By
Scott D. Parker
I read Jay’s take on The Dark Knight Rises on Thursday (read it now) and
agreed with a lot that he said. We saw the same film, but I think we left with
a different emotional impact.
When I enter a movie theater to see a film for the first
time, I rarely bring my brain. Other than my eyes and ears, I bring the one
thing that suits me best for watching a movie: the heart. In this way, I allow
the filmmakers to envelop me in their world, with all of its sights, sounds,
and storytelling. It takes a pretty drastic film** to bring out my brain and
start fussing over the details. It was with my heart that I watched John Carter this past spring and was so
enthralled with the world of Barsoom that I overlooked its flaws. Yes, I saw
them on subsequent viewings but that did little to change how I felt about the
film when I first saw it in the theater. Ditto for many of my favorites films
throughout the years. Sure, I can snark on and on about how so many bad choices
were made with Return of the Jedi, but, when I sat down and re-watched it again
recently with my boy, I became 13 again. (Well, I was 97% a thirteen year old; I
still cringe with some of Han Solo’s antics.)
To date, I have seen The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) only once.
In the week leading up to the film, I re-watched Batman Begins and The Dark
Knight because, after I had seen the third installment, there would never again
be a time when TDKR would be new and unexpected. Oh, and SPOILERS abound here,
so, like Jay wrote on Thursday, if you haven’t seen the film and don’t want to
be spoiled, bookmark this page and come back later. Bookmark his, too.
The trailers for TDKR pretty much indicated something I
suspected: that Batman would not survive. When Batman responds to Selina Kyle’s
comment “You have given them everything,” with his own “Not everything. Not
yet.” I pretty much guessed—no, expected—Batman not to survive. So I was ready.
As good as it is to watch/read a big story with a hero you know will survive
(Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Frodo, every other superhero film), when you
have a story in which your main character either dies of sacrifices himself
(Batman, Harry Potter), the stakes are raised.
And my heart swells. It grows inside of me and gets me so
wrapped up in the story that I let the narrative just sweep me along. That’s
how I got with TDKR. This story is Big. As Jay pointed out, director
Christopher Nolan aimed for the stars with this film. He wanted an epic and he
delivered one. We can quibble about the details, but the epic size of the film—no,
of the entire trilogy—was monumental. Let’s also note that the scope of his
trilogy was enhanced greatly by the death of Heath Ledger. The actor’s death
gave an exaggerated quality to that second film that was more than the sum of
its parts. Don’t get me wrong: had Ledger lived to see the film open, word of
mouth would still have made its way to non-comic book folks to get them to see
the film, it just may not have been the groundswell it actually was.
Back to TDKR. Jay is astute in his observations on the new
movie. Gary Oldmans’s Commissioner Gordan and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Officer
Blake do provide the everyman quality to this story that you don’t normally
get. Now, up until now, I didn’t really care that I didn’t have it because, you
know, this is about the billionaire Bruce Wayne and all of his rich friends.
Perhaps it’s a testament to Nolan’s craft is that he gave me something I didn’t
know I wanted. I really, really enjoyed Gordon-Levitt’s role in this film,
where he came from and why he did what he did. I could watch an entire film
about Officer Blake (Gotham Central anyone?) and be happy. Tom Hardy’s Bane was
a good adversary to Batman from a physical standpoint. Hey, he broke Batman’s
back, didn’t he? And, yes, he lacked the intellectual capacity from the comics
(I was a little disappointed that Bane was, like in “Batman and Robin,” just
the muscle), but he physically commanded the screen for me. Whereas Joker, in
The Dark Knight, talked on and on about anarchy, Bane was putting it into
effect, and that proved quite scary. Michael Caine was called on to remind the
audience of the tragic origin of Bruce Wayne-as-Batman. Yes, he cried a lot,
but he was supposed to cry a lot. He failed, in his mind, Bruce’s parents and
failed to keep the darkness away from Bruce. I think I’d be crying, too.
Another thing Jay finds lacking in TDKR is sub-text. Since
all the characters stop what they’re doing and tell the audience how they feel,
there’s no room for subtlety. There’s no room for the minds of the audience to
put two-and-two together, to think on a line of dialogue or a character action
later, while driving home from the theater, and then have that spark of
understanding. Tis true, I’ll agree, but this is, after all, a giant comic book
movie. Harry Potter, Frodo, Luke Skywalker: they all talk about what they’re
going to do and then go do it. I didn’t have a problem with the characters in TDKR
doing the same thing. It allowed me to experience the film viscerally rather
than intellectually, and allowed me to get wrapped up in the final scenes with
all the emotional baggage that had crept into me in the first two hours and the
first two movies.
And I loved the ending, the one with Alfred sitting in that
European restaurant, and seeing what he saw: a happy Bruce Wayne, a smiling
Bruce Wayne, that had finally emerged from the darkness of his parents’ murder
and the darkness of Batman that threatened to engulf him and destroy him from
the inside. And, yes, my tears flowed.
Because finally, a superhero story ended. Don’t get me
wrong. I love comics and read the new ones and re-read the old ones, but it’s
great to have an ending. And it was a happy ending. It’s a good thing, too, because
this trilogy is very “of its time,” that is, dark, almost oppressively so.
Which is why I so reveled in the ending. The bright, sunlit ending of a great
trilogy and a very good movie.
There will be another Batman and he’ll have to live in the
shadow of this interpretation, and, either way, I’ll be there, in that theater,
waiting for the new Batman film. There will also be time enough to re-watch The
Dark Knight Rises and pick it apart from a structural, writerly standpoint. Heck,
even I, in the theater, said to my wife, “Now, just how did Bruce get himself across the ocean to Gotham from that
prison cell?” (I didn’t dwell on it because the entrance was awesome.) But for
now, I am basking in the thrilling, emotional, heartfelt conclusion to this
version of Batman.
**Lest you think I’m a deluded Bat-fan, I nearly walked out
on “Batman and Robin” back in 1997. I didn’t, but it was years until I saw it
again. And lest you think I think Batman should only be dark, far from it. Two
cases in point: One, the old stories from the 1970s I’ve been reading. Batman
is still a brooding figure, but he smiles, he has a bit of a sense of humor
(current New 52 version doesn’t), and much of the emotional baggage is not
present. Two, I absolutely love the animated Batman: The Brave and the Bold
cartoon from 2008. All the humor, all the corniness, all the flat-out fun of a
comic book that is alive and moving. I really, really hated that it was
cancelled to make room for—yet another—dark interpretation. Sigh.
2 comments:
Sharp, insightful review. I'll probably see this film many moons from now but am looking forward to it.
Dude. Why'd you read the piece if you haven't seen the film yet. The ending was spoiled.
Post a Comment