![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I got to see Batman Begins last night. Not perfect, but damned good.
Batman Begins is not a flawless movie. It is not better than The Incredibles, and I am not comparing apples and oranges here. I am talking about the script and structural decisions.
Don't get me wrong. I loved both movies, and I do want to see Batman Begins again. I do not think it is the best superhero movie out there, but it is the best Batman movie I've seen to date.
This is the first Batman movie I've seen where Gotham is a character, not just a backdrop. The only other movie I've seen which uses the city as well is The Fisher King.
The Gotham of Batman Begins has a very clear divide between the haves and the have nots. We see the glittering towers and monorail, built by Bruce's father. We see the frightening dark alleys. When Bruce talks with Rachel after the murder of Joe Chill, she is his guide, taking him from the corrupt, but still upscale, part of the city to the darker areas where the criminal underworld thrives. We see the decay of the shining monorail over time. We see that, despite the corruption at the top and the desperation below, Gotham is a magnificent city.
I loved the way the city was built up for the viewer and the way it was torn down during the movie. I loved the play the movie got out of the monorail. It's a symbol of the Wayne philosophy of philanthropy. It's a symbol of the despair and danger that is Gotham. Ra's al Ghul intends that the monorail built to save the city will destroy it, no doubt in no small part because it was created by the man who thwarted its destruction in the past. And, it is the tool that saves the city in the end, as Gordon cuts the rails.
I'm not a fan of Michael Caine. I think this is because I saw him mostly in movies that my folks watched on tv, the kind of comedies that I do not watch by choice, and in the movie Deathtrap, which falls sadly short of the play. But I loved him as Alfred. And I liked that he got to knock out one of Ra's al Ghul's thugs. And I loved the lines he got -- where the script is good, which is most of it, it is very good.
I loved Morgan Freedman, even if I have no idea how Lucius Fox fits into the comic. The relationship there is also good, especially the part where Fox tells Bruce that it's okay if he doesn't know what Bruce is up to, but he wants Bruce to know that he is not an idiot. I also loved the bit where Alfred calls him by his first name. I just got a kick out of that.
I loved that one of the last shots we see is of Jim Gordon, and I loved how that character developed from a good man who knows he's fighting a losing battle and whose shoulders are stooped to the man who thinks that there might now be a chance of winning the battle and who stands up straight.
I still have no idea what the Scarecrow is in the Batman mythos, but I don't care. Dr. Crane was a great, scary villain.
I liked the relationship between Bruce and Earle, the person taking the company public, and I really liked that neither he nor anyone else in Wayne Enterprises was part of the Conspiracy to Destroy Gotham, or, for that matter, part of the criminal underworld.
I liked the scene where the mob boss tells Bruce that, despite losing his parents, Bruce has no idea what the gritty side of reality is like. I liked that the mob boss was not more important to the plot than was merited.
I liked the guy in Wayne Tower who knew what was going to happen, and who evacuated the tower while holding his post. I liked the relationship between Rachel and her boss, even if I mentally noted how convenient his getting killed was for the romantic plot. I liked Rachel by and large not being a damsel in distress.
What's not to like? Let's see.
The scene where Rachel decides that she doesn't want to be with Bruce had some of the lamest writing I've seen. Erik Hanson said, "Well, she's basically saying, 'I like what you do, but frankly, Bruce, you scare me.'"![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mnemex suggested, "I'm proud of you, but you're Batman, and I'm not in love with Batman." Either of these would have worked better than the actual dialogue in the movie. It's not the sentiment I objected to, but the sentences.
I did not care for the long chase scene. mnemex was correct when he pointed out that we really needed a long chase scene because we had not seen the Batmobile for most of the movie up until then. Nevertheless, I had a couple of problems.
First, I have a problem suspending my disbelief when it comes to Batman making police cars plow into things and flip six ways to a Sunday, yet not actually cause any fatalities, or even any serious injuries. mnemex says that this is just a genre convention. I do not care. It is a stupid genre convention. The Incredibles managed just fine without any stupid genre conventions.
Second, the entire sequence from the moment Dr. Crane says that Rachel hasn't much time to live to the time she finally gets the antidote is way too long. I wanted her to either get the antidote already or croke already, and I didn't much care which.
The fact that Batman did not have the antidote on him annoyed me, but did not actually bother me. That is, I kind of wish the movie had been written differently on that point, but it wasn't actually unbelievable. Okay, you don't bring something like that into a firefight, said mnemex, but why wasn't there some in the car? Well, Lucius Fox was still working on it. Still, if Batman had had some in the car, that would have solved that problem with the car chase scene for me.
I think Batman should have let Jim Gordon take Rachel in his car -- you know, the one that's a police car and won't be chased by the police -- while Batman distracts people with whatever chase scene the writers want. Okay, that does beg the question of how he gets Rachel the antidote without Gordon finding out he's Batman, but maybe he makes a call and gets Lucius to the hospital, or something like that. Soluble problem.
I had a problem with the burning of Wayne Manor. It isn't that Ra's al Ghul left Bruce alive. As he said, that was tit-for-tat poetic justice. No, it's that no one, including the writers, seems to remember that there are servants in the house. Yes, Bruce sends the guests home. Yes, Alfred is gone, taking Rachel home. But, we see, in the very scene where Alfred puts Rachel in the car, that there are other servants. Bruce never tells them to go home, and one would assume that, after a party, they would at least hang around to clean up.
So, the house is on fire, Ra's al Ghul's thugs are guarding the exits, and the servants are presumably trapped inside. Or do the thugs let them leave? Certainly, there's no indication that any of the servants have died.
I'm willing to accept the convention that all the guests were present for Bruce's speech. I might even have been willing to overlook the question of the servants if we had not just been shown that there were servants there. If you call attention to the details, you can't just drop them when it's no longer convenient to use them.
I'm not sure what I think about the convoluted plot to destroy Gotham. For the most part, I'm willing to overlook the improbabilities, and I like how carefully the writers tracked who knew what pieces of information. I really liked how quickly Fox put it together when he had the final piece.
On the other hand, as Erik pointed out, the drugs in the water should have been affecting anyone who bothered to take a hot shower. Or, do people in Gotham not do that? And, do they not drink hot tea or hot cocoa?
So, yes, the movie is flawed, whereas I consider The Incredibles a flawless gem. Heck, on script grounds, the two Spiderman movies are probably better. I can't remember any false steps there, though I agree with Erik about the undesirability of excessive screaming. But, I still loved Batman Begins, and I do hope there's a sequel that's even better, and that keeps Gotham as a character, rather than a backdrop.
Batman Begins is not a flawless movie. It is not better than The Incredibles, and I am not comparing apples and oranges here. I am talking about the script and structural decisions.
Don't get me wrong. I loved both movies, and I do want to see Batman Begins again. I do not think it is the best superhero movie out there, but it is the best Batman movie I've seen to date.
This is the first Batman movie I've seen where Gotham is a character, not just a backdrop. The only other movie I've seen which uses the city as well is The Fisher King.
The Gotham of Batman Begins has a very clear divide between the haves and the have nots. We see the glittering towers and monorail, built by Bruce's father. We see the frightening dark alleys. When Bruce talks with Rachel after the murder of Joe Chill, she is his guide, taking him from the corrupt, but still upscale, part of the city to the darker areas where the criminal underworld thrives. We see the decay of the shining monorail over time. We see that, despite the corruption at the top and the desperation below, Gotham is a magnificent city.
I loved the way the city was built up for the viewer and the way it was torn down during the movie. I loved the play the movie got out of the monorail. It's a symbol of the Wayne philosophy of philanthropy. It's a symbol of the despair and danger that is Gotham. Ra's al Ghul intends that the monorail built to save the city will destroy it, no doubt in no small part because it was created by the man who thwarted its destruction in the past. And, it is the tool that saves the city in the end, as Gordon cuts the rails.
I'm not a fan of Michael Caine. I think this is because I saw him mostly in movies that my folks watched on tv, the kind of comedies that I do not watch by choice, and in the movie Deathtrap, which falls sadly short of the play. But I loved him as Alfred. And I liked that he got to knock out one of Ra's al Ghul's thugs. And I loved the lines he got -- where the script is good, which is most of it, it is very good.
I loved Morgan Freedman, even if I have no idea how Lucius Fox fits into the comic. The relationship there is also good, especially the part where Fox tells Bruce that it's okay if he doesn't know what Bruce is up to, but he wants Bruce to know that he is not an idiot. I also loved the bit where Alfred calls him by his first name. I just got a kick out of that.
I loved that one of the last shots we see is of Jim Gordon, and I loved how that character developed from a good man who knows he's fighting a losing battle and whose shoulders are stooped to the man who thinks that there might now be a chance of winning the battle and who stands up straight.
I still have no idea what the Scarecrow is in the Batman mythos, but I don't care. Dr. Crane was a great, scary villain.
I liked the relationship between Bruce and Earle, the person taking the company public, and I really liked that neither he nor anyone else in Wayne Enterprises was part of the Conspiracy to Destroy Gotham, or, for that matter, part of the criminal underworld.
I liked the scene where the mob boss tells Bruce that, despite losing his parents, Bruce has no idea what the gritty side of reality is like. I liked that the mob boss was not more important to the plot than was merited.
I liked the guy in Wayne Tower who knew what was going to happen, and who evacuated the tower while holding his post. I liked the relationship between Rachel and her boss, even if I mentally noted how convenient his getting killed was for the romantic plot. I liked Rachel by and large not being a damsel in distress.
What's not to like? Let's see.
The scene where Rachel decides that she doesn't want to be with Bruce had some of the lamest writing I've seen. Erik Hanson said, "Well, she's basically saying, 'I like what you do, but frankly, Bruce, you scare me.'"
mnemex suggested, "I'm proud of you, but you're Batman, and I'm not in love with Batman." Either of these would have worked better than the actual dialogue in the movie. It's not the sentiment I objected to, but the sentences.I did not care for the long chase scene. mnemex was correct when he pointed out that we really needed a long chase scene because we had not seen the Batmobile for most of the movie up until then. Nevertheless, I had a couple of problems.
First, I have a problem suspending my disbelief when it comes to Batman making police cars plow into things and flip six ways to a Sunday, yet not actually cause any fatalities, or even any serious injuries. mnemex says that this is just a genre convention. I do not care. It is a stupid genre convention. The Incredibles managed just fine without any stupid genre conventions.
Second, the entire sequence from the moment Dr. Crane says that Rachel hasn't much time to live to the time she finally gets the antidote is way too long. I wanted her to either get the antidote already or croke already, and I didn't much care which.
The fact that Batman did not have the antidote on him annoyed me, but did not actually bother me. That is, I kind of wish the movie had been written differently on that point, but it wasn't actually unbelievable. Okay, you don't bring something like that into a firefight, said mnemex, but why wasn't there some in the car? Well, Lucius Fox was still working on it. Still, if Batman had had some in the car, that would have solved that problem with the car chase scene for me.
I think Batman should have let Jim Gordon take Rachel in his car -- you know, the one that's a police car and won't be chased by the police -- while Batman distracts people with whatever chase scene the writers want. Okay, that does beg the question of how he gets Rachel the antidote without Gordon finding out he's Batman, but maybe he makes a call and gets Lucius to the hospital, or something like that. Soluble problem.
I had a problem with the burning of Wayne Manor. It isn't that Ra's al Ghul left Bruce alive. As he said, that was tit-for-tat poetic justice. No, it's that no one, including the writers, seems to remember that there are servants in the house. Yes, Bruce sends the guests home. Yes, Alfred is gone, taking Rachel home. But, we see, in the very scene where Alfred puts Rachel in the car, that there are other servants. Bruce never tells them to go home, and one would assume that, after a party, they would at least hang around to clean up.
So, the house is on fire, Ra's al Ghul's thugs are guarding the exits, and the servants are presumably trapped inside. Or do the thugs let them leave? Certainly, there's no indication that any of the servants have died.
I'm willing to accept the convention that all the guests were present for Bruce's speech. I might even have been willing to overlook the question of the servants if we had not just been shown that there were servants there. If you call attention to the details, you can't just drop them when it's no longer convenient to use them.
I'm not sure what I think about the convoluted plot to destroy Gotham. For the most part, I'm willing to overlook the improbabilities, and I like how carefully the writers tracked who knew what pieces of information. I really liked how quickly Fox put it together when he had the final piece.
On the other hand, as Erik pointed out, the drugs in the water should have been affecting anyone who bothered to take a hot shower. Or, do people in Gotham not do that? And, do they not drink hot tea or hot cocoa?
So, yes, the movie is flawed, whereas I consider The Incredibles a flawless gem. Heck, on script grounds, the two Spiderman movies are probably better. I can't remember any false steps there, though I agree with Erik about the undesirability of excessive screaming. But, I still loved Batman Begins, and I do hope there's a sequel that's even better, and that keeps Gotham as a character, rather than a backdrop.
From:
no subject
Why not?
Well, we didn't see servants except in the party scene, AFAIR. So presumably they were hired on for the party.
Now, they might have left with the guests, but that doesn't seem reasonable, and Bruce didn't seem to be taking care to make them leave. Odder still, nor was Alfred, who is concientious about such things.
So clearly there must be a reason (I'll ignore, for the moment "they forgot about the servants;" that's an answer of last resort).
Well, before I attempt to solve this particular conundrum, I'd like to bring up another.
How'd all those ninjas hide in plain sight? Sure, R'as al Gul was guised as a guest, but likely -that- many uninvited guests would have been noticed. And they weren't in their ninja outfits, so presumably they weren't doing the "hide in shadows" thing. So they must presumably have had some disguise, which wasn't a whole bunch of new guests.
Anyways, back to the original question, I think I've got a good answer -- it may even be one the filmmakers had in mind.
From:
no subject
Alfred was driving Rachel home, which is why he did nothing about the servants. This is where we see 2 servants, as you'll recall.
I don't buy that all the servants worked for Ra's. After all, we see a whole bunch of them helping go through the wreckage of Wayne Manor at the end.
As for the ninjas, Bruce issued a vague, general invitation, and said stuff like, "Hire musicians and extra help." Ra's, as Erik pointed out, has already infiltrated all levels of Gotham society. Bruce isn't there for the actual hiring or the arrival of guests. No one on his side who knows about Ra's is expecting him to be alive or to come to Bruce's party with thugs. So, that doesn't bug me.