log in or register to remove this ad

 

Rewatching the Batman movies

I have not liked a live-action Batman interpretation yet, save perhaps the 1966 film which exists apart from everything else due to the nostalgia factor :) The murdering-psychopath-Batman of the Nolan films is something best forgotten.

Does he murder in the Nolan films? I know he takes out the temple of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, and leaves Raʼs al Ghul to die at the end. But he's far removed from a murdering psychopath. In the Dark Knight he doesn't even let the Joker drop to his death.

What Nolan does however in his trilogy, is question Batman's vigilante justice. Batman's acts, although motivated by good intentions, are unlawful and wrong. Batman seems necessary to take out the threats that Gotham faces, but the movies also ask the question: "at what cost?"

Save for Rachel 'I've been shoe-horned into this movie to provide a sub-plot for people who don't know who this 'batman' person is' Dawes.

I feel Rachel's role is a lot more important. She acts as a voice to teach Bruce (and his audience) that his views of justice are wrong. She helps explain how the criminal underworld of Gotham works. Her confrontation with Bruce after Joe Chill's death is one of my favourites in the movie. And I also really like the confrontation between Bruce and Falcony in that movie. Both Rachel and Falcony help Bruce realize that his view of the world is wrong, since he was born in a priveledged position. And it is through their words that both Bruce and the audience are set on this path of transformation. Note that after his transformation into Batman, Bruce does not kill Falcony. Nor does he kill Scarecrow.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Eric V

Hero
Does he murder in the Nolan films? I know he takes out the temple of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, and leaves Raʼs al Ghul to die at the end. But he's far removed from a murdering psychopath. In the Dark Knight he doesn't even let the Joker drop to his death.

What Nolan does however in his trilogy, is question Batman's vigilante justice. Batman's acts, although motivated by good intentions, are unlawful and wrong. Batman seems necessary to take out the threats that Gotham faces, but the movies also ask the question: "at what cost?"



I feel Rachel's role is a lot more important. She acts as a voice to teach Bruce (and his audience) that his views of justice are wrong. She helps explain how the criminal underworld of Gotham works. Her confrontation with Bruce after Joe Chill's death is one of my favourites in the movie. And I also really like the confrontation between Bruce and Falcony in that movie. Both Rachel and Falcony help Bruce realize that his view of the world is wrong, since he was born in a priveledged position. And it is through their words that both Bruce and the audience are set on this path of transformation. Note that after his transformation into Batman, Bruce does not kill Falcony. Nor does he kill Scarecrow.

Couldn't agree more. He is far from a murdering psychopath in the films...in fact, he's the only mentally healthy Wayne we've gotten. He actually retires at the end of the 3rd film, looking to find the happiness he knows his parents would have wanted him to have.

Why? Because unlike the crazy person in the comics, he isn't out to eradicate all crime; Rachel made him see where he should be spending his efforts. Notice how the Nolan Batman doesn't go out "on patrol" to stop muggers, etc.; he is focused on bringing down the mob which have infiltrated every system. He is doing this to give Gotham a chance to get back on its feet again; he isn't going after street criminals, except insofar as it gets him closer to shutting organized crime down.

By the end of the 3rd film, he has recovered from Rachel's death (mostly), there is no insidious organized crime in place running Gotham (and no terrorists either), and so...he can relax. As he should.
 

ART!

Adventurer
Yeah, I don't have much room in my life for dark Batman, and that seems like all the movies know how to do without plunging into to ridiculous Batman & Robin waters. A live action series could - theoretically - create a more tonally nuanced Batman.
 
Last edited:



WayneLigon

Adventurer
DC does animation so much better than they do live action.
Oh, yes. I've enjoyed almost all of the DC animated offerings - Young Justice is in my opinion the best depiction of DC properties I've ever seen, and that includes the comics. I'm also hoping we're past the point of shoe-horning Damian in everything,. as well.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top