Batman Begins Rebuttal. Now Featuring Rebuttal's Revenge

My good friend Orian57 recently entered the world of the Dark Knight at my behest. He played Arkham Asylum, watched Batman Begins and it's successor, The Dark Knight. He details these exploits here in his almost fantastic blog: http://nowwithnumbers.blogspot.com/

I'm glad he watched the films and played the games, I enjoyed his reviews, but I don't entirely agree with his view on Begins, and here is my rebuttal. After consequent conversation with Orian about this here rebuttal, it's come to my attention that I in no way needed to be kind with my rebuking. I chose a tactile response to most of his points as I felt it a tad unfair to lash him for something he's gently wading in to. Now, the gloves are off. Rebuttal's Revenge will appear in green.

"The first half of this is pretty slow, which isn’t a bad thing in itself (The Beach is positively glacial at times but doesn’t suffer for it) it’s just slowed by trying to cultivate sympathy by showing us Bruce Wayne’s Parents and then killing them and it, actually, sort of being his fault but not really. I mean even at my most causally aware of Batman I knew that Joker killed his parents which ruins the pay off in either ‘Dark Knight’ or the one after (I am under the impression it’s a trilogy)."


Okay, you touch on the film being slow, it is certainly a slow start, and in my opinion it's a little too slow, but that doesnt hurt the film as much as you suggest. In order to understand Bruce Wayne's motives we need to see these things. Sympathy has to be cultivated in order for the audience to understand how Batman Begins - see what I did there - it's these foundations that are needed in order for the film to achieve it's aims. If the set up had been rushed, the characterisation would most definitely have been all the poorer for it. It is slow though, and after viewing the sequal it suffers for it. However, without the slow paced introduction, I don't think the film, or it's soon to be successors would be half as strong.  Next. At your most casually aware of Batman. You were wrong. In only one adaption as I know it, does the Joker have any involvement with Wayne's parents deaths. That being the 1989 Batman by Tim Burton, and even then I believe it's only Wayne senior, although my memory may be shady. There are of course many different interpretations to the origin story, but as that isn't the case here the pay-off isn't really ruined. 1 point for being correct in the fact that it will be a trilogy.  


"Granted the arc of him mastering his fear of bats is interesting and a good theme – but then he uses his mastery of fear to “turn fear against those who prey on the fearful” surely making him someone who preys on the newly fearful who in turn will need someone to scare him?" 

This point is hard to touch on without a person having seen The Dark Knight. It is however about escalation. A lingering thread that Nolan starts in Begins. It's interesting you pick up on it though, because I certainly didn't on my first watch of Begins. That is however the whole point. Batman is so successful at what he set out to do, that in turn the mobsters look to someone who doesn't play with the same rule book as anyone else. Someone who will go to any lengths to stop him, enter the Joker. You've seen the Dark Knight and as i've yet to see your review, you might mention this in your review of Knight. 


"Enter scarecrow, played by Cillian Murphy, who uses a gas to create fear and mental breakdown in his victims. A truly cruel villain but I learned nothing about him I didn’t get from AA. I get that they’re separate media but they use the same universe and I feel they should bring new interpretations to an old idea. Isn’t that what fan fiction is about? I mean has every Batman thing that’s ever come out just been more of exactly the same? I can’t judge but that’s the impression I’m starting to get."


They are a seperate media, Begins, as far as i'm aware was the first of the films to feature the Scarecrow as a villain at all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_film_series  It also came out before Arkham Asylum, I wouldn't be surprised if they were attracted by Nolan's take on the villian and modelled their version on him. A lot of Batman is obviously based heavily on the source material, which is vast, expansive and though you don't believe it, ever changing. The origins of Batman remain loosely the same, his parents were killed - enter quest for revenge. In each film, the story differs slightly, and how he becomes Batman differs quite a lot. In Nolan's interpretation he gets training from the League of Shadows, something that definitely delivers a new angle on something that could of been quite stale for an elder statesman to the series, and is interesting enough for a newcomer. On the other side of the coin, the villains have such an expansive back story from the graphic novels, that it's hard to touch on a vein that hasn't already been mined heavily. I understand the feeling that there isn't as much too Scarecrow as their could of been, but he's almost a bit part. As you say, it's early in your Batman history, so it's hard to judge. Certainly with regards to Scarecrow - even though with regards to film this is an entirely new character, the game shows him in much the same way, and as you played it first, i'm not surprised you took that view. 


"I’d have been totally behind Bats if I’d known he was enjoying himself. Instead he’s oh so terribly compassionate in that irritating holier-than-thou way that pisses me off to no end."

I think that's the point of a "Super-Hero" it's someone who morally is better than your average mortal. Now I know that you've never been a great fan of the super universe. So it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you feel that way. In any normal film, i'd probably feel the exact same. 

You rebuked this with the point that Batman isn't "super", that's fine, it's a well known argument, an ouroborors if you will. He may not posess any superpowers, but he definitely comes under the category of hero, and you really seem to fail to grasp that heroes don't work like the flawed characters you are used seeing in movies. They are flawed in that they aren't flawed. It's a film trying to depict a set of unrealistic characters in a realistic way. Maybe that doesn't tick your box. From my angle, Batman is the most super of any of the heroes. He's a man, who uses everything at his disposal, trains his body to the physical peak, has genius level intellect, is willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done (apart from kill - and in not doing so, proves that it's not neccessary) he doesn't have super-strength or the ability to phase through walls. However he does the extraordinary and that's why he's a super-hero. 

"It almost convinced me of his ultra-moral stance but right after I was thinking it might not be as much of a contradiction as all that he burns down the League of Shadows’ training facility that he’s been living in for seven years – killing at least three people and severely injuring others all because they asked him to murder a man who killed a whole family for some extra land. You see my problem here? Then at the end he lets a nemesis die in what can only be described as manslaughter with intent. This isn’t a flawed character it’s a broken one, trying to get you to accept two contradictory sides to him as moral. This would be acceptable – if infuriating – if the doublethink was offered to you by the character alone, but it’s the movie."

At the point where he blows up the League of Shadows, which I might add, he doesn't do with intent. Unlike the manslaughter. He hasn't formed his image of how he wants to go about being Batman, although he has enough morals to not want the man dead. He has a strong sense of justice, i'm sure there's a line about what he thinks should be done. Regarding how he lets a nemesis die. The character himself covers it when he leaves Wayne for dead in the manor. "You burned down my house and left me for dead, now i'm doing the same", Batman pretty much does the same again, admittedly he as good as kills him, but he doesn't physically do it. "Ducard" does it to himself. He set the train up, Gordon destroys the bridge, Batman just leaves him on the train. I think this is very much point of view, i'm sure we could bat back and forth over reasons it's contradictory and reasons it's not. 

"He knows the explosives are up there" Yeah he does, but that doesn't mean he sets out with the intent to paint the League of Shadows clubhouse in an all new blood red. He believes no matter the crime it's not enough of a reason to KNOWINGLY take another's life. It's a tightrope of intrigue. Basically he kills Ducard, or to look at it in another way, he just doesn't save him. He doesn't stop him from saving himself, no tying down, no Batarang to the face at the last minute. He just escapes. In what way does that constitute to a broken character? He doesn't stray from the morals set in the opening half of the film in any way as far as I can see. Prove me wrong? 


"To which Bruce whips out his penis – wallet! – and buys the hotel so he can change the rules. Fuck him. The most terrible thing about this scene is it was so colossally unimportant."

The thing is, this scene is colossally important, it's not so much about the girls in the pool, or the buying of the hotel, but it's that exchange with Rachel as he leaves. Bruce Wayne is Batman, but Batman is not Bruce Wayne, they are as you touch upon, two entirely different characters. Wayne is a complete facáde, he has to portray himself as colossally (great word) stupid, a playboy, even with the philanthropy. Where as the reality is he's more like his alter-ego, but in order to maintain cover, has to maintain that facáde. He wants to tell Rachel the reality of his situation, but he understands he could never give her what she needs. 


With the gloves off, this vengeful rebuttal is simple. You didn't understand the film. You need to watch this scene again and see what it's really about. 

"I suppose you’re meant to take Batman and Bruce as slightly separate characters – they’re never in the same room together – if that’s the case we could probably add Split-Personality to Psycopathy and Messiah Complex in the list of mental disorders this man has" - Sarcasm, you say.


Once again, you really didn't understand this film. They are seperate characters. I touch upon it above, but Wayne is the facáde, an egotistic, playboy, willing to splash cash on whatever takes his fancy, a serial womaniser with his philanthropic nature the only ounce of decency in an otherwise air headed character. A whole facáde. Batman is the real Wayne and again a totally different character. Even though you are being sarcastic - which is a shame because you showed some insight here - you are quite possibly right, he is quite probably a psycopath.  


  "Which does beg the question why he’s bothering with the city at all if both the rich and desperate are toxic to him." 

He's bothering because regardless of how he feels about them - both the rich and the desperate, I gather he feels less for the rich than the desperate - he knows that they don't deserve to live in that constant state of fear that Gotham presents them with.


So, in retrospect. Perhaps a re-viewing would do you some good. Maybe with a notepad, or the directors commentary so you can jot down notes and get a real insight to what it is actually about? Just a thought ;P

I look forward to your review of Knight, and any points you'd like to attack that i've made here. 

Hope this reads okay.  

Edit* Here is Orian's Knight review with his re-rebuttal to mine. 
http://nowwithnumbers.blogspot.com/2012/01/dark-knight.html

Click now for non-fanboy opinions *rofl*