Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
My references to Star Wars were only in juxtaposition and not literal.

What exactly does that mean?

[tabuno]

It's a pleasure and a compliment to actually get a response from one the heavyweights here, Anduril. Thanks for taking the time to actually read my stuff and respond:

Anduril: "I enjoyed the flashback technique. I liked the way Nolan dropped the audience inexplicably into the middle of Wayne's life and then used flashbacks in appropriate places to fill out relevant back story. Linear, biographical movies are often extremely boring and have to jump forward from boyhood to teenage to adulthood in a way that can often be more disruptive than a flashback."

Tab Uno: Flashbacks are not easy devices to use and seem to be gimmicks unless there's a good reason to use them. For me, it's usually the weakness of the storyline that then requires some flashbacks to create the interest. There's only one reason that I would have accepted flashbacks in this case - the limited amount of time available. Unlike The English Patient or perhaps historical films that jump back and forth between one generation and another generation, Batman Begins didn't really have enough interesting material to allow a chronological development on Bruce Wayne's origins. I felt cheated somehow because there were just a lot of jumping...missing out on his development. Again, finding a rare flower so easily. Climbing the mountain in the begining so easily. It just seemed so much script but no feeling, emotions, I felt left out...it was reading like reading lines from a script and then just providing the audience with a few touches here and there for understanding but not experiencing, growing along with Bruce Wayne. Titanic was done well in flashback because it wasn't as intrusive, it was done for effect not to string out what I felt was a thin, time restricted storyline at the beginning. If done well, chronological historical development are fine Pollack (2000), Ed Wood (1994), Chaplin (1992). Even the original Superman movie (1978), Indiana Jones uses one of its movies to show in chronological order him as a boy and then flashforward successfully to explain his fear of snakes. For me the flashback technique was unnecessary and overused which implies to me unnecessary."

Anduril: "While I agree that a more prolonged training sequence might have been enjoyable, the emphasis was on the hero's philosophical development. The physical training is presupposed; everybody knows that he's receiving physical training. But, what is Wayne learning about becoming a hero? This is more interesting, I think."

Tab Uno: "I think the whole well-rounded development sequence was under-developed. See for example Elecktra's sequence for development, in flashback by the way, in such simple terms, the emotional, what it means to become a master (not even a hero - such signifies perhaps a male ego requirement) was presented not by the physical but the denial of any further training. I found this Elecktra's development sequence much more enjoyable, exciting, as well as philosophically intriguing. The lesson to be learned in fact by Jennifer Garner could not be learned in her training. She never finished it even as the movie began and thus the flashbacks became an integral part of the movie playing back and forth building, unlike Batman Begins that didn't really have this synergistic impact. But even the flower discovery and the climbing of the mountain weren't really part of Bruce Wayne's training so much as a test. Why even put them in, in the first place?"

Anduril: "This isn't supposed to be a deep psychological transformation. It's an act that Wayne puts on, which I thought was communicated effectively. You get the sense that it's not really him and that he's just doing it for show."

Tab Uno: "Agreed that that this isn't a 'deep psychological transformation' but actually this sharply disjointed, sudden emergence of billionaire playboy seemed artificial and perhaps even impossible because to even to be able to play the playboy one still must have a good developmental lead up to play with the big boys and girls and nothing in Bruce Wayne's childhood or any events leading up to it make this transformation, even if it was supposedly skin deep suggests that Bruce could have pulled it off. I didn't believe this scene at all because of it. In his childhood, Bruce seemed to be more introverted and scared. Even with his training, it was devoted to mysticism not American commercial success and marketing skills. It's not like there was any science fiction devices that one could just insert into one's brain and become this superplayboy type. Bruce's behavior was too way out of character, even with the obvious scene with his lost love and his cracks in his playboy demeanor - this scene was pretty much required - been there, done that...nothing special - typical of many such superhero movies. I think "Spiderman" does this whole relational dilemma better and extends it over time actually making it part of the movie and also broadening its appeal to women."

Anduril: "I agree with this. Though I'm not sure that Elektra is really the example to point to here. I just watched that last night and while there are some good fight sequences in that movie, it's still a far cry from something you might see in a lot of action movies. Elektra fight scenes are very predictable and lack dramatic tension."

Tab Uno: "I know what you mean here. But what's happened is that the special effects have outrun the human ability. What we are now getting are superhuman martial art scenes and we are getting far to spoiled now with the impossible instead of the real. Just like ideal love in the movies that doesn't exist, we're not getting the ideal martial arts - like The Matrix that doesn't exist either. Elecktra - might be one of the last action-adventure films to offer what humans really can chereograph - Jennifer doing all of her own stunt work - THIS IS NO SMALL ACHIEVEMENT AND DEDICATION. Soon, movies may become so impossible, unrealistic that we will lose touch with any reality and be unable to connect with the movie - it will simply be a drug. Hopefully though the human art form will survive somehow."


Anduril: "I liked Oldman's performance and character. My guess is that his character would be further developed in a sequel."

Tab Uno: "Gary Oldman has great potential and as an actor he is a must for any sequel. His performance in The Fifth Element was just over the top but flashy with lots of character, Air Force One, and Lost in Space the same."

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: Flashbacks are not easy devices to use and seem to be gimmicks unless there's a good reason to use them. For me, it's usually the weakness of the storyline that then requires some flashbacks to create the interest. There's only one reason that I would have accepted flashbacks in this case - the limited amount of time available. Unlike The English Patient or perhaps historical films that jump back and forth between one generation and another generation, Batman Begins didn't really have enough interesting material to allow a chronological development on Bruce Wayne's origins. I felt cheated somehow because there were just a lot of jumping...missing out on his development. Again, finding a rare flower so easily. Climbing the mountain in the begining so easily. It just seemed so much script but no feeling, emotions, I felt left out...it was reading like reading lines from a script and then just providing the audience with a few touches here and there for understanding but not experiencing, growing along with Bruce Wayne. Titanic was done well in flashback because it wasn't as intrusive, it was done for effect not to string out what I felt was a thin, time restricted storyline at the beginning. If done well, chronological historical development are fine Pollack (2000), Ed Wood (1994), Chaplin (1992). Even the original Superman movie (1978), Indiana Jones uses one of its movies to show in chronological order him as a boy and then flashforward successfully to explain his fear of snakes. For me the flashback technique was unnecessary and overused which implies to me unnecessary."

Three points:

(1) Wasn't Bruce Wayne told where to find the rare flower? I don't think that was ever intended to be a challenge.

(2) On further reflection, I agree that the climb could have appeared more intensive. After all, he is immediately challenged by Neeson's character and we are supposed to believe that the climb has left him wasted of all his strength. Yet, it does not really appear this way on film; we really only have a frozen face and Bruce Wayne's say so that this is the case.

(3) I still remain unconvinced regarding your assessment of the flashback sequences. I think it is both necessary in this story and well-done. The childhood elements of the Wayne/Batman story are more or less discontiguous events: the bats, the relationship with his father, and the death of his parents in a dark alley. First, Nolan succeeds in actually creating a certain continuity between these events; a plot coup in itself. Second, by using flashbacks, Nolan introduces these moments at appropriate intervals, juxtaposes them with moments in Wayne's adult life when he must come to terms with these childhood experiences, and then Nolan builds to certain dramatic climaxes. To create a linear storyline with these and then jump forward to his teenage years or beyond would have been difficult, I think, and require too much time. It also would have lessened the immediacy of certain connections drawn by Nolan between Wayne's childhood and his emergence as Batman. Personally, I found the moment where Wayne is surrounded by bats in the cave and then stands to face his fear quite compelling, both cinematically and emotionally.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "I think the whole well-rounded development sequence was under-developed. See for example Elecktra's sequence for development, in flashback by the way, in such simple terms, the emotional, what it means to become a master (not even a hero - such signifies perhaps a male ego requirement) was presented not by the physical but the denial of any further training. I found this Elecktra's development sequence much more enjoyable, exciting, as well as philosophically intriguing. The lesson to be learned in fact by Jennifer Garner could not be learned in her training. She never finished it even as the movie began and thus the flashbacks became an integral part of the movie playing back and forth building, unlike Batman Begins that didn't really have this synergistic impact. But even the flower discovery and the climbing of the mountain weren't really part of Bruce Wayne's training so much as a test. Why even put them in, in the first place?"

Nolan, however, is not pursuing the same questions as pursued in Elektra. In Elektra, the questions are more profoundly personal. Is she a good person? Can she choose the right path? The questions really aren't philosophical as they are in Batman Begins, where the questions are about the world in which Wayne lives (not so much about him personally): What is evil? Why is there evil in the world? How does one respond to such evil? How should we respond to fear (or, how does fear drive us)? Nolan only really personalizes the latter for his character; the others are addressed and, I think, answered more generally through the plot and dialogue (especially, in the latter case, the dialogue between Neeson's character and Wayne). The questions in Batman Begins are, in my opinion, much more significant; Nolan answers them well and fairly; and therefore I find the movie much more compelling.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "Agreed that that this isn't a 'deep psychological transformation' but actually this sharply disjointed, sudden emergence of billionaire playboy seemed artificial and perhaps even impossible because to even to be able to play the playboy one still must have a good developmental lead up to play with the big boys and girls and nothing in Bruce Wayne's childhood or any events leading up to it make this transformation, even if it was supposedly skin deep suggests that Bruce could have pulled it off. I didn't believe this scene at all because of it. In his childhood, Bruce seemed to be more introverted and scared. Even with his training, it was devoted to mysticism not American commercial success and marketing skills. It's not like there was any science fiction devices that one could just insert into one's brain and become this superplayboy type. Bruce's behavior was too way out of character, even with the obvious scene with his lost love and his cracks in his playboy demeanor - this scene was pretty much required - been there, done that...nothing special - typical of many such superhero movies. I think "Spiderman" does this whole relational dilemma better and extends it over time actually making it part of the movie and also broadening its appeal to women."

Perhaps you are right here... the movie could have stood to have a scene or two developing Wayne's capacity for the playboy alter-ego. Personally, I did not need this because I felt the allure of money can make any man confident enough to play that part. Heck, stick a couple of beers in me and I can act the playboy. Give me a body and money like Bruce Wayne... well, I can only imagine what I might do.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "I know what you mean here. But what's happened is that the special effects have outrun the human ability. What we are now getting are superhuman martial art scenes and we are getting far to spoiled now with the impossible instead of the real. Just like ideal love in the movies that doesn't exist, we're not getting the ideal martial arts - like The Matrix that doesn't exist either. Elecktra - might be one of the last action-adventure films to offer what humans really can chereograph - Jennifer doing all of her own stunt work - THIS IS NO SMALL ACHIEVEMENT AND DEDICATION. Soon, movies may become so impossible, unrealistic that we will lose touch with any reality and be unable to connect with the movie - it will simply be a drug. Hopefully though the human art form will survive somehow."

Agreed.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "Gary Oldman has great potential and as an actor he is a must for any sequel. His performance in The Fifth Element was just over the top but flashy with lots of character, Air Force One, and Lost in Space the same."

I loved Oldman in Immortal Beloved--a movie that sold me on Oldman's skills as an actor.

[tabuno]

anduril's discussion on the use of flashbacks in Batman Begins has a certain connective clarity that I didn't really think about. In short, it seems that anduril is saying that the associative power and connection between the most current scene and a flashback to a particular seen taken together produce a stronger synergistic impact than had the scene been shown in a linear, chronological format with the scenes much more disconnected. So the bat scenes in the present and past are brought together to better effect.

anduril: "Nolan, however, is not pursuing the same questions as pursued in Elektra. In Elektra, the questions are more profoundly personal. Is she a good person? Can she choose the right path? The questions really aren't philosophical as they are in Batman Begins, where the questions are about the world in which Wayne lives (not so much about him personally): What is evil? Why is there evil in the world? How does one respond to such evil? How should we respond to fear (or, how does fear drive us)? Nolan only really personalizes the latter for his character; the others are addressed and, I think, answered more generally through the plot and dialogue (especially, in the latter case, the dialogue between Neeson's character and Wayne). The questions in Batman Begins are, in my opinion, much more significant; Nolan answers them well and fairly; and therefore I find the movie much more compelling."

tabuno: To think that ,"Is a person good," "Choosing the right path?" as opposed to "What is Evil?" Why is there evil inthe world? How does one resond to such evil? How should we respond? are really to me the same questions and both compelling. Oddly enough, I don't think Batman Begins really successfully answers these questions nor even dwells on them that much. Elecktra is much more intimate and personal and thus more me much more compelling. As with Bruce Wayne's dilemma, the idea of evil is mixed up with dictatorship and freedom of democracy, east versus west and gets much more fuzzy and murky and thus less compelling for me.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
anduril's discussion on the use of flashbacks in Batman Begins has a certain connective clarity that I didn't really think about. In short, it seems that anduril is saying that the associative power and connection between the most current scene and a flashback to a particular seen taken together produce a stronger synergistic impact than had the scene been shown in a linear, chronological format with the scenes much more disconnected. So the bat scenes in the present and past are brought together to better effect.

Wow. Could not have put it more eloquently myself... that's exactly what I felt about Nolan's flashbacks.

Originally posted by tabuno
tabuno: To think that ,"Is a person good," "Choosing the right path?" as opposed to "What is Evil?" Why is there evil inthe world? How does one resond to such evil? How should we respond? are really to me the same questions and both compelling. Oddly enough, I don't think Batman Begins really successfully answers these questions nor even dwells on them that much. Elecktra is much more intimate and personal and thus more me much more compelling. As with Bruce Wayne's dilemma, the idea of evil is mixed up with dictatorship and freedom of democracy, east versus west and gets much more fuzzy and murky and thus less compelling for me.

I certainly agree that "Elecktra is much more intimate and personal" but this is the difference between the questions. Elektra engages the questions on the personal level of its main character whereas Batman Begins engages its questions on a more macro-level for which Bruce Wayne/Batman is simply a vehicle for the philosophical dialogue.

The answers Nolan provides are, in my opinion, anything but fuzzy. In fact, to make them clear, he has Commissioner Gordon and Batman sum it all up in their final dialogue in which we get key answers to key questions (if the audience hadn't picked up the answers earlier):

Evil exists? Yes.
Fighting evil is necessary? Yes.
Even at great risk to onself or others? Yes.
Even if it escalates the conflict? Yes.

One of the most compelling contributions of Nolan's movie is the stress upon the need for action. There is no room in Nolan's movie for policies of appeasement with those who instigate and propagate evil. It is a zero tolerance philosophy. Yet, mercy and compassion are also fronted; the defender attempts to redeem that which is redeemable while he fights that which is not.

Other questions come up too but my point here is made, I think; there is little engagement on this philosophical level in Elektra. In the end, we discover Elektra is a good person. Well, yippee. Didn't we all suspect as much at the beginning of that movie? Wasn't that apparent from the moment Elektra refused to complete her assignment? Where's the link to the life of the audience? Its practical applications?

[tabuno]

The epic sage, the intimate portrait which is more compelling? The Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel? The Iraqi war or the Cliff Robertson in "Charlie" about a mentally disabled individual who becomes a genius for a moment? Big or little? Global or microscopic? I don't think one can obvious pick out one over the other. Such metaphysical questions will no doubt have no resolution.