Batman Begins: The Dark Knight Returns?

Batman Begins had to live up to as many expectations as a future king. The creative forces behind the film, including Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, and Gary Oldman, perhaps conjured up the most hopes. Nolan has made a name for himself as a creative storyteller through his unique narrative and editing style; Bale has staked a claim on the conflicted and eccentric characters of cinema; and perhaps most unexpectedly, Katie Holmes has earned a last minute reputation as an “amazingly talented woman” courtesy of adoring beau, Tom Cruise. And of course there is the sheer force of the Batman franchise itself, which commands high anticipation for this latest stage of evolution. The question is this: is the sum as great as its parts?

The most successful and enjoyable aspect of Batman Begins is the fact that it is about Batman. I myself prefer the Dark Knight over all other superheroes, but even if I was the most cynical of Superman fans (is there such a thing?), I would be unable to resist the compelling story of the superhero’s origins. We all know that his parents were murdered in front of him when he was a child and that he lives his adult life exacting justice or vengeance on crime itself, but this story takes us through the in-between years that the other films choose to skip. From his athletic training to the assembly of his gear, it is fascinating and, surprisingly, intellectually satisfying to watch Bruce Wayne take the physical, mental, and spiritual journey of becoming Batman.

Through Wayne's personal journey, not only do we learn how a mere mortal is able to soar from roof top to roof top, we are invited to encounter his conflict and humanity up close. Whereas in previous cinematic representations Bruce Wayne's sadness and anger obviously drive him, he does not externalize these emotions quite so much as he does in Batman Begins. Because of the character's demand for emotional nuance, Christian Bale is the perfect man for the job. Bale excellently portrays the introspective aristocrat in both body and soul. Bale, who gained over 25 pounds of muscle for the part, had a commanding presence on the screen at all times, and not once did I doubt that his physique was capable of Batman’s amazing physical feats. (Bale explains that his goal is to make Bruce Wayne as Batman physically believable.) But what makes Bale Bruce Wayne and Bruce Willis not is the emotional depth that he brings to the masked avenger. From a flicker in his eyes to a turn of his mouth, Bale is able to masterfully externalize the deepest parts of Bruce Wayne. In comparison to the Batmen of the past, he is by far the most accessible and perhaps even the most dark. What other actors have portrayed through apparent insecurity, shyness, and cockiness, Bale is able to come out and say and act precisely and unapologetically.

Two other shining performances of note are those of Gary Oldman and Cillian Murphy. Gary Oldman plays an excellent down-and-out good guy whose heart of gold and compassionate spirit enable him to see the good in Batman. Of course, this everyman is none other than the soon-to-be-Commissioner Gordon, and the initial interactions between Oldman’s Gordon and Bale’s Batman successfully set the precedent for their relationship in future segments of the story. Cillian Murphy gives an outstanding performance as Dr. Jonathan Crane. In spite of his dubious character, I found myself thoroughly enjoying and anticipating his scenes and left the theater feeling that he had stolen the show from everyone but Batman himself.

Unfortunately, the other characters in the film are hardly as successful. The fault for this lies, at times, with the actors, and at others, with the script. Although Liam Neeson brilliantly conveys Ducard, the character remains too amorphous for us to really understand or even fear him. He seems far too rational to be a mad man but far too insane to be rational, and so we are left frustrated and confused. Opposite his complexity, Katie Holmes is one-dimensional and too much, well, too much Katie Holmes. She is overwhadowed by a year of media attention and her first role as Joey Potter. She does not yet have the ability or the gravitas to carry the role of a leading lady, and I feel certain that almost anyone else from the actress pool would have been more appropriate in her part.

I suppose it is commendable that the worst fault of the film was its fight scenes. Hollywood is not known for its ability to choreograph, film, and edit fight scenes, and so we knew to not expect much. However, these were particularly excruciating. The rapid-fire cutting and close-up camera work would have rendered even the best planned fight a headache to watch, but Nolan exacerbated these problems with pervasive dark costumes and lighting. They certainly were appropriate for the tone of the film, but in the jumble of a fight, it is nearly impossible to keep track of who is who, who is losing, and who is winning. To avoid a headache, you finally zone out until the end where you can count the score. I found this to be particularly disappointing because Batman is one of the few superheroes who is truly a skilled fighter, and in this story, where his skills are explained through his training in martial arts and his time in the Far East, I feel that a key opportunity was missed.

In general, Batman Begins is a good film. Its successes are great, but so are its failures, even if only in relation to the expectations that they failed. If you view this film expecting nothing more than a comic book, then you will be pleasantly surprised by its depth and ingenuity. If you view it expecting the masterpiece you would hope it to be, then expect to be disappointed.

The Life Aquatic: Fiction stranger than fact

The Life Aquatic seems like a foreign movie to me; the first time through is like learning the language. The second or third time through will afford more substance and fuller thoughts for me. Nevertheless, I would like to address the belief that this film is significantly more abstract and removed from reality in comparison to the rest of West Anderson's films.

Anderson's previous three films have offered very strange characters who are placed in mostly normal situations. Dignan, Max, and Ritchie (though there are many to choose from in Royal Tenenbaums) are markedly odd individuals with neurotic behaviors, but they exist in mostly normal worlds, surrounded by mostly normal people, and operating in mostly normal story lines. (Granted, this becomes less so in The Royal Tenenbaums as Anderson nears the point where The Life Aquatic would be created.) What Anderson does with The Life Aquatic is a) increase the number of odd characters in his story from one or two to virtually the whole cast (we also saw this in Tenenbaums) and b) create a world and story line that is as removed from our own world as his characters are from ourselves. Zissou is clearly our primary eccentric, but he carries with him a whole crew of neurotic characters on a crazy mission. So, in this sense, the strangeness present in The Life Aquatic is not a new thing for Anderson by any means, but it appears in a much more potent form.

It is interesting to consider that due to, not in spite of, the oddity throughout, The Life Aquatic is not so very different from fairy tales and folk traditions. Zissou is our post-modern Beowulf who is not nearly as perfect but just as confident, and he goes on his heroic mission to the bottom of "unprotected waters" to wage war against his Grendel. In this way, Anderson carries on the tradition of outlandish storytelling to prover a greater, simpler point. This comparison makes the story a tad more understandable, but his ultimate message still eludes me.

I haven't yet decided if I enjoyed the film or not. My main issue with it is the apparently impassive attitude of the characters towards their amoral and despicable behavior. There seems to be no overriding conscience to this film. In Bottle Rocket, Anthony is troubled by the unlawful behavior of Dignan and himself. In Rusmore, Max and Herman appeal to a higher law of friendship and fidelity, and Herman seems at least vaguely aware and bothered by the immoral nature of his infidelity with Rosemary. Finally, in The Royal Tenenbaums, Royal reaches a point of seemingly sincere repentance about his selfish lifestyle. However, The Life Aquatic’s Zissou is disinterested at best when it comes to his own sins. His character arc is completed with a lackluster, "oh-alright" concession to the reality of his behavior. Furthermore, Ned is aware of the knavish behavior of the man he calls "Pappy Steve," but he still abdicates control to him and fails to remove himself from the situation. I find that, upon first viewing, this film appears to be almost entirely without conscience, and any authority is acknowledged reluctantly and unhappily.

Again, I think that the apparent strangeness of this film is easily surmounted if you look back at fairy tales and other stories of fantastic nature from the story telling tradition, and its enigmas may be solved with multiple viewings. But it may never find a conscience.