• Father John Misty puts is the show at First Avenue. Review by Ann Treacy with photos by Meredith Westin.
• Noah Baumbach on Frances Ha, Greta Gerwig, and Roger Ebert. Interview by Jim Brunzell III.
• Todd Rundgren brings the unexpected to the Varsity Theater. Review and photos by Patrick Dunn.
MOVIE REVIEW | "The Dark Knight Rises": The Batman we need, the Batman we deserve
The Dark Knight Rises, directed by Christopher Nolan, is a movie of and about extremes. It is a movie that demonstrates what happens when men, cities, action and franchises are pushed toward the furthest edges of what was thought was possible and the inevitable tumble towards decimation that occurs when those edges are just underfoot. It is a movie of extreme length (165 minutes), extreme set pieces (featuring what must surely qualify as a cast of thousands), and extreme audience anticipation.
The Dark Knight Rises attempts to meet the challenges of these wrenching expectations with pure popcorn bravado. Every moment in the movie is bigger, badder, bolder and more brazen than the last. From the hauntingly acrobatic opening action sequence all the way through its final bittersweet moments of closure and discovery, The Dark Knight Rises is an exciting, thoughtful and provocative action movie that wonderfully punctuates Nolan's vision of Batman, while also exaggerating some of the more problematic aspects of this now decade-long superhero renaissance taking place throughout our summer cinema.
For this return trip to Gotham, Nolan, along with co-writers David S. Goyer and Jonathan Nolan, drop us in eight years after the events of 2008's The Dark Knight. Gotham has enjoyed several years of sustained peace, low crime rates, and presumed freedom from the schemes and machinations of dastardly super-villains. Batman, once again portrayed with familiar efficiency by Christian Bale, is now a recluse, physically and emotionally depleted after his violent career as a caped crusader. However, as you might expect, things don't stay calm in Gotham for long, and once the vengeful, gas-masked bodybuilder Bane, played by the always challenging and captivating Tom Hardy, arrives within the city limits, Batman must overcome his physical and mental limitations, gather his allies and confront this new, mealy-mouthed evil.
Over the course of the movie, Batman must summon his allies (most notably, Gary Oldman's burdened Commissioner Gordon and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's “hot-headed” John Blake) navigate through a city filled with inscrutable strangers (Anne Hathaway's seductively restrained Selina Kyle chief among them), and ultimately decide how far he is willing to go to save the city he had at one time sworn to defend. This journey back into the shadows is at times shocking, at times surprising, and, yes, at times a bit predictable. However, all of these events are beautifully complemented by the sheer scope of the movies sets, locations, and ambition, some of which Nolan and cinematographer Walter Pfister chose to capture in stunning 70mm IMAX format. While the plot and characters will certainly resonate with audiences no matter the viewing aspect ratio, the large format IMAX presentation does manage to amplify the grandiosity of the proceedings to dramatic effect.
However, it is that very largesse that does occasionally cause The Dark Knight Rises to creak, sometimes deafeningly, around the edges. In attempting to intensify everything that was great about his previous bat-films, Nolan also exaggerates many of the past films impediments. First, this movie is long. 2 hours and 45 minutes long. It's paced very well, and is filled with great scenes and tense action, but there are a few moments when it seems like this Batman movie could use, well, to be frank, a little more Batman. Second, the villain's plans often strain even the most forgiving suspension of disbelief, as Bane seems to be even more capable of planning for accident, coincidence, and happenstance than The Joker was in The Dark Knight. Bane’s schemes seem to have too heavy a dose of deus ex machina to really be believed.
Then, there's the character’s constant consternation. While Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were so refreshing because of their ability to complement the action with strong emotional resonance, in The Dark Knight Rises, there are more than a few scenes where an actor’s waterworks, a shot's framing, or the score are more manipulative than emotive. Also, I've noticed that in his last several movies, Nolan is developing a nasty habit of having characters exist for seemingly no other reason than to walk into a room and announce exposition. In this movie, that thankless job has fallen to Michael Caine's Alfred Pennyworth, trusted Wayne family butler. Of course, an actor of Caine’s caliber is able to infuse those moments with care and humor, but it's hard to not think that maybe his character was more perfunctory than was really necessary.
Also, full disclosure, as a lifelong, diehard Bat-fan, don't even get me started on how this movie breaks the cardinal rule of all great capped crusader stories: Batman should never get laid! But I digress...
There is also the matter of Bane's voice. While I think that some of the early fanboys' concerns that it would be inaudible is actually well-founded, I thought it sounded great. It struck me as a remarkably creative mixture of Darth Vader and a Karin Dreijer Andersson song, and ended up being one of my favorite aspects of the movie. I couldn't always understand what he was saying, but the tone and character of Hardy's language was so wicked and degraded that just the sound of his voice complimented the menace of the proceedings wonderfully. It is a risk, and while I enjoyed it, it will certainly be a controversial point for many audience members and I can’t say for certain that they will be wrong to hate it.
Nolan and company certainly had their work cut out for them in crafting the story, themes, and vision of The Dark Knight Rises, and, if you'll pardon the expression, they certainly rose to the occasion. With many subtle and deliberate visual and thematic callbacks to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises is as satisfying and exhilarating a conclusion to the Nolan verse as one could imagine. While not without its flaws, during its final act, the movie is elevated from the morass of its own convoluted continuity into a stirring and resonant summer blockbuster that will remind fans why they care so much for a strange series of movies about a crime-fighting orphan who dresses up as a flying rodent and stalks the streets of urban America in search of a good set of fistacuffs. For some, it may not be the sequel that they wanted, but for many, after years of anticipation and expectation, it is the sequel they need and deserve.
More like this
- BOOK REVIEWS | "Batmobile: The Complete History" and "The Dark Knight Manual" for the Batnerd
- From "The Hobbit" to "The Dark Knight Rises": 2012's five most anticipated movies
- Summer movies: From "The Amazing Spider-Man" to "The Dark Knight Rises," the heat is on
- My six most anticipated summer releases
- Want to get a first glimpse of "The Dark Knight Rises"? You'll have to pay for a different sequel first



We're people-powered journalism! 




Comments
Occupy Movement Critique?
Just wondering if you thought the movie was attempting to make an oblique critique of the Occupy Wall Street/99% movement? The summary judgements of elites by "the people" for example seemed to be a kind of cautionary statement about system collapse and the slippery slope to mob rule.
Occupy Movement In DKR
SPOILERS!
TL:DR I can see why some people think DKR is about OWS, but I disagree.
That line of thinking, that DKR is some sort of comment on or critque of the Occupy Wall Street has actually been pretty present in a lot of the writing/thinking/critique surrounding the movie. It seems that, for a lot of people, when they watch the movie, they seem to divine some sort of reference to or reflection on the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, I didn't really see it that way.
Before I get into it, though, please let me say that I don't really have an opinion on OWS in and of itself, so I'll try to be as even-handed as I can and just focus on the movie itself.
First off, the movie was written and actually started shooting before the Occupy Wall Street movement even began, so I think that it is a bit of leap to say that the creators of the film were trying to say anything about the Occupy Wall Street movement. At best, I would suggest that both the movie and the movement are tapping into similar ideas of privilege vs poverty, transparency vs corruption or more broadly freedom vs debt. However, I think that the ways in which the movie and movement talk about these things is vastly different. The movie presents a very simplified, exaggerated and manipulative set of circumstances in order to create drama and suspense, where as the movement talks about things in a very deliberate, reactionary way in an effort to enact a transfer of political capital in an effort to affect change.
For these reasons, (the film being made before the Occupy Movement and the differences in rhetoric between the movement and the movie), I don't really think it makes for any interesting, direct comment on current or recently past political events.
BUT! Even if a creator doesn't mean to do something, it's ultimately up to the audience to decide what a movie is "about", so if enough people think or feel that DKR is about the Occupy Movement, then it is. Culturally, an artist only really has control over their process. Once a work is released, it doesn't really matter what the intensions of the artist are. For example, I've seen writing about how Moby-Dick can be used as a metaphor for US-Soviet relations, even though the book was written more than a half-century before the creation of the USSR.
So, if someone watches the DKR and sees a parable or critique of OWS, than so be it. I think that there is enough stuff in the movie to draw those conclusions even if that wasn't the creator's intent.
That having been said, I don't know if I really agree with that interpretation for a few reasons. First off, there is one really big difference between the goals of Bane in the DKR and the OWS movement and how those goals relate to their actions. Bane wants to kill everyone in Gotham City, where as OWS seeks to reform or restructure political and financial systems in late-market/advanced capitalism. This might be a bit of a blunt observation to make, but I think it is an important one when considering DKR as a critique of OWS. I think that a case could be made that Bane co-ops or subverts the same type political energy that powers OWS, but for Bane this movement is just a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Even if you are being uncharitable and see OWS as a burgeoning mob society, that group mentality is part of OWS mission and tactics, where as in DKR, the sacking of the rich and privileged has nothing to do with Bane's actual goal. He even says as much to Batman when they are in the prison together. Bane is going to let them think they have control, but he's going to kill them anyway. All that talk of reclaiming and revolutionizing Gotham is just propaganda for Bane to disguise his real objectives, where as those ideas are the actual goals of OWS.
Because of this difference, I think it's a bit difficult to extrapolate that the events and outcomes depicted in the film can be seen as any sort of comment on what is happening in the real world. They are just to exaggerated and removed from what is really going on.
Also, I don't actually think it's correct to describe the events in DKR as a mob mentality in action. Bane declares marshal law and actually sets up a executive and judicial system. Marshal law is very different from mob rule, and because of this, I don't really see DKR as being about mob rule at all. If anything it's about what happens when a more severe and devastating political system subverts a weak and ineffective one, (Which actually reminds me more of the differneces between the US's republican capitalism and China's single party/totalitarian capticalism, than the 99% vs. the 1%). Again, I can see why some people might think that this is what the OWS movement aspires to be, but I think that is just projection and jumping to conclusions, especially since over the last year, OWS was changed considerably, turning away from active protest and demonstation.
Finally, the forces in DKR have a leader, something that OWS never really had.
I think that what is really happening is that people see DKR, they see the images of large, angry crowds, they hear the speeches about taking from the rich, and they draw understandable but ultimately tangential conclusions about what these scenes are actually depicting. Sure, visually it might look like what some people imagine the OWS turning into, but I don't really think that's what the movie is trying to say.
I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but I think a much stronger case could be made that DKR is not about the evils of the extrapolation of OWS movement, but rather it's about the ultimate redeeming power of unbridled privatized capitalism, since the privately funded Batman was able to do what the publicly funded police force and military never could.
More spoilers!! Don't read if you haven't yet seen!
Very interesting treatise, thanks! You should put this analysis in the Free Speech Zone.
I think your point that the movie was written well before the OWS movement sparked takes care of any possibility Nolan was intentionally making social commentary on OWS specificially. I agree with a lot of what you've said.
My own reaction was not to link the movie in any deep sense with OWS. As you point out, there are many things about OWS that do not fit the movie's storyline. Just on a superficial level, I meant to say, the movie seemed to depict a caricature of an oppressed public whipped into a foment and easily manipulated by a charismatic leader who is actually using them and their outrage for his own nefarious ends. So that age-old conflict between the haves and the have-nots was used, with the savior, in the end, being a billionaire who has the private resources to right the wrong. Granted, he was stripped of his wealth towards the end, which perhaps redeemed him as one of "the rest of us" as Catwoman says. But he still had to use his awesome technology to save the city.
So that's all. It was this general theme - exploited people need to be saved from their oppressor (and from themselves) by a righteous, powerful elite - that I was rolling my eyes at. By no means unique to DKR, I might add.
I thought it was cool when
I thought it was cool when bane held up the stock exchange and everybody was like wtf, then when bane was making his getaway batman showed up and I was like "fukc yeah, batman!" that was the only moment in the movie that stuck an emotional chord for me. Nolans other attempts at true, fukc yeah batman moments, while noble, felt engineered to me, and were unsatisfying.
Post new comment