The Dark Knight Rises: Trying to Understand the Critic-free Film

In the era of the blockbuster film, the idea of the 'critic-free' film has become more prevalent than ever, mainly due to the fact that not only are there blockbusters, but blockbuster franchises. This has become a staple for the superhero film, which seems destined to dominate the box offices in this decade as well. Now, people may ask why bother analyzing superhero films in the first place. Well, the reason is is that even if they are based upon the comics, that doesn't and shouldn't deny the filmmakers the ability to apply significance to an already well-known hero. I mean, look at The Dark Knight. Although there was way too much talking in my opinion, the film still remained deeply thought-provoking and Heath Ledger was engrossing. Yes, there are almost fixed expectations for films like The Avengers, Iron Man, Spider-man, and such but why deny any leeway for more depth? Nolan has succeeded in it, didn't he? It is possible to extract elegance and emotion out of strict source material in a manner that the superhero would be like the characters from Watchmen, which I hail as a great superhero film (despite being limitless in content to the point of being overwhelming). By denying significance in the story you deny a certain level of respect to the filmmakers as well as deny any further engagement in the piece because you will always fence off the ways of deep thought, which, I guess I might have to say, is more engaging.

Before I start talking about The Dark Knight Rises, I am just going to have to state that I am not trying to dismantle any of the grandeur and popularity of the Batman trilogy. Moreover, in no way am I trying to obliterate any reason to like this powerful genre; it's the most popular genre in the last ten years, there is no shunning such a fact. With that being said, it is not critic-free. Echoing Voltaire, I say, nothing can withstand the assault of critical thinking.

The Dark Knight Rises, in being the coda of one of the most popular trilogies ever, had huge shoes to fill. Not only did The Dark Knight provide us with a villain who was terrifyingly powerful in not what he did but why he did it. You also had character dynamics (again, all perfectly laid out by the loads of dialogue) between Harvey, Batman, and the Joker. It wasn't so much that the Joker could not fight Batman, but he can match him philosophically, which is more crucial than people think since Batman Begins is an origin story of Bruce conquering his fear and developing a philosophy to determine his course of action as Batman. Then, of course, the philosophy was expanded upon to include the city of Gotham which gave rise to the repeated dialogue of Batman being the hero Gotham deserves and doesn't need but then needs. How the film executed these themes aside, there was a lot that was brought up in TDK that TDKR had to envelop and resolve.


Whether you like it or not, Nolan has his own way of narrative filmmaking, which is underlined in a sort of linear montage rather than in long takes, mise-en-scene, and graphic matching for symbolic emphasis. In a way, Nolan's construction of scenes and plot progression are very efficient; what needs to said, heard, or seen is what the scene is comprised of then on to the next scene. There is not much room for audience observation or composition, two elements that thrive in emotional development and audience interaction. I recall early in TDKR when Alfred has had just about enough of Bruce's Batman that he recalls his feelings and expectations of seeing Bruce at another table in Italy, totally content and totally detached from the dangerous lifestyle in Gotham. The scene was made up of the conventional shot-reverse shot for the dialogue between Bruce and Alfred, yet, what was being said in relation to the time of each shot was intriguing in that it felt like the whole scene wanted to end as fast as possible to go on to the next plot point. Again, the dominate cinematic approach for Nolan is efficiency. I noticed a plethora of jump cuts; not to convey a sense of fragmentation or even urgency (though most of the scenes with these cuts were in intensely rapid scenes) but to condense unnecessary moments to make way for necessary moments that propel the plot. The time jump from when Bruce climbs out of the prison to when he arrives in Gotham is, well, superhuman, but in  way that seems like desperation than convenience. With the lightning fast pace of the film, these cuts were hard for me to look over in suspension of disbelief but in my determining that Nolan, with the way he constructed his narrative, had no way to elaborate much of the trivial emotions displayed.


The most frustrating example of this aesthetic is the role of  Miranda Tate, whose courtship with Bruce is presented with, again, swift efficiency. It seemed to me the only thing that presented her as a love interest to Bruce was the fact that she was a woman. Nevermind her role in the story, Alfred and Fox both comment on how pretty she is. That's fine, but the rapidity of the love made it feel loveless. Amid all the turmoil ready to blow up and devastate the city, I feel Nolan chooses to just vouch for the most conventional manner in expressing love between two characters: the long kiss and sex, well, the aftermath (of course it wouldn't show the sex). Then there is the punchline to this relationship, where it is revealed that Miranda is Ra's's (sorry for the grammar) daughter seeking revenge on Batman and completing her father's mission of destroying Gotham (though there seems to be a level of ignorance to the League of Shadows since at the beginning of the film Gotham seemed at an ordinary state, which would go against the league's principles to purge Gotham in the first place, in which Miranda became compassionate, which is another thing you should not have as a member, but whatever). Well, the efficient courtship in the first act of the film is rendered empty to the point that the twist is empty. I perceived this relationship as just the forceful cause to the forceful effect of Miranda turning against Batman. Of course, essentially, many films with this sort of narrative twist do the exact same thing yet I don't think I have ever seen it with this much speed and this little substance. The reason it happens to be the most frustrating because Nolan has done the same thing in another recent film of his. Inception's use of the totem and the film's repeated acknowledgement of its existence and insistence that Ariadne must keep hold of it for the use of the 'cliffhanger' ending, making it obnoxiously and blatantly obvious that I was set up. This romance in TDKR unfortunately reminded me of that because it was the same sense of panic involvement, as if Nolan had forgotten the whole element and went back and frantically inserted in almost arbitrarily.

So, what do I want? I just wanted some more emotional involvement. Is that too much to ask? Batman and Bruce, I feel, were well drawn out in the film, but we already knew his stance from the end of the last film. Maybe that's why I liked Catwoman so much, who I felt had a richer personality than Miranda (executed solidly by Ann Hathaway) and I was rooting for her to win Bruce over from the beginning. The characters of Fox, Alfred, and Gordon, all acted very well by three incredible performers, but only acted within their expectations, nothing more and nothing less. The all became flat characters at this point to make way for the big and fast changes of Gotham. That leaves us with Bane, which Tom Hardy (who seems to have some of the sharpest and most interesting linguistic qualities I have seen in any up and coming actor, see the film Bronson and just listen to him and you will know what I mean) plays very well, but because he is reduced to the philosophy of the League of Shadows there is not much flexibility in his character who is already a character grounded in limited characteristics. Though I will say this, the fight scene in the middle of the film, where Batman is crushed by Bane, is brilliant, and you know why? Because there is a lot of emotion involved in the scene due mostly to its pacing but also to many other contributing factors. You know, many martial arts films express the personalities of their characters through the way they fight. Here, I felt like that was going on. The lack of a soundtrack, the use of low key lighting and the careful editing, which never became nauseating (since Nolan wanted us to feel the pain Batman did, I presume), sparked the moment of Batman/Bruce's revolution (as in, circular motion), going back to his original motivations and feelings of being Batman and his resurgence to help Gotham; it is the theme of the film, the 'clean slate' that Catwoman longs for and Gotham essentially undergoes. Moreover, the fight scene was given time to observe by the audience, such that we took in the cynical sounds, the dark environment, the devolution of Batman back to a state of metaphorical infancy ready for rebirth when he climbs out of the prison (this is supported by the fact that this prison correlates to the well Bruce falls in when he is a child). See, I liked some parts. This is where I found the film effective. I can't take it seriously as I want to when the film is busy trying to fit all the appropriate plot elements in so the film won't go over the three hour mark.


That leads us to Nolan's continuous irony. He risks any emotional elaboration for a large running time (or larger running time). Inception had that problem and so does this film. It is a strange dilemma, which, I guess, is overlooked by many, but one that concerns me in the way that he tells stories. I think it is safe to say that Nolan is the most popular director of the last five years. The general public respect him not for the films they love to see but of his ability to make solid films which makes him a harder target than Michael Bay. Just like Bay, though, he doesn't trust his audience to observe and make connections for themselves and thus create instantly gratifying narratives, which involve this high efficiency pacing I have noted in TDKR. I'm concerned because the mainstream films have diluted themselves in this manner of storytelling. What is it that you want? Well, we will give it to you constantly for two and a half hours! Enjoy! I watched TDKR at midnight and then Jaws the same night, which is amusing since Jaws is considered to be the film that launched the summer blockbuster schema. Yet, the film is told in a way where we have time to observe and become absorbed and we are not feeling manipulated or continuously spoon fed. It has come to the point where I really can't understand Nolan's aesthetic and technical choices to tell his stories. It seems like I'm a minority, which is also fine.

For people who had fun at the film, I am happy for you. No one wants to deny the fundamental reason we go to the movies. Hell, I don't even care if I don't change any minds out there about the film. But I'm not done, though. What I don't want to see is fans obnoxiously denying any existence of negativity to their dear Batman trilogy. The reason I went through all this trouble to elaborate my thoughts is that I have my opinion about the film and I'm backing them up with evidence throughout the film. It doesn't matter if I'm a film critic or a film major, using those terms as a means to negate my argument shows that you might not have anything to back your opinions up. I think I'm starting to sound rashly defensive so I'll slow down a bit. If you think TDKR is a film that is suppose to deal escapist fun and you think it did just that then fine, I'm happy that that was the case; it is a great experience to go into a theatre and come out satisfy that, for just a few moments, you can release real-world anxieties and such. Nevertheless, if you do think that way then that leaves you no room to attack critics who are not only doing their job, but exercising their passion of analyzing film and finding significance to the deliberate choices the filmmakers have made since you choose not to see a film for its layered characteristics and its aesthetic choices. Then again, if you really feel heated up after seeing a number of reviews attacking TDKR, or any film for that matter, where you hold an opposing view, well, I say start by analyzing and asking yourself why. What is the significance of this and that? Why would Nolan choose to do this or that? It doesn't take an experience critic to ask, search, and come up with conclusions. This is what I did while I sat in the theatre watching The Dark Knight Rises, a theatre that was packed from the first row to the last row. I chose to try and understand the significance of the way in which the story was told and to reasonably see its effectiveness. I go with saying that knowledge can crack critic-proof films and knowledge can shun any sort of rabid fan, endorsing conversation and further expression. What's not to like about that?

PS: Here is another thoughtful analysis of TDKR by film critic Jim Emerson, http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/07/the_dark_knight_rises_a_hero_a.html, who gives a slightly more favorable view of this film as opposed to many other Nolan titles, including his Batman films. He admires the fact that there is less talking in this one as opposed to TDK. I agree, yet what I don't like is the fact that the dialogue is so predictable, generalized, and essentially cold. Because we are dealing with more or less of the same characters, their lines are more or less the same as they always were, which is mostly made up of breakdowns on character disposition. The only two interesting characters, honestly, in terms of dialogue were Catwoman and Bane mainly because of the way they delivered their lines but also they delivered different things to think about (well, mostly). Again, I wish the storytelling and emotional expression was less, as Jim puts it, like a puzzle and more like, well, a human approach.