The Light Knight

[learnedax]

tpau and I finally got around to seeing Batman Begins, since it was playing at the Framingham Premium Cinema, for which we had a gift card (which I've had for about a year, but this is the first time they showed anything we wanted to see). Total cost of film: $1. And they say cinema's getting more expensive.

So, there are multiple important angles from which to view this film. From the summer blockbuster perspective, this was a good movie. It was entertaining, it had stuff blowing up, there was good and evil and action and a love interest. Luckily, that's mainly what I wanted from it, and it didn't do anything that especially irritated me away from being entertained. However, I will dissect it some more anyway.

From a pure cinematic perspective, it was ok, but with some big flaws. It put a strong emphasis on morality, action, and our main character. Unfortunately, the first is inconsistent (he won't execute the criminal, but he has no trouble causing almost certain death to piles of basically innocent cops and various other bystanders by wrecking big chunks of the city... or effectively causing the death of the villain and then brushing it aside with a weaselly excuse). the second is largely jerkily impossible to follow (and not in an elegant you're-in-the-middle-of-the-action way, which is way too overused anyway), and the third suffers from a certain flatness of the lead. He did alright as the shallow playboy*, but his more serious self just never really clicked for me. Now, I totally got behind everything Gary Oldman did (though i never realized it was him during the movie. Saw his name in the credits and had to go look it up on IMDB to find out who he played), but the Bat not so much. Actually, with the Bat suit on Christian Bale seemed to move a lot like Derek Zoolander. Weird, and distracting.

From a Batman mythos perspective I am not perhaps so well qualified to judge. I like the basic Batman character quite a bit, but I have read fairly few of the comics, and notably none of the Frank Miller ones (Year One being, I am told, a major source for this film). A number of more thoroughly-read Batman fans have said that the backstory merges practically all of the different continuities smoothly, for which I will have to take their words - but there were some character elements I didn't think really fit his basic nature. His training and the focus on fear and clarity of mind reminded me much more of The Shadow than the soul of Batman that I know, but again this is probably drawn from sources I don't know very well. This Bat really isn't a Dark Knight at all, though, which is harder to reconcile. He displays none of the cold pragmatism and detached intelligence that I would have expected, in fact he's probably the lightest Bat since Adam West, and even he had Reason as his main power, not Mastery of Fear.

Finally, the plot closure where the Big Bad is pretty much responsible for all the stuff that Bruce is fighting, and even ultimately his parents' deaths, comes off to me as far too tidy. Batman fights other criminals because he can get no real closure on the original crime, except here he gets a kind of vengeance, or maybe even justice, so he finishes the movie content.

Again, obviously there are many different flavors of Batman, and I worked to blank my mind of the others until afterwards, so that I could mainly look at the movie on its own terms. And on those terms, I found it acceptable, but not great

*Thinking about the film it occurred to me how obviously Batman maps to the Scarlet Pimpernel. Apparently everyone else already knew this, so the importance of the revelation seems minimal, except I somehow never noticed before.

Comments

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

in fact he's probably the lightest Bat since Adam West

Aw, come on. Val Kilmer???

Well, maybe that's just me.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I have read lots of comics, so...

(he won't execute the criminal, but he has no trouble causing almost certain death to piles of basically innocent cops and various other bystanders by wrecking big chunks of the city... or effectively causing the death of the villain and then brushing it aside with a weaselly excuse)

This sort of morality failure is what stopped me reading Superman in the 90's. They had caught me with the late developments in the "Reign of the Supermen" storyline, and I was excited about Superman for the first time in many many years. But at the end of it, the recently-returned-from-the-dead One True Superman -- attacked the Big Bad with lethal force, apparently successfully. He waved it off with (paraphrasing here), "This is a comic book universe, so he probably survived somehow". While true, I found this answer Wholly Unacceptable.

A number of more thoroughly-read Batman fans have said that the backstory merges practically all of the different continuities smoothly

Batman has been reinterpreted more than any other comic book character that I know of. You can pick and choose which version(s) you like. Warren Ellis actually did a neat meta-commentary on this in the Planetary/Batman crossover.

the Big Bad is pretty much responsible for all the stuff that Bruce is fighting, and even ultimately his parents' deaths

Bleagh. I find this sort of plotting lazy. Didn't like it in Burton's first Batman movie, either.

Batman fights other criminals because he can get no real closure on the original crime

Many people vehemently hold this as dogma, but see above re: reinterpretations. Many of the continuities have Batman actually bringing his parents' killer (and/or the people behind it) to justice. Some people claim (just as strongly) that continuing his crusade *after* reaching that closure makes Batman a more moral person. The "official version" changes with the tide of editorial/authorial opinion.

it occurred to me how obviously Batman maps to the Scarlet Pimpernel. Apparently everyone else already knew this, so the importance of the revelation seems minimal, except I somehow never noticed before.

The Batman's sources are manifold. The Scarlet Pimpernel is certainly one, as are Zorro and The Shadow.

[jducoeur]

the Big Bad is pretty much responsible for all the stuff that Bruce is fighting, and even ultimately his parents' deaths

Bleagh. I find this sort of plotting lazy. Didn't like it in Burton's first Batman movie, either.

Well, don't take it too literally in this case. Avoiding excessive spoilers in case you care: just because the bad guy *claims* to have been kinda-sorta responsible doesn't make it so in any meaningful sense. I took that scene as mainly a matter of sticking the knife in, rather than any sort of meaningful revelation. It's quite different from Burton's rewrite of the Joker as the killer.

Many of the continuities have Batman actually bringing his parents' killer (and/or the people behind it) to justice.

Yes, although it never ends there. Indeed, I think of the end of Joe Chill as one of those canonical Batman-mythic moments. Chill almost always dies in some fashion, but it's never directly at Bruce's hand. This particular detail has been reinterpreted more times than perhaps any other in Batman continuity, but it's always lurking there.

The Batman's sources are manifold. The Scarlet Pimpernel is certainly one, as are Zorro and The Shadow.

Yes -- I actually think of Zorro as the primary one, but only because tradition holds that to be the movie they are coming out of when they wander into Crime Alley...

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Chill almost always dies in some fashion, but it's never directly at Bruce's hand.

Actually, this another plotting pet peeve of mine. I don't like stories where the hero makes the moral choice to not kill the villain -- but the storyteller conveniently goes ahead and offs the villain anyways. This came up most recently when I watched the Angel Season 3 DVDs, in the episode "Billy". One of the things I like about Firefly, in fact, is the willingness of (most of) the good guys to kill when it seems appropriate.

I actually think of Zorro as the primary one, but only because tradition holds that to be the movie they are coming out of when they wander into Crime Alley...

Be careful of confusing cause and effect. That 'tradition' is relatively modern. I haven't researched the issue, but I'm not sure that that isn't a Frank Miller addition.

It really has nothing to do with the grim-n-gritty Frank Miller version. It has *everything* to do with the Neal Adams version from the 70's, as well as Batman: Year One.

Um. You do realize that Miller wrote Batman: Year One, don't you?

[jducoeur]

That 'tradition' is relatively modern.

Really? Interesting -- I remember it as being older than that. Hmm...

You do realize that Miller wrote Batman: Year One, don't you?

Good point. Between it not being Miller art (or any of the Miller clones), and really not being as loony as Dark Knight, I sometimes forget that...

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I remember it as being older than that

As I said, I haven't researched it thoroughly. But between purging my collection and the course on comic books that Kes took last semester, I've read at least three versions of the Bat-origin in the last year, and I remember being surprised that none of them featured Zorro.

I do think that the Zorro detail is likely to stick for a good long while. Not only is it a clever nod to Batman's meta-origins, but there's a new Zorro movie at least once a generation, so it's convenient for the usual "Batman's origin was 30 years ago" shtick.

[jducoeur]

I would say that this interpretation is the truest to the comic book that I've seen to date. More specifically, though, it is true to particular versions of the comic. It really has nothing to do with the grim-n-gritty Frank Miller version. It has *everything* to do with the Neal Adams version from the 70's, as well as Batman: Year One. (The portrayal of Jim Gordon, in particular, is a nearly-perfect lift from Year One, and Ra's al Ghul was the defining innovation from the 70's.)

You're right that it isn't super-dark. That's in keeping -- this is the reconstructed version of Batman, who isn't quite as completely insane as he got for a while. The focus on fear is pretty true to the spirit of the book from the very beginning, though: the explicit reason for the Bat totem was to be scary. So while the Scarecrow isn't exactly the most intimidating Batman villain, having him as the first one makes a certain amount of sense.

As a longtime (albeit on-and-off) reader of the character, I was pleased. Much like the X-Men movies, this is Batman through a bit of a blender. Many of the details get fiddled with, but it's generally true to the spirit of both the story and the characters in it. Not the best movie of the year, but the best Batman movie to date, IMO...