The Match Cut Xtreme Crocheting Thread (and The Dark Knight)

[origami_mustache]

Some great stuff posted in this thread from both sides. Not sure if anyone has brought up the music in the 50 or so pages, but did anyone find the score to be a bit overbearing at times? I felt that the absence and presence of music was oddly schemed. I can recall several dialogue scenes where I almost couldn't hear what the characters were saying because the music was up in the mix so loudly. Perhaps keeping the music constantly running through these scenes was a strategy to keep the audience on their toes and to mask slower scenes, but it may have been a bit too driving for my taste. Interestingly enough the music is nowhere to be found during the action-packed car chase sequence. I actually loved how it played out without the music and for a minute thought that the music track channel got muted in the theater or something; you just don't see that enough in this type of film, as music usually drives this type of action. I did however find it an odd choice given the strategy of the score throughout the rest of the film.

[Morris Schæffer]

Not sure if anyone has brought up the music in the 50 or so pages, but did anyone find the score to be a bit overbearing at times?

I recall briefly feeling this way somewhere in the beginning although it wasn't really an issue for me.

[ledfloyd]

just to touch on a few things.

i think iosos' confusion regarding some of the plot points was less his fault for not paying attention and more the fault of the editing and the overstuffed plot.

the non-verbal dramatization complaint. i see this with dent and dawes and their relationship. they said they were in love, the dialogue was that of people that were in love. but the dramatic acting didn't sell it for me.

the score was absolutely overbearing. it seems bad scores and editing are par for the course these days. seriously, i'm constantly annoyed by scores. the vast majority of them are awful.

[Ezee E]

I've seen the movie three times now. While there is a lot of story here, moreso than any other superhero movie out there, it's all told pretty easily. Most of Iosos' questions were already answered.

As far as the Joker getting away with everything. I don't mind as much because the movie didn't bother looking into the logical loopholes of how he sets it all up. It's just safe to say that he did make it happen. The bank scene moves with such easiness that you can tell it was well thought out.

The cue stick and the court scene were already explained, and needed no further information that what we already saw in my opinion. Do we really need to see who won the faceoff between the two guys? No, it's not essential to an already big storyline.

Ledger's Joker is quite insane, and beyond any typical human. It'd just be silly to make him more of a true human. This is THE Joker, and he pulled it off convincingly to me. Each scene of his stands out more than any other scene in the movie, even the quick ones where he talks with cops about the deaths of others. NOTE: I didn't know where he got the knife either. I didn't mind it, but meg gives a good answer there. He's definitley got some problems that would require plenty of medication. He just simply isn't right in the head, and I got that. I'm more curious about his interest of suicide or death that we see in quite a few scenes.

[origami_mustache]

I'm more curious about his interest of suicide or death that we see in quite a few scenes.

I found this interesting as well. The scene where he is standing in the street yelling "HIIIT MEE!" and his laughter as he plummets seemingly to his death are both fantastic and although I agree with many of Ioso's criticisms and think the critique of The Joker not being human enough is valid, I think he is the most complex and least artificial character in The Dark Knight. He was certainly more believable than a millionaire hero willing to sacrifice his reputation for the sake of justice, a good cop standing up against the rest of the police force, or a mayor that wears more eyeliner than a stripper. Villains with more logical motivations are boring anyways. Psychotic serial killers with deranged philosophical ideas of chaos and anarchy, are far more interesting and do exist. The hostage video tapes can be viewed as a pretty overt reference to the terrorist beheadings and a decent attempt at connecting The Joker to some sort of relatable reality. I don't know why the Washington sniper did what he did, but I was far more interested in that story than say that of a mobster like Al Capone.

[Melville]

Interestingly enough the music is nowhere to be found during the action-packed car chase sequence.
Really? I totally remembered that scene having music.

[origami_mustache]

Really? I totally remembered that scene having music.

well...maybe there actually was a technical malfunction. :(

[Melville]

well...maybe there actually was a technical malfunction.
No, you're probably right. I'm probably just superimposing the score on that scene because it was so dominant in building tension in most of the film.

[DavidSeven]

I don't know about the score being overbearing, but I think there were scenes that could have done without music. It seemed misplaced in many of the dialogue heavy scenes. This is one area where Nolan really failed to break from his conventional Hollywood ways. Minor quibble, but he could have done better there.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Especially in the first half hour of the film, I found the score to be obtrusive. I kept being so incredibly aware of it to the point of disliking it outright. Once I really got into the action that was happening, it became less of a problem, though once or twice in the rest of the film I became far too aware of it's constant presence. I think at the very least, they could have used it less.

[Duncan]

Reviewing Guillermo Del Toro’s Hellboy II in Reverse Shot, a colleague wrote that “what’s most obscene about this pop-cultural mythmaking is that it works so resolutely against expanding taste or knowledge about movies. By focusing so obsessively and voluminously on the most readily, tyrannically available items, critical discussion is not simply reflecting the commercial film distribution situation in North America, but actively contributing to it.” On this note, I’m not sure that I can really divorce my sincere disappointment with The Dark Knight (and I was disappointed; check my three-year-old Batman Begins review for my optimistic guess about the series’ direction) from my irritation with its critical reception: a veritable ticker-tape parade, with enough bullies lining the route to shout down even the more nuanced voices of dissent. That a lot of viewers honestly like and love this flawed and overrated movie is fair enough, but the endless superlatives being hurled by critics high and low help to make perspective—a rare commodity—a casualty of hype. And whereas resurrection is a regular occurrence in the comic-book universe, in reality, what’s dead stays dead. Maybe we need to take The Dark Knight seriously after all.

I don't think The Dark Knight is perspective's harbinger of doom (it's always on the brink), but I largely agree with what Nayman has to say here. I have no problem admitting that my dislike of this film has grown after reading reviews, after reading forum comments, and after seeing it reach no. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list (still there, btw). To put it bluntly, such unanimous fervour freaks me the fuck out. Even some comments in this thread make my skin crawl. That may seem overly harsh or reactionary to some, but social phenomena of this magnitude are indicators worthy of consideration. Maybe this is the antisocial neurotic in me talking, but I can't help analogously applying public reaction to this film to larger issues. I won't explicitly name any of those issues for fear of being told I'm taking things too seriously, but I will call you all Nazis: you're all Nazis.

[Ezee E]

I found this interesting as well. The scene where he is standing in the street yelling "HIIIT MEE!" and his laughter as he plummets seemingly to his death are both fantastic and although I agree with many of Ioso's criticisms and think the critique of The Joker not being human enough is valid, I think he is the most complex and least artificial character in The Dark Knight. He was certainly more believable than a millionaire hero willing to sacrifice his reputation for the sake of justice, a good cop standing up against the rest of the police force, or a mayor that wears more eyeliner than a stripper. Villains with more logical motivations are boring anyways. Psychotic serial killers with deranged philosophical ideas of chaos and anarchy, are far more interesting and do exist. The hostage video tapes can be viewed as a pretty overt reference to the terrorist beheadings and a decent attempt at connecting The Joker to some sort of relatable reality. I don't know why the Washington sniper did what he did, but I was far more interested in that story than say that of a mobster like Al Capone.
The scene where he has Dent point the loaded gun at his head was pretty intense too. At that point, I really had no idea what could happen.

The performance and execution of Gordon is the second-best performance in my mind. Even better than Dent. Each time I've watched it, I've liked his character more, and he's progressed more than anyone as far as the two movies go, perhaps even as this movie is concerned. He may not be as observant as I think he should, considering nearly everyone around him was crooked, but perhaps his trust is crushed by now.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, that's true, the movie was a little on the overscored side. That trick of turning down the volume of the action and keeping a humming sound for generating tension is straight out of Heat - check out the scene where Pacino is comforting the mother who lost her son.

Schumacher's best movie that I've seen is Flatliners, and that's not saying a helluva lot.

[Barty]

The score is brilliant. Easily one of the best parts of the film.

[Ezee E]

The score is brilliant. Easily one of the best parts of the film.

-- Barty regarding every movie ever made.

[Derek]

I don't know about the score being overbearing, but I think there were scenes that could have done without music. It seemed misplaced in many of the dialogue heavy scenes. This is one area where Nolan really failed to break from his conventional Hollywood ways. Minor quibble, but he could have done better there.

Compared to Batman Begins, this felt like a silent film. The decision to put a muzzle on Zimmer and Howard in this film worked really well. Of course it was still too over-dramatic when it was there, but the number of sequences with the low, humming score mostly balanced things out.

[origami_mustache]

I don't think The Dark Knight is perspective's harbinger of doom (it's always on the brink), but I largely agree with what Nayman has to say here. I have no problem admitting that my dislike of this film has grown after reading reviews, after reading forum comments, and after seeing it reach no. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list (still there, btw). To put it bluntly, such unanimous fervour freaks me the fuck out. Even some comments in this thread make my skin crawl. That may seem overly harsh or reactionary to some, but social phenomena of this magnitude are indicators worthy of consideration. Maybe this is the antisocial neurotic in me talking, but I can't help analogously applying public reaction to this film to larger issues. I won't explicitly name any of those issues for fear of being told I'm taking things too seriously, but I will call you all Nazis: you're all Nazis.

I know what you mean and there is absolutely no way this film can be considered anything other than overrated, however I think the discussion garnered is at least some sort of testament to the film. It's a difficult film to rate with so much going on. There are plenty of things I disliked as well as some things I found great about the film and it's hard to ignore public reaction and hype.

[Boner M]

Also, it's not clear to me why you're so opposed to "sophisticated" superhero films. Do you scoff at the Batman comics from the last twenty years because they don't revel in the pulpiness of 1940's Batman comics or the campiness of the 1960's show? Do you disown Chinatown because it takes its Noir themes more seriously than The Big Sleep did, or The Godfather because its less pulpy than Hawks' Scarface? Why can't the characters be used in different types of stories?
No, I'm opposed to Nolan's idea of a 'sophisticated' superhero film, the one that advertises it's seriousness to such an overbearing degree that I become sorta numbed by the whole thing. That is my fundamental problem with both this film and Begins, and the reason 'I just don't care' has become my mantra when discussing the film. A cop-out perhaps, but I can't think of anything else. It's just not my cup of tea.

Also, I admit my opinion of Nolan's formal incompetence was grossly overstated; I mentioned earlier in this thread that I like his fondness for ominous drone-y scores, the bank heist scene kicked ass, and I'll concede on a few memorable shots that are the exception rather than the rule (namely, the Joker sticking his head out the car window to take in the night air).

Oh, and Eric Roberts was awesome.

[Grouchy]

Wrote a review. Maybe I should re-post it here, but the link is on my signature.

[Qrazy]

Damn you bastards for being able to see this so easily. Every time I go to the theater every showing is sold out for days.

[Grouchy]

Damn you bastards for being able to see this so easily. Every time I go to the theater every showing is sold out for days.
Same here, actually. I bought my ticket for tomorrow yesterday. The thing is making crazy money.

Only my second viewing, though.

[Sven]

Forgive me, meg, Melville, D7, for not going into detail with any retorts, of which I've got a great big bagful, at the moment. Simple exhaustion. Maybe I'll come back and take it on after a bit.

However, I do wish to say, mostly in regard to D7's observation that I just wanted to hate it because it was hyped, that I think my extensive smackdown was thorough enough in knitting together the threads of the many disappointments I had into a larger blanket of the film's overall failure.

I think you speak wisely about the tendency for everyone (not just myself) to, when speaking of a film they didn't like, rag on, and possibly accentuate, their disdain for more of the film's multitude of elements than initially offended by. I'll be the first to admit guilt--I navigate towards extremes because I don't like the middle ground in art. As such, I have no interest in bolstering the status quo. Many have read this tendency as contrarianism, but I assure you that such is not the case. I love many popular things--I think I am a populist at heart. Sometimes I'm more aligned with the audience than the critics (if such a division can be created) in loving things like The Terminal, Lady in the Water, etc. But I loved No Country for Old Men (very visually different, on a number of counts, from Pfister's work on The Dark Knight despite your insistence), I loved Crash, I loved The Departed, I loved Chicago... all Best Picture Oscar winners.

I'm sorry you can't really get a handle on my tastes, but it seems like some here have: Boner and Sycophant called my hatred for Cloverfield, as an example.

Oh, and Derek, the difference between that moment here and similar moments in Crash is that Crash is actually about that kind of racism, whereas here, Nolan just exploits the audience's racism for tension. Kind of like the position I've been arguing over Cloverfield using 9/11 simply to generate thrills.

[Qrazy]

Crash is one of the most emotionally exploitive films of the decade.

Whether it's pulling the rug out on a seemingly shot child, releasing foreigners in the middle of a city, saving a previously assaulted woman from a burning vehicle, exposing latent racism via accidental murder, there's no end to the emotional string pulling wankery that composes that film.

[Sven]

Crash is one of the most emotionally exploitive films of the decade.

Whether it's pulling the rug out on a seemingly shot child, releasing foreigners in the middle of a city, saving a previously assaulted woman from a burning vehicle, exposing latent racism via accidental murder, there's no end to the emotional string pulling wankery that composes that film.

It's melodramatic, fo' shizzle.

[Skitch]

i think iosos' confusion regarding some of the plot points was less his fault for not paying attention and more the fault of the editing and the overstuffed plot.


I disagree. I don't think there is a person here that will disagree with me when I say I am an idiot, and I could have answered every question iosos' had, of things he didn't understand.

He can have his opinion, though. It's what makes the world go 'round.

:pritch:

[Sven]

I don't think you're an idiot.

And those questions were but a sampling of my frustrated at Nolan's editing, not what one can derive from the context of the scene. Of course I understood that the three dudes had to kill each other with the cue sticks. But I have much less interest in seeing a crazy chaotic inhuman force of nature be all wicked than I do in seeing that wickedness's ramification. I'm not saying the movie needed to show them fight or anything, but it doesn't even bother allowing the characters to consider what's going on. You see him snap the cue sticks, drop them, he walks away, cut.

I missed the gun jamming, but I have to admit, the idea that Dent's following courtroom badassitude, as bolstered by the subsequent barrage of compliments he receives after that scene, resting on a fluke hardware error is of a letdown.

I understand what the sonar-cam was trying to do, but when we, the audience, see it as Lucius is describing it, the cam's point of view sweeps up through the floor divisions and rotates around the room and building. This is 1) tacky because it's just like every other Fincher-esque "sweep through the building to lay out the geography" shot, now a cliche, only 2) it was confusing because all we see are outlines and blurry blips because it's sonar 3) the sonar camera stuff would not have been able to render such specific geography in an empty building and 4) there is no diegetic point-of-view that can explain the sweeping trans-floor trans-wall journey of the camera.

And as far as the piece of glass goes, it still would've been nice to see Joker put up a human struggle, as I've mentioned before, because that would've given him some character. As it stands, it comes off more as a magic trick to service the film's theme of Joker as an abstract concept than anything plausible.

Didn't I say I wasn't going to do this?

[Ezee E]

Michael Caine, "Superman is the way America sees itself, but Batman is the way the world sees America."

Either way, we win! :)

Neat quote though.

[megladon8]

Michael Caine, "Superman is the way America sees itself, but Batman is the way the world sees America."

Either way, we win! :)

Neat quote though.


Yes, that's a fantastic quote - I'd never heard that before.


While I do wish iosos had liked it more, I'm glad to see that there are differing opinions on here.

Don't mean to sound cliché, like an after school special or something, but if we all had the same tastes, this would be a pretty damn boring forum.

And I don't think iosos wanted to hate this movie, that seems like kind of a lame criticism of his criticisms. He genuinely disliked it, it didn't work for him, and he stated valid reasons why. Plus, there have been plenty of times where movies have been hyped up the anal cavity, and iosos loved them...so it seems like kind of a moot point anyways.

I freaking adored the movie, but reading iosos' review made sense to me, and I could see why one who finds these issues bothersome would not like the movie.

Anyways, I'm greatly looking forward to seeing it again.

[Mysterious Dude]

Has anyone else thought that, despite everyone's best efforts, Batman is a lot less relevant in this day and age than he was in the forties? When people could still remember such larger-than-life criminals as Al Capone and Baby-Face Nelson, characters like Joker and Two Face may not have seemed like such a far stretch from reality. I just don't think there's any comparison today. Same for Dick Tracy.

[Grouchy]

Has anyone else thought that, despite everyone's best efforts, Batman is a lot less relevant in this day and age than he was in the forties? When people could still remember such larger-than-life criminals as Al Capone and Baby-Face Nelson, characters like Joker and Two Face may not have seemed like such a far stretch from reality. I just don't think there's any comparison today. Same for Dick Tracy.
Nah, I don't know. I think it's quite different because with Dick Tracy, Chester Gould was consciously making a caricature of that type of larger-than-life mobster. He even received death treats from those who took the caricature as aimed at them.

Instead, Bob Kane and Bill Finger had Batman battle mobsters, but the villains that lasted from the '40s period (like Dr. Strange, the Mad Monk or the Joker) are too fantastic - they're mad scientists, killer clowns and even vampires.

[Melville]

I don't think The Dark Knight is perspective's harbinger of doom (it's always on the brink), but I largely agree with what Nayman has to say here. I have no problem admitting that my dislike of this film has grown after reading reviews, after reading forum comments, and after seeing it reach no. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list (still there, btw). To put it bluntly, such unanimous fervour freaks me the fuck out. Even some comments in this thread make my skin crawl. That may seem overly harsh or reactionary to some, but social phenomena of this magnitude are indicators worthy of consideration. Maybe this is the antisocial neurotic in me talking, but I can't help analogously applying public reaction to this film to larger issues. I won't explicitly name any of those issues for fear of being told I'm taking things too seriously, but I will call you all Nazis: you're all Nazis.
Are you referring to people's acceptance of the film's War on Terror apologetics? I definitely can't get behind the film's ideology; its support of lying to, and spying on, the public, using illegal and brutal means, etc., in the fight against the forces of chaos, didn't sit well with me. (This was another element that was better dealt with in The Dark Knight Returns.)


No, I'm opposed to Nolan's idea of a 'sophisticated' superhero film, the one that advertises it's seriousness to such an overbearing degree that I become sorta numbed by the whole thing. That is my fundamental problem with both this film and Begins, and the reason 'I just don't care' has become my mantra when discussing the film. A cop-out perhaps, but I can't think of anything else. It's just not my cup of tea.

Okay, I guess I can understand that. I thought the same thing about Begins, but I thought this one had an ominous enough mood to (mostly) sell its self-serious tone.

[Izzy Black]

I found this interesting as well. The scene where he is standing in the street yelling "HIIIT MEE!" and his laughter as he plummets seemingly to his death are both fantastic and although I agree with many of Ioso's criticisms and think the critique of The Joker not being human enough is valid, I think he is the most complex and least artificial character in The Dark Knight..

The scenes regarding Joker's lack of fear of death or his near suicidal temperament plays into his general philosophy - should we call it that. It is not that he is inherently bent on destroying himself, but that he is set on having Batman compromise his ethics - or rather, his one rule - no killing. By doing so, he defeats Batman or achieves the agenda of turning the world on itself. He does this all throughout the film just as with the ferry scene. He is let down in both instances - Batman catches him before he falls, and the people on the ferries do not kill themselves. In this sense, Joker actually loses in the end, despite his pervasive control throughout the entire film.

Moreover, Joker is an archetype, to be sure, but I do not think he is a caricature. He represents the type of mystery and unexplainable rationale of madness and nihilism in the world. Nolan describes him in interviews as an absolute as contrasted to the rounded characters of Harvey Dent and Batman. He inserted Harvey Dent's story arch and saw it through to his entire downfall as a means to juxtapose it against Joker's one-dimensionality. This does not hurt the character at all in my eyes. I think Kevin Smith makes an effective point on the scene when Joker begins providing some oddly, tacked on back story to the mobsters about the scars on his face, it began to take away from the character - but the fact that he changes his story later in the film twice brought the character back from an origins character to an absolute. This is why he is stripped of any traces of an identity. We look so much to psychology and socioeconomic conditions to explain how the monsters of our world have become what they are, but this appears more as a coping mechanism for what is truly a representation of fear and the unexplainable. This is why analysts have tried to understand people like Hitler and Stalin for years. It is the mystery and unknowable psyche of these individuals that makes them so frightening. I found the development in this context effective, and it played into the film's more than suggestive post-9/11 political allegory.

[Izzy Black]

Interestingly enough the music is nowhere to be found during the action-packed car chase sequence. I actually loved how it played out without the music and for a minute thought that the music track channel got muted in the theater or something; you just don't see that enough in this type of film, as music usually drives this type of action. I did however find it an odd choice given the strategy of the score throughout the rest of the film.

I am surprised by the complaints with the music in this film. It is correct that the music is distracting in some of the earlier expository scenes with dialogue, but it is not near as pervasive as at is in Batman Begins. In the later half of the film, the music almost completely disappears. In a way, it is as though the music slowly dissipates from the film as things sink further into a state of anomie. We are no longer provided a cathartic emotional device to help dictate the narrative. The scenes of dialogue between Batman and Joker during his detainment are shot in silence. The action scene you speak about here is a clear nod to the opening action scene in Heat - shot largely in silence. The foiled assassination scene is also shot in silence after Joker's intro theme. The shots that are fired in complete silence during this scene - echoing and ricocheting throughout the city as people scream - is more than a nod to Heat's shootout sequence.

[Izzy Black]

As for overrated films - I am not really affected by such things. This is probably due to the fact that my taste is generally so against the mainstream norms that I am used to films being overrated. As such, I have no problem liking a film like The Dark Knight even though it is overrated because it is not often that I do. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood were terribly overrated in my eyes, but it did not affect my opinion of the films. The rarity that I actually like the consensually and commercially lauded films is so far and few in between that I am actually pleased when I agree with the masses.

[ledfloyd]

Has anyone else thought that, despite everyone's best efforts, Batman is a lot less relevant in this day and age than he was in the forties? When people could still remember such larger-than-life criminals as Al Capone and Baby-Face Nelson, characters like Joker and Two Face may not have seemed like such a far stretch from reality. I just don't think there's any comparison today. Same for Dick Tracy.
on the contrary, i think superheroes are the perfect way to address the post 9/11 zeitgeist. it hasn't really been done really well in film yet. dark knight is the closest they've came. though, i do have some issue with it's politics. that still doesn't erase the fact that i feel the genre is well suited to our times and a good way of addressing issues that concern the current collective consciousness (alliteration!). i think it's box office success is evidence of this. it's been done better in comics (ed brubaker's captain america comes to mind) than it has been in film yet, but the dark knight is a big step in the right direction.

[Qrazy]

And I don't think iosos wanted to hate this movie.

I do, even if he genuinely disliked it I still think he wanted to hate it (at least subconsciously).

[Sven]

I do, even if he genuinely disliked it I still think he wanted to hate it (at least subconsciously).

I never want to hate things. I just often suspect I will. What makes you say this?

[Qrazy]

I never want to hate things. I just often suspect I will. What makes you say this?

I guess despite the fact that I wrote just that I didn't mean you wanted to per se I just knew that you would hate it, despite my not having seen it.

I know you don't feel like a contrarion and you're not that exactly but you Clipper Ship and Baby Doll are all very reactionary in terms of taste and this is not about what any of you do or do not like, it has more to do with each of your comments in relation to what you do and do not like. For instance Baby Doll attacking the taste of the 'frat boy' for macho posturing in a critical assault on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Apocalypse Now and others... or Clipper Ship dismissing Dark Knight before having seen it as liked by many because they like what they're told to like and your Armond-esque comments in relation to other films concerning what 'the hipsters' like. All of these strike me as appraisals of cinema in relation to the opinions of others and not in relation to the cinema itself.

Which is not to say that I doubt any of your genuine responses I just feel that you've all internalized a reactionary attitude towards taste. Maybe that's an offensive analysis, I don't particularly mean it to be.

[Sven]

I guess despite the fact that I wrote just that I didn't mean you wanted to per se I just knew that you would hate it, despite my not having seen it.

Proof again, to D7, of my being predictable!

It helps to notice that I've professed a strong dislike of 1) Nolan's other Batman movie and 2) well... Nolan in general, though I find a few strong points here and there.

[Qrazy]

Proof again, to D7, of my being predictable!

It helps to notice that I've professed a strong dislike of 1) Nolan's other Batman movie and 2) well... Nolan in general, though I find a few strong points here and there.

Yeah after having many arguments with you about taste I don't find you that unpredictable and I'm sure you could probably predict my taste fairly well as well.

[Sven]

...and your Armond-esque comments in relation to other films concerning what 'the hipsters' like.

Have I ever made a judgment on a movie BECAUSE somebody liked it? The way Baby Doll did with Apocalypse Now? I don't think so. I don't think it's wrong to observe trends or to apply outside factors, and I think it's valid to observe groupthink and when films pander to them. But I feel I don't respond against a movie because of another group's response. That's just ridiculous.

However I also don't believe that cinema should be judged solely as "cinema itself". That's too hermetic for my liking. If a film cannot be applied to life outside of the box, and if it cannot withstand impositions from outside of the box, I generally tend to disfavor it.

[Qrazy]

Have I ever made a judgment on a movie BECAUSE somebody liked it? The way Baby Doll did with Apocalypse Now? I don't think so. I don't think it's wrong to observe trends or to apply outside factors, and I think it's valid to observe groupthink and when films pander to them. But I feel I don't respond against a movie because of another group's response. That's just ridiculous.

I was particularly referring to your comments about Lost in Translation in your top 100 thread.


However I also don't believe that cinema should be judged solely as "cinema itself". That's too hermetic for my liking. If a film cannot be applied to life outside of the box, and if it cannot withstand impositions from outside of the box, I generally tend to disfavor it.

I don't find the latter point really refers to the issue at hand (the issue being something which isn't really fair of me because I abhor attacks on people's general taste so I shouldn't have posted what I did and will now stop doing so) which is forming a value judgment in relation to the value judgments of others... not the possible political ramifications or intentions of any given film.

[Sven]

I was particularly referring to your comments about Lost in Translation in your top 100 thread.

Well, at least I qualified that statement thoroughly enough to hopefully let others understand that it is not something I normally do.


I don't find the latter point really refers to the issue at hand (the issue being something which isn't really fair of me because I abhor attacks on people's general taste so I shouldn't have posted what I did and will now stop doing so) which is forming a value judgment in relation to the value judgments of others... not the possible political ramifications or intentions of any given film.

Your "cinema itself" descriptive was pretty vague in the context in which you used it, so I'm not sure exactly what you meant. But no matter.

[MadMan]

Indeed.

I still think Spider-Man 2 is damn good, though I also think the third one is good (or at the least, the most entertaining of the trilogy).I agree with this post. Even though I feel that the third film was at times rather silly and often a mess, it was still enjoyable and a decent conclusion to the trilogy (I'm guessing that a forth film will probably be made though).

iosos's thoughts on TDK were actually refreshing to read, seeing as all of the reviews and thoughts on the film that I've read have been overwhelmingly positive. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to get the other side's point of view once and a while.

[Qrazy]

Well, at least I qualified that statement thoroughly enough to hopefully let others understand that it is not something I normally do.

Yeah well as I said ragging on people's general taste is pretty dicky so I'll stop, I've had a little to drink tonight so that probably didn't help things.

[Sven]

I've had a little to drink tonight so that probably didn't help things.

I figured. :)

[Qrazy]

I figured. :)

*attempts to stare down but eyes won't focus*

[DavidSeven]

Forgive me, meg, Melville, D7, for not going into detail with any retorts, of which I've got a great big bagful, at the moment. Simple exhaustion. Maybe I'll come back and take it on after a bit.

However, I do wish to say, mostly in regard to D7's observation that I just wanted to hate it because it was hyped, that I think my extensive smackdown was thorough enough in knitting together the threads of the many disappointments I had into a larger blanket of the film's overall failure.

I think you speak wisely about the tendency for everyone (not just myself) to, when speaking of a film they didn't like, rag on, and possibly accentuate, their disdain for more of the film's multitude of elements than initially offended by. I'll be the first to admit guilt--I navigate towards extremes because I don't like the middle ground in art. As such, I have no interest in bolstering the status quo. Many have read this tendency as contrarianism, but I assure you that such is not the case. I love many popular things--I think I am a populist at heart. Sometimes I'm more aligned with the audience than the critics (if such a division can be created) in loving things like The Terminal, Lady in the Water, etc. But I loved No Country for Old Men (very visually different, on a number of counts, from Pfister's work on The Dark Knight despite your insistence), I loved Crash, I loved The Departed, I loved Chicago... all Best Picture Oscar winners.

I'm sorry you can't really get a handle on my tastes, but it seems like some here have: Boner and Sycophant called my hatred for Cloverfield, as an example.

Well said.


The scenes regarding Joker's lack of fear of death or his near suicidal temperament plays into his general philosophy - should we call it that. It is not that he is inherently bent on destroying himself, but that he is set on having Batman compromise his ethics - or rather, his one rule - no killing. By doing so, he defeats Batman or achieves the agenda of turning the world on itself. He does this all throughout the film just as with the ferry scene. He is let down in both instances - Batman catches him before he falls, and the people on the ferries do not kill themselves. In this sense, Joker actually loses in the end, despite his pervasive control throughout the entire film.

Moreover, Joker is an archetype, to be sure, but I do not think he is a caricature. He represents the type of mystery and unexplainable rationale of madness and nihilism in the world. Nolan describes him in interviews as an absolute as contrasted to the rounded characters of Harvey Dent and Batman. He inserted Harvey Dent's story arch and saw it through to his entire downfall as a means to juxtapose it against Joker's one-dimensionality. This does not hurt the character at all in my eyes. I think Kevin Smith makes an effective point on the scene when Joker begins providing some oddly, tacked on back story to the mobsters about the scars on his face, it began to take away from the character - but the fact that he changes his story later in the film twice brought the character back from an origins character to an absolute. This is why he is stripped of any traces of an identity. We look so much to psychology and socioeconomic conditions to explain how the monsters of our world have become what they are, but this appears more as a coping mechanism for what is truly a representation of fear and the unexplainable. This is why analysts have tried to understand people like Hitler and Stalin for years. It is the mystery and unknowable psyche of these individuals that makes them so frightening. I found the development in this context effective, and it played into the film's more than suggestive post-9/11 political allegory.

I like.

[Winston*]

I enjoyed it.

[megladon8]

Oh, and I'm with Barty on the musical score.

Brilliant. Can be listened to on its own, and is very powerful stuff.

The track "Like a Dog Chasing Cars" is fantastic.

[megladon8]

I do, even if he genuinely disliked it I still think he wanted to hate it (at least subconsciously).


Eh, I don't see iosos as being immature enough to actually make himself hate something.

I'm sure he was just as open to being pleasantly surprised as I would be with something like Inglorious Bastards - I hate Quentin Tarantino's writing and direction, but if it's a good movie, well, I'm not going to lie to myself for some ridiculous sense of self-satisfaction in saying "see, I DID hate it!"

And I doubt iosos did this with The Dark Knight.

[Ezee E]

Small question...

How did they explain Harvey Dent's death? In the hospital explosion? By the hands of Batman?

[chrisnu]

Small question...

How did they explain Harvey Dent's death? In the hospital explosion? By the hands of Batman?
I'm pretty sure that Batman asked Gordon to blame Harvey's death, as well as the deaths of the men Harvey killed, on him.

[Melville]

iosos's thoughts on TDK were actually refreshing to read, seeing as all of the reviews and thoughts on the film that I've read have been overwhelmingly positive. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to get the other side's point of view once and a while.
Hm... I think most of iosos's criticisms had already been made earlier in the thread, just with less vitriol.

[Duncan]

Are you referring to people's acceptance of the film's War on Terror apologetics? I definitely can't get behind the film's ideology; its support of lying to, and spying on, the public, using illegal and brutal means, etc., in the fight against the forces of chaos, didn't sit well with me. (This was another element that was better dealt with in The Dark Knight Returns. Yeah, I'm referring to that among other things. I think what a lot of it comes down to is that I am just very uncomfortable with such unthinking praise. I mean...IMDB's number 1? Is that a joke?

I take issue with Qrazy's use of the phrase "cinema in relation to itself" as the proper way to evaluate a film. Dissecting the film from the audience is impossible to me. One defines the other. Or, if not define then at least contributes a chromosome or two. They're related. For example, teenage boys like Reservoir Dogs for a reason and I cannot watch that film without the sociological knowledge that it is popular within a certain demographic. For the record, I like Reservoir Dogs too. The point is that the audience beyond myself affects how I interact with the film and so it affects the film itself.

Now, we have The Dark Knight which is, aside from a few questionable political poses, a relatively benign film. And we have a hype driven popularity that is also relatively benign. But I look at something like the Iraq War and I cannot see much difference between the initial popularity of that (absolutely not benign) war and something as meaningless as weekend box office sales. Very different examples, sure, and probably different ends within the context of each. However, it is not the ends which I am opposed to in this case, but the place between the ends and the means that is out of the Prince's hands, if you will. Creating a marketing campaign and film serviceable enough to draw hundreds of millions of dollars seems natural to me. Overwhelming submission to that campaign makes me recoil.

[Sven]

I take issue with Qrazy's use of the phrase "cinema in relation to itself" as the proper way to evaluate a film. Dissecting the film from the audience is impossible to me. One defines the other. Or, if not define then at least contributes a chromosome or two. They're related. For example, teenage boys like Reservoir Dogs for a reason and I cannot watch that film without the sociological knowledge that it is popular within a certain demographic. For the record, I like Reservoir Dogs too. The point is that the audience beyond myself affects how I interact with the film and so it affects the film itself.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. Gah. Sometimes I'm so bad with words.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Dark Knight has just sort of faded from my memory. I would worry about the overwhelming praise it has gotten, but it is pretty benign and I think the film (and the campaign) just tapped really well into what people want from their superhero movie: namely an edgy villain, realistic action, and stimulating social and ethical considerations. Even from the first few Joker posters they teased the movie-going community with, it's focused on these three factors - up to those cool mock-"brick wall" posters they painted on brick walls next to 7-11s that tie so well the film to the real world and fears of the urban world.

Too bad more people aren't seeing the The X-Files movie. Much more challenging, daring, subversive, and deftly crafted hint HINT. :P

Too bad it's really not much better than The Dark Knight... Man, so much disappointment this year.

[Melville]

Yeah, I'm referring to that among other things. I think what a lot of it comes down to is that I am just very uncomfortable with such unthinking praise. I mean...IMDB's number 1? Is that a joke?

I take issue with Qrazy's use of the phrase "cinema in relation to itself" as the proper way to evaluate a film. Dissecting the film from the audience is impossible to me. One defines the other. Or, if not define then at least contributes a chromosome or two. They're related. For example, teenage boys like Reservoir Dogs for a reason and I cannot watch that film without the sociological knowledge that it is popular within a certain demographic. For the record, I like Reservoir Dogs too. The point is that the audience beyond myself affects how I interact with the film and so it affects the film itself.

Now, we have The Dark Knight which is, aside from a few questionable political poses, a relatively benign film. And we have a hype driven popularity that is also relatively benign. But I look at something like the Iraq War and I cannot see much difference between the initial popularity of that (absolutely not benign) war and something as meaningless as weekend box office sales. Very different examples, sure, and probably different ends within the context of each. However, it is not the ends which I am opposed to in this case, but the place between the ends and the means that is out of the Prince's hands, if you will. Creating a marketing campaign and film serviceable enough to draw hundreds of millions of dollars seems natural to me. Overwhelming submission to that campaign makes me recoil.
I side with Qrazy: I have essentially no concern for what other people think of a film. Studying different groups' responses to a film can certainly yield worthwhile sociological results, but I don't have enough interest in those results to let them affect my opinion of a film. On the other hand, understanding what different people respond to in a film can also yield new knowledge about the film itself, which could change my opinion of it.

Anyway, I'm not sure about the sociological conclusions you draw in this case. I don't see any submission to a marketing campaign. Many other films are just as heavily advertised and don't receive such acclaim; what distinguishes this film is that people were excited about it due to their liking of the previous film, and more importantly, most people walked out of it thinking that it was really good. I liked the film well enough, and I saw virtually no advertising for it. Why most people liked it is worth discussing, but the sole fact that they liked it doesn't seem very meaningful to me.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah, I'm referring to that among other things. I think what a lot of it comes down to is that I am just very uncomfortable with such unthinking praise. I mean...IMDB's number 1? Is that a joke?

I take issue with Qrazy's use of the phrase "cinema in relation to itself" as the proper way to evaluate a film. Dissecting the film from the audience is impossible to me. One defines the other. Or, if not define then at least contributes a chromosome or two. They're related. For example, teenage boys like Reservoir Dogs for a reason and I cannot watch that film without the sociological knowledge that it is popular within a certain demographic. For the record, I like Reservoir Dogs too. The point is that the audience beyond myself affects how I interact with the film and so it affects the film itself.

Now, we have The Dark Knight which is, aside from a few questionable political poses, a relatively benign film. And we have a hype driven popularity that is also relatively benign. But I look at something like the Iraq War and I cannot see much difference between the initial popularity of that (absolutely not benign) war and something as meaningless as weekend box office sales. Very different examples, sure, and probably different ends within the context of each. However, it is not the ends which I am opposed to in this case, but the place between the ends and the means that is out of the Prince's hands, if you will. Creating a marketing campaign and film serviceable enough to draw hundreds of millions of dollars seems natural to me. Overwhelming submission to that campaign makes me recoil.

It is one thing to let social forces affect one's feelings when interacting with a film. You can even hold the film accountable for its functional merits on this mark. Yet, none of that should affect the intellectual worth of its other critical categories.

[Duncan]

Why most people liked it is worth discussing, but the sole fact that they liked it doesn't seem very meaningful to me. And I'm saying a big part of that why is the film's marketing campaign.

[Duncan]

It is one thing to let social forces affect one's feelings when interacting with a film. You can even hold the film accountable for its functional merits on this mark. Yet, none of that should affect the intellectual worth of its other critical categories.

True. But if the worth of its other critical categories is exaggerated because of sociological reasons then I am more likely to focus on those categories being exaggerated. Thus, the film does not change but the relief in which I view its merits does.

[Winston*]

If I had to pinpoint my main reasons for liking the film, I would probably point to the 3rd trailer and the 4th "TV Spot".

EDIT: The Dark Knight Special Edition XBox 360 also.

[Melville]

And I'm saying a big part of that why is the film's marketing campaign.
But what distinguishes its marketing campaign from that of other equally heavily marketed films?

[Raiders]

But what distinguishes its marketing campaign from that of other equally heavily marketed films?

Subliminal messaging. Ever since watching the film, I have really wanted a Nokia Tube cell phone.

[Melville]

Subliminal messaging. Ever since watching the film, I have really wanted a Nokia Tube cell phone.
I don't even know what that is, so maybe I'm just generally clueless about advertising.

[Raiders]

I don't even know what that is, so maybe I'm just generally clueless about advertising.

It's actually the phone that Lucius uses in the film. The one with sonar. I don't think it has actually been released yet.

[soitgoes...]

It's actually the phone that Lucius uses in the film. The one with sonar. I don't think it has actually been released yet.I can't tell you how many times I wished my phone had sonar.

[Melville]

It's actually the phone that Lucius uses in the film. The one with sonar. I don't think it has actually been released yet.
The internets inform me that it is Nokia's "iphone killer", which I guess is in direct competition with Blackberry's "iphone killer". I'd be worried if I were iphone.

[Raiders]

I can't tell you how many times I wished my phone had sonar.

Especially since pink is seeing The Dark Knight! the That's how new they get red you.

[Duncan]

But what distinguishes its marketing campaign from that of other equally heavily marketed films?

The easy/hard answer is the death of Heath Ledger. Don't get me wrong, I don't think WB exploited it all. It's not really an alley I want to walk down right now, but you can probably anticipate the trail of thought, right? The basic premise is that we all have a death fetish of sorts. Take it from there if you want to.

The second reason is the success of its viral gimmicks. Can you think of another film that generated so much interest in revealing a blurry picture of a character on a website over the course of a week? There were 35 pages to this thread before the movie was even released. I remember Wats had something satirical in his sig about this like "If 1000 people go to their aquariums at 3:00 pm next Sunday the teaser for the new teaser poster will be revealed." This film pulled that sort of trick particularly well.

[Winston*]

There's a bit in 30 Rock where Tina Fey says that Alec Baldwin and Gob should settle their differences by having a talking like this contest. This is Batman's voice.

[Qrazy]

Eh, I don't see iosos as being immature enough to actually make himself hate something.

I'm sure he was just as open to being pleasantly surprised as I would be with something like Inglorious Bastards - I hate Quentin Tarantino's writing and direction, but if it's a good movie, well, I'm not going to lie to myself for some ridiculous sense of self-satisfaction in saying "see, I DID hate it!"

And I doubt iosos did this with The Dark Knight.

It's not really an issue of lying to yourself, rather projecting your opinion and atittude far into the future so that you have a psychologically vested interest in a certain subjective response.

[Melville]

The easy/hard answer is the death of Heath Ledger. Don't get me wrong, I don't think WB exploited it all. It's not really an alley I want to walk down right now, but you can probably anticipate the trail of thought, right? The basic premise is that we all have a death fetish of sorts. Take it from there if you want to.

The second reason is the success of its viral gimmicks. Can you think of another film that generated so much interest in revealing a blurry picture of a character on a website over the course of a week? There were 35 pages to this thread before the movie was even released. I remember Wats had something satirical in his sig about this like "If 1000 people go to their aquariums at 3:00 pm next Sunday the teaser for the new teaser poster will be revealed." This film pulled that sort of trick particularly well.
The viral marketing probably made the movie seem like more of an "event" on the internet, but being an internet event didn't help Snakes on a Plane. Heath Ledger's death also probably helped make the movie seem like an event, but as you point out, that wasn't really part of the marketing campaign. Anyway, I would need a lot more evidence to convince me that the primary reason for the film's popularity lies outside the film itself. It cleverly combined the super-hero trend with the post-9/11 zeitgeist, it pounded its momentousness into the audience throughout its runtime, and it was made with enough skill to sell those elements. Which isn't to say that the hoopla surrounding the film had no impact, but I think it's a distinctly secondary impact.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I'm referring to that among other things. I think what a lot of it comes down to is that I am just very uncomfortable with such unthinking praise. I mean...IMDB's number 1? Is that a joke?

I take issue with Qrazy's use of the phrase "cinema in relation to itself" as the proper way to evaluate a film. Dissecting the film from the audience is impossible to me. One defines the other. Or, if not define then at least contributes a chromosome or two. They're related. For example, teenage boys like Reservoir Dogs for a reason and I cannot watch that film without the sociological knowledge that it is popular within a certain demographic. For the record, I like Reservoir Dogs too. The point is that the audience beyond myself affects how I interact with the film and so it affects the film itself.


Well I find this to be absurd. As I tried to clarify I didn't mean art in isolation, art could and should be evaluated in terms of larger thematics, political trends, etc and so forth. But forming a value judgment of a work based on other demographics who enjoy it strikes me as a case of being both entirely close minded and of top down reasoning. Particularly because the mental construction of these demographics is often absurdly meaningless and people arbitrarily align themselves with one or a few of them because they (for reasons unrelated to film) dislike what they perceive to be the groups general ideals, thoughts, attitude, etc. If you don't like Reservoir Dogs that's perfectly reasonable but not liking it because teenage boys like it is not an adequate response in my opinion... Just as not liking a film because the hipsters like it or not liking a film because the populists like it or not liking a film because the elitists like it... is not an adequate response. Point to the construction of or the ideas in the film which one actually find distasteful, don't throw an over-generalized blanket value judgment over a group of people and set yourself up in opposition to them.

[Qrazy]

And I'm saying a big part of that why is the film's marketing campaign.

I don't see it. A lot of why they went to see it in the first place was the marketing, yes I'll agree with that. Marketing helps sell products but it can't brainwash the public into liking something which everyone dislikes.

[Raiders]

I think the lasting impression of the first one, the lack of any real major competition and the hoopla over Ledger's performance in the wake of his death have at least as much, if not more, to do with the film's success as the marketing, which to me didn't seem any bigger than any other summer blockbuster (especially comic book films).

[Melville]

I think the lasting impression of the first one
Yeah, I think this is mostly responsible for the length of this thread before the new film was released.

[Melville]

Well I find this to be absurd. As I tried to clarify I didn't mean art in isolation, art could and should be evaluated in terms of larger thematics, political trends, etc and so forth. But forming a value judgment of a work based on other demographics who enjoy it strikes me as a case of being both entirely close minded and of top down reasoning. Particularly because the mental construction of these demographics is often absurdly meaningless and people arbitrarily align themselves with one or a few of them because they (for reasons unrelated to film) dislike what they perceive to be the groups general ideals, thoughts, attitude, etc. If you don't like Reservoir Dogs that's perfectly reasonable but not liking it because teenage boys like it is not an adequate response in my opinion... Just as not liking a film because the hipsters like it or not liking a film because the populists like it or not liking a film because the elitists like it... is not an adequate response. Point to the construction of or the ideas in the film which one actually find distasteful, don't throw an over-generalized blanket value judgment over a group of people and set yourself up in opposition to them.
Well said. I agree completely, especially with the quoted clause.


I don't see it. A lot of why they went to see it in the first place was the marketing, yes I'll agree with that. Marketing helps sell products but it can't brainwash the public into liking something which everyone dislikes.
But allow me to momentarily switch sides to agree with Duncan. The marketing doesn't really need to brainwash anybody, it just needs to add to the feeling that the film was an event. People, especially young men, love things to be big and momentous. If the advertising added to the sense of the film's momentousness, then people will end up thinking more highly of their whole viewing experience.

[Qrazy]

Well said. I agree completely, especially with the quoted clause.


But allow me to momentarily switch sides to agree with Duncan. The marketing doesn't really need to brainwash anybody, it just needs to add to the feeling that the film was an event. People, especially young men, love things to be big and momentous. If the advertising added to the sense of the film's momentousness, then people will end up thinking more highly of their whole viewing experience.

Perhaps, but there's so many psychological factors involved in reacting to a film that I just find it difficult to believe that the majority of people going to it are going to get swept along in the hype and the hype alone.

[Duncan]

Wasn't it in IMDB's top 10 before it was even released? Or am I misremembering? And didn't it break midnight screening records? I find it hard to believe marketing wasn't a big reason for both of those phenomenon.

[megladon8]

I think the lasting impression of the first one, the lack of any real major competition and the hoopla over Ledger's performance in the wake of his death have at least as much, if not more, to do with the film's success as the marketing, which to me didn't seem any bigger than any other summer blockbuster (especially comic book films).


Eh...seriously?

You think those hoardes of people dressed like the Joker doing tasks all over the world to gain more information on the film was no more than any other comic book movie?

I'd have to completely disagree.

[Duncan]

Eh...seriously?

You think those hoardes of people dressed like the Joker doing tasks all over the world to gain more information on the film was no more than any other comic book movie?

I'd have to completely disagree.

4 Realz. People were going nuts over this movie.

[Teh Sausage]

I don't really love or hate this film. It was mildly enjoyable for a while but towards the last act I felt apathetic towards everything on the screen. It's very odd...I wasn't expecting this to be my reaction at all. There have been better Batman movies and there has certainly been worse Batman movies, but I don't think I've ever encountered a Batman movie that made me feel so indifferent towards it. It's placement on IMDb's Top 250 is more perplexing to me than ever.

[Raiders]

Eh...seriously?

You think those hoardes of people dressed like the Joker doing tasks all over the world to gain more information on the film was no more than any other comic book movie?

I'd have to completely disagree.

I had never even heard of this until now.

[Winston*]

I remember Wats had something satirical in his sig about this like "If 1000 people go to their aquariums at 3:00 pm next Sunday the teaser for the new teaser poster will be revealed."

This was a Winston* original btw. Thought I should let you know, lest you start giving credit to Watashi for stupid jokes.

[Melville]

Perhaps, but there's so many psychological factors involved in reacting to a film that I just find it difficult to believe that the majority of people going to it are going to get swept along in the hype and the hype alone.
Definitely.


Wasn't it in IMDB's top 10 before it was even released? Or am I misremembering? And didn't it break midnight screening records? I find it hard to believe marketing wasn't a big reason for both of those phenomenon.
The people who gave it 10's on imdb before even seeing it were probably swept along by the hype, but they make up a pretty tiny fraction of people that liked the movie... and I'm sure that even they would have been disappointed by it if it had been mediocre.


Eh...seriously?

You think those hoardes of people dressed like the Joker doing tasks all over the world to gain more information on the film was no more than any other comic book movie?
I think that the fraction of people who decided to see the film based on that kind of marketing was probably fairly small, and the fraction of people who decided the movie was great because of it was even smaller. Though I've been wrong before.

[megladon8]

I had never even heard of this until now.


Did you never enter this thread until just recently?

We followed pretty much all of it. Since last year fans have been working hard uncovering information about the movie.

The trailers were all "revealed" through the work of fans uncovering secret codes and passwords in major cities around the world.

It's the biggest marketing campaign I have ever seen.

[Duncan]

Well I find this to be absurd. As I tried to clarify I didn't mean art in isolation, art could and should be evaluated in terms of larger thematics, political trends, etc and so forth. But forming a value judgment of a work based on other demographics who enjoy it strikes me as a case of being both entirely close minded and of top down reasoning. It would be entirely closed minded if that was the only criteria used to judge a film. What I am saying is that it is one piece of information I have about the film that, in my consciousness of the film, is inextricable from the film itself. My consciousness of Ledger's death is as inextricable from the film itself as the cinematography. I will not (and cannot) arbitrarily construct false borders around what I will and will not allow to affect my judgment of a film. Is this not in fact a more open minded way of approaching a film than you are suggesting?


Particularly because the mental construction of these demographics is often absurdly meaningless and people arbitrarily align themselves with one or a few of them because they (for reasons unrelated to film) dislike what they perceive to be the groups general ideals, thoughts, attitude, etc. If you don't like Reservoir Dogs that's perfectly reasonable but not liking it because teenage boys like it is not an adequate response in my opinion... Agreed, mostly. Often those demographics are absurdly meaningless. But if people identifying themselves as Nazis have a strong tendency to like Triumph of the Will I don't think it is unreasonable to draw some conclusions from that, or at least confirm conclusions reached while watching the film. Completely agree that not liking Reservoir Dogs because teenage boys like it is not nearly enough of an argument. You did read the part of my post where I say that I like Reservoir Dogs though, right?


Point to the construction of or the ideas in the film which one actually find distasteful, don't throw an over-generalized blanket value judgment over a group of people and set yourself up in opposition to them.
I agree with this too. That's why my first post in response to The Dark Knight mentioned nothing about this sort of thing. It mentioned Ledger's performance, poor plotting, bad dialogue, etc.

Perhaps I should restate my position on this film. I originally said it was "alright." I think now I would call it slightly less than alright. Not bad. Not good.

[Melville]

Perhaps I should restate my position on this film. I originally said it was "alright." I think now I would call it slightly less than alright. Not bad. Not good.
I wrote a review consisting entirely of criticisms, but I've been defending the film ever since. I'm not sure if my opinion of it has actually changed.

[Duncan]

The people who gave it 10's on imdb before even seeing it were probably swept along by the hype, but they make up a pretty tiny fraction of people that liked the movie... and I'm sure that even they would have been disappointed by it if it had been mediocre. But doesn't the fact that so many people were willing to make such an absurd gesture of hype fueled faith suggest that many people, including and beyond silly IMDB posters, went into the film setting themselves up to like it? Like Qrazy says here, but the opposite situation as he is suggesting iosos put himself in.

It's not really an issue of lying to yourself, rather projecting your opinion and atittude far into the future so that you have a psychologically vested interest in a certain subjective response.

[Duncan]

I wrote a review consisting entirely of criticisms, but I've been defending the film ever since. I'm not sure if my opinion of it has actually changed.

And you don't have to be sure if it has or hasn't. But I'm pretty sure mine has. Maybe it'll change again tomorrow. I dunno. I'm not really a fan of locking myself into opinions.

[Melville]

But doesn't the fact that so many people were willing to make such an absurd gesture of hype fueled faith suggest that many people, including and beyond silly IMDB posters, went into the film setting themselves up to like it? Like Qrazy says here, but the opposite situation as he is suggesting iosos put himself in.
Maybe, but I think that has more to do with people liking the previous film than it has to do with the marketing campaign. I am absolutely certain that the same marketing campaign would not have resulted in the same fervor for the previous film.

[Melville]

And you don't have to be sure if it has or hasn't. But I'm pretty sure mine has. Maybe it'll change again tomorrow. I dunno. I'm not really a fan of locking myself into opinions.
Oh, I wasn't trying to make any point with that post. Just a tangential observation.

[kamran]

I'm not looking forward to Hallowe'en this year.

[origami_mustache]

I'm not looking forward to Hallowe'en this year.

foooreaaalz

[Duncan]

Maybe, but I think that has more to do with people liking the previous film than it has to do with the marketing campaign. I am absolutely certain that the same marketing campaign would not have resulted in the same fervor for the previous film.

I agree. But I think part of what this marketing campaign did was exploit the good will they had generated with Begins and expand to a much larger scale.

[Melville]

I agree. But I think part of what this marketing campaign did was exploit the good will they had generated with Begins and expand to a much larger scale.
For sure, but I'm not sure how much of an impact that had on people after they had seen the movie. Anyway, I think we need somebody to take this up as a project for a sociology dissertation, or at the very least provide some meaningful collection of statistics, before we can come to a conclusion.

[Izzy Black]

True. But if the worth of its other critical categories is exaggerated because of sociological reasons then I am more likely to focus on those categories being exaggerated. Thus, the film does not change but the relief in which I view its merits does.

I am not sure what you mean by the relief in which you view its merits.


It would be entirely closed minded if that was the only criteria used to judge a film. What I am saying is that it is one piece of information I have about the film that, in my consciousness of the film, is inextricable from the film itself. My consciousness of Ledger's death is as inextricable from the film itself as the cinematography. I will not (and cannot) arbitrarily construct false borders around what I will and will not allow to affect my judgment of a film. Is this not in fact a more open minded way of approaching a film than you are suggesting?

Yes, but this is just a round-a-bout way of saying "this is what I do." The question is to whether or not it is fair or does justice to art.


Agreed, mostly. Often those demographics are absurdly meaningless. But if people identifying themselves as Nazis have a strong tendency to like Triumph of the Will I don't think it is unreasonable to draw some conclusions from that, or at least confirm conclusions reached while watching the film. Completely agree that not liking Reservoir Dogs because teenage boys like it is not nearly enough of an argument. You did read the part of my post where I say that I like Reservoir Dogs though, right?

The Triumph of the Will reference occurs to me as particularly unsound. The film is problematic because it is blatant propaganda, despite its formal ingenuity in service to this theme. This is why the film is in a kind of artistic limbo within the film community. Its artistry is there no doubt, but its greatness is questioned. We would not rank the film alongside Citizen Kane, but we still acknowledge it as an important and significant film in the cannon.

[megladon8]

Why couldn't they have pinned Dent's death and the murder of the cops on the Joker?

Why did Batman have to take the fall?

Was there some plot point I missed that somehow made it impossible for the Joker or his men to have been responsible?

[Duncan]

I am not sure what you mean by the relief in which you view its merits. I just mean what aspects of the film are most pronounced, and which are less pronounced when I consider its merits.


Yes, but this is just a round-a-bout way of saying "this is what I do." The question is to whether or not it is fair or does justice to art. No, it's a round-a-bout (and perhaps exaggerated) way of saying "this is what everyone does." Then the question about fairness is misplaced.


The Triumph of the Will reference occurs to me as particularly unsound. The film is problematic because it is blatant propaganda, despite its formal ingenuity in service to this theme. This is why the film is in a kind of artistic limbo within the film community. Its artistry is there no doubt, but its greatness is questioned. We would not rank the film alongside Citizen Kane, but we still acknowledge it as an important and significant film in the cannon.
I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with propaganda. The film is problematic because of its theme. I've actually only seen about 15 minutes worth of excerpts, but I gather its rah! rah! Hitler. That's why few people would call the film great. However, in Germany during the time of its release it was most certainly considered a great film. Does not this difference in critical stature and the artistic limbo that it lives in today suggest exactly what I have been arguing? That as individuals we judge art within social bounds? It is acceptable for a critic to call Birth of a Nation a great film, despite its racism. It is acceptable for an American critic to call Battleship Potempkin a great film, despite its Communist propaganda. There is a level of taboo in The Triumph of the Will, however, that prevents it from being ranked alongside those two films. The point is that the critical opinion of a film is most definitely informed by a sociological context. Furthermore, and this is the part where I'm sure I'll lose folks, if there is a general consensus about a film among a group of people with some uniform characteristic that differs from the general consensus of another group of people with a different uniform characteristic (eg. male/female), then that is evidence of something within the film itself that should be considered when judging the film. If anything, it proves the film fails a test of universalism, as pretty much every film does but some fail it way worse than others. If The Triumph of the Will fails as an example it is because Nazism is so universally reviled nowadays.

[Ezee E]

Why couldn't they have pinned Dent's death and the murder of the cops on the Joker?

Why did Batman have to take the fall?

Was there some plot point I missed that somehow made it impossible for the Joker or his men to have been responsible?
Exactly. It could have been shown that Dent was killed in the hospital, or even in the building that turns him into Two-Face. The cops didn't know what was going on at the end, except to create a perimeter for SOMETHING.

[Sycophant]

It's an American superhero film that was dangerously close to not having an easy Jesus reading.

[/flippant]

[Qrazy]

It would be entirely closed minded if that was the only criteria used to judge a film. What I am saying is that it is one piece of information I have about the film that, in my consciousness of the film, is inextricable from the film itself. My consciousness of Ledger's death is as inextricable from the film itself as the cinematography. I will not (and cannot) arbitrarily construct false borders around what I will and will not allow to affect my judgment of a film. Is this not in fact a more open minded way of approaching a film than you are suggesting?

Right but my comments are in relation to instances where that criteria seems to be the most pervasive one. So no, it's not more open at all really... for reasons I feel I already made explicit. How is it possibly more open minded to say 'such and such a group' didn't like 'such and such a piece of art' and because I don't like 'such and such a group', I therefore feel I shouldn't or do not like 'such and such a piece of art'. I find this actually happens quite frequently with different groups of people... whether they're forming opinions in relation to elitists, populists, hipsters, or whatever silly faux-demographic they've concocted in their minds.


Agreed, mostly. Often those demographics are absurdly meaningless. But if people identifying themselves as Nazis have a strong tendency to like Triumph of the Will I don't think it is unreasonable to draw some conclusions from that, or at least confirm conclusions reached while watching the film. Completely agree that not liking Reservoir Dogs because teenage boys like it is not nearly enough of an argument. You did read the part of my post where I say that I like Reservoir Dogs though, right?

Well the comment wasn't meant to be addressed to you in relation to the particulars of Reservoir Dogs. But to be clear, I don't feel that 'not liking RD because teenage boys like it' is not enough of a reason, I don't think it's a reason at all. I think it's an entirely superfluous, oppositional and empty way of approaching art of any kind. A film carries with it it's ideology and perhaps the ideology is abhorrent and the film should be condemned. That's reasonable. What I don't find reasonable is the outlook and comments I read from critics and on messageboards directly associating a film with a perceived demographic and then dismissing it because of that association. It's the playground mentality I dislike... Billy likes lollipops, and I don't like Billy, so I don't like lollipops or... this new candy looks a bit like a lollipop and since I don't like Billy or lollipops I don't like this new candy.


I agree with this too. That's why my first post in response to The Dark Knight mentioned nothing about this sort of thing. It mentioned Ledger's performance, poor plotting, bad dialogue, etc.

Perhaps I should restate my position on this film. I originally said it was "alright." I think now I would call it slightly less than alright. Not bad. Not good.

While these comments are valued and noted, your position on the film isn't really what I was concerned with. I'm only concerned with the mentality by which some people (I mentioned some names but they're not even that bad really... I see people on RT and some professional critics do it to a much more alarming rate) form opinions about art in opposition to other perceived collective attitudes. In my opinion this is a misguided and empty approach to formal analysis, and even to value judgment.

[Qrazy]

Why couldn't they have pinned Dent's death and the murder of the cops on the Joker?

Why did Batman have to take the fall?

Was there some plot point I missed that somehow made it impossible for the Joker or his men to have been responsible?

The thing is that people saw Batman beating the crap out of a Swat team so it's an easy lie to swallow. More importantly however it's an issue of morality. These aren't the kind of people to pin crimes on the Joker which he did not commit. If Batman hadn't volunteered to take the fall Gordon wouldn't have suggested it and they would have been screwed.

[megladon8]

I know you were joking, Syc, but that reminds me of one of my pet peeves.

Name dropping Jesus (or what I call, "Jesus dropping") in analyses of every tragic hero story is really lame. There were stories like this told before this period. It's an archetypal story and doesn't always need to be interpreted as a re-telling of the Gospels.

[Qrazy]

I know you were joking, Syc, but that reminds me of one of my pet peeves.

Name dropping Jesus (or what I call, "Jesus dropping") in analyses of every tragic hero story is really lame. There were stories like this told before this period. It's an archetypal story and doesn't always need to be interpreted as a re-telling of the Gospels.

What's more lame is lame directors laming up their films with crappy Jesus allusions... I'm looking at you Matrix trilogy, Omega Man and countless others.

[Sycophant]

I was being flippant, not exactly joking.

[Izzy Black]

I just mean what aspects of the film are most pronounced, and which are less pronounced when I consider its merits.

I see - thus, you might say, social forces that receive a film can become more pronounced in shaping the value of the the film's meaning than its intended function, its comparative worth next to other films of his genre, its formal qualities, the depth of its thematic content, its entertainment value, and its sociopolitical or cultural relevance.


No, it's a round-a-bout (and perhaps exaggerated) way of saying "this is what everyone does." Then the question about fairness is misplaced.

I think you misunderstood me, or I did not articulate my point clearly. Yes, everyone carries with them the social realities that contextually shape a film when they walk into the cinema, but this does not mean they factor social reception into its value, or that they are subconsciously unaware of these factors. I certainly endeavor not to, despite whether or not I am successful. I make the conscious effort not to factor public opinion in my appreciation of a film, whereas you do. Hence, you are merely describing what you do when you go about assessing the quality of a film - that much has been established. The question, again, is whether or not it should be a significant factor in our value judgments.


I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with propaganda. The film is problematic because of its theme. I've actually only seen about 15 minutes worth of excerpts, but I gather its rah! rah! Hitler.

If there is nothing else to be had on a thematic level other than a film's propaganda, then typically it will negatively affect the general appraisal of the work. Propaganda usually entails shallow and superficial methods to articulate a point. This is the equivalent of an intellectually bunk film. We typically tend not to hold such works in high esteem. It is not an essential or inherent a priori truth, but a general linguistic rule of thumb. Thus, it is not particularly the theme that has affected critical appreciation of the film, that is, Nazism, but rather the film's intended function - propaganda.


That's why few people would call the film great. However, in Germany during the time of its release it was most certainly considered a great film.

We would have to look to sources and references on this. A film that is able to move the masses is not the same as being considered a great work of art. That is not to say it was not considered a great work of art then, as it could have been, I do not have the resources to contest it, but as I understand it, those in intellectual circles were aware the film had only one functional property of propaganda. Its property was not to serve the same function we might attribute to a Wagner opera or a Doestoevsky novel.


Does not this difference in critical stature and the artistic limbo that it lives in today suggest exactly what I have been arguing? That as individuals we judge art within social bounds? It is acceptable for a critic to call Birth of a Nation a great film, despite its racism. It is acceptable for an American critic to call Battleship Potempkin a great film, despite its Communist propaganda. There is a level of taboo in The Triumph of the Will, however, that prevents it from being ranked alongside those two films.

Not quite. It is true art is defined by sociocultural bindings and linguistic practices, but that does not exactly seem to be your argument here. Your argument appears more particular than that. We are doing more than discussing generals here. There are many social factors that go into shaping the worth and value of a film, but it is not done without critical rigor, analysis, meta-analysis, and constant working through the kinks and theories of our conception of meaning and value. We do not simply call Battleship Potemkin a great film due to some abstract appeal to random influx of sociocultural forces. The value of the works of Sergei Eisenstein are critically analyzed within a particular framework of cultural analysis and practice. We take into consideration his intentions, his life and work, his philosophy, and his social milieu as an artist. The arguments we make for the artistic status of Battleship Potemkin and Birth of a Nation are precisely the normative aspects we analyze and structure as meaningful or not meaningful. The reason the consensus has decided that these two films may or not be artistically superior to Triumph of the Will is due to specific critical arguments and outlines, but these films are still hindered by their propagandistic misgivings, and discussion of these problems are ubiquitous and the norm to which to challenge when analyzing these films. Thus, I am not sure the distinction here is so notable.


The point is that the critical opinion of a film is most definitely informed by a sociological context.

Again, we need to move beyond discussing the general to discussing the particular. This is little more than a truism. It is a given sociological forces and contexts define our understanding and appraisal of works of art, but appealing to the general as a mere basis to form one's opinion on any dubious social factor one chooses lacks the critical argumentation we employ to set the categories, distinctions, and differences that demarcate between which social forces are relevant and not relevant in comprising our norms. Your position is well-established at this point, but I have not seen a convincing argument as to why consensual popularity should be considered in the appraisal of an artworks given worth and value.


Furthermore, and this is the part where I'm sure I'll lose folks, if there is a general consensus about a film among a group of people with some uniform characteristic that differs from the general consensus of another group of people with a different uniform characteristic (eg. male/female), then that is evidence of something within the film itself that should be considered when judging the film. If anything, it proves the film fails a test of universalism, as pretty much every film does but some fail it way worse than others.

Of course there are competing critical camps consisting of different linguistic practices, cultural values, critical norms, and language-games - to borrow from Wittgenstein. Yet, that says nothing of a given argument or theory's inherent value within a society. Moreover, dissenting voices in a society do not necessarily dislodge a film from a universal consensus. The fact that you disagree that a particular film might be great does not necessarily entail that your dissent is privileged. No - people disagree all the time, but collective communities that form a consensus require for dissenting voices to make an argument to the community in order to dislodge or affect a particular consensus. This means we cannot just say whatever we want, but that there are certain rules we have to follow in order to make a convincing argument.


If The Triumph of the Will fails as an example it is because Nazism is so universally reviled nowadays.

This strikes me as a counterfactual. Simply because Triumph of the Will fails as an example of universalism, it does not de facto entail that this is due to the public opinion of Nazism, although the public opinion of Nazism is a factor certainly worth acknowledging. It could be for the very reason that people are aware of its blatant propaganda function as employed by the Nazi movement in Germany that we do not value the film highly - that is, we know about the film's contextual circumstances and that propaganda was a counter intellectual tool used by the Nazi movement, which is why propaganda in contemporary society is perceived and conceived of negatively. You might say that it is due to Nazism that we do not value the film, but it is because Nazism has informed our critical categories on the actual depth and meaning of the artwork that was falsely understood before. It is not an ex-post facto appraisal, which also would assume it was valued as a great work of art in the first place, but critical norms revealing the superficial and disingenuous conditions by which the work was created and conceived. A work of this kind, purely from an intentionalist standpoint, devalues meaning. This is not simply due to some vague, broad association to Nazism, as you would seem to imply, but rather the same standards by which we appraise all works of art. The worth of an artwork can fall out of praise if a critical exposé reveals dubious superficial intentions on the behalf of the filmmakers, but not necessarily so. We have to take into consideration other factors, as we do with Riefenstahl and Eisenstein. We also have competing critical norms, as you note above, which keeps particular artworks within the discussion, but there are some general rules of thumb to be had.

[DavidSeven]

Why couldn't they have pinned Dent's death and the murder of the cops on the Joker?

Why did Batman have to take the fall?

Was there some plot point I missed that somehow made it impossible for the Joker or his men to have been responsible?

I'm pretty sure Gordon and Batman spent the majority of this film and the last crusading against this type of unethical behavior.

[Qrazy]

So yeah I was finally able to see the film and very much enjoyed it. I haven't read the major criticisms and debates so as not to spoil myself too drastically... but my couple minor quibbles...

1. Ease off on the score somewhat.
2. Limit extraneous dialogue from extras or get better actors. A drama is only as strong as it's weakest links and that means extras have to be good actors. Some of the close-up crowd shots and extras dialogue 'no more dead cops!' were just not up to snuff. It wasn't awful and it served the thematic purpose of making the stakes and the city seem larger than a mere drawn out chess game between the principals... but ultimately much of the extras dialogue was superfluous.
3. Hold some of the more potent shots a few more seconds. I know they wanted to keep the pace clipping in an already lengthy film but I want to feel like I can live in this world and temporal/spatial longevity helps that.

[Lurker]

We followed pretty much all of it. Since last year fans have been working hard uncovering information about the movie.

The trailers were all "revealed" through the work of fans uncovering secret codes and passwords in major cities around the world.

It's the biggest marketing campaign I have ever seen.

I don't think the average movie goer knew about any of this, the viral marketing was tailor made for the geek crowd - and I very much doubt they make the bulk of TDK's audience. The marketing is otherwise as big as your average summer blockbuster, nothing more and nothing less.

If anything, it was the hyperbolic early reviews that contributed to the hype, considering how many of them namedropped 'Godfather part II', 'Empire Strikes Back' and used the word 'masterpiece.'

[Morris Schæffer]

Why couldn't they have pinned Dent's death and the murder of the cops on the Joker?

Why did Batman have to take the fall?

Was there some plot point I missed that somehow made it impossible for the Joker or his men to have been responsible?

Perhaps not pinning it on Batman would really have ensured they had no interesting jumping off point for the eventual sequel. At least now, you've got a semi-interesting situation where Batman is being hunted. A true outcast. Had they pinned it on the joker I suppose it simply wouldn't have had the weight that it does now. And with Ledger gone, it would have been a decision that, speaking strictly in screewriting terms, would have lead nowhere interesting.

Also, I still have no idea what to rate this. ***½ for sure, but should I go with a ****? I'll see it again however.

[Duncan]

Qrazy and Israfel, weekend's over and I no longer have the time or will to continue so I'll consider your guy's posts the last word on the matter.

[megladon8]

I don't think the average movie goer knew about any of this, the viral marketing was tailor made for the geek crowd - and I very much doubt they make the bulk of TDK's audience. The marketing is otherwise as big as your average summer blockbuster, nothing more and nothing less.

If anything, it was the hyperbolic early reviews that contributed to the hype, considering how many of them namedropped 'Godfather part II', 'Empire Strikes Back' and used the word 'masterpiece.'


Well, it's sad to say, but Heath Ledger's death became just as much of the marketing campaign for the movie as anything else.

I bet that sold tons of tickets right there.

But no, I think we serious movie-goers underestimate the general public sometime. It's not like we're the only ones who use the internet.

Anyone with a modem and a monitor has been bombarded with The Dark Knight for quite a while now, especially on sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which are visited quite frequently by more casual movie-goers as well.

[Melville]

Does not this difference in critical stature and the artistic limbo that it lives in today suggest exactly what I have been arguing? That as individuals we judge art within social bounds?
I think that's very different from what you've been arguing. Of course we judge art within social bounds: our aesthetics, our morality, and even the linguistic structures and broad abstract notions that we use in forming judgements are all informed by our social context. But that isn't the same thing as judging a movie based on what others think of it. When we think lowly of Triumph of the Will, that response is obviously informed by our low opinions of Nazi ethics, but it's a response to something actually in the film. We would think it was a simplistic ode to a racist, fascist madman even if no Nazi had ever seen it.


Furthermore, and this is the part where I'm sure I'll lose folks, if there is a general consensus about a film among a group of people with some uniform characteristic that differs from the general consensus of another group of people with a different uniform characteristic (eg. male/female), then that is evidence of something within the film itself that should be considered when judging the film.
I made the same point a few posts ago, so obviously I agree with this. But, again, this wasn't what you were arguing with regards to The Dark Knight.

[Melville]

But no, I think we serious movie-goers underestimate the general public sometime.

I think the box office of Snakes on a Plane suggests otherwise. Most people were not even aware of the fact that the movie was tongue in cheek.

[Duncan]

When we think lowly of Triumph of the Will, that response is obviously informed by our low opinions of Nazi ethics, but it's a response to something actually in the film. We would think it was a simplistic ode to a racist, fascist madman even if no Nazi had ever seen it.
Then isn't a particular demographic's liking or disliking of a film also a response to something in the film, and shouldn't I be able to examine that like or dislike as it relates to my own judgment of the film?



I made the same point a few posts ago, so obviously I agree with this. But, again, this wasn't what you were arguing with regards to The Dark Knight.

Here's my thought process on The Dark Knight as I thought I described it.

- Haven't seen it yet, but there seems to be good word of mouth so far. People are really excited about it.
- See it, think it's alright.
- Read reviews, comments, etc. that I had avoided before. Think, wow, people are going a bit nuts over this thing. Exaggerating profundity, I said. I'm a little uncomfortable with how far this has gone.
- So I think, maybe I should take a closer look at this thing. Does it deserve this praise? And then the change in relief I mentioned comes about.
- As I think of it now I remember Ledger's great performance, a few interesting shots (all of Ledger), and I remember a whole lot of flaws. These are the things that stand out to me. In my memory, they are in high relief while the rest of the film is flat and not so important to me.
- And the conclusion I come to is, no, it doesn't deserve this praise. In a year it will be remembered as a very good comic book movie. In 5 years not a lot of people will talk about it. If it persists in the cinephilic memory it will be for one man's performance, not for much more.
- Then I got into a really long conversation that I said I wasn't going to continue, but I did anyway with this post.

[Duncan]

I hate to keep using the word "demographic" because I agree that it is often useless. I just can't think of a better one for now.

[Duncan]

Also, I guess I just need to emphasize it one more time because this seems to be Qrazy's main complaint...my argument is not such and such a group likes something, therefore I do not like it. My argument is such and such a group likes something. Why? What in the film appeals to them? Is their opinion revealing of something I have overlooked, or was not paying enough attention to? I therefore begin to approach the film from a new perspective, one that is wider than my original one, imo. The old perspective is not dismissed, but it is compounded with the new one like an insect's eye perhaps. The overall appreciation of the film changes. That's how I think my memory and decision making based on memory work in vague, metaphorical terms. edit: And maybe I should add that that's how I think everyone's memory works, assuming my consciousness isn't freakishly weird. Though insect metaphors may suggest otherwise...whatever. done. promise.

[origami_mustache]

truck scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sd0oo-fing&feature=related

hospital scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjurxVx7nKc&feature=related

[Melville]

Then isn't a particular demographic's liking or disliking of a film also a response to something in the film, and shouldn't I be able to examine that like or dislike as it relates to my own judgment of the film?
Sure. That's what I said earlier:

On the other hand, understanding what different people respond to in a film can also yield new knowledge about the film itself, which could change my opinion of it.




Also, I guess I just need to emphasize it one more time because this seems to be Qrazy's main complaint...my argument is not such and such a group likes something, therefore I do not like it. My argument is such and such a group likes something. Why? What in the film appeals to them? Is their opinion revealing of something I have overlooked, or was not paying enough attention to? I therefore begin to approach the film from a new perspective, one that is wider than my original one, imo. The old perspective is not dismissed, but it is compounded with the new one like an insect's eye perhaps. The overall appreciation of the film changes.
That all makes sense to me, but what I've been arguing against is this:

I think what a lot of it comes down to is that I am just very uncomfortable with such unthinking praise. I mean...IMDB's number 1? Is that a joke?

Creating a marketing campaign and film serviceable enough to draw hundreds of millions of dollars seems natural to me. Overwhelming submission to that campaign makes me recoil.
That is a very general judgement of a large number people that I think is unwarranted, and it has nothing to do with the film itself.

As I said earlier, the film's politics are worrisome to me, but I didn't think they were really important enough to affect my opinion of the film; however, if I had some reason to believe that people generally like the movie largely because of its politics, then I might start to think that those politics are more important than I had previously thought, and hence I'll lower my opinion of the film. That seems like a reasonable incorporation of others' responses into my appraisal. But your thought process seems more like the following: other people like the movie more than you do, therefore (1) they were overly swayed by marketing, and (2) the movie wasn't even as good as you had originally given it credit for. I don't think that incorporates your knowledge of others' reactions into your own reaction in a reasonable way.

[Izzy Black]

Qrazy and Israfel, weekend's over and I no longer have the time or will to continue so I'll consider your guy's posts the last word on the matter.

The numbers are stacked against you here, so I am sympathetic, although it is a discussion I hope we can revisit on some other terms.

[Qrazy]

- And the conclusion I come to is, no, it doesn't deserve this praise. In a year it will be remembered as a very good comic book movie. In 5 years not a lot of people will talk about it. If it persists in the cinephilic memory it will be for one man's performance, not for much more.

Your other points are reasonable but this I don't agree with at all. Yeah, you didn't like it that much but that's not a legit reason to claim it will be forgotten and/or to pin it's popularity on hype. I still remember Spider-man and X-men and I prefer this to both... furthermore films that are raking in the kind of cash this one is are rarely immediately forgotten... which may not be a statement on later critical revision but is certainly a statement on general public consciousness.

[Qrazy]

Also, I guess I just need to emphasize it one more time because this seems to be Qrazy's main complaint...my argument is not such and such a group likes something, therefore I do not like it. My argument is such and such a group likes something. Why? What in the film appeals to them? Is their opinion revealing of something I have overlooked, or was not paying enough attention to? I therefore begin to approach the film from a new perspective, one that is wider than my original one, imo. The old perspective is not dismissed, but it is compounded with the new one like an insect's eye perhaps. The overall appreciation of the film changes. That's how I think my memory and decision making based on memory work in vague, metaphorical terms. edit: And maybe I should add that that's how I think everyone's memory works, assuming my consciousness isn't freakishly weird. Though insect metaphors may suggest otherwise...whatever. done. promise.

Alright but I view that as more of a 'the majority liked something what did I miss if anything' which is something we all do from time to time either with new releases or more often when we're moving down a list of classic films... what I'm arguing against (and I doubt you take part in it) is rather the pidgeonholing of the taste of an imagined group of people and then responding with an oppositional stance towards that taste.

[Duncan]

That all makes sense to me, but what I've been arguing against is this:

That is a very general judgement of a large number people that I think is unwarranted, and it has nothing to do with the film itself.

As I said earlier, the film's politics are worrisome to me, but I didn't think they were really important enough to affect my opinion of the film; however, if I had some reason to believe that people generally like the movie largely because of its politics, then I might start to think that those politics are more important than I had previously thought, and hence I'll lower my opinion of the film. That seems like a reasonable incorporation of others' responses into my appraisal. But your thought process seems more like the following: other people like the movie more than you do, therefore (1) they were overly swayed by marketing, and (2) the movie wasn't even as good as you had originally given it credit for. I don't think that incorporates your knowledge of others' reactions into your own reaction in a reasonable way. But there are other factors I considered before making the transition to the therefores. It's hard to quanitify such a thing, but I am quite convinced opinions on this film will be much tempered within a year. How could they not be? And if they are overinflated now, then why? My primary answers are hype, Ledger's death, and a general want people have to be a part of something big and enjoy that shared experience. There are other reasons, of course, but I choose those as the big 3 for reasons I have already at least made an attempt to explain.


The numbers are stacked against you here, so I am sympathetic, although it is a discussion I hope we can revisit on some other terms.
Yeah, your posts are always interesting and challenging. I enjoy discussing things with you.


Your other points are reasonable but this I don't agree with at all. Yeah, you didn't like it that much but that's not a legit reason to claim it will be forgotten and/or to pin it's popularity on hype. I still remember Spider-man and X-men and I prefer this to both... furthermore films that are raking in the kind of cash this one is are rarely immediately forgotten... which may not be a statement on later critical revision but is certainly a statement on general public consciousness. I've tried to give reasons why I think this film is riding a lot of hype. 35 pages of thread before release date, making the top 250 before release, Ledger's death, people running around in Joker outfits, record breaking Thursday midnight screening, etc. Personally, I believe that is enough evidence to suggest that a lot of this film's popularity is based on hype. It helps, of course, that the film delivers on much of that hype. I don't deny that.

I mean that it will be forgotten in serious film circles. Who seriously discusses LOTR anymore? Or Titanic? A few, sure, but not many. I don't consider either of those bad films either, though it has been ages since I saw Titanic.


Alright but I view that as more of a 'the majority liked something what did I miss if anything' which is something we all do from time to time either with new releases or more often when we're moving down a list of classic films... what I'm arguing against (and I doubt you take part in it) is rather the pidgeonholing of the taste of an imagined group of people and then responding with an oppositional stance towards that taste.

And I agree with this.

[Qrazy]

I mean that it will be forgotten in serious film circles. Who seriously discusses LOTR anymore?

Me.

[Duncan]

Me.

Nuh uh you don't.

[Watashi]

Tons of people still discuss LOTR and they will for the next 50 years.

[Duncan]

I am soooo not getting into this. I was wrong I was wrong I was wrong.

[Qrazy]

Nuh uh you don't.

Also from time to time I enjoy discussing the guy that died by hitting the propeller in Titanic. Good times.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think Titanic gets as much discussion as just about any movie from eleven years ago.

God, was it really eleven years ago?

[Melville]

But there are other factors I considered before making the transition to the therefores.
You're right: you did give reasons for thinking that the film's popularity is based on hype (although I and others have given counterarguments). But you haven't given a reason for why that is pertinent in appraising the film's quality. It seems like you're focusing on negative aspects of the film in response to a distaste for people being generally swept up by hype. But even if the majority of the praise for the film is due to the hype, what new information is revealed about the film itself?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your last few posts. If you're saying that the film as a social phenomenon cannot be disentangled from the film as a work of art, then I can see where you're coming from (though I disagree about the nature of the social phenomenon). But your last few posts suggest that you're saying that the film as a social phenomenon reveals something about the film as a work of art, which then affects you're appraisal of it; if that's the case, then I'm not sure what you're saying is revealed about the film as a work of art.

[Morris Schæffer]

I think Titanic gets as much discussion as just about any movie from eleven years ago.

God, was it really eleven years ago?

:) Seems unfathomable eh? Not only that Cameron hasn't done dick (well, apart from docs) in the intervening years, but just the fact that it has been eleven years! ELEVEN!!

[Duncan]

You're right: you did give reasons for thinking that the film's popularity is based on hype (although I and others have given counterarguments). But you haven't given a reason for why that is pertinent in appraising the film's quality. It seems like you're focusing on negative aspects of the film in response to a distaste for people being generally swept up by hype. But even if the majority of the praise for the film is due to the hype, what new information is revealed about the film itself? New information is not revealed. What information I prioritize, however, has changed. Therefore the way I remember the film has changed. Therefore the film has changed. And so new information is revealed. The last couple might require some faith without me going into a lot more explanation. I think I may have just made things more confusing.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding your last few posts. If you're saying that the film as a social phenomenon cannot be disentangled from the film as a work of art, then I can see where you're coming from (though I disagree about the nature of the social phenomenon). I am saying this, but I don't know if it's the main point I've been trying to make.


But your last few posts suggest that you're saying that the film as a social phenomenon reveals something about the film as a work of art, which then affects you're appraisal of it; if that's the case, then I'm not sure what you're saying is revealed about the film as a work of art.I think it's more that the film as social phenomenon reveals something of my appraisal of the film as art, which in turn reveals something about the film as art. I guess you don't buy that last part?

[Duncan]

I see - thus, you might say, social forces that receive a film can become more pronounced in shaping the value of the the film's meaning than its intended function, its comparative worth next to other films of his genre, its formal qualities, the depth of its thematic content, its entertainment value, and its sociopolitical or cultural relevance. Yes.




I think you misunderstood me, or I did not articulate my point clearly. Yes, everyone carries with them the social realities that contextually shape a film when they walk into the cinema, but this does not mean they factor social reception into its value, or that they are subconsciously unaware of these factors. I certainly endeavor not to, despite whether or not I am successful. I make the conscious effort not to factor public opinion in my appreciation of a film, whereas you do. Hence, you are merely describing what you do when you go about assessing the quality of a film - that much has been established. The question, again, is whether or not it should be a significant factor in our value judgments.
Actually, as convoluted as this has all become, I think what I've spent the last 10 posts here trying to say is something very similar to what you advocate here. I am making the conscious effort not to factor public opinion in my appreciation of the film...by factoring in that public opinion...Is your mind as blown as mine is? I'm considering the hype and thinking that maybe subconsciously I succumbed to it a little. Maybe I was a little lenient. And I think, yeah, I was a little lenient. It's a little worse than I originally thought it was. Just a little.

If there is nothing else to be had on a thematic level other than a film's propaganda, then typically it will negatively affect the general appraisal of the work.
.
.
.
We have to take into consideration other factors, as we do with Riefenstahl and Eisenstein. We also have competing critical norms, as you note above, which keeps particular artworks within the discussion, but there are some general rules of thumb to be had.
As for all this stuff, I mostly agree. I think if Triumph of the Will was about, say, Churchill then we would be much more likely to embrace it. That seems kind of self evident. Like I said, I haven't seen the whole thing, so I can't really judge it. I know I find some of Eisenstein's work formally brilliant and to me that is enough to rank Strike! up there with the very best despite the occassional baby tossing. Talk about philosophizing with a hammer...All I'm saying is that Triumph of the Will has more to overcome.

Random fact: My Dad has two books of photography by Riefenstahl on a couple of African tribes. They're quite spectacular. I'm not sure what to make of them when I flip through them, considering her past.

[Melville]

New information is not revealed. What information I prioritize, however, has changed. Therefore the way I remember the film has changed. Therefore the film has changed. And so new information is revealed. The last couple might require some faith without me going into a lot more explanation.
That all makes sense, but as Israfel said, the question is whether or not the reprioritization is justified.


I think it's more that the film as social phenomenon reveals something of my appraisal of the film as art, which in turn reveals something about the film as art. I guess you don't buy that last part?
I buy it now, after having read this:

I'm considering the hype and thinking that maybe subconsciously I succumbed to it a little. Maybe I was a little lenient. And I think, yeah, I was a little lenient. It's a little worse than I originally thought it was. Just a little.
That clears things up a lot. Maybe I was just thrown off by you calling everybody a Nazi and accusing the North American populace of submitting en masse to a marketing campaign.

[Sven]

... but as Israfel said, the question is whether or not the reprioritization is justified.

I don't see how it couldn't be, unless one was consulting a rubric in gauging a work's artistic merit. It all rolls back to the problematic approach to art as a hermetic unit, I think. At least, nothing that's been said has suggested otherwise. I cannot see how one can divorce one's self from hype or public opinion, and I also cannot see how one can divorce one's self from responding emotionally or mentally to a movie (or trying to gauge it entirely as itself, without the aid of the viewer's knowledge and personality). To me the justification is inherent.

By the way, insanely interesting conversation happening.

[Izzy Black]

Yes.

That is unfortunate.


Actually, as convoluted as this has all become, I think what I've spent the last 10 posts here trying to say is something very similar to what you advocate here. I am making the conscious effort not to factor public opinion in my appreciation of the film...by factoring in that public opinion...Is your mind as blown as mine is? I'm considering the hype and thinking that maybe subconsciously I succumbed to it a little. Maybe I was a little lenient. And I think, yeah, I was a little lenient. It's a little worse than I originally thought it was. Just a little.

The reason I have trouble relating to your position is because you put too much stock in psychological assumptions. It is engaging in a form of metaphysics in my opinion. We cannot know precisely how much we factor in the influence of public opinion in our value judgments on a latent or subconscious level, but that should not change our normative values. In the same sense (I am about to go off into the deep-end here), I am not sure if Locke was more right that we are a blank slate at birth, or Rousseau that we are inherently good and corrupted by society, or Hobbes that we are inherently evil and need society, but none of these free will/deterministic concerns affect my devotion to the morally good. I am abhorred by dualistic ways of thinking that vie for normative relativism due to speculations on good's interdependence on evil, or life on death, happiness on suffering, and so on. Even with my considerable forays into psychological theory and philosophical metaphysics, I do not find these issues particularly integral to making sense of my life, or knowing what I ought to do. I am not concerned with these dichotomies or unempirical matters, and especially not until science gives me something substantial and solid to consider.

So, sure, I may factor in public perceptions of a film when I go and watch a film, but I still make a conscious effort to judge a film on its own terms. We try to be objective in our value judgments no matter how limited we might be due to subjective forces. We try to be morally good in our choices despite how limited we might be due to psychological forces. We do not necessarily change our goals, values, and normative rules simply because there could be unknowable forces at play.


As for all this stuff, I mostly agree. I think if Triumph of the Will was about, say, Churchill then we would be much more likely to embrace it. That seems kind of self evident. Like I said, I haven't seen the whole thing, so I can't really judge it. I know I find some of Eisenstein's work formally brilliant and to me that is enough to rank Strike! up there with the very best despite the occassional baby tossing. Talk about philosophizing with a hammer...All I'm saying is that Triumph of the Will has more to overcome.

I do not think you give our critical attitudes enough credit. Riefenstahl's film is far more valued than Frank Capra's propaganda films, despite the fact that Capra has directed American classics elsewhere, that he dealt with a nationalist theme, and that he tried to do some interesting things cinematically. We consider the films noteworthy, but we still look at them as blatant propaganda. Yet with Riefenstahl and Eisenstein, we cannot deny the clear artistry at play when they crafted these pieces. This is why their films have been canonized as such. I do not think we toss it aside because we despise Nazism. In fact, it might even be because of the content that we value the film as much as we do. We cannot really separate form from content. The fact that Riefenstahl was able to so successfully evoke emotion and canvass for something so intellectually dubious as totalitarianism says a great deal about her artistry. Yet, we cannot change the fact that her methods are disingenuous. Additionally, the fact that we might mark a film for its unethical content is not a critical vice. We do this with all types of cinema - so again - I do not think the mention of Triumph of the Will holds on that level.

[Qrazy]

The reason I have trouble relating to your position is because you put too much stock in psychological assumptions. It is engaging in a form of metaphysics in my opinion. We cannot know precisely how much we factor in the influence of public opinion in our value judgments on a latent or subconscious level, but that should not change our normative values.

I'd say even more so it's an issue of subtly and mistakenly crossing the Humean is/ought boundary. The general argument seems to be... since we can be (they say necessarily will be) affected by the opinions around us we must therefore (in order to have a balanced and genuine belief) first be aware of (somehow most if not all of these opinions?) acknowledge and then either embrace or reject them i.e. essentially that we can only form opinions in relation to other peoples opinions. Now as to which opinions ought to be accepted or rejected is an entirely different and more complicated issue but given that I find the initial premise faulty the latter question is of no great concern to me.

[Izzy Black]

I'd say even more so it's an issue of subtly and mistakenly crossing the Humean is/ought boundary. The general argument seems to be... since we can be (they say necessarily will be) affected by the opinions around us we must therefore (in order to have a balanced and genuine belief) first be aware of (somehow most if not all of these opinions?) acknowledge and then either embrace or reject them i.e. essentially that we can only form opinions in relation to other peoples opinions. Now as to which opinions ought to be accepted or rejected is an entirely different and more complicated issue but given that I find the initial premise faulty the latter question is of no great concern to me.

Yes, this is what I am getting at.

[megladon8]

I try to be as honest as possible with movies.

I didn't lie about disliking The Jerk because I knew it was considered a comedy classic.

For years I thought Seven Samurai was an overbloated, overrated and very boring movie.

I like what I like, I dislike what I dislike.

Do others' opinions sometimes influence me? On the first viewing, maybe. But after much thought and possible re-viewing, I always formulate my own opinion.

I didn't love The Dark Knight because lots of other people do. I love it because it's one of the best American crime films in years.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm reading other things on other forums. Could someone please answer me this.

Is Harvey Dent/Two Face dead?

[megladon8]

I'm reading other things on other forums. Could someone please answer me this.

Is Harvey Dent/Two Face dead?


We don't know.

[Qrazy]

Yes, this is what I am getting at.

Yeah I tried to edit ...or perhaps that was what you insinuating with your comment concerning metaphysics... this into my above post but for some reason MC wasn't allowing me to.

[Qrazy]

I'm reading other things on other forums. Could someone please answer me this.

Is Harvey Dent/Two Face dead?

I hope not because he'd make a good third film villian and that death scene was poor.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah I tried to edit ...or perhaps that was what you insinuating with your comment concerning metaphysics... this into my above post but for some reason MC wasn't allowing me to.

*shudders at familiar thoughts of RT*

[Duncan]

That is unfortunate. In reference to my saying yes to this,

"I see - thus, you might say, social forces that receive a film can become more pronounced in shaping the value of the the film's meaning than its intended function, its comparative worth next to other films of his genre, its formal qualities, the depth of its thematic content, its entertainment value, and its sociopolitical or cultural relevance."

I don't see why that's unfortunate. I don't believe this has happened with The Dark Knight. I understand why people like the film. It has formal qualities of value. However, rather than social forces becoming "more pronounced" than those other forces, I would say that social forces have played a role alongside those other forces in shaping this film's value. And in an extreme case, say in a fascist or highly propagandistic society, then the social forces can be stronger than any formal analysis one may implement. Perhaps an individual may see through those social forces, but I think there have been cases in history when the critical consensus has been manipulated to the point where formal considerations are abandoned, ie. the normative values have changed. Or, in a censored society, a film's formal qualities, entertainment value, and thematic depth may not matter at all because government powers have decided the film's worth for the individual already. This is the most extreme case of the premise above, but its extremity does not rule it invalid as proof by example, which I consider it to be. You will almost certainly disagree.




The reason I have trouble relating to your position is because you put too much stock in psychological assumptions. It is engaging in a form of metaphysics in my opinion. We cannot know precisely how much we factor in the influence of public opinion in our value judgments on a latent or subconscious level, but that should not change our normative values.

In this particular example the normative values have not changed. I have tried to explain this repeatedly, in one form or another. In the terms of the discussion's current state the argument goes something like this:
- I apply my normative values to The Dark Knight.
- Upon reading reviews yada yada yada, I develop the impression that there is an overall lack of critical stringency regarding this film.
- This begs the question, am I also guilty of this?
- The question is not answered by an arbitrary "Yes, I was 4 hype units too lenient. Therefore I will lower my opinion of the film by 2.5 stars"
- The question is answered by more strictly applying my normative, critical faculties to the film. By analyzing the film's "intended function, its comparative worth next to other films of his genre, its formal qualities, the depth of its thematic content, its entertainment value, and its sociopolitical or cultural relevance."
- The answer I get is that the film is more flawed than originally thought. The film isn't what it "ought" to be, which I feel a bit slimy saying.
- Furthermore, and maybe this is the part that bothers people, it is the positive aspects of the film that change. The film is different than when I walked out of the movie theatre. The film itself is different. I don't think this can be reduced to mere "subjectivity." Just as I am convinced that five years from now both the normative and positive will have changed. What a film ought to be will be different. And as people change, The Dark Knight itself will change.

If I applied this same close reading of the film and found that it was actually more worthwhile, would we be having this discussion? A great film should be able to not only withstand a closer reading, but reward the reader with greater depth of understanding. It should spill forth ideas that may not initially have been grasped or even recognized as existing. This film does none of that. It does the opposite. Therefore, my appreciation is lowered.



I am abhorred by dualistic ways of thinking that vie for normative relativism due to speculations on good's interdependence on evil, or life on death, happiness on suffering, and so on. Even with my considerable forays into psychological theory and philosophical metaphysics, I do not find these issues particularly integral to making sense of my life, or knowing what I ought to do. I am not concerned with these dichotomies or unempirical matters, and especially not until science gives me something substantial and solid to consider. I honestly don't follow this. I don't know why you're talking about Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes. Did I bring up a dualistic way of thinking like you describe? If I did it was accidental wording and I don't subscribe to it. Although I also don't subscribe to any moral absolutism, which I hope you're not suggesting. I doubt you are.


So, sure, I may factor in public perceptions of a film when I go and watch a film, but I still make a conscious effort to judge a film on its own terms. We try to be objective in our value judgments no matter how limited we might be due to subjective forces. We try to be morally good in our choices despite how limited we might be due to psychological forces. We do not necessarily change our goals, values, and normative rules simply because there could be unknowable forces at play.
Sure, I agree. But there have been times in my life when after making a "good" choice I have later decided that I made a "bad" choice upon further thought. Again, the normative values aren't changing. It is the situation that has changed as I perceive it. Just as it is The Dark Knight that changes as I consider it more fully.



I do not think you give our critical attitudes enough credit. Riefenstahl's film is far more valued than Frank Capra's propaganda films, despite the fact that Capra has directed American classics elsewhere, that he dealt with a nationalist theme, and that he tried to do some interesting things cinematically. We consider the films noteworthy, but we still look at them as blatant propaganda. Yet with Riefenstahl and Eisenstein, we cannot deny the clear artistry at play when they crafted these pieces. This is why their films have been canonized as such. I do not think we toss it aside because we despise Nazism. In fact, it might even be because of the content that we value the film as much as we do. We cannot really separate form from content. The fact that Riefenstahl was able to so successfully evoke emotion and canvass for something so intellectually dubious as totalitarianism says a great deal about her artistry. Yet, we cannot change the fact that her methods are disingenuous. Additionally, the fact that we might mark a film for its unethical content is not a critical vice. We do this with all types of cinema - so again - I do not think the mention of Triumph of the Will holds on that level. And again, I haven't seen all of Triumph of the Will. It was just an example I threw out there for...I can't remember what I was comparing it to...anyway, I can't really personally debate its merits. I just a have some clips and its reputation to go on...Agree about criticizing a film for its unethical content. I do that all the time.

[Sven]

I'd say even more so it's an issue of subtly and mistakenly crossing the Humean is/ought boundary. The general argument seems to be... since we can be (they say necessarily will be) affected by the opinions around us we must therefore (in order to have a balanced and genuine belief) first be aware of (somehow most if not all of these opinions?) acknowledge and then either embrace or reject them i.e. essentially that we can only form opinions in relation to other peoples opinions. Now as to which opinions ought to be accepted or rejected is an entirely different and more complicated issue but given that I find the initial premise faulty the latter question is of no great concern to me.

Forgive me for interjecting, as I'm nowhere deep enough in this tumult to make a resounding impact, but something in this seemed off. The problem is that it seems that you are assuming either a "yes" or "no" adoption or rejection of popular influence, when in practice, it's much less concrete. Vague feelings, impressions, ideas, that are subtly imposed and often shaded in abstract greys. I don't think it's about embrace v. reject so much as it is being covered with a blanket of varying degrees of diffusion.

[Melville]

My evening was consumed by writing my New World review, but I'll get back into this discussion tomorrow.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm reading other things on other forums. Could someone please answer me this.

Is Harvey Dent/Two Face dead?

As dead as Ra's Al Ghul.

[Qrazy]

Forgive me for interjecting, as I'm nowhere deep enough in this tumult to make a resounding impact, but something in this seemed off.

The problem is that it seems that you are assuming either a "yes" or "no" adoption or rejection of popular influence, when in practice, it's much less concrete. Vague feelings, impressions, ideas, that are subtly imposed and often shaded in abstract greys. I don't think it's about embrace v. reject so much as it is being covered with a blanket of varying degrees of diffusion.

Ok sorry in advance but this is such a Strawman. You have said absolutely nothing to actually link my previous post with a binary reading of either your or Duncan's perspective and as counter-point offer only vague hand waving phrases (particularly the statements in bold) as to the nuance and complexity of your position. You have not offered a reason a) why you think my outlook is binary or b) why judging a film in relation to 'hipsters, elitists, populists, etc (not solely the popular influence you mention which is certainly not the crux of my argument) is somehow a more informed and/or genuine emotional response than approaching the film with an open mind and not letting other peoples opinions directly sway your own.

[Izzy Black]

In reference to my saying yes to this,

"I see - thus, you might say, social forces that receive a film can become more pronounced in shaping the value of the the film's meaning than its intended function, its comparative worth next to other films of his genre, its formal qualities, the depth of its thematic content, its entertainment value, and its sociopolitical or cultural relevance."

I don't see why that's unfortunate. I don't believe this has happened with The Dark Knight. I understand why people like the film. It has formal qualities of value. However, rather than social forces becoming "more pronounced" than those other forces, I would say that social forces have played a role alongside those other forces in shaping this film's value.

Social forces have played a factor in shaping the film's value. We have established that. In the specific point here, I was addressing that it seemed for you the film's received impact had become more important than its formal qualities in determining its value.


And in an extreme case, say in a fascist or highly propagandistic society, then the social forces can be stronger than any formal analysis one may implement. Perhaps an individual may see through those social forces, but I think there have been cases in history when the critical consensus has been manipulated to the point where formal considerations are abandoned, ie. the normative values have changed. Or, in a censored society, a film's formal qualities, entertainment value, and thematic depth may not matter at all because government powers have decided the film's worth for the individual already. This is the most extreme case of the premise above, but its extremity does not rule it invalid as proof by example, which I consider it to be. You will almost certainly disagree.

Yes, these are the cautionary fears of hegemony, but in society, there is always the risk and fear of hegemony - be it in art, business, government, or any other social domain. Of course, if the governments of our societies become totalitarian states and begin to shape how all of our culture perceives art, then this is a problem. Yet, the role of the filmgoer, journalist, and critic is not stressing the political sphere, although we do that in other venues such as voting and demonstration, but rather stressing the importance of which cannons we believe we should value in the critical sphere. We have to watch all fronts. Our politicians have to protect our right to free-speech, as citizens we have to protect our rights through voting, our governments have to protect our liberties, and as individuals we have to make use of these freedoms and continue to express our opinions. As filmgoers, journalists, and critics, the method to devalue a work that has become a monolith (let us use The Dark Knight as an example) is that we must present our case to the collective.


In this particular example the normative values have not changed. I have tried to explain this repeatedly, in one form or another. In the terms of the discussion's current state the argument goes something like this:
- I apply my normative values to The Dark Knight.
- Upon reading reviews yada yada yada, I develop the impression that there is an overall lack of critical stringency regarding this film.
- This begs the question, am I also guilty of this?
- The question is not answered by an arbitrary "Yes, I was 4 hype units too lenient. Therefore I will lower my opinion of the film by 2.5 stars"
- The question is answered by more strictly applying my normative, critical faculties to the film. By analyzing the film's "intended function, its comparative worth next to other films of his genre, its formal qualities, the depth of its thematic content, its entertainment value, and its sociopolitical or cultural relevance."
- The answer I get is that the film is more flawed than originally thought. The film isn't what it "ought" to be, which I feel a bit slimy saying.
- Furthermore, and maybe this is the part that bothers people, it is the positive aspects of the film that change. The film is different than when I walked out of the movie theatre. The film itself is different. I don't think this can be reduced to mere "subjectivity." Just as I am convinced that five years from now both the normative and positive will have changed. What a film ought to be will be different. And as people change, The Dark Knight itself will change.

If I applied this same close reading of the film and found that it was actually more worthwhile, would we be having this discussion? A great film should be able to not only withstand a closer reading, but reward the reader with greater depth of understanding. It should spill forth ideas that may not initially have been grasped or even recognized as existing. This film does none of that. It does the opposite. Therefore, my appreciation is lowered.

The thing that concerned me was this notion that one should dislike a film simply because people overrate it. As you point out here, this does not seem to be your position. I am all for self-reflection and the attempt to have conscious awareness of social factors at play. This is why I avoid reading reviews, opening threads, and exposing myself to spoilers and information about new released box office hits so as to have a fresh perspective going into the film. Perhaps this is what you meant by making "a conscious effort" when you were subject to these forces, but I could not quite make what you meant by the sentence as originally stated.


I honestly don't follow this. I don't know why you're talking about Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes. Did I bring up a dualistic way of thinking like you describe? If I did it was accidental wording and I don't subscribe to it. Although I also don't subscribe to any moral absolutism, which I hope you're not suggesting. I doubt you are.

Heh - no. I figured I was getting a little too abstract there with this point. I was trying to stress that simply because one of these metaphysical realites are true - such as, we are born evil - that does not change what we ought to do. That is, we should not make an is an ought. The seeming appeal to psychology you spoke about above suggesting that since we are affected by social forces we should embrace it as a reason to devalue a film is what I was taking issue with. This does not seem to be your position, as you have clarified.


Sure, I agree. But there have been times in my life when after making a "good" choice I have later decided that I made a "bad" choice upon further thought. Again, the normative values aren't changing. It is the situation that has changed as I perceive it. Just as it is The Dark Knight that changes as I consider it more fully.

Of course. Culture and values change. This is why I emphasize that individuals must present their normative arguments to the collective in order to shape societal values. Change is good. We should do well to avoid monoliths.


And again, I haven't seen all of Triumph of the Will. It was just an example I threw out there for...I can't remember what I was comparing it to...anyway, I can't really personally debate its merits. I just a have some clips and its reputation to go on...Agree about criticizing a film for its unethical content. I do that all the time.

Ah, fair enough. The example holds, however, with your point now reframed. The public opinion of Triumph of the Will has probably changed over time for the very reason of our critical norms and knowledge of the film and its context changing over time.

[Sven]

...as counter-point offer only vague hand waving phrases (particularly the statements in bold) as to the nuance and complexity of your position.

Well, my position is vague. I never claimed complexity or nuance. I just go by what is, and in this case, it's impossible for me to separate what I've heard about a movie from the movie itself.

I think it's true to say that one's opinion can only be formed in relation to other opinions, because everything you think is predicated on information that you've kept in mind and developed thought processes, which are largely based on popular exposure and influence (parents, friends, teachers, artists). Which is not to say one cannot be autonomous in forming one's own opinion--one can, of course. At least, in theory. But this is an entirely different ontological argument (where the form of opinion begins), so I'll stop here.


You have not offered a reason a) why you think my outlook is binary

I'm not saying your outlook is binary. I was responding to your conjecture about the position I and presumably Duncan take, which you say is of a binary nature: the "is/ought" and "embrace/reject" disparities you draw show an application of binary logic. I'm retorting, saying that I don't think it's so cut and dry.


b) why judging a film in relation to 'hipsters, elitists, populists, etc (not solely the popular influence you mention which is certainly not the crux of my argument) is somehow a more informed and/or genuine emotional response than approaching the film with an open mind and not letting other peoples opinions directly sway your own.

Well, that's been the topic of Dunan's debate with Israfel, so I'll let that do the talking. I have not suggested (or at least do not wish to suggest) that the approach I take is more informed or genuine, just that I do it and it's difficult for me to see how other's do not. And I think that Duncan is right in his suggestion that considering the film beyond itself (ie, observing demographical, critical, popular trends, etc) does not preclude the capacity of approaching the work with an open mind.

[Sven]

Also, just to set the record straight re: my comments about Lost in Translation, I never meant them to mean that my admiration for the film was negatively affected by its fan base. I believe I said something like "less inclined to be jubilant about", which I meant to mean that my desire to parade the film as a favorite (which it's not, which has nothing to do with hipsters) wanes because I do not feel at one with its primary fan base (or at least the fan base most associated with it).

I feel this way about a lot of films: love L'avventura but I feel out of my skin among its intimidating Euro-arthouse fan base, love Chicago but its reputation among people I admire is not exactly healthy so I temper my praise, etc. It's more a practice issue, I think with me, than an opinion issue.

[Skitch]

Too many words!

[Winston*]

Too many words!

Srsly. I don't come here to read, you guys.

[Wryan]

Srsly. I don't come here to read, you guys.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a332/colpot/matchcut-banner-1.gif

[megladon8]

Ugh...what's with these teenage girls now thinking that the Joker was hot?

I find that really disturbing.

[Russ]

More interesting than TDK being ranked #1 on the IMDb Top 250 is the fact that four of the six features that Nolan has directed are in the top 100. That's as many as Spielberg has (who has a fifth film at #105). Had no idea Nolan's films were this popular.

[Dead & Messed Up]

More interesting than TDK being ranked #1 on the IMDb Top 250 is the fact that four of the six features that Nolan has directed are in the top 100. That's as many as Spielberg has (who has a fifth film at #105). Had no idea Nolan's films were this popular.

The Prestige? Bwuh? I mean, I thought it was clever and kinda fun (if overlong), but I'm perplexed by it affecting people so much...

[megladon8]

The Prestige? Bwuh? I mean, I thought it was clever and kinda fun (if overlong), but I'm perplexed by it affecting people so much...


One of the best in a really great year.

I thought The Prestige was quite haunting.

[MadMan]

My eyes had forgotten all about Wryan's seizure inducing banner until this thread. If that banner was ever put up, half of this site's posters would go insane, and we'd have to post a warning about its possible side effects on the brain.

[Teh Sausage]

The Prestige? Bwuh? I mean, I thought it was clever and kinda fun (if overlong), but I'm perplexed by it affecting people so much...

Yeah, The Prestige was (and apparently still is) HUGE on IMDb. Everyone on its message board knows each other, they've come up with their own slang terms to do with the movie, there's tons of threads like "Whereabouts is The Prestige ranked in your top ten?"...even on the User Comments page, some people said, "I don't usually visit here. But I was so impressed with this movie, I had to register and tell everyone about it!!" I think it's successful for the same reason The Sixth Sense is...most people just get really overwhelmed by clever twist endings.

[Wryan]

My eyes had forgotten all about Wryan's seizure inducing banner until this thread. If that banner was ever put up, half of this site's posters would go insane, and we'd have to post a warning about its possible side effects on the brain.

No no. That was Winston*'s banner. That's why I posted it in reply to him. :)

[Melville]

I'm a bit late for the conclusion of the discussion, and I think all the points have already been made, but here are some addenda.


It all rolls back to the problematic approach to art as a hermetic unit, I think. At least, nothing that's been said has suggested otherwise. I cannot see how one can divorce one's self from hype or public opinion, and I also cannot see how one can divorce one's self from responding emotionally or mentally to a movie (or trying to gauge it entirely as itself, without the aid of the viewer's knowledge and personality). To me the justification is inherent.
I think it's true that a work of art exists entirely in the viewer's perception of it: an object only exists as art in the audience's engagement with it. (Otherwise its just a bunch of paint or flickering lights.) But that doesn't mean that the art is void of "objective" characteristics that all (or most) people can (given enough time and effort) discover in their personal engagement with it. Those characteristics are, in my opinion, what most meaningfully constitute "the movie" in a discussion. Obviously different people will value those characteristics differently, depending on their knowledge and personality. But in order to carry on a meaningful conversation, we need to have some way of ensuring that we're talking about approximately the same thing.


Also, just to set the record straight re: my comments about Lost in Translation, I never meant them to mean that my admiration for the film was negatively affected by its fan base. I believe I said something like "less inclined to be jubilant about", which I meant to mean that my desire to parade the film as a favorite (which it's not, which has nothing to do with hipsters) wanes because I do not feel at one with its primary fan base (or at least the fan base most associated with it).

I feel this way about a lot of films: love L'avventura but I feel out of my skin among its intimidating Euro-arthouse fan base, love Chicago but its reputation among people I admire is not exactly healthy so I temper my praise, etc. It's more a practice issue, I think with me, than an opinion issue.
This makes a lot more sense to me now. Certainly what I focus on in a discussion of a film (and what films I choose to discuss) will depend on what others typically focus on. Though I don't really think of which social groups constitute a film's fan base, since that seems too much like pigeon-holing people as well as the movie.


The fact that Riefenstahl was able to so successfully evoke emotion and canvass for something so intellectually dubious as totalitarianism says a great deal about her artistry.
Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I thought Triumph of the Will was boring as can be. The groups of marching people forming serpentine monoliths were pretty cool, and served their obvious propagandistic purpose pretty well, but most of the film was just Hitler ranting. I don't know about other people, but I've never understood why Hitler was such an entrancing or rousing public speaker. He just looks like he's raving madly. You can practically see the spittle fly from his mouth. If I saw a politician shrieking like that, I'd wonder if he had accidentally wandered in off some street corner. Anyway, Riefenstahl didn't really make his speeches any more interesting.

[Qrazy]

Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I thought Triumph of the Will was boring as can be. The groups of marching people forming serpentine monoliths were pretty cool, and served their obvious propagandistic purpose pretty well, but most of the film was just Hitler ranting. I don't know about other people, but I've never understood why Hitler was such an entrancing or rousing public speaker. He just looks like he's raving madly. You can practically see the spittle fly from his mouth. If I saw a politician shrieking like that, I'd wonder if he had accidentally wandered in off some street corner. Anyway, Riefenstahl didn't really make his speeches any more interesting.

He's much better live. You haven't experienced Hitler if you haven't seen him live.

[Melville]

He's much better live. You haven't experienced Hitler if you haven't seen him live.
:lol:

[Sven]

But that doesn't mean that the art is void of "objective" characteristics that all (or most) people can (given enough time and effort) discover in their personal engagement with it.

Doesn't this define a subjective experience, if it's about personal engagement? The problem I see here is that I don't think, ontologically speaking, "objective" qualities can actually exist in a work of art, because they have to be processed by the individual, which is an entirely subjective phenomenon. This is perhaps an entirely different semantics issue, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.


But in order to carry on a meaningful conversation, we need to have some way of ensuring that we're talking about approximately the same thing.

In the words of the immortal Ms. Desmond: "Words! Words! Words!" You are right to qualify with the word "approximation", because when we're talking about things like the nature of how well a story is told, there comes a point where I say it is told poorly because it isn't descriptive enough or dramatically satisfying, and someone says it is told well because they were able to follow point A to point B to point C. Here our definitions of "satisfying" and "story" differ, which is a component in the larger machination of "movie", which is a component of the even larger "art" or even "entertainment". I don't see how an objectivity can be reached at all. Merely popular consensus.


Though I don't really think of which social groups constitute a film's fan base, since that seems too much like pigeon-holing people as well as the movie.

Sometime it's impossible to avoid. 'S all I'm saying.

[Izzy Black]

Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I thought Triumph of the Will was boring as can be. The groups of marching people forming serpentine monoliths were pretty cool, and served their obvious propagandistic purpose pretty well, but most of the film was just Hitler ranting. I don't know about other people, but I've never understood why Hitler was such an entrancing or rousing public speaker. He just looks like he's raving madly. You can practically see the spittle fly from his mouth. If I saw a politician shrieking like that, I'd wonder if he had accidentally wandered in off some street corner. Anyway, Riefenstahl didn't really make his speeches any more interesting.

I was not speaking on the behalf of my own interactions with the film. I personally think the film is terribly dull, but I was not around in the context of its creation. I acknowledge the film for its formal elements. I am appealing to the claim that the film was effective in its time in moving the masses.

[Melville]

Doesn't this define a subjective experience, if it's about personal engagement? The problem I see here is that I don't think, ontologically speaking, "objective" qualities can actually exist in a work of art, because they have to be processed by the individual, which is an entirely subjective phenomenon. This is perhaps an entirely different semantics issue, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
All experiences are subjective—otherwise they wouldn't be experiences. And any quality of any object must be processed by the individual subject. But that doesn't mean that there aren't qualities that every (or nearly every) person can discover about that object. The same goes for art, even though it is defined by the experience of it.


In the words of the immortal Ms. Desmond: "Words! Words! Words!" You are right to qualify with the word "approximation", because when we're talking about things like the nature of how well a story is told, there comes a point where I say it is told poorly because it isn't descriptive enough or dramatically satisfying, and someone says it is told well because they were able to follow point A to point B to point C. Here our definitions of "satisfying" and "story" differ, which is a component in the larger machination of "movie", which is a component of the even larger "art" or even "entertainment". I don't see how an objectivity can be reached at all. Merely popular consensus.
Well, if you said that a story was poorly told because it wasn't "dramatically satisfying," I'd ask what you meant by that term. But a story not being descriptive enough or being easy to follow has a relatively obvious meaning, which the other person can then relate to their own experience of the film. Each person may value the different elements differently, but that doesn't mean that they can't agree (to a very good approximation) on what those elements are.

And definitions of words can be clarified through further discussion.


Sometime it's impossible to avoid. 'S all I'm saying.
I think I actually have the opposite problem: I have trouble understanding the relevance of any particular group's appreciation for a given work of art. One of my friends once remarked that some band from the sixties was the kind of music middle-aged men listen to, as if that were a criticism. I couldn't wrap my mind around what that had to do with the quality of the band's music.


I was not speaking on the behalf of my own interactions with the film. I personally think the film is terribly dull, but I was not around in the context of its creation. I acknowledge the film for its formal elements. I am appealing to the claim that the film was effective in its time in moving the masses.
Sure. That's why I prefaced my comments with the words "Not that it's relevant to the discussion." I just find it somewhat baffling that people were so enthused about Hitler's oratory, and I was less than impressed by the film's formal elements, since so much of the film consisted of just showing Hitler ranting (unless I'm misremembering).

[Grouchy]

Ugh...what's with these teenage girls now thinking that the Joker was hot?

I find that really disturbing.
My girlfriend said he was very hot and she's 27.

Lots of movie psychos have their sexual appeal, though. Like Hannibal Lecter. I don't think it's all that disturbing.

I've never seen the appeal of The Prestige. For me it was overlong, dull, too talkative and the resolution was contrived. But after I've had some discussions with people about it, specially a literature teacher that compared it, mostly favorably, to the novel, I think I might have to watch it again.

[Sven]

...but that doesn't mean that they can't agree (to a very good approximation) on what those elements are.

The only think I can ever see an consensus being "objectively" reached upon is the presence of observable elements that comprise a work.


... was the kind of music middle-aged men listen to...

Well, yeah, that's kind of lame. Because what it is about middle-aged men's opinions that make them worth avoiding? My aversion to hipster culture and its prizes and trophies is that I perceive hipsterism to be all about superficial construction, style, posturing... all very surface. And I tend to be one that bucks against noticeably surface constructions that seem to exist for their own sakes: gimmicks, slick camera tricks, "badass"-ifying characters, ironic music usage, etc.

[MadMan]

No no. That was Winston*'s banner. That's why I posted it in reply to him. :)Oh. How the hell did I get the two of you mixed up? Must be the fact that your internet nick names begin with "W" I suppose :)

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ugh...what's with these teenage girls now thinking that the Joker was hot?

I find that really disturbing.

My wife found something about him attractive. She said she couldn't explain it, just a feeling. I don't think she'd drool over him or call him hot, but there was an attraction.

[Sven]

It's because he's virile Heath Ledger, hello! His entire performance is a testament to the expressiveness of the body. That kind of maneuverability (or perhaps "adaptability") is a sexy, sexy thing.

[Melville]

The only think I can ever see an consensus being "objectively" reached upon is the presence of observable elements that comprise a work.
Hmm...I'm not sure what this means. If I say that a movie tells a story well because I can follow its progression from point A to B to C, I can in principle describe in detail which observable elements of the film lead me to that conclusion.


Well, yeah, that's kind of lame. Because what it is about middle-aged men's opinions that make them worth avoiding? My aversion to hipster culture and its prizes and trophies is that I perceive hipsterism to be all about superficial construction, style, posturing... all very surface. And I tend to be one that bucks against noticeably surface constructions that seem to exist for their own sakes: gimmicks, slick camera tricks, "badass"-ifying characters, ironic music usage, etc.
But my friend could just as easily say that middle aged men are all about being steadfastly nostalgic and out of date. The point is that I have trouble understanding why any such characterization could or should be relevant to my appreciation of a movie.

[megladon8]

There are people who find Hannibal Lecter sexy? :confused:

[Sven]

Hmm...I'm not sure what this means. If I say that a movie tells a story well because I can follow its progression from point A to B to C, I can in principle describe in detail which observable elements of the film lead me to that conclusion.

Right. Observable elements. And if that's your criteria for a story well told, then nearly every movie will be a "well told story" because nearly every movie story makes some kind of linear sense. But nearly all of us have other, more personalized requirements for what constitutes an engagingly told story. Things like dramatic involvement, tension, wit, memorable characters, etc. None of which I think can ever be entirely objectively pinned down. Just what popular consensus deems worthy (ie, Oscar Wilde is witty, Norbit is not, etc).


But my friend could just as easily say that middle aged men are all about being steadfastly nostalgic and out of date. The point is that I have trouble understanding why any such characterization could or should be relevant to my appreciation of a movie.

Well, if that's the case, than "middle aged men music" is just shorthand for their real appreciation. I see nothing wrong with that. They don't hate it BECAUSE middle aged men like it. At least, I hope that's the case. If not, then I agree, it's silly.

[Dukefrukem]

Just got back from a 2nd showing. There's a ton of stuff you come to piece together during the second time through.

Example: At the very beginning; When Gordon and Rameriz are on the roof by the bat signal and Gordon asks why she isn't with her mother, and Rameriz replies; "I had to put her back in the hospital"...

Harvey Dent screaming as batman was pulling him from the warehouse still gave me chills. And I'm 100% convinced that Harvey is still alive. If Nolan wanted people to think he's dead he would have made it much more obvious. My guess, they told the media he was dead, and they're keeping him alive somewhere. I'm sure that's already mentioned here but I like that theory.

[megladon8]

I'm still really curious about D's throughts on this movie.

[Spinal]

Leaving to see this now. Place your bets! :)

[megladon8]

Leaving to see this now. Place your bets! :)


Hmmm...I'm betting that you'll either like it, or not like it.

It's gotta be one of those two.

[Sven]

Two stars.

[Ezee E]

Leaving to see this now. Place your bets! :)
It's no Asia Argento movie, that's for sure.

[MadMan]

I'm going with 3 stars.

[Bosco B Thug]

Two... and a half...

[Watashi]

Two... and a half...

Yep.

[Grouchy]

Harvey Dent screaming as batman was pulling him from the warehouse still gave me chills. And I'm 100% convinced that Harvey is still alive. If Nolan wanted people to think he's dead he would have made it much more obvious. My guess, they told the media he was dead, and they're keeping him alive somewhere. I'm sure that's already mentioned here but I like that theory.
Agreed with this.

[SirNewt]

Hmmm...I'm betting that you'll either like it, or not like it.

It's gotta be one of those two.

Or maybe you'll think it's OK.

http://www.mitchhedberg.net/images/updates/20051228/uptown_jason_squires_20050208. jpg

[Spinal]

The Dark Knight is a substantial improvement over Batman Begins, which got bogged down in tedious minutiae regarding martial arts training and assorted origin story geekery. As someone who is not especially a fan of the character, I really didn't give a rat's ass. This film, on the other hand, is ... well ... simply a lot more fun.

Is fun the right word? Yes. Much has been made of how dark the film is, how frightening its lead villain. Since the film's release, mainstream audiences have declared with their pocketbooks that they can take it. Of course they can. Setting aside for a moment the absurd notion that the film ranks among the greatest of all time (no ... it does not), the main reason, in my estimation, that The Dark Knight has achieved such overwhelming financial success is because The Joker is a dead perfect fit for our times. And his execution (I will give credit not only to Ledger, but to Nolan and company as well) is also the element that will make this film memorable.

Popping up when unexpected, carrying with him anarchic disillusionment, ready to explode into violence on a whim, The Joker perfectly encapsulates our feelings of helplessness in the face of a world going down the tubes. We look to the people who hold the world in balance (I'm not even talking about terrorists -- elected officials!) and they seem much like madmen. How many times have we thought that new news events would be absurdly comic if they weren't also of dire importance? Heath Ledger understands this connection and plays it to the hilt, never allowing the cartoonish aspects of his character to drain away his capability for danger. Even when he is away for long stretches of time, his presence looms over the film and we are held in attention anticipating his return. Let it be said: this is not a case of a star's tragic death leading to undeserved adulation. This is a supreme performance. Pure and simple.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Christian Bale's performance as the title character. His sullen, personality-free take on Bruce Wayne is tolerable, I suppose. However, his bizarre decision to play Batman as if he were squaring off against The Undertaker in Wrestlemania XII is a head scratcher. I've always thought that Bale was one of the most overpraised actors alive. But it's hard to imagine even his supporters defending his laughable vocal exertions which threaten to derail scenes that would otherwise be filled with tension. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent runs into a similar problem, though not as extreme. When he is interacting casually, he is a perfectly capable actor. However, when later events force him into heightened levels of emotion, he just doesn't seem to have the conviction to match the moment.

As a director, Nolan is efficient, keeping the pace of this long film moving at a satisfying clip; however, there is very little art to his approach. He lacks the flair and creativity that Sam Raimi brings to the Spiderman films. I also thought that the editing felt rushed in places, as if the film was jumping to the next thought before it had finished the previous sentence. This did not feel like any sort of calculated tactic to disrupt the film's pacing. It just felt kind of sloppy.

My final criticism of the film is fairly significant, I think, and prevents me from holding the piece in higher esteem. It's simply this: the character of Batman with his armored car and his silly rubber suit and his Rex Kwan Do gets swallowed up by the enormity of the menace he faces. Perhaps he is a Super Cop, but the Gotham city police force still seems to be doing a lion's share of the work. From time to time, he is able to turn the tide with a timely gadget. But I just don't get the feeling in this battle of good and evil that the town really needs him. I don't understand his need for secrecy. I don't understand why he keeps his technology to himself. I don't understand why his vigilante status helps him to be more effective at fighting crime.

Criticisms aside, this was pretty much engaging from start to finish, with only a couple of dead spots. Thanks to Ledger and the Joker character, the film actually had some legitimate laughs this time as well, not just that dopey 'comic' banter between Bruce Wayne and his butler. The film has numerous flaws. But when it's good ... it's awfully damn good.

[Spinal]

I'm going with 3 stars.

Winner!

[Dukefrukem]

ha three stars...

good write up and your 2nd to last paragrah actually makes a lot of sense.


erhaps he is a Super Cop, but the Gotham city police force still seems to be doing a lion's share of the work. From time to time, he is able to turn the tide with a timely gadget. But I just don't get the feeling in this battle of good and evil that the town really needs him. I don't understand his need for secrecy. I don't understand why he keeps his technology to himself. I don't understand why his vigilante status helps him to be more effective at fighting crime.

[Watashi]

I love Bale's Batman voice. I mean, it's no Conroy, but how else is Bruce going to distort his voice?

[Spinal]

I love Bale's Batman voice. I mean, it's no Conroy, but how else is Bruce going to distort his voice?

French accent?

[Grouchy]

I love Bale's Batman voice. I mean, it's no Conroy, but how else is Bruce going to distort his voice?
Yeah, seriously. Conroy did the same thing, actually, only subtler.

[Spinal]

Come on, you guys. You seriously can't think of another way besides a voice that sounds like one of the monsters off The Muppet Show? Bale could play around with rhythm. His Wayne could be timid, or mumbly, or a fast talker, or gregarious. This would allow his Batman to speak boldly, forcefully, confidently, whatever. There are numerous directions Bale could have gone in. He chose one that is obvious, awkward and often unintentionally comical.

[Qrazy]

I'm not saying your outlook is binary. I was responding to your conjecture about the position I and presumably Duncan take, which you say is of a binary nature: the "is/ought" and "embrace/reject" disparities you draw show an application of binary logic. I'm retorting, saying that I don't think it's so cut and dry.

It's only binary if taken in isolation, that is to say the embrace/reject of a single perspective i.e. the popular reception you noted, but I was careful to incorporate a number of different attitudes that could be embraced or rejected so that when taken in totality, they provide the gradations you desire. However, even with these gradations, this does not change my initial concern in relation to the Humean dilemma which I felt the two of you were... at least in the beginning of the conversation... succumbing to. But the position which I outlined having problems with (and perhaps neither of you truly embraced it, my problem was with the position I outlined, not with either of your approaches to criticism... for the most part) seems to have been amended to the point where there's no real argument anymore.

Yet my point remains when you seek to secure the use of hipster as a hybrid criticism for the notions you feel it contains (superficiality, poseurdom, what have you). I still feel it is much better to excise the demographic terms hipster, elitist, populist, etc from criticism and to state the problems the film seems to have explicitly... superficiality (Hipster), intellectual reach that falls short of the goal (Elitist) or banal exhibitionism (Populist). This way the problem of lumping a group of people into a general category and then condemning the group along with the film is effectively sidestepped.


Well, that's been the topic of Dunan's debate with Israfel, so I'll let that do the talking. I have not suggested (or at least do not wish to suggest) that the approach I take is more informed or genuine, just that I do it and it's difficult for me to see how other's do not. And I think that Duncan is right in his suggestion that considering the film beyond itself (ie, observing demographical, critical, popular trends, etc) does not preclude the capacity of approaching the work with an open mind.

Yes this is true but as I feel that I and others have made explicit this is not the concern. The film should be considered beyond itself, it's ideological leanings, it's effect on the populace, etc... but the problem occurs when the effect the film has on a group of people is read directly back into and attributed to the film itself... and then the response of a given group of people is used either as criticism or for that matter as praise.

[Qrazy]

Come on, you guys. You seriously can't think of another way besides a voice that sounds like one of the monsters off The Muppet Show? Bale could play around with rhythm. His Wayne could be timid, or mumbly, or a fast talker, or gregarious. This would allow his Batman to speak boldly, forcefully, confidently, whatever. There are numerous directions Bale could have gone in. He chose one that is obvious, awkward and often unintentionally comical.

It's a more effective auditory mask than your suggestions though... those sound more in line with a Superman-esque disguise... glasses on, glasses off, glasses on, glasses off.

[Morris Schæffer]

My final criticism of the film is fairly significant, I think, and prevents me from holding the piece in higher esteem. It's simply this: the character of Batman with his armored car and his silly rubber suit and his Rex Kwan Do gets swallowed up by the enormity of the menace he faces. Perhaps he is a Super Cop, but the Gotham city police force still seems to be doing a lion's share of the work. From time to time, he is able to turn the tide with a timely gadget. But I just don't get the feeling in this battle of good and evil that the town really needs him.

This was different in the first movie in which Batman, admittedly with the help of Lt. Gordon, saved Gotham from complete destruction. This was all done with the necessary bombast involving crashing trains and whatnot. In that sense, Batman's significance seems to have shifted in this movie. One gets the feeling that he is indeed no longer as welcome as he once was and that new climate of hostility towards the caped crusader can certainly be blamed on the Joker. So I'd call it less an issue with the script or narrative and more a shift in thematic crux. You could also argue that Bats relative irrelevance ties in nicely to the movie's more pervasive sense of realism because a superhero, certainly the more grounded-in-reality type that Batman is, could never be in multiple places at the same time, singlehandedly responsible for torpedoing the crime rate. But does it really matter what Batman actually accomplishes? How many perps he apprehends? Ultimately, as was alluded to a few times in the first movie, he's a symbol representing hope in dark and troubled times. Or at least he was.

[Qrazy]

This was different in the first movie in which Batman, admittedly with the help of Lt. Gordon, saved Gotham from complete destruction. This was all done with the necessary bombast involving crashing trains and whatnot. In that sense, Batman's significance seems to have shifted in this movie. One gets the feeling that he is indeed no longer as welcome as he once was and that new climate of hostility towards the caped crusader can certainly be blamed on the Joker. So I'd call it less an issue with the script or narrative and more a shift in thematic crux. You could also argue that Bats relative irrelevance ties in nicely to the movie's more pervasive sense of realism because a superhero, certainly the more grounded-in-reality type that Batman is, could never be in multiple places at the same time, singlehandedly responsible for torpedoing the crime rate. But does it really matter what Batman actually accomplishes? How many perps he apprehends? Ultimately, as was alluded to a few times in the first movie, he's a symbol representing hope in dark and troubled times. Or at least he was.

I have no idea what either of you are talking about.

Without Batman:

1. Gordon and his family would have died.
2. Scarecrow and co. would not have been apprehended.
3. The Joker would not have been apprehended either time, would have blown up both boats the second time and the cops would have accidentally killed hostages.
4. Both Dawes and Dent would have died in the explosion and Dent would also have died at Bruce's party.
5. The Asian banker would never have been brought back to Gotham and the crime family would not have even been preemptively brought to trial... granted this began Joker's rise to power but after the bank heist he was on the rise anyway and if not the Joker someone else would have risen to Batman's escalation tactics.

Batman was fairly central to at least minimizing the damages to every major criminal event in the film, except for those where the criminals basically won outright. So he got a little help from Gordon and others at times, he got help from Gordon in the first film as well.

[Morris Schæffer]

I have no idea what either of you are talking about.

Without Batman:

1. Gordon and his family would have died.
2. Scarecrow and co. would not have been apprehended.
3. The Joker would not have been apprehended either time, would have blown up both boats the second time and the cops would have accidentally killed hostages.
4. Both Dawes and Dent would have died in the explosion and Dent would also have died at Bruce's party.
5. The Asian banker would never have been brought back to Gotham and the crime family would not have even been preemptively brought to trial... granted this began Joker's rise to power but after the bank heist he was on the rise anyway and if not the Joker someone else would have risen to Batman's escalation tactics.

Batman was fairly central to at least minimizing the damages to every major criminal event in the film, except for those where the criminals basically won outright. So he got a little help from Gordon and others at times, he got help from Gordon in the first film as well.

I still think the public's perception of him has changed. He may save Gordon and his family, but that is likely only something that the Commissioner appreciates and that the general public will never be privvy to. As for scarecrow, small potatoes really, but I'm cool with that. Sometimes apprehending scummy low lifes is also the job of a superhero. I think it's a more realistic kind of superhero. Batman is there, undeniably making a difference as you said, but it doesn't quite feel as visibly superheroic as attaching himself to a speeding train and rescuing Gotham from complete and utter damnation. That was big and bold, more typical superhero shenanigans in other words. The hero worshipping feels dialled down a notch or two in this one. And joker did manage to blow up an hospital although I do find it incredibly lame that the makers didn't pursue this venue to make Batman look even more fallible by having everyone evacuated in time. It's like they said "uh guys we can't have too much tragedy!"

[megladon8]

I never found Bale's Batman voice comical.

[Spinal]

It's a more effective auditory mask than your suggestions though... those sound more in line with a Superman-esque disguise... glasses on, glasses off, glasses on, glasses off.

I can't believe people are actually defending the Batman voice. Really? Really? :rolleyes:

[megladon8]

I can't believe people are actually defending the Batman voice. Really? Really? :rolleyes:


I can't believe someone called Christian Bale "...one of the most overpraised actors alive." Really? Really?

[Morris Schæffer]

Hm. I do admit that I find the praise for Bale a little excessive. It seems that ever since he became Batman he's the coolest thing ever. Nonetheless, I do believe he is insanely dedicated, fairly charismatic and willing to take risks and balance arthouse projects with mainstream fare.

[Melville]

Right. Observable elements. And if that's your criteria for a story well told, then nearly every movie will be a "well told story" because nearly every movie story makes some kind of linear sense.
Well, I was just using your example.


But nearly all of us have other, more personalized requirements for what constitutes an engagingly told story. Things like dramatic involvement, tension, wit, memorable characters, etc. None of which I think can ever be entirely objectively pinned down. Just what popular consensus deems worthy (ie, Oscar Wilde is witty, Norbit is not, etc).
All of those things (except maybe dramatic involvement—I'm not sure what that actually means) can, and should in a good analysis, be related to observable elements. I can describe the editing, lighting, music, and plotting that led to my feeling tense, the particular dialogue and timing that I found witty, what about the characters made them memorable for me, etc. Other people might disagree with my responses, but we'd still be talking about the same thing. And I think you're devaluing the relevance of popular consensus: many descriptives, such as "witty", are understood primarily based on the things they have been used to describe.


Well, if that's the case, than "middle aged men music" is just shorthand for their real appreciation. I see nothing wrong with that. They don't hate it BECAUSE middle aged men like it. At least, I hope that's the case. If not, then I agree, it's silly.
Well, as I said before, I think the problem is that it relies on a stereotype of a particular group and then negatively associates a work of art with that stereotype. And it leads to an uncertainty about whether the criticism is being used as a shorthand for particular aspects of the work, or whether it is actually saying that a work should be valued partially based on who admires it. (A lot of people definitely believe in the latter.)
Edit: I just noticed that Qrazy made the same point in more detail up above.

[Sven]

All of those things (except maybe dramatic involvement—I'm not sure what that actually means) can, and should in a good analysis, be related to observable elements.

Certainly. However, the import of that relation is entirely a subjective phenomenon because it all boils down to what's "important" or "good" for a film or for art to do. Naturally when you say you didn't like Sans Soleil for its portentous narration and I say I liked it for its poetic narration, we're talking about the nature of its abstract narration (observable) but applying different worth to it. There is nothing objective about this at all except that we acknowledge that there is narration of a particular nature.

Aaaaaand I can't remember the reason we're arguing about this anymore. We're probably talking about the same thing and just defining things differently.


And I think you're devaluing the relevance of popular consensus: many descriptives, such as "witty", are understood primarily based on the things they have been used to describe.

As an admitted populist, I'm definitely aware of the consensus's relevance, however I find it has no bearing on the fact of the matter. There are times, many times, when the public is simply wrong, do you agree? And if that is a truth in even ONE instance, it is a truth for potentially EVERY instance because it introduces fallibility. Yes, I agree, along with the public, that Wilde is witty. However, I also think that Norbit is witty. How does this disparity reflect on the truth of the consensus? Basically, it calls it into question, where it should always be. Relevant, yes. True, no.


And it leads to an uncertainty about whether the criticism is being used as a shorthand for particular aspects of the work, or whether it is actually saying that a work should be valued partially based on who admires it.

An unimportant distinction. A truly smart critic will qualify and clarify these links and impressions. Most people I find are uninterested in really chewing into a work and are content to make blanket endorsements or condemnations based on their understanding of the way popular culture attracts certain demographics. "You'd like it because you like art films." "You'd hate it because it's all style no substance." "No bikinis or explosions? No thanks."


(A lot of people definitely believe in the latter.)

Just like a lot of hipsters really like Lost in Translation. Don't let your impressions about a group negatively affect your response to a critical mode. :)

[DavidSeven]

I don't understand why he keeps his technology to himself.

I think this is addressed in the amount of corruption within the police force and elected office that is focused on in both films.

The Bat voice does suck.

[D_Davis]

French accent?

He should talk in squeaky noises like a bat does.

That would be menacing.

[Melville]

Certainly. However, the import of that relation is entirely a subjective phenomenon because it all boils down to what's "important" or "good" for a film or for art to do. Naturally when you say you didn't like Sans Soleil for its portentous narration and I say I liked it for its poetic narration, we're talking about the nature of its abstract narration (observable) but applying different worth to it. There is nothing objective about this at all except that we acknowledge that there is narration of a particular nature.

Aaaaaand I can't remember the reason we're arguing about this anymore. We're probably talking about the same thing and just defining things differently.
Uhh... I think you're talking yourself in circles. Here's my understanding of the conversation:

- You: art should not be analyzed as a "hermetic unit", because it's all subjective.
- Me: but there are elements that are common to all people's experience of a work of art, even if people value those elements differently.
- You: there are no such objective elements, because it's all processed subjectively.
- Me: but we can identify the elements that are common to all our subjective processes, even if those elements are valued differently.
- You: sure, we can identify them, but they are valued differently.

In other words... I'm confused.


As an admitted populist, I'm definitely aware of the consensus's relevance, however I find it has no bearing on the fact of the matter. There are times, many times, when the public is simply wrong, do you agree? And if that is a truth in even ONE instance, it is a truth for potentially EVERY instance because it introduces fallibility. Yes, I agree, along with the public, that Wilde is witty. However, I also think that Norbit is witty. How does this disparity reflect on the truth of the consensus? Basically, it calls it into question, where it should always be. Relevant, yes. True, no.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear. My point was that the word "witty" is largely defined by its traditional association with particular styles of speech. In other words, Oscar Wilde's writing is, at this point, basically witty by definition.


An unimportant distinction. A truly smart critic will qualify and clarify these links and impressions. Most people I find are uninterested in really chewing into a work and are content to make blanket endorsements or condemnations based on their understanding of the way popular culture attracts certain demographics. "You'd like it because you like art films." "You'd hate it because it's all style no substance." "No bikinis or explosions? No thanks."
I think Qrazy has already made all the points I would make about criticism-by-cultural-association, so I'll just forgo a response here.


Just like a lot of hipsters really like Lost in Translation. Don't let your impressions about a group negatively affect your response to a critical mode. :)
But I don't have any group in mind, just specific people I've met or read reviews by, and they have no impact on my opinions of a given film.

[Sven]

Uhh... I think you're talking yourself in circles. Here's my understanding of the conversation:

- You: art should not be analyzed as a "hermetic unit", because it's all subjective.
- Me: but there are elements that are common to all people's experience of a work of art, even if people value those elements differently.
- You: there are no such objective elements, because it's all processed subjectively.
- Me: but we can identify the elements that are common to all our subjective processes, even if those elements are valued differently.
- You: sure, we can identify them, but they are valued differently.

In other words... I'm confused.

I think in our last exchange the approach was a little bit more angled than you suggest, because we're talking about different values: you're talking about shared values and I'm talking about individual values. And I don't think I ever suggested there were no objective elements. I've always said that we can identify and observe the objective elements. The point is that the presence of those elements is the only thing with which we can make a claim to objectivity.

Perhaps more than anything we've been discussing, I'm subconsciously responding the debate a few pages back between Q and 'rafel where Q stated that narrative, plotting, and form in relation to content were objective elements, and 'rafel suggested that aesthetics were objective. This is very hard for me to swallow.


Maybe I didn't make my point clear. My point was that the word "witty" is largely defined by its traditional association with particular styles of speech. In other words, Oscar Wilde's writing is, at this point, basically witty by definition.

Here I find it funny that you are arguing FOR definition by association.


But I don't have any group in mind, just specific people I've met or read reviews by, and they have no impact on my opinions of a given film.

It has already been stated by Duncan, but I feel the need to reiterate the idea that admitting that other people have no impact on your opinion is, I would argue, a more close-minded approach than what you accuse me of doing.

Anyway, given that I've spent about 75% of my time over the last three or four days arguing about religion, the ACLU, the Dark Knight, objectivity, etc, perhaps you can relate with my mental exhaustion. I'm taking a vacation from it. Feel free to respond, but I will let you have the last word. I trust I have developed a strong enough reputation as a bullhead that you will not view this as a concession, but rather the product of strenuous overwork.

And remember, no hard feelings. :)

[Melville]

I think in our last exchange the approach was a little bit more angled than you suggest, because we're talking about different values: you're talking about shared values and I'm talking about individual values.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where was I ever talking about shared values? Here was my initial response to you:

I think it's true that a work of art exists entirely in the viewer's perception of it: an object only exists as art in the audience's engagement with it. (Otherwise its just a bunch of paint or flickering lights.) But that doesn't mean that the art is void of "objective" characteristics that all (or most) people can (given enough time and effort) discover in their personal engagement with it. Those characteristics are, in my opinion, what most meaningfully constitute "the movie" in a discussion. Obviously different people will value those characteristics differently, depending on their knowledge and personality. But in order to carry on a meaningful conversation, we need to have some way of ensuring that we're talking about approximately the same thing.
My whole point was that art is an entirely subjective experience, but that in order to carry on a meaningful discussion about it we should relate our valuations of that experience to its "objective" elements (i.e. the elements common to all of our experiences).


And I don't think I ever suggested there were no objective elements. I've always said that we can identify and observe the objective elements. The point is that the presence of those elements is the only thing with which we can make a claim to objectivity.
Okay, I didn't get that from this:

The problem I see here is that I don't think, ontologically speaking, "objective" qualities can actually exist in a work of art...
I don't see how an objectivity can be reached at all.
And I wasn't sure what you meant by this:

The only think I can ever see an consensus being "objectively" reached upon is the presence of observable elements that comprise a work.
My point was that the observable elements can be meaningfully related to one's opinion of a film.


Perhaps more than anything we've been discussing, I'm subconsciously responding the debate a few pages back between Q and 'rafel where Q stated that narrative, plotting, and form in relation to content were objective elements, and 'rafel suggested that aesthetics were objective. This is very hard for me to swallow.
Well, those are pretty vague descriptions, especially "aesthetics", but Qrazy's choice of elements seems to be easily decomposed into observables.


Here I find it funny that you are arguing FOR definition by association.
Why is that funny? (No need for a lengthy response, but I'm definitely not understanding something here.)


It has already been stated by Duncan, but I feel the need to reiterate the idea that admitting that other people have no impact on your opinion is, I would argue, a more close-minded approach than what you accuse me of doing.
Other people definitely have an impact on my opinion, but only if they cause me to re-examine the film by giving me valid reasons for their own opinion. Or, as I said previously, if I suspect that their opinion is based on a particular element of the film that I overlooked. (And I should restate that Duncan's final description of his reevaluation of The Dark Knight seems perfectly reasonable to me, since it was based on actually re-examining the movie more closely.)


Anyway, given that I've spent about 75% of my time over the last three or four days arguing about religion, the ACLU, the Dark Knight, objectivity, etc, perhaps you can relate with my mental exhaustion. I'm taking a vacation from it. Feel free to respond, but I will let you have the last word. I trust I have developed a strong enough reputation as a bullhead that you will not view this as a concession, but rather the product of strenuous overwork.

And remember, no hard feelings. :)
Yeah, I was going to get into the argument about religion, but I decided I didn't want to get into too many arguments with you at the same time.

[Sven]

Well, since you pointed out a blatant contradiction, I will respond to that with "Good call." Most of the arguments I ever get into I don't really have a solid opinion one way or the other (though I do like to choose sides and argue those). Most of the time, I'm trying to figure out the stuff I'm discussing AS I'm discussing it. Yeah, i said those things but in the process realized that I had left out an important distinction, so I clarified, appended, changed my mind, whatever you want to call it.

I think Qrazy's list of elements can be decomposed to objective elements insofar as films have narratives, plots, form, and content. There IS form, and there IS narrative, but what is the NATURE of its form and narrative? Anything beyond the surface presence of elements is entirely opinion, philosophy, and theory, and thereby subjective. Your point was that the objective elements can relate meaningfully to one's opinion. Of course, I agree. I would be stupid not to. But the idea that one could construe a film's plotting as "objectively bad" does not sit well with me, and is the basis of this entire foray.

And of course I think that one's evaluation of a film should ultimately be based on an examination of the film. You're fine with Duncan's appraisal of the film as he filters it through his subjective associative methods of criticism. That's fine and great and what I think has been my position this whole time. It just seemed like people were opposed to these associative methods. And I'm saying that it's impossible for them not to be there. I don't think anyone has been arguing that it should be okay to hate a movie based on its fan base. Then we would be baby doll.

Whole lot of sound and fury, this.

[Spinal]

I can't believe someone called Christian Bale "...one of the most overpraised actors alive." Really? Really?

Without question.

[Rowland]

My favorite Bale performance remains his first.

[Raiders]

My favorite Bale performance remains his first.

This is correct.

(assuming you mean Empire of the Sun--not technically his first, but first one anyone knows)

[Spinal]

Happy now, bitches?

I agree with most of this. Some very good points. I liked the score a lot and the way that kept the energy of the film up. The plot was indeed pretty convoluted and muddy. I chose to not even bother piecing together the details, opting instead to concentrate on the big picture stuff. The scenes without conclusions kind of annoyed me too, though not as much as you. Dent's transformation .... pretty silly. Not effectively played by Eckhart and I kind of giggled when he lay down in the oil perfectly with one half of his face immersed. Also thought his Terminator make-up later was too much. Screenplay is mostly typical overwrought superhero silliness, but I did think that it hit upon some good ideas from time to time. The cell-phone monitoring system was really, really silly. Didn't care for that at all and didn't understand how it would be possible for one man to make any sense out of that much data.

Where I wholeheartedly disagree is in the value of Ledger's performance. I liked that they made him a force rather than simply a human being. I thought that was a choice that gave the film a lot of its danger. I liked that his backstory was kept brief and that the way in which he put together his plots was left a mystery. Come on, that hospital sequence is pretty darn funny. There were moments that it seemed liked he was trying to work against a shaky piece of writing, but for the most part ... loved it. Miles beyond Nicholson.

[Teh Sausage]

I haven't seen Empire of the Sun but the only Bale performance I love is American Psycho. I don't find him very charismatic, which is why I never enjoyed his portrayal of Wayne. He's acceptable with the dark and broody stuff as he speaks alone with Alfred, but doesn't convince as a fun, extroverted playboy. And yes, the voice can be amusing at times.

It's interesting how many of my friends complain that the villains from the first four Batman movies steal the show from Batman himself, (especially the Joker in the first one) and yet the same thing has happened here. I found the film quite dull when Ledger and Eckhart weren't on screen. In fact it could be argued (if this hasn't been mentioned all ready) that Harvey Dent is the real main character, or at least that's how it feels to me. It seems that the more villains there are in a Batman film, the less interesting Batman becomes and/or is pushed aside until he feels barely significant.

[Qrazy]

I still think the public's perception of him has changed. He may save Gordon and his family, but that is likely only something that the Commissioner appreciates and that the general public will never be privvy to. As for scarecrow, small potatoes really, but I'm cool with that. Sometimes apprehending scummy low lifes is also the job of a superhero. I think it's a more realistic kind of superhero. Batman is there, undeniably making a difference as you said, but it doesn't quite feel as visibly superheroic as attaching himself to a speeding train and rescuing Gotham from complete and utter damnation. That was big and bold, more typical superhero shenanigans in other words. The hero worshipping feels dialled down a notch or two in this one. And joker did manage to blow up an hospital although I do find it incredibly lame that the makers didn't pursue this venue to make Batman look even more fallible by having everyone evacuated in time. It's like they said "uh guys we can't have too much tragedy!"

Well yes you're right that he's no longer portrayed as an apparent hero but his role and importance in providing favorable outcomes wherever possible (that is to say minimize damage because often the Joker still won a round) was still very large.

[D_Davis]

It seems that the more villains there are in a Batman film, the less interesting Batman becomes and/or is pushed aside until he feels barely significant.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but to me this seems on par with superhero comic books in general. The villains are often far more interesting than the heroes. I found, when I used to read them, that the villains often displayed more emotion, more desire, more pathos, and in a strange way more humanity because they seemed to be more honest with who they were. I was always more interested in the Joker, the Penguin, and the Scarecrow than I was Batman. They seemed to have depth , and were far more complex.

[Spinal]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but to me this seems on par with superhero comic books in general. The villains are often far more interesting than the heroes. I found, when I used to read them, that the villains often displayed more emotion, more desire, more pathos, and in a strange way more humanity because they seemed to be more honest with who they were. I was always more interested in the Joker, the Penguin, and the Scarecrow than I was Batman. They seemed to have depth , and were far more complex.

Yes, this is what I was driving at. The film intoxicates us with a wildly entertaining villain to the point where it becomes disappointing when we return to the character who is supposed to be the hero. Yes, he is placed in key situations, because someone has to be. But the skills and personality he offers are not any more compelling than if you placed a highly skilled police officer in that role. I do not care about the choices he makes. I am not excited about the skills he brings to the table.

[Watashi]

Spinal just hates Batman.

Did you ever watch the animated series?

[Qrazy]

I think Qrazy's list of elements can be decomposed to objective elements insofar as films have narratives, plots, form, and content. There IS form, and there IS narrative, but what is the NATURE of its form and narrative? Anything beyond the surface presence of elements is entirely opinion, philosophy, and theory, and thereby subjective. Your point was that the objective elements can relate meaningfully to one's opinion. Of course, I agree. I would be stupid not to. But the idea that one could construe a film's plotting as "objectively bad" does not sit well with me, and is the basis of this entire foray.

It isn't entirely opinion, and whatever philosophy underlies the work is certainly not entirely opinion. As an example (calling on some deductive logic) a film can include points A, B and C and seek to conclude D but the filmmaker may forget to include point B or include a faulty version of B and still seek to conclude D and it's a reasonable criticism to call the filmmaker out on such a misstep. As a less abstract example some readings/interpretations/criticisms of films are more to the point or have more grounding in relation to the form/content of the work itself than others do.

Perhaps in my initial post I did not make it clear, or maybe I did, I don't remember one way or another. But my purpose with that post was to claim that I find those elements more objectively analyzable than aesthetic (or rather, than the value judgments which often become inextricably intertwined with aesthetic). I was also seeking to divorce form and content from aesthetic because I agreed with Israfel about aesthetic in so far as I felt that form/content could be extrapolated in a largely objective manner (with ideological disputes of course).

[D_Davis]

Yes, this is what I was driving at. The film intoxicates us with a wildly entertaining villain to the point where it becomes disappointing when we return to the character who is supposed to be the hero. Yes, he is placed in key situations, because someone has to be. But the skills and personality he offers are not any more compelling than if you placed a highly skilled police officer in that role. I do not care about the choices he makes. I am not excited about the skills he brings to the table.

I agree.

A hero only reacts to a villain's actions. Villains always take the initiative. Villains are the catalysts for the narrative, and therefor they are far more interesting.

[Spinal]

Spinal just hates Batman.

Did you ever watch the animated series?

I made my feelings about the character known from the start. So, accept an opinion from that perspective or don't. I think I've been fair. I did like the film after all.

Can you really see me sitting down to watch an animated Batman series?

[Duncan]

I agree with most of this. Some very good points. I liked the score a lot and the way that kept the energy of the film up. The plot was indeed pretty convoluted and muddy. I chose to not even bother piecing together the details, opting instead to concentrate on the big picture stuff. The scenes without conclusions kind of annoyed me too, though not as much as you. Dent's transformation .... pretty silly. Not effectively played by Eckhart and I kind of giggled when he lay down in the oil perfectly with one half of his face immersed. Also thought his Terminator make-up later was too much. Screenplay is mostly typical overwrought superhero silliness, but I did think that it hit upon some good ideas from time to time. The cell-phone monitoring system was really, really silly. Didn't care for that at all and didn't understand how it would be possible for one man to make any sense out of that much data.

Where I wholeheartedly disagree is in the value of Ledger's performance. I liked that they made him a force rather than simply a human being. I thought that was a choice that gave the film a lot of its danger. I liked that his backstory was kept brief and that the way in which he put together his plots was left a mystery. Come on, that hospital sequence is pretty darn funny. There were moments that it seemed liked he was trying to work against a shaky piece of writing, but for the most part ... loved it. Miles beyond Nicholson.

I agree with this stuff.

[Watashi]

I made my feelings about the character known from the start. So, accept an opinion from that perspective or don't. I think I've been fair. I did like the film after all.

Can you really see me sitting down to watch an animated Batman series?

Uh... it priemered in 1993. You were probably in middle school when it happened. Why wouldn't you watch it?

[Spinal]

Uh... it priemered in 1993. You were probably in middle school when it happened. Why wouldn't you watch it?

I graduated from high school in 1991.

[D_Davis]

I graduated from high school in 1991.

Yes. A fellow senior.

[Raiders]

I graduated from high school in 1991.

What year did you buy your walker, grandpa?

[Scar]

I graduated from high school in 1991.

Still got that 8-track player?

[Spinal]

Ah, I see. Besmirch your beloved Batman and you turn into a mob. :lol:

[Scar]

Ah, I see. Besmirch your beloved Batman and you turn into a mob. :lol:

At least we're not an angry mob!

[Raiders]

Ah, I see. Besmirch your beloved Batman and you turn into a mob. :lol:

"Besmirch." That's such an old-timer's word.

[Bosco B Thug]

My bias leans towards a favorable opinion of Bale just because of the fact he did The Machinist. He was really good in Rescue Dawn, too.

[D_Davis]

Ah, I see. Besmirch your beloved Batman and you turn into a mob. :lol:

It's the ignorance of youth.

[DavidSeven]

I thought the plot was pretty easy to follow, but I do still have a couple "logic" questions that still linger:

Reese discovers Batman's identity by finding the blueprint for The Tumbler (Batmobile) -- what about all of those people who built the damn thing? I assume Fox didn't do it himself.

Gordon faking his death during the assassination attempt on the mayor -- am I missing something here? Did he know this was going to happen or did he just recognize an opportunity to set his plan in motion? Was he actually shot? There didn't seem to any lingering effects of a bullet wound.

[Melville]

I think Qrazy's list of elements can be decomposed to objective elements insofar as films have narratives, plots, form, and content. There IS form, and there IS narrative, but what is the NATURE of its form and narrative? Anything beyond the surface presence of elements is entirely opinion, philosophy, and theory, and thereby subjective.
Well, I think it's slightly more complicated than that (as Qrazy said, interpretations and valuations have varying degrees of connection to the film's objective elements), but we basically agree.


And of course I think that one's evaluation of a film should ultimately be based on an examination of the film. You're fine with Duncan's appraisal of the film as he filters it through his subjective associative methods of criticism. That's fine and great and what I think has been my position this whole time. It just seemed like people were opposed to these associative methods.
People were opposed to it when it seemed to be directly relating the film's popular reception to its value. Once Duncan clarified that the popular reception merely made him look more closely at the film, I think we all agreed that he was justified.


Without question.
Yeah, I don't get the love for Bale. He's only really good when he starts hamming it up in a comedic way, e.g. in American Psycho and his maggot-eating scene in Rescue Dawn. When he's trying to be serious, it's always too evident that he's putting on a performance, and too much of that performance consists of furrowing his brow and curling his lips into quizzical or angry expressions.

[Dukefrukem]

Gordon faking his death during the assassination attempt on the mayor -- am I missing something here? Did he know this was going to happen or did he just recognize an opportunity to set his plan in motion? Was he actually shot? There didn't seem to any lingering effects of a bullet wound.

I was actually gonna ask about this but from what I assumed, when he was shot, they looked at that as an opportunity to start a plan... However, what doesn't make sense is the fact that it was Batman who asked Harvey to call a press conference, so Bruce Wayne could come forward with who he really was... The plan to keep Gordon's survival a secret had to have been made AFTER Batman suggested the press conference because if Wayne didn't know that Harvey was gonna take the fall, he wouldn't have burned all of the documents and put away all his Batman stuff... he also wouldn't have told Alfred he was going to turn himself in... And I guess like Harvey said in the movie, they expected Batman to do the right thing... save his ass. So there is a bit of misleading events here.

[Morris Schæffer]

A somewhat interesting thread on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=641136

Oh relax. I said "somewhat." :P

[Grouchy]

It's interesting how many of my friends complain that the villains from the first four Batman movies steal the show from Batman himself, (especially the Joker in the first one) and yet the same thing has happened here. I found the film quite dull when Ledger and Eckhart weren't on screen. In fact it could be argued (if this hasn't been mentioned all ready) that Harvey Dent is the real main character, or at least that's how it feels to me. It seems that the more villains there are in a Batman film, the less interesting Batman becomes and/or is pushed aside until he feels barely significant.
But keep in mind this is a sequel to a movie that was focused almost entirely on Batman learning his first chops. It's obvious that now the script is going to gain more focus on the villains - and yes, just like in its comic inspiration The Long Halloween, Harvey Dent is the true tragic hero of the film. But compare it to Batman Returns for a second here. In that film, Batman is basically a plot point to set the manic antics of Penguin and Catwoman in motion. We get zero insight on anything he thinks or feels. He's not even an actual character in that movie.

[Grouchy]

Gordon faking his death during the assassination attempt on the mayor -- am I missing something here? Did he know this was going to happen or did he just recognize an opportunity to set his plan in motion? Was he actually shot? There didn't seem to any lingering effects of a bullet wound.
I, too, think that it was the shooting that inspired the plan. I think Batman did genuinely want to turn himself in, though, and it was Harvey's intervention that saved his ass. Only Batman and Gordon were aware of the plan, and it doesn't collide with the genuine intention of Wayne to unmask himself.

The first one you point out is a plot hole, though. But considering the Tumbler is such a bonafide military secret on itself, who knows? Those things are made of different pieces in different countries all around the world, too. Toyota style.

[megladon8]

I made my feelings about the character known from the start. So, accept an opinion from that perspective or don't. I think I've been fair. I did like the film after all.

Can you really see me sitting down to watch an animated Batman series?


That seems kind of condescending.

It's a great show, Batman or not.

[Spinal]

That seems kind of condescending.

It's a great show, Batman or not.

So everything has to match my taste? What are you talking about?

If you didn't want to watch performance art, would I call you condescending? I could point you towards some great stuff.

[megladon8]

So everything has to match my taste? What are you talking about?

If you didn't want to watch performance art, would I call you condescending? I could point you towards some great stuff.


No, just that coupled with your later comment that you were already out of high school at the time seems like you were saying the show is childish.

But it had better writing than 99% of the live action, "for grown-ups" shows I've seen.

I'm just sayin'...:)

[Spinal]

No, just that coupled with your later comment that you were already out of high school at the time seems like you were saying the show is childish.


Watashi was the one who said I should have been watching it in middle school. I don't really know anything about it. Just not something I'm likely to pursue.

[megladon8]

Watashi was the one who said I should have been watching it in middle school. I don't really know anything about it. Just not something I'm likely to pursue.


Fair enough!

Just wouldn't want you to miss out if you were simply avoiding it because you thought it was "kids' stuff".

Yeah, if you have no interest in Batman or the universe, I don't see it doing much for you.

[MadMan]

At least we're not an angry mob!*Grabs pitchfork* I beg to differ :P


Winner!Yey! :pritch: :lol:

[Spinal]

Fair enough!

Just wouldn't want you to miss out if you were simply avoiding it because you thought it was "kids' stuff".

Yeah, if you have no interest in Batman or the universe, I don't see it doing much for you.

Oh no, I watch lots of things that are considered kids' stuff. No issue there.

[Qrazy]

My bias leans towards a favorable opinion of Bale just because of the fact he did The Machinist. He was really good in Rescue Dawn, too.

He was really good in the following films.

# I'm Not There. (2007) .... Jack/Pastor John
# The Prestige (2006) .... Alfred Borden
# Rescue Dawn (2006) .... Dieter
# The New World (2005) .... John Rolfe
# Batman Begins (2005) .... Bruce Wayne / Batman
# Maquinista, El (2004) .... Trevor Reznik
... aka The Machinist (International: English title) (USA)
# American Psycho (2000) .... Patrick Bateman
# Velvet Goldmine (1998) .... Arthur Stuart
# Henry V (1989) .... Boy
# Empire of the Sun (1987) .... Jim 'Jamie' Graham

And the others I've seen him in... Equilibrium, 3:10 to Yuma, Reign of Fire, etc were adequate performances if standard action fare.