he'd mar his creation to save future movies (which he may or may not direct) embarrassment. That's just an apologist answer, which is another form of acknowledging my point.

Link deleted by moderator.

For real?

- Colton

Not for real.

Natahn, I understand. It worked for me. Scarecrow had a motivation. What I didn't understand was his connection to the League of Shadows (as cliched and hackneyed a name as I could imagine, but somehow when headed by Neeson seems OK). Scarecrow liked having power over those he felt had power over him (he kept intimating how he didn't "threaten anyone" and had no power on the outside [of Arkham]). This gave him the opportunity for that, and for further testing of his toxin.

It worked for me but not much time was spent on it, I agree.

I don't think it's an apologist answer. I am a raving fanboy for this film, but I certainly don't have to apologize for any element of it.

Quite the contrary,
Chuck

He gets the thrill of seeing his fear gas unleashed on a mass scale. He really is a simple character in that he just likes seeing people freak out in terror because he's a scientist specializing in fear who's gone too far in his research methods.

I do agree with most of what you're saying regarding Ra's Al Ghul's plot, which is what I was hinting at after reading the script when I said the climax wasn't very convincing. It is overly convoluted and even the explanations given by Ra's raise questions instead of answering them. The guy talks about how the League sacked Rome, Constantinople, London...those were all imperial capitals, which Gotham is not. Shouldn't he be more concerned with destroying someplace like Washington DC?

Having seen the film over the weekend, I was pretty impressed.

A few nitpicks though.

I agree that the fight scenes should be easier to follow. I understand that the filmmakers were trying to go for a gritty, less flashy type of martial arts sytle for Batman, but I hate the overuse of the "shake the camera to create the illusion of chaos" technique, since I can't tell what the hell's going on.

I also thought Christian Bale overdid it with his performance as Batman. Bruce Wayne was fine, but Bale went way over the top with his raspy, 'badass' Batman voice.

But the voice makes sense. He's working on it. He's young, new at this. But having a different voice makes sense, since Bruce Wayne has a voice that can be heard and studied.

Andy, I simply assume that Gotham is like NYC...where the MONEY is, if not the government. That's where the rubber meets the road. And the league seems more interested with specific cities, not empires. Besides, Batman couldn't afford a house in DC.

Take care,
Chuck

Well, you COULD make the reach that in this reality, Gotham is a capital city (tho I know it isn't in the comics.) It is a fictional city, you can define it however you want. You can also say that Gotham was a large city that was a source of corruption, moreso than a government capital. Say, New York City, rather than Washington.

Jason

I thought the point of the scheme was that, as they had done in past cities, the destruction of Gotham was intended to look like it was its own fault from the outside. Using rats to spread a deadly plague or burning of cities was not to look like the actions of a nefarious group but rather of the corruption and decadence of the people of the cities themselves. If someone dropped a bomb on them or used some nerve gas, the authorities would be consumed with trying to find the mastermind and everyone would mourn the poor souls of Gotham. But have the city destroy itself from the inside and it just becomes the worst example of a corrupt city imploding on itself. You release all of the criminally insane into the Narrows. In response, the city marshalls all of the police presence it can muster and moves them into the Narrows to recapture them. Then you gas the Narrows and you've neutralized practically all the forces of law and order in one action. The outside world has no idea what's going on because nobody is communicating, instead succumbing to fight or flight instincts against the people around them. I imagine it would look like a massive outbreak of violence that a corrupt and broken government couldn't control (or was a part of) that ended in the destruction of the entire city.

When I thought about it, it's not an althogether uncreative way for a group of morality enforcers to keep the world in check while not showing their hand to the rest of the world.

I don't know, I thought it was okay. He had to disguise his voice somehow. Besides, the voice is part of the fear. A deep raspy voice is more terrifying than a cockney accent or something (obscure reference to the Eddie Izzard Darth Vader routine).

Cheers,

Kenneth

The Batman voice was interesting. It was almost like Bruce Wayne was still trying to find out what tone works the best.

You know, I only watched this once, and loved it... but it was only when someone was talking to me about it did I realise that Duchard was Ra's Al Guhl. You know, I never even considered it cause I was thinking... 'oh, they've played Ra's character down, maybe we'll see Talia in the sequel - we all saw Ra's die... but he can just slip away to the Lazarus pit... can't he?' Duchard we knew was saved, and I had assumed that he was coming for revenge, amongst other things. In fact, I think I prefer it this way, as Duchard was a great character and for me, it slighly ruins the movie, as it's now has a rather cheesy twist.

In addition to what others have posted, Ra's says that Crane believed they were going to merely ransom the city.

I understand that Batman's voice is supposed to be different from Bruce Wayne's, and it's supposed to be used to intimidate criminals (they did the same thing with the Batman animated series). I just thought Bale hammed it up with the voice.

Couple of comments

How could the fight scenes be better? All the action took place in the dark and in the shadows, do you guys think they should have used slow mo?

What part do you think he hammed up the voice? The only time it was noticeable was when he had the fat cop upside down screaming at him, try and scream in a low gravelly voice, it is pretty hard.


Movie was great, I just hope they do not use the joker in the next one, Jack as the Joker is going to be a tough performance to top.

Personally, I don't think it would be all the hard to top Jack as the Joker. I enjoyed Nicholson in the role at the time, but he hammed it up a little too much. If they go with a more sinister, less hammy performance in the Batman Begins sequel, this series should have no problem creating its own, equally memorable take on the Joker.

The Joker is going to be used no matter what. They set it up at the end of the movie to lead into that. And they shouldn't try to top Jack's performance, his was over the top enough as it was, IMO.

I want to see a scary, psychotic Joker. I think that's what they'll try to do. I wouldn't cast a big name actor, either. Batman shouldn't be overshadowed by the Joker for a second time.

Take it for what it's worth, but according to Page Six in today's New York Post, WB is so happy with the box-office of Batman Begins that they plan to "remake all the Batman movies-with Christian Bale firmly implanted in the Bruce Wayne/Batman role." Their source then goes on to say that they want Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman back, and are looking for someone to actively play the Joker. And for all of you Tomkat haters-no Katie in the sequel.

Well what can I say?

Music was effective, but short of memorable. A distinct theme would have been nice.

Favorite sequence is probably the escape from the Asylum, bats everywhere. Epic stuff.

Liam Neeson is immensely charismatic. I read a bit about Ras Al Ghul, and truly hope it's not the last we've seen of him.

I like that Batman has not yet come into his own yet. Bruce Wayne has not yet matured into his fantastic alter ego, and it shows. I really like that he got his ass handed to him on his first outing, it adds a good level of realism to the story.

I didn't expect he would reveal his ID to Rachel? I guess he doesn't have Peter Parker's issues...

I shall watch it again.

--
H

It would really help WB's cause if they'd stop confusing the issue and scaring away potential audience members by calling this series of films "remakes."

I'm guessing that's just a misrepresenation by the reporter though and not something officially said by any WB representative - at least I hope so.

You mean the like way that Ossama bin Laden was concerned only with attacking Washington, D.C., and not with attacking New York City?

What's that? Fanatic, mass-murdering terrorists bent on condemning a whole culture as infidels might not confine themselves to attacking just one city?

Ra's is the sort of guy who wouldn't think twice about destroying Gotham as an appetizer, Washington, D.C. as a main course, and Metropolis just because he looks down on Superman as an overmuscled idiot.

Well, the Ra's in the film is certainly much more low key than the guy in the comics, who's a more global thinker and likes to concoct plans that would result in bodycounts of multiple billions

My thoughts on the film: Fantastic! The Batman film I've waited a lifetime to see! Finally Gordon in a decent sized role, played perfectly by Oldman. I adored having Batman disappear at the end of all their coversations...just how I imagined it for many years!



Nitpick: Caine's performance is great, but he simply isn't Alfred to me. Alfred was never a Cockney! Maybe my English ears noticed it more than American viewers, but it bothered me somewhat. Interesting that they still credited Ken Watanabe as Ra's at the end and not Liam Neeson...
Can't wait to see it again!!

Thank you thank you thank you! I made this comment to my girlfriend and she claimed Caine didn't use a Cockney voice. Validation for me!

And I agree. Caine was fine otherwise, but he lacked the sense of refinement and somewhat haughty air I expect from Alfred. He was Alfred as drinking buddy...

Well I finally saw this film last night. By and large, Nolan and company did a great job. Batman Begins is light years ahead of the previous four films (which isn't hard to do)and is the best superhero adaptation (t.v. or film) Warner Bros. has put out since 1978's Superman: The Movie.

Although this is a very good origin film, I can't say that I can put it above the first Spider-Man film and Im a much bigger fan of the Dark Knight Detective than I am of the wall crawler.

THE GOOD

1.) Christian Bale. There is really nothing I can say about his excellent performance that hasn't already been stated in this post. He is to Batman/Bruce Wayne, what Tobey Maguire is to Spidey/Peter Parker, Christopher Reeve is to Superman/Clark Kent, Arnold Schwarzenegger is to Conan, and Wesley Snipes is to Blade.

2.) Michael Caine as Alfred. His performance simply blows Michael Gough's out the water. In many ways he and Morgan Freeman are the heart and soul of the film.

3.) Morgan Freeman as Lucious Fox. Like J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man, what little time he had on the screen he lit up with his outstanding performance.

4.) Tom Wilkinson as Carmine Falcone. I was suprised by how much I really enjoyed his performance.

5.) Cilian Murphy as the Scarecrow. I was totally convinced by Murphy that Dr. Crane needed some help.

6.) The Batmobile (the Tumbler). I want one for Christmas.


THE BAD

1.) THE FIGHT SEQUENCES WERE ATROCIOUS. What's the point of showing the world's greatest hand to hand combant fight if you can't see what the hell is going on. I know this issue has been beaten to death already but there is a reason why so many of us on the forum keep going back to the fight scenes, because what is a Batman film if you can't seem kick ass in a stylized and comprehensive manner.

anyway I have to logout, the library is closing.

Or Alfred as a living, breathing human being, as opposed to a simple, stereotypical caricature...

I think making an origin movie is very tough, because not only do you have to introduce what the character is and how he becomes a hero, but you also have to put in a credible threat for the hero to face.

The original Batman side stepped this by skipping the origin story altogether. I think Batman Begins does the origin story greatly. I thought Spider-Man was weaker in that the Green Goblin seems to not have a clear purpose and there is no jeopardy until near the end.

I think Batman Begins avoids the misteps in that the whole movie sets up the main villans plot, although we do not find out until near the end what that plot is. It's fun going through the movie in hindsight and putting the pieces together. it has a great story.

I thought it was ok...I still prefer Burton and Keaton's Batman by far.

What it really needed was a good score/theme. Elfman's theme music was incredible for Batman and Returns.

This film lacked that and it would have made it a far better movie IMO.

It was good but not great IMO.

Comingsoon.net had a short bit with Caine explaining his take on Alfred:

What WAS that poster a few posts up? I realize its supposed to be the Joker, but how did that fake surface?