When I heard that The Avengers
was coming out, I instantly light-bulbed with the concept of watching
the prequel/tie-in movies and reviewing them before it hit the
theaters. Unfortunately that didn't work out but, on the bright side,
it isn't like many of those tie-in movies were that good anyways.
But now we have a new monster coming,
The Dark Knight Rises. And, unlike with The Avengers,
the prequels to TDKR are really good movies. Christopher Nolan
has truly managed to capture what makes Batman great. And so, without
further ado, here is my review of Batman Begins.
.
The Hero's Journey
Batman is a badass. We all know it.
This is the movie where the focus is on him, his psyche, and where he
gets his drive. Like any origin story, we see why Bruce Wayne is
driven to fight crime, as well as where he gets his gadgets and
skills. But, unlike most origin stories, with Batman Begins we
go a great deal deeper.
At the beginning of our story, Bruce
Wayne is in a prison in Asia, as far away from home as possible. He's
living every day to the next with no clear idea of where he's going
or what he's doing. For all we know, he's just going from one fight
to another. Soon enough we learn that he's trying to understand what
killed his parents (criminality) by immersing himself deep within it.
It isn't until he's released by a mysterious man named Ducard that
Wayne is set on the path of discovering how to harness his hatred of
crime and conquering his own inner fears.
.
Batman Begins makes for a
fantastic first half of the movie. Christopher Nolan raises all sorts
of interesting questions that make us understand that things aren't
black and white for Batman. Through Wayne, we see that vengeance can
mislead people into deviating far from where they started. Through
Ducard, we wonder if the end does not always justify the means.
Through Falcone, we question how different criminals are from the
everyday people we see everyday. And through Rachel, we ask ourselves
whether trying to do good within the system is ever really effective.
It's remarkable how many aspects of
Batman we get, and we get to see many different criticisms of his
methods and their efficacy before he even dons the cowl. However,
what prevents the movie from being the masterpiece, in my book, is
that this only applies to the first one-half or two-thirds of the
movie. At a certain point, things swing back into motion that remind
you that this is just another superhero movie. The villain returns
and sets into action his nefarious plan, and Batman swoops in to save
the day.
.
The League of Shadows
Ra's Al Ghul is one of the most
interesting villains in the Batman universe, mainly because
everything he says is true. He serves as a foil to Batman, a dark
counterpart who represents what Batman could be if Batman had no
moral code. And even that is a simplifying of matters. Ra's Al Ghul
represents a neoconservative viewpoint on how to deal with injustice
and crime in the world; he maintains that criminals should be made a
brutal example of since they show no attachment to society's laws.
The theory is that if the world is not harsh with people who disobey,
then the rules which we maintain will slowly be corrupted in time,
leading to the decaying of civilization.
This is a controversial subject, but
this point-of-view hasn't been proven wrong, even today. Fact of the
matter is that we have differing perspectives on how we should treat
criminals in this day and age. Some nations like to do their best
rehabilitate them, with considerable success. On the flip side, those
nations with harsh penalties such as public humiliations or the death
sentence provide an immense discouragement to anyone thinking of
breaking the law. There is not yet a definitive right answer, and the
middle ground arguably causes just as much harm as good. This is
important as, if Ra's Al Ghul is correct (and there's nothing that
can definitively disprove his philosophy), then Batman is genuinely
serving as an impediment to human progress by prolonging a system
that perpetuates corruption.
However, I wish that the movie had
found a more ambiguous way for Ra's to serve as a villain in the end.
I say that because, near the end of the movie, we discover that he is
going to cause the whole city of Gotham to devolve into a bloody
anarchy by spreading fear toxin everywhere, likely killing thousands
of people. This seems very odd for someone who declares earlier in
the story to have lost his wife to criminals; one would expect such a
man to have more empathy for those members of Gotham who aren't
corrupt. But, hey, any movie can't be perfect I suppose.
.
Conclusion
Batman Begins is a great movie
that could have been greater if only it had had the balls to deviate
from the superhero origin formula that requires a climactic battle at
the end. That may be silly to say, and it isn't like the action
wasn't awesome, but it made it so that a movie that was genuinely
thought provoking turned into a more mind-numbing thrill-ride at the
end.
Lastly, I had one nitpick. Do you
remember the scene where Batman is being forced to execute someone at
the League of Shadows' fortress, and instead chooses to blow up the
entire fortress, killing everyone inside, instead of taking the man's
life without a jury? Did it occur to anyone that, by blowing up the
whole freaking place, Bruce ended up killing the guy anyways, and
dozens of others besides? Also, for someone who says he'll never take
a life, I find it hard to believe that he didn't kill any policemen
in that one chase with the Bat-tank. At two separate points, he
smashes a cop car underneath his huge rover and blows up two of them
with explosive caltrops. How did nobody die? It seemed a bit
unbelievable.
No comments:
Post a Comment