The Batman

[megladon8]

What a weird piece of music.

[StuSmallz]

[StuSmallz]

Paul Dano Talks Shifting to Riddler Mode and Joining the Superhero Genre

[Skitch]

Maybe Skitch is Joker.

That would be a boring twist, but the neurologist did inform me yesterday that my brainwaves are abnormal, so I guess....

[baby doll]

Runtime is not universal.

Judge after.

Sensible point, but at the same time, oh come on! Three hours?!? For a Batman movie?! Tim Burton was already pushing it at two hours. This isn't Shoah we're talking about. What happened to discipline and proportionality in Hollywood filmmaking? What happened to entertainment? I feel like we're living in Stalinist Russia: not only were Nolan's Batman films capitalist propaganda, they were bad capitalist propaganda, lumbering, witless monuments to themselves designed to pummel the spectator into submission with their unrelenting and unearned self-importance. Is there no one in Hollywood capable of, or interested in, bringing a movie in at a lean 75-80 minutes, instead of 135 (now the average length for a mainstream movie, to say nothing of bigger-budget films whose makers seem convinced the films need to be really, really long in order to justify their massive costs)? I got shit to do, people! It seems to me that the biggest problem with contemporary cinema is this pious genuflecting to the "vision" of directors who have none, who don't know how to shoot and cut a sequence (i.e., the very basics of filmmaking), and don't want to cut anything they've shot.

[Skitch]

I would guess you one of the last people to complain the runtime isnt universal so I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

[megladon8]

How in the world were Nolan's Batman films capitalist propaganda?

The third film is specifically about taking down the American 1% - the pinnacle of capitalist belief systems and practice.

[Skitch]

How in the world were Nolan's Batman films capitalist propaganda?

The third film is specifically about taking down the American 1% - the pinnacle of capitalist belief systems and practice.

I was gonna say the same, but I wanted to hear more about runtime first.

[baby doll]

I would guess you one of the last people to complain the runtime isnt universal so I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

Obviously I can't speak to this specific case as I haven't seen the film, but as a general rule, I hold narrative economy to be a virtue and find it conspicuously lacking in many, if not most, recent movies, both mainstream and arthouse, which are much longer than they need to be.

[baby doll]

How in the world were Nolan's Batman films capitalist propaganda?

The third film is specifically about taking down the American 1% - the pinnacle of capitalist belief systems and practice.

I haven't seen any of them in ten years so my memory of them is a bit shaky, but it seemed to me that Batman/Bruce Wayne is just another member of the one percent committed to preserving his class privilege, even if he has to go outside the law to do so (since obviously the law doesn't apply to rich people, its principle function being to protect rich people from having their property taken away from them by the poor).

[megladon8]

No, definitely not.

Like I said the third is especially not that. Wayne loses everything.

[StuSmallz]

Just got back from this, and I don't quite have as much to say about it as I was hoping I would, but that's not because I didn't like it; on the contrary, because I actually liked it quite a bit on the whole. Rather... [

Show Spoiler

my lack of thoughts is more a natural result of how familiar an experience The Batman was at times, not just with the obvious inspiration it took from Nolan's Bat-trilogy (particular during a scene where another famous Batbaddie broadcasts his sadistic hostage-taking), but also from David Fincher's murky "serial thrillers", and even the elaborate death traps of the Saw movies, which resulted in the film feeling more derivative than it should have, especially coming from a director as skilled with blockbusters as Matt Reeves has proven himself to be.

However, despite that, and the fact that its somewhat convoluted plot and nearly 3-hour runtime both could've done with a little bit of pruning, The Batman still succeeds as meaty, intelligent, and engaging blockbuster filmmaking throughout, the kind that's disappointingly uncommon in modern Hollywood, as Reeves showcases his knack in directing memorable setpieces, and fully leans into the rich iconography and symbolism that's made its central character such an enduring figure in pop culture, creating a moody, thrilling experience that ultimately proves to be (mostly) worth the afternoon I spent to watch it. And, while its creative choices can't help but keep it somewhat in the shadow of The Dark Knight, which still remains the franchise's high water mark to date, The Batman still manages to be the runner-up Batfilm for me for now, and a strong foundation to build higher upon for whenever the inevitable sequel comes out; bring on some more battiness, baby!

]

[StuSmallz]

Sensible point, but at the same time, oh come on! Three hours?!? For a Batman movie?! Tim Burton was already pushing it at two hours. This isn't Shoah we're talking about. What happened to discipline and proportionality in Hollywood filmmaking? What happened to entertainment? I feel like we're living in Stalinist Russia: not only were Nolan's Batman films capitalist propaganda, they were bad capitalist propaganda, lumbering, witless monuments to themselves designed to pummel the spectator into submission with their unrelenting and unearned self-importance. Is there no one in Hollywood capable of, or interested in, bringing a movie in at a lean 75-80 minutes, instead of 135 (now the average length for a mainstream movie, to say nothing of bigger-budget films whose makers seem convinced the films need to be really, really long in order to justify their massive costs)? I got shit to do, people! It seems to me that the biggest problem with contemporary cinema is this pious genuflecting to the "vision" of directors who have none, who don't know how to shoot and cut a sequence (i.e., the very basics of filmmaking), and don't want to cut anything they've shot.

Well, it definitely didn't need to be that long, since it could've easily been cut down to 2 & 1/2 hours even (or maybe less than that, to be honest). Still a good movie despite that, though, and while we're on the subject, how were Burton's Batmovies pushing things as far their runtimes went? I mean, I didn't like '89 at all, but that wasn't because of it being too long, and Returns, while a bit messy with its plotting, still felt like more or less the perfect length, if you ask me.

[baby doll]

Well, it definitely didn't need to be that long, since it could've easily been cut down to 2 & 1/2 hours even (or maybe less than that, to be honest). Still a good movie despite that, though, and while we're on the subject, how were Burton's Batmovies pushing things as far their runtimes went? I mean, I didn't like '89 at all, but that wasn't because of it being too long, and Returns, while a bit messy with its plotting, still felt like more or less the perfect length, if you ask me.

In keeping with my belief that narrative economy is a virtue, I think the vast majority of contemporary movies--and not just the Burton Batman films (which I haven't seen since childhood; the first so bored me at the time I ejected the tape halfway through)--would be improved by being shorter. Compared with the narrative economy of films made in the 1930s, both in Hollywood and Japan, most contemporary movies seem bloated and indulgent. To contemporary eyes, masterpieces like Mervyn LeRoy's Hard to Handle, Naruse's Wife! Be Like a Rose!, and Renoir's Le Crime de Monsieur Lange (all of which clock in at less than eighty minutes) feel like a rebuke of the flabbiness of contemporary films that take much more time and accomplish so much less.

[Pop Trash]

I do think it's interesting how many of those arthouse classics clocked in at less than two hours. Seventh Seal feels like it should be three hours but is at a brisk 1:36. The 400 Blows - 1:38, Rashomon - 1:28, Citizen Kane - (which if anything could be 3 hours ... it's frickin' Citizen Kane) 1:59, Persona - 1:23(!!), Seven Samurai - 2:21 which is about average now. Most of the '60s Godard films clock in around the 90 to 120 minute mark. Contemporary filmmakers could learn a thing or two about economy.

[megladon8]

Seven Samurai is only 2:20?

Why do I always remember it being a 3-1/2 hour film?

[baby doll]

Seven Samurai is only 2:20?

Why do I always remember it being a 3-1/2 hour film?

I think that was a typo, or maybe he's thinking of The Hidden Fortress. Seven Samurai is 200 minutes (and earns every one of them).

[Skitch]

I think that was a typo, or maybe he's thinking of The Hidden Fortress. Seven Samurai is 200 minutes (and earns every one of them).

But doesn't that go against your argument? If a movie can earn its runtime, it deserves it? I'm not saying most of today's summer fair isn't too long, in fact I agree, but I feel it's odd to judge length economy of a film unseen. You may be totally right! I don't know. I just know I've seen 75 minute movies way too long and 3 hr movies too short.

[baby doll]

But doesn't that go against your argument? If a movie can earn its runtime, it deserves it? I'm not saying most of today's summer fair isn't too long, in fact I agree, but I feel it's odd to judge length economy of a film unseen. You may be totally right! I don't know. I just know I've seen 75 minute movies way too long and 3 hr movies too short.

It depends on what the film is trying to do. Jeanne Dielman..., for instance, is three and a half hours but it's a tight three and a half hours: every scene has its place and function within the film's structure and contributes to the overall effect. Nothing is thrown away or done for its own sake or some misguided notion of "immersiveness" (as if spending more time with the characters automatically made them more interesting or believable). On the other hand, a filmmaker like Abdellatif Kechiche simply doesn't know when his scenes are supposed to end. This was less of a problem in Le Grain et le mulet because the film's overall structure was sound, but his later Blue Is the Warmest Colour is merely a succession of shapeless, boring scenes ultimately going nowhere. (I haven't yet seen his four-hour ass-shaking movie, but I suspect it's either a complete disaster or some kind of self-reflexive masterpiece where the film's real subject is the spectator's experience of duration, although knowing Kechiche the former seems more likely.) The point is a film needs to earn every minute, as Kubrick is reported to have said to Nicole Kidman on the set of Eyes Wide Shut, and most contemporary filmmakers are far less skillful at telling stories on the screen than Kurosawa, Kubrick, or Akerman.

[Skitch]

I agree. But does this also not go to the argument that there is no defined runtime for a movie?

[megladon8]

I think that was a typo, or maybe he's thinking of The Hidden Fortress. Seven Samurai is 200 minutes (and earns every one of them).

I thought so!

And agreed. That is one of a small handful of films that deserves every single iota of praise it gets.

Fucking magnificent

[baby doll]

I agree. But does this also not go to the argument that there is no defined runtime for a movie?

Still, I would contend that very few films really need to be longer than eighty minutes (and there are a lot of films feel long at eighty minutes). In other words, most contemporary movies are long only due to the incompetence and/or self-indulgence of their makers.

[transmogrifier]

I've seen it, and I can safely say The Batman did not need to be three hours. I would have lopped off the entire third act, to be honest.

[Pop Trash]

Seven Samurai is only 2:20?

Why do I always remember it being a 3-1/2 hour film?

No you're right. Google had it at 2:21 for some reason. Bad example, but my initial point still stands. Welles, early Bergman, early Godard, Truffaut, etc. were making films at two hours or less for the most part.

[baby doll]

No you're right. Google had it at 2:21 for some reason. Bad example, but my initial point still stands. Welles, early Bergman, early Godard, Truffaut, etc. were making films at two hours or less for the most part.

Also late Godard: Passion, Nouvelle vague, Notre musique, and Adieu au langage are all around eighty minutes, and Ici et ailleurs is only fifty minutes and is as dense as fuck.