Showing posts with label Batman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Dark Before Dawn


There's a principle in criticism called "The Incoherent Text" (first coined by critic Robin Wood). That principle holds that one of the dominant storytelling modes in film is one in which several conflicting ideologies are in place such that the resulting contradictions render the movie in question incoherent (and narratively null). The classic example that Wood cites is Taxi Driver, in which Travis Bickell is simultaneously reviled and exalted. I couldn't help but think of Wood and the incoherent text as I watched The Dark Knight Rises (2012, directed by Christopher Nolan), which builds on the previous film's dalliances with fascism by attempting to subvert that fascism while simultaneously embracing it. Like its predecessor, it seems to have bottled something of the zeitgeist without really understanding what any of it means. Or maybe its makers just don't care.

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

The Dark Knight Revisited


The third film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is due out in a couple of weeks. I thought I'd revisit my old review of the previous installment as a warm-up. This is slightly different than the version of this that ran on my old web site. I've had four years to think about this movie. I'm a bit less sanguine about it than I was at the time and at the time I already found it troubling. I'm less inclined to give The Dark Knight's political implications as much of a pass these days as I was four years ago, but I won't get into that, I guess.

Monday, January 17, 2011

The Darkseid of the Street


I have a bit of a beef with the animated Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (2010, directed by Lauren Montgomery). This can be summarized by the director herself, in an interview with AWN, in which she talks about projects she'd like to make:

"I would love to do a Batgirl: Year One. That would be my dream to do that as a movie. But they're not pushing for the female stories, because they don't seem to make money. It's a business. If they can't make money on female stories then they won't make them."

Except, of course, for the fact that Superman/Batman: Apocalypse IS a female story. Superman and Batman are NOT the leads in this movie, but they get top billing. That strikes me as wrong. I mean, I get it. As Montgomery says, it's a business and the marketers at Warner Brothers and DC know what they're doing, but it still strikes me as a raw deal that potentially cuts off a potential female market. Seriously, girls read comics, too.

The story in this finds Superman's cousin, Kara Zor-El, falling to Earth in Gotham bay, where she's found by Batman. Unlike Superman, Kara is a teen when she comes to Earth, and has no mastery of her Kryptonian powers. This makes her dangerous. Wonder Woman and Batman conspire to take Kara to Themyscera where the amazons train her to control her powers and use them to defend herself. Meanwhile, Harbinger has disturbing visions of Kara's future. Kara, it seems, has come to the attention of Darkseid, the dark god who rules the world of Apokalips. He has been searching for a new captain of his honor guard, the Female Furies, since the defection of Big Barda. He launches an attack on Themyscera to divert Batman, Superman, and the amazons, and abducts Kara. He entrusts her to the loving care of Granny Goodness for indoctrination. Superman will have none of this. He enlists Barda to take our trio of heroes to Apokalips to effect a rescue mission, but is it too late? Has Kara become a minion of Darkseid?

Monday, July 21, 2008

Objects of Chaos

231. It's common practice to group Son of Frankenstein (1939, directed by Rowland V. Lee) with the first two films in the Frankenstein series as a kind of trilogy. That's understandable, I guess, given both the presence of Karloff as The Monster and the steep drop-off in quality in subsequent films. But having watched Ghost of Frankenstein recently, I'm coming around to the notion that Son of Frankenstein is really the first film of a trilogy (Frankenstein Meets the Wolf-Man would be the third in the sequence). The last time I watched Son, I didn't have the frame of reference in mind to notices the deep similarities between the two films. Not only is the tone more or less the same as in Ghost, but it even provides Ghost with its best line: "His mother was the lighting." None of the subsequent films are as good, unfortunately, in part because they got cheaper and cheaper, but also because of the steady drain of interesting cast members. This film, on the other hand, is loaded. It looks expensive and it has terrific faces. The film arguably belongs to Bela Lugosi, but he's given a run for his money by Basil Rathbone and Lionel Atwill ("One does not easily forget, Herr Baron, an arm torn out by the roots"). It's a fun movie.

232. I don't think I've seen all of Hellraiser (1987, directed by Clive Barker) since it was in theaters. I may have seen snippets of it here and there, but the whole movie? No. In the interim, there are a number of things I had forgotten about it. One is the sheer nastiness of its violence (alleviated somewhat by unconvincing make-up effects). The other is the sheer stupidity of its ending. It's two thirds of a good movie, I think, but, Jesus, do the wheels fly off in the last act. I don't think I ever noticed the fact that the first two thirds of the movie are a deconstruction of the gothic novel with the sexual hang-ups brought to the forefront. The sexual hang-ups of the gothic novel are sadomasochistic, which gives the movie its kick and its kink. The whole thing builds quite a head of steam, but Barker has shown time and again that longer narratives are not his forte. So it is here. The images are strong, but the narrative is a muddle. Still and all, the puzzle box is one of the few movie props that I wouldn't mind owning. So that's something, I guess.

233. The Dark Knight (2008, directed by Christopher Nolan) is a crackerjack crime thriller with disturbing political subtexts. I wish I could like it more, because the performances--particularly Aaron Eckhart's--are superb and the whole is really well made. But I have grave misgivings about it. I've posted a long review of the film here: http://members.tranquility.net/~benedict/darkknight2008.html

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Do the Batusi

So my brother called me last night to ask if I wanted to go see The Dark Knight at the IMAX. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm leery as hell of it. The last go-round with Batman Begins ended badly. The flash-pans at the beginning of the movie, amplified by being on an IMAX screen, made me so motion-sick that I had to leave the theater. But what the hell.

In any event, I'm greatly amused at the seriousness of everything surrounding The Dark Knight. I mean, yeah, Batman is the genesis of the grim and gritty superhero--thank you Frank Miller--but he's also the comics character that has had far and away the widest pallet of tonal variations. Hell, much as I hated it, even Joel Schumacher's coded gay take on Batman has precedence in the comics. Frederick Wertham didn't make anything up when he concluded that Batman and Robin live "the wish dream of two homosexuals." I mean, look at this panel posted on Mike Sterling's Progressive Ruin:


Go ahead and tell me that these two outfits aren't swiped from Bettie Page's lingerie drawer. I dare you.

Somehow, Christian Bale seems too tight of ass to let go like this:




Ah, for the days of silly comicbook fun...