An Alternative Review of Batman Begins
June 18, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
I'm going to have to disagree with Roger on this one. I hate to say it, but I have to give this movie a 6 overall–it's a 6 trying very hard to be a 7, but not quite making it. I've been trying to pin down exactly why I thought Batman Begins was just mediocre–maybe my expectations were too high. I thought it was a bit preachy and political, and I just couldn't connect with Bruce Wayne. I think it was because Bruce seemed to be lacking a core. There wasn't really a sense that he was trying to serve something bigger than himself. Of course, at first he wasn't, but even when he found a purpose, there still wasn't a sense that Batman's ideas of right and wrong were actually rooted in anything. Maybe this is because Batman's actions were taken more out of personal desire than from a sense of duty to the good, maybe it was the fault of the filmmakers, or maybe it was just the secular European influence (this last part didn't occur to me until later, but this actually makes sense).
The movie still had some good moments, and I did think there were a few great ideas–especially the one Roger referred to in his review, although I have a slightly different take on it (I also liked the question, “Why do we fall?”); but I didn't think all the ideas of this movie fit together well–the voice was unclear, creating a disjointed, confused undercurrent. And I found the movie, as a whole, somewhat soulless–empty, because there wasn't a sense they were serving something higher and greater than themselves. Spidey is still number one.
Go ahead and see this movie–just check your expectations, and know what you're getting: action, action, kung-fu action, action, stilted dialogue, disjointed ideas (some great), and Christian Bale in a Batman suit. If any of these things appeal to you (and I won't judge you if they do), then head for a matinee showing.
Related posts:
- Movie Review: Batman Begins
- Movie Review: THe Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
- Movie Review: War of the Worlds
- Movie Review: Fever Pitch
- Book Review: Further Up & Further In by Bruce Edwards
- Movie Review: Elizabethtown
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Movie Reviews
content rss
June 18th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
One thing I noticed was a complete lack of any religious symbols. I think that may (to some extent) account for the ideas of right and wrong not rooted in anything. Still, there was a belief in objective morality along the lines of justice. That's really the one value all the good people held to. I disagree with it being disjointed and unclear, but comepletely agree that Spidey is number one.
June 18th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
If you haven't seen the movie and don't want spoilers, don't read this excellent review by Thomas Hibbs. Otherwise, check it out. Hibbs addresses Face's point about the “soulless” sense of morality:
“In Nolan's version, the figure of the Batman…functions as a gargoyle in a Godless city, a creature of darkness protecting the innocent from other creatures of darkness, in a city bereft of any natural or religious framework for justice or hope…That Batman-style justice is the best we can do in such a context is made clear in a terrific scene where Batman seizes and interrogates a criminal. To convince Batman that he's telling the truth, the criminal screams, 'I swear to God.' Batman gets right in his face and angrily demands, 'Swear to me.'”
For the record, I liked it. Though I couldn't help but notice the future Commissioner Gordon's striking resemblance to Ned Flanders. “Hi-diddley-ho, caped crusader!”
June 18th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
lol, yea- I knew there was somthing about Gordon that I couldn't put my finger on.
June 18th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
Excellent review, Jenny–thanks for pointing it out!
Roger, all the good characters believed in justice, but I don't think the filmmakers did a good job of convincing the audience that their views of justice were correct because they conformed to actual true justice. It just didn't have that kind of force–it felt more like preferences. It's hard for me to explain why I felt this way because I'm not sure what caused this, but it felt very different from the right and wrong in Spider-Man. I'll probably have to see the movie again and think about it for a while before I can articulate this more clearly!
And I admit the possibility that I was put-off by the kung-fu beginning and never fully recovered. I'd be willing to give it a second chance.
As for unclear messages, at times it seemed they were blaming crime on poverty (if poverty truly were the root cause of crime, why didn't our country look like Gotham after 1929?); but then at other times they disallowed excuses for people's behavior, stressing that we're defined by what we do, we are completely responsible for those things, and what society needs from those in authority is more justice, not more understanding. It's not impossible to fit those two basic ideas together, but they're representative of larger, competing schools of thought, and I was left unsure of what the moviemakers were actually trying to say.
June 20th, 2005 at 7:08 am
[SPOILERS] I saw it yesterday and thought it was great. As much as I love Thomas Hibbs (Shows about Nothing is one of my favorites), I don't think the League of Shadows was much of a Nietzschean outfit. They reminded me more of the rationale behind Noah's Flood, though of course without the divine authority. I'm no Nietzshean expert, but I think he needs the masses in order for the truly higher beings to stand out.
As for poverty being the root cause of crime, I have to admit I was looking for this as I read this thread before going to the movie. It's a view depicted in the movie, but not a view endorsed by the movie. The first time we see it is in the court appearance of the killer of Bruce's parents (Linus Roach was another brilliant casting choice imo) where the DA mentions it as consideration for the guy getting off. This in itself is suspect, and we all know the real reason is that the killer is giving up a bigger fish. The sentiment is that he is not getting what he deserves.
More importantly, just prior to that scene young Bruce is blaming himself for his parents' demise. Alfred, a genuine source in the movie if anyone is, tells him in no uncertain tones that the only one responsible is the murderer, “and him alone.” So both views are presented early on; one from the most trusted character in the film and the other from a DA in a very quesitonable-to-currupt legal system.
The other place in the movie where the poverty-to-crime thesis is put forth is from Liam Neeson's character near the end when he admitted that the League of Shadow's first plan to destroy Gotham had been an economic one. Again, here the source is suspect. And the result actually showed that the thesis in this case was (ultimately) mistaken. Poverty can contribute to an increase in crime, but it doesn't have to, as the moral actions of Bruce's parents, and others in Gotham city, thwarted this earlier plan.
I really liked the notion that it doesn't count so much what's on the inside, but what we do that is important. I think Hibbs missed the import of this idea. It's actually a very classical notion of character. The Greek and Latin words for character are the plural of habit. You knew a man's character by the sum of what he does, his habits/character. This is why classical literature tells us what men and women and the gods DO, rather than what they feel or what today passes for “character development” (though I do like character development too). This is why Ridley Scott gets a bad rap sometimes for his character development (Gladiator may be the perfect example of this imo, we knew who Maximus is because of what he does, we don't need it explained). This is why, I think, Bruce is described as “lost” when he is committing crimes while thinking he is not a criminal. He WAS a criminal, because of what he did. There is an unspoken critique there.
This view of character as presented in the movie does not express the truth expressed by our faith there is a redemption for our flawed character that is found only outside ourselves by what Jesus Christ DID. Nevertheless, neither does the movie pretend that we can overcome our character flaws on our own. As Hibbs notes, Alfred has to caution Bruce not to get lost in the monster. Amy's right, however, that we don't feel the source of the justice and ideals pursued by our good characters. But htat in itself is still something. We sense something is missing. Gotham is, perhaps, a vivid depiction of the pre-Christian world.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
THIS COMMENT HAS SPOILERS
Micah, this is very interesting–thanks for taking the time to write all this. I'm definitely going to have to see the movie again.
Thinking more about it now, I think some of my confusion stemmed from trusting Neeson at the beginning of the movie. Some of the things he said to Bruce were not quite right, but I assumed the movie was endorsing them at the time, thinking Neeson's character could be trusted. That started me off a bit on the wrong foot, not knowing what the movie was really trying to say. I think watching the movie again while knowing who stands where might help everything make more sense.
I agree that it was similar to the rationale behind the flood. This actually bothered me a bit because I could see people using this movie as an illustration of how God is unjust (i.e., the League was bad and not truly just, therefore the Christian God did something bad also with Noah, end times judgment, etc.).
June 22nd, 2005 at 9:51 am
I liked the movie a lot and I find this discussion very interesting. I may jump in more fully in the future. But for now, here's my question [WARNING: THERE BE SPOILERS BEYOND]:
If that microwave thing can vaporize any water in a given area around it, even if it's in pipes thirty feet below, how come the water in the bodies of the people wasn't vaporized? Humans are, after all, 70% water. I may just have to chalk this one up to comic book logic. It's not a big sticking point for me since I liked the movie so much.
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:10 am
LOL! I never thought about it, but you're absolutely right!