Letter

To those who say that homo
sexuality and gay love is
an imitation
is
untrue
did not sit beside as I sat across
from you
when you
gazing out the window at the sky whose edges were leaking light
said quietly
I do love him
the words walking out from between your lips
Not proudly Not shamefully
but
Matter-of-Fact as the fingerprints on the glass
I do love him you said
and I believed you

Thoughts on "The Dark Knight Rises"

Note: This post contains spoilers. Please do not read until you've seen the film, which you should do anyway.

Also note: I wrote this blog about two weeks ago when I saw the film for the first time, but decided to wait to post it until I saw it again with some friends last night. I think I liked it better the second time, but the issues I had with it, that I discuss here, were solidified for me and I've just expanded what I wrote before. 
 
I recently watched "The Dark Knight Rises" and had an enjoyable time doing so. I had postponed going to see it for two reasons: one, although I knew I was going to see it and that I couldn't do anything about it, the tragic events in Colorado made me feel strange about going to see it. I felt weird about enjoying it when others who went to do the same thing lost their lives, or have to continue living with the memory of that horrific night. I found that, while the victims of the Colorado shooting were on my mind, I still enjoyed the film. The second reason I waited was because it had been a while since I had seen the first two "Batman" films, and I wanted to catch up. However, DJ's only had them in Standard (and come on, no movie should ever been seen in anything except Widescreen) and the Red Box near my house didn't even have them. So I decided that although it had been a while, I still had seen them several times and remembered the basic events in each. Though I do owe a big thank you to Jesse Thorson (I got to see the movie first with Jesse and Kathleen) for reminding me of major plot points.

Before I go any further, I want to say that I liked the film. I might even go so far as to say I really liked it, especially after the second time. I found it interesting, touching, and I certainly didn't see any plot points coming, which is always fun. I would recommend fans to go see it, and I enjoyed it more the second time. The violence was at times a bit much for me (it felt like an auditory and visual assault, but I may be more sensitive than others) though it wasn't overtly graphic. However, I discovered several unexpected problems I had with the structure of the film, which I will discuss here. Some of the issues are well-founded in what I believe are basic elements of story-telling, and some of them are just personal opinions. But I wanted to share them nonetheless. 

Plot Structure: I'm just going to come right out and say it. It felt too long and convoluted. There are some long movies that don't feel long, because they are interesting or beautiful. And there are some short movies that feel like they last forever. This is a long movie that felt long to me. There were moments in the middle of the film where I was, quite frankly, bored. Maybe it was the knowledge at the back of my mind that whatever the fate of Batman, the bomb could not go off, the city would not be destroyed, they couldn't all die. But the tension just wasn't there for me. It was a little too predictable. This may contradict my next point, which is that I felt the story was too complicated. I generally don't have a problem with a lot of information presented to me that I have to remember (I love psychological thrillers and mysteries), but I had a hard time remembering what I was apparently supposed to remember. I think part of the problem was focus. There was a LOT going on, with a lot of different people, and I had a hard time knowing whose story it was and even what the story was. If it was about Batman, a lot of the movie was not about Batman. My friend said she found there were too many people to pay attention to, and consequently, did not feel anything for anyone. I wouldn't go that far, because I think the best parts of the film were the moments of human connection: Bruce and Alfred, Blake and Bruce, Gordon and Blake. But there were so many people and so many little stories, it was very unfocused. Compared with "The Dark Knight" (which I think I liked better, and seemed to me a really interesting, albeit horrifying, study of human nature; it also was more unpredictable), this story was confusing, and I don't know what I was supposed to come away with. It was definitely more hopeful, which I liked, but again, too convoluted. I also felt they made a mistake in the timing of the revelation of Miranda, and not Bane, as Ra's al Ghul's child. I felt it came too soon after the telling of the whole Bane backstory. If the backstory had come sooner, we would have had time to forget about it, and then the revelation would have been more of a surprise. Instead, as soon as the whole wrong truck thing came up, it was pretty obvious. So I would have liked a better "reveal" structure.

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman: I am biased on this one, because I've never really been a fan of Anne Hathaway, and I honestly couldn't tell you why. Perhaps she seems too self-assured on camera, or I always see her in whatever role she's playing (as opposed to being completely one's character, like, in my opinion, Ewan McGregor). Whatever it is, I could not take her seriously as Catwoman. Part of it is I just don't find her sexy enough (I'm a Michelle Pfeiffer fan myself, but I just like that movie), and maybe part of it was that it felt too cliche: the sexy, catty, outside-of-the-law, witty comeback girl who then becomes vulnerable and wastes precious bomb-about-to-go-off seconds kissing. A huge part of it was the role didn't at all feel important. I understand her role in the plot and what purpose she served, but I didn't think it was necessary. Next to Marion Cotillard (who, let's face it, is way sexier), I would have been fine without her there at all.

Everyone in Gotham City is an Idiot: How can no-one know that Bruce Wayne is Batman? Batman and Bruce Wayne haven't been seen in Gotham for eight years, and the very night after Bruce Wayne comes out of hermitude (I made that word up, but it seemed appropriate), Batman returns. And no one makes the connection? I kind of get it, but Catwoman? Really? You didn't get it until Bane said it? You crazy, girl.

"Strong" Female Characters/The Guy Always Gets the Girl: This was actually the strongest issue I had with the movie, and it comes entirely from my feminist perspective. Just once I would like to see a "strong" female character whose strength is not judged by her ability to beat up men. I think strength comes from mercy, from compassion, and from true courage, not from a lack of emotion or from insensitivity to death. Too often a "strong" woman is characterized by "masculine" definitions (which I also think are pretty messed up; I mean, did you see the trailer for "The Expendables 2?"), and it's getting on my nerves. Also, the idea that the hero is always rewarded with a sexy girl (two, in this case) makes me uncomfortable. It is the norm for the comic book and action hero to "win" love from the "strong" woman at the end, and it's even more normal for Batman and Catwoman to hook up, but it's a norm I reject. One of the reasons I like the movie "Hidalgo" is that it's simply a movie about a man and his horse. Yes, he meets a woman, but he doesn't "get" her in the end. Too often a male character goes through some emotional change and at the end gets the girl who didn't have any sort of emotional say in the matter, or whose emotional shift made no sense whatsoever (like in this film). It's a pattern that needs examining. We have few enough mainstream female role models in the real world, so it would be nice to have some fictional ones worthy of emulation.

Movie Actors Have Got to Stop Mumbling: Enough said. (Ok, Bane, I get it, there's a big thing on your face, but it's not just you, mister.)

Editing: I've been told one of my strengths as a director is my attention to detail. Since I had seen this film before and was at times bored, I noticed a lot of little editing mistakes that bugged me. Right hand switching to left hand, visor up versus down, etc. The biggest editing flub that confused me was this: after Batman re-emerges and gets the wireless device thing from the robbery at the stock exchange, he escapes by flying away in "The Bat." He stops by to pick up Catwoman (speaking of which, how did he know where she was? Was he just flying by and happen to notice her? Wouldn't they have heard him?) and then lands on the roof of a random building. Catwoman leaves, and Batman flies home where he talks to Alfred about getting the device thing to Fox so he can decode it, blah, blah, blah. But then, halfway through the film, Fox says Batman needs to get "The Bat," and asks if he remembered where he parked it. Home, right? No, somehow the flier magically reappears on the roof where he "left" it. Anyone? Anyone? Please tell me someone else noticed this. But even the little things got to me after a while. How could no one pay attention to those things?

With all that said, I did like the movie. I've always like Joseph Gordon-Levitt (that is a man I would go straight for) and the story did go through some interesting variations. I loved the Cillian Murphey cameo, with the Scarecrow references, and Gary Oldman is always a pleasure to watch. The problems that arose for me didn't go away the second time (and were, in fact, solidified) but I urge everyone to see it and make their own judgement. You don't have to take my word for it. *wink*