Sunday, January 13, 2013

Batman Begins (2005)

The Caped Crusader has held many faces under the mask over the years. From Adam West to Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer to George Clooney, the persona of billionaire Bruce Wayne has gone from cartoon to cartoonish. Christopher Nolan took up the mighty task (though not so illustrious, given its predecessors) of revamping the Dark Knight's image, and in general it is a resounding success.

Gone are the cheap tights and silly villains. Nolan has reached deep into the essence of the Bob Kane comic books and ripped out every bit of foulness in one of the darkest of all superheroes as he unfolds in greater depth the birth of the Batman. Now filling the boots and cape is Christian Bale, who delivers a capable, if somewhat stiff, performance, but it is obviously the best rendition of both Batman and Bruce Wayne.

Nolan takes us to the far reaches of the earth where Bruce has fallen into obscurity. Following the murder of his parents by a local street thug he has set his sights on travelling the world to learn how a criminal thinks. His travels have brought him to Nepal, where he is collected by a man named Ducard (Liam Neeson) and trained as a ninja to join an elite group known as the League of Shadows. Their mission is rid the world of injustice by toppling the major empires of the world. Like Rome, Constantinople and London, Gotham, a city which has "limped" on since the death of Bruce's parents, has reached its peak and now must be toppled

The good Bruce rejects them, but takes his new knowledge as a ninja, his hundreds of millions of dollars and his thirst for revenge and takes them to the streets of Gotham, hoping to strike fear into the hearts of criminals such as Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) who have slowly been rotting the city from within. The crime and corruption prove to be a formidable match for him, as we learn that this will very nearly take the form of a gangster film as well.

Nolan's Gotham takes the goth artistry of Tim Burton's versions to a new level, stripping it of its tween Disney, fantasy element, and leaving only a smokey, industrial wasteland. The movie was shot in Chicago, but they were clever enough to avoid in major landmarks or recognizable buildings, so all we see is a rust and smog-colored metropolis. The director seems to channel the energy of this city and infuses it with his characters. This is a practical Batman film, a utilitarian one, and one that is about as plausible as vigilante/superhero film is ever going to come (well, his series anyway).

The film features a great host of supporting actors, including a very funny Michael Caine as Bruce's butler, Alfred, Gary Oldman as police commissioner Jim Gordon, and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the technological wizard of Wayne Enterprises who supplies Batman with his equipment. Cillian Murphy plays Dr. Jonathon Crane, a.k.a. the Scarecrow, a psychopathic psychologist who develops a fear-inducing toxin that he plans on unleashing onto the city. He is, in my opinion, one of the scariest villains simply because of his plausibility and Murphy's cool demeanor in his performance.

There is a subplot romance between Bruce and his childhood friend, Rachel Dawes. It's unavoidable in a film like this and so you have to accept it, but for what it is I didn't mind so much. What I did mind, however, was Katie Holmes's version of Rachel, which almost single-handedly brought down the entire cast. Her uppity, demanding and extremely aggressive portrayal was unpleasant enough as it was, but combined with the fact that she is so small and sweet-looking only hurt her being believable as something of a strong woman. Not only would I dislike her as my girlfriend, I would also dislike her being my attorney, which is her job.

Aside from her, this is a whip-smart rendition of a hero we all believed was almost played out. I like this film because Batman is frightening. The little growl that Bale gives him is not, but his fighting style certainly is, appearing and disappearing at will, snatching people into shadows--it's very disconcerting.

Wally Pfister's cinematography is quite good in many respects, especially enhancing what I have just described. Where he lost me was the hand to hand combat sequences, particularly towards the end, where the camera jostled and lurched inches from the action to the point that it was nearly impossible to see who was hitting whom and who was winning. Outside of that, however, he did a wonderful job of capturing an intense new vision of Gotham and the amazing set pieces that went into building it.

Pfister and Nolan certainly helmed a very good new film--not just a good superhero film, but a good movie in general.

3/4

No comments:

Post a Comment