Batman, Then and Now - Part 2

Last time, I extolled the virtues of the first two Batman films by Tim Burton and why they should never be forgotten and always respected.  Now, I'd like to expound upon the ultimate gift to Batman fans, one that is very different from Burton's Batman films in many ways, but in the end, probably not possible without those Burton movies having been made first.  I'm speaking, of course, about Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. 

Though Batman Begins had to grow on me a little after its release in 2005 (I found it mildly depressing upon first viewing), I quickly came around and, like the rest of the world, let the geek in me spasm over the greatness of The Dark Knight three years later.  Batman Begins is a great start, but its innovation is basically taking a so-called superhero and applying him to a fairly straightforward, thinking-man's action movie.  If not for the fact that it's about Batman and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, the film would probably be kind of forgettable. 

The Dark Knight, though, seemed to more comfortably embrace the comic book origins of the character, both textually and visually.  For example, I think it's great that Nolan got over his reticence at the thought of using Joker's signature purple suit and green hair.  It has its problems, of course - what movie doesn't?  The editing of the first 20 minutes or so of The Dark Knight is a little choppy after the rousing prologue, it's a bit longer than it needs to be and although I can understand the approach and actually love Aaron Eckhart's performance, I feel like their development of Harvey Dent, as a normal (for lack of a better word) character, is ultimately wasted when the payoff of him becoming Two-Face ultimately amounts to about 10-15 minutes of screen time in the film's last hour.  It assumes that audiences can and should be super-invested in Harvey Dent, the man, just as they should be with Bruce Wayne, but it's a faulty assumption because one has been consistently built-up in comics, TV and film while the other hasn't.  Bruce Wayne is who he is - including Batman. The basics of that have never changed and neither readers nor TV or film audiences have followed the exploits of Batman without also following the out-of-costume Bruce Wayne.  Not only did Harve Dent start out as Harvey Kent (changed later for obvious reasons), but he was Two-Face from the second or third panel of his first-appearance on.  His Two-Face persona is the ENTIRE reason that most audiences want to see the character in the first place, and even those that enjoyed Frank Miller and Jeph Loeb's insular development of Harvey Dent's pre-villain persona as an ally of Batman in graphic novels STILL only appreciate it because it adds to the tragedy of... TWO-FACE. Some of this is probably a side-effect of Nolan's obsession with "keeping it real," which has worked overall but, of course, no approach is perfect.  Nowadays, audiences want that, and ironically, perhaps, they seem to want it even MORE when it comes to these movies based upon inherently unrealistic characters and circumstances.  What I see is that both audiences and filmmakers, alike, have a ways to go before full reconciliation can be had with the differences between realism and believability, what they are, what they offer, why they're needed and why, sometimes, they're not.

Despite this, I believe that the Nolans and their collaborators have so far come the closest to that reconciliation in their completion of The Dark Knight Trilogy.  The culmination of all of their efforts is The Dark Knight Rises, which is just now closing out its run in theaters before its DVD/Blu-Ray release December 4th.  It's been controversial, no doubt due to the tragic Colorado shooting that coincided with its midnight debut in July, but also because of the way it's been received by audiences. The biggest fans have embraced it unconditionally (although they haven't seemed to talk as much about it) while more casual fans and those that admire Nolan but are indifferent to the Batman franchise have been more forthcoming and direct in both their praise and criticism.

While it's not my absolute favorite of the trilogy, I think that The Dark Knight Rises is Nolan's ultimate lesson in the difference between reality and believability.  It suffers from the fact that it doesn't quite have the same iconic imagery and feel that The Dark Knight has - but, then again, the case can be made that it never could and that Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker single-handedly made that film impossible to top.   It's also been controversial for actually ENDING Batman and his crimefighting career once and for all, albeit in a way that seems to satisfy even the more vocal critics.  I like the movie, though, because I can finally see its comic book roots not only respected, but actually used.  A LOT of the fine print of the film, so to speak, comes almost directly from the panels of comics ranging from Dennis O'Neil's 70's stuff (always a big influence) and both the Knightfall series of the early 90's and the No Man's Land series of early in the last decade or so.  Although I don't think it's very believable given the actual, physical traits of the two actors, the shot of (SPOILER!) Tom Hardy as Bane breaking Batman's back is, though quick, quite satisfying - even in such low lighting.  If there is anything I'd insist be changed about the film, if it could be, it's that I'd want Ra's daughter Talia to be a known presence throughout the film.  The way she's handled instead, going by another name and not revealing herself until the end, is only tolerable because it's the way her father was handled in Batman Begins - first presented as Ducard before being revealed as the big baddie.  Of course, several of Marion Cotillard's lines beforehand do echo some of Liam Neeson's lines in Batman Begins about restoring balance and justice to the world. That, though, only makes it a bit more frustrating to those truly in-the-know in that we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop - and in this case, we've been made to wait a good 2 hours or more before, as with Bane, being subjected to a terribly unsatisfying conclusion to her character's arc. 

Again, though, The Dark Knight Rises is a really good movie in my opinion and better than most of its critics would have you believe.  It's not Nolan's best, but it was never going to be - which might not be fair, but still true.  I just FELT a lot more from the characters and what goes on in The Dark Knight Rises than I did from the events of Batman Begins or even The Dark Knight, in totality. Now that it's over, though, I hope that whoever takes up the cinematic mantle of the Bat tries something different without trying to top his (or her) predecessor. I think it's possible to explore some of Batman's more science fiction elements without sacrificing the BELIEVABILITY that has worked so well for that character.  I say BELIEVABILITY because even if someone CAN, technically, become Batman, there are far more feasible and efficient methods of exacting vigilante justice upon the criminals of a single city than by lugging around a hundred or more pounds of military-grade gear on top of wearing a costume which, in reality, would kill even the healthiest man (from dehydration and/or heat stroke) if he tried to wear it AND do all those things over the course of a single evening.  Clayface, for example, is best known as this big mud monster, but in 1941, he started out as just this disgruntled horror film actor that wore a rather nondescript mask to hide some facial scarring - a sort of Joker/Two-Face blend with the Phantom of the Opera.  Mr. Freeze's origins from the Animated Series could still be done respectfully and effectively on film, with alternate reasons given as to why a man would need to maintain lower body temperatures and need special clothing to do so.  Even the design is more feasible since many clothes and uniforms for sports and space exploration include built-in cooling mechanisms interwoven into the overall construct. 

In any case, I look forward to what comes next while still respecting and valuing what has come before.