Batman Begins Movie Review
I saw Batman Begins tonight. I've been looking forward to this movie, as it promised to "restart the batman franchise", and I felt strongly that the franchise really needed restarting......either that or it needed to be buried in an unmarked grave.
And they didn't just reinvent it by starting "from the beginning". They totally reinvented the look and feel of everything, from Gotham City to the Batmobile.
Mind you, I enjoyed Tim Burton's vision of Gotham City. It was other-worldly, fantastic, bizarre, and eerie. But after Tim Burton got done doing Batman, and Joel Schumacher took over, the movies continued trying for that fantastic and bizarre feel, but completely failed in being 'eerie', and ended up being just plain silly, absurd and annoying.
The new Batman movie completely rejects the other-worldly, fantastic view of Gotham City, and turns it into a modern day city rather than a city of fantasy. It's a complete change of appearance, and is probably motivated to some extent by the success of movies like Spiderman and the X-Men movies, which are intended to be seen as happening in real places.
They also broke ties with the old movies by completely redesigning the Batmobile. Once again, I liked the Batmobile in the first movies, and was annoyed by the changes made to it in later movies. But this batmobile was clearly designed to be as different as possible from either of the previous batmobiles - it was essentially a tank on monster tires. I can't say I liked it better or worse - it was so completely different that it would be tough to make a comparison.
And I think that was the point of the whole movie.
The movie also broke with the rather disasterous Schumacher trend of introducing far too many characters in too short a span of time, so that none of the characters get decent development time (Robin, Riddler, and Two Face, all introduced in Batman Forever, and Batgirl, Poison Ivy, and Dr. Freeze, all introduced in Batman and Robin
I did very much enjoy the movie, but had a couple problems with it. The first problem is perhaps a bit picky...if this device the criminals stole vaporizes all the water in the vicinity, I kind of wonder what effect that ought to have on organics such as...oh, say...humans which are made up of 65% water...
The other problem is much more philosophic in nature. One of the ideas which is brought up a couple times is this: what you are on the inside doesn't metter; it's what you DO that defines who you are.
There are a couple levels on which that statement ought to be addressed. First, there is the fact that it's just simply an absurd statement, and second, that the filmmakers themselves don't even believe it.
Why is it absurd? Because our outward actions are a reflection, an outpouring, of what we are on the inside. The statement made in the Batman movie made me think of a couple famous statements made by Jesus:
Matthew 5:21-22
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 23:25-26
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
And why do I say that the filmmakers themselves didn't believe it themselves? Ironically, they appear to be more in agreement with Jesus' words than with the words of their own characters. Because even though they had two of their characters say those words, the actions of those two characters didn't line up with the statement.
Look at Batman - what is one of his biggest "inner" struggles throughout the movie? Trying to understand that there is a difference between justice and revenge, and that the difference makes a difference. In other words, his outward actions don't matter nearly as much as the inner motivation for those actions.
And then there's Batman's friend Rachel. She's the one who first says "it's what you do that defines who you are." But what does she do at the end? She explains that she can't "love" him. Why? Because she doesn't approve of Batman? No. She talks about Bruce's "mask". In other words...it's what's on the inside that she's having a hard time with.
Ironic, isn't it, for someone who says the inside doesn't matter.
Anyway, I thought that was a far worse inconsistency than the issue with the vaporizer, and was a bit of a spoiler for me. But even with that issue, it was still far better than the Shumacher Batman movies: Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.
Posted On Jun 26, 2005 at 7:30 PM
On Jun 27, 2005 Beth wrote: I'm glad I'm not the only one who had a problem with the statement "what you are on the inside doesn't metter; it's what you DO that defines who you are."
And it's funny because I felt the same way about the batmobile too.
Doug Replied: great minds think alike, don't they
On Jun 27, 2005 Preacher wrote: My Friend Douglas,
I haven't seen it. Probably won't see it. Philosphically though you have my interest.
"By their fruits, ye shall know them" seems as though it may apply here. Outward actions reveal the inner thoughts of the heart.
Though this may disqualify me as a "great mind" and perhaps I misunderstand the context of the statement. But if you have great character, that will be apparent in your actions.
Stopping by "On"announced,
Preacher
Doug Replied: "But if you have great character, that will be apparent in your actions."
Yes. Exactly. It's a cart and horse issue. The context suggested that action without character was sufficient, or even that the two were unrelated.
And that, in my opinion, is simply "on"reasonable.
On Jun 28, 2005 Beth wrote: From my social psych class, we learned that there is a huge debate about whether actions determine attitude, or attitude determines actions. Heavily debated and theorized about. You would think that people would do what they believe in, but then some people, if they do something long enough, believe in what they do. (Kind of like Hitler's right hand men in Europe).
Doug Replied: It seems that we've actually got three cars in this train...action, character, and belief...so what is the order of the cars?
I think our beliefs form our character, which form our actions.
Perhaps there are exceptions to that, but I think it is generally true. There's a quote (I think by Orson Scott Card...if I was at home I'd look it up and quote it exactly, but I ain't at home...) in which he says something along the lines of "If I want to know what I truly believe, I look at what I do."
In other words, in the general, my actions are determined by my beliefs.
On Jun 28, 2005 Preacher wrote: Mr. T,
I concur with the order of your train. I believe it to be an "on"deniable truth. Though I am not sure if Mr. Card would agree. After all some actions, Ender as a case in point, can be taken upon wrong beliefs.
Doug Replied: hmm...well, some belief sets are character altering. Ender's belief that the buggers were out to destroy mankind completely altered his actions, while leaving his underlying character unchanged.
On Jun 28, 2005 Doug wrote: Hmmm...speaking of character...
"You cannot dream yourself into a character; you must hammer and forge yourself one." ~James A. Froude
"The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason." ~T.S. Eliot
"Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives" ~William James
|
Doug's Random ThoughtsEverything from Soup to Nuts,And Maybe Even More! ABOUT ME Current PostsBlog Is Moving...Emergency Room Last Entry Join The Chorus Jeorge Sings A Hymn 
|