The Official Movie Thread
- Thread starter Manic Ferocity
- Start date
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
So I saw The Batman last night and it was fucking awesome.
It drew influence from a bunch of my favourite Batman material (The Long Halloween, Year One, Batman: Earth One) and it was enjoyable to be able to pick up on little elements from them, and a bunch of stuff I've been meaning to read (Dark Victory, Ego, No Man's Land).
Pattinson is fast becoming one of my favourite actors these days. He's reliable as fuck. This is definitely Batman at his broodiest lmfao and I fucking loved it. I really liked the feeling that this Batman is one bad day away from murdering a motherfucker, he's right on that line between control and chaos. Good shit. Also I liked how he just facetanks bullets during fights rather than really attempting to avoid gunfire. Not sure if that's been emphasised in prior films because it's been so long since I watched them, but it makes sense to actually utilize the armour rather than just trying to look cool with it.
The Gotham cityscape is seedy, draped in trash and murky rainwater a la Taxi Driver. Unlike Nolan's trilogy which felt very expansive and grandiose, this is Batman lurking in alleys and subway stations. The whole thing feels very influenced by the "new hollywood" movement. Also massive parallels with Fincher's crime films.
I thought it was a cool idea to recreate The Riddler as a Zodiac Killer-esque psychopath. Really added to the whole police procedural thing, because the cops always felt so useless to me in comic book things where the crook is some supervillain. The Riddler is basically a serial killer in this which rules. Paul Dano's acting was pretty over the top, almost campy but he pushed far enough that it actually became deranged.
Colin Farrell dominated every scene he was in as The Penguin, doing his best impression of a colourful classic mobster movie character. I'm hoping if they do a sequel he has an even bigger role, his scenes were too few.
Only beef was some of the CGI used in the fight scenes (especially for Catwoman) was kinda weak. Reminded me of Matt Reeves' Let Me In, whenever Chloë Grace Moretz would attack someone she had that iffy rubber body vibe.
Other than that, I liked this iteration of Catwoman. More stripped back and realistic, and also a kind of pseudo-origins story, which I suppose necessarily means "they sucked all the mischief and allure out" because she's coming into the film before she's officially The Catwoman. In this she's a club waitress moonlighting as a thief, but when her friend is kidnapped and murdered she gains some sense of justice which will eventually lead her down the supervillain/antihero path. She didn't just arrive in this film as already a supervillain.
Pattinson is fast becoming one of my favourite actors these days. He's reliable as fuck. This is definitely Batman at his broodiest lmfao and I fucking loved it. I really liked the feeling that this Batman is one bad day away from murdering a motherfucker, he's right on that line between control and chaos. Good shit. Also I liked how he just facetanks bullets during fights rather than really attempting to avoid gunfire. Not sure if that's been emphasised in prior films because it's been so long since I watched them, but it makes sense to actually utilize the armour rather than just trying to look cool with it.
The Gotham cityscape is seedy, draped in trash and murky rainwater a la Taxi Driver. Unlike Nolan's trilogy which felt very expansive and grandiose, this is Batman lurking in alleys and subway stations. The whole thing feels very influenced by the "new hollywood" movement. Also massive parallels with Fincher's crime films.
I thought it was a cool idea to recreate The Riddler as a Zodiac Killer-esque psychopath. Really added to the whole police procedural thing, because the cops always felt so useless to me in comic book things where the crook is some supervillain. The Riddler is basically a serial killer in this which rules. Paul Dano's acting was pretty over the top, almost campy but he pushed far enough that it actually became deranged.
Colin Farrell dominated every scene he was in as The Penguin, doing his best impression of a colourful classic mobster movie character. I'm hoping if they do a sequel he has an even bigger role, his scenes were too few.
Only beef was some of the CGI used in the fight scenes (especially for Catwoman) was kinda weak. Reminded me of Matt Reeves' Let Me In, whenever Chloë Grace Moretz would attack someone she had that iffy rubber body vibe.
Other than that, I liked this iteration of Catwoman. More stripped back and realistic, and also a kind of pseudo-origins story, which I suppose necessarily means "they sucked all the mischief and allure out" because she's coming into the film before she's officially The Catwoman. In this she's a club waitress moonlighting as a thief, but when her friend is kidnapped and murdered she gains some sense of justice which will eventually lead her down the supervillain/antihero path. She didn't just arrive in this film as already a supervillain.
Last edited:
challenge_everything
Active Member
I sat through that whole movie without realising Colin Farrell was in it 
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Slayed Necros
Void
I sat through that whole movie without realising Colin Farrell was in it
Same here, had no idea until the ending credits. Enjoyed his scenes the most too, was always thinking "the fuck is this guy? he rules" haha.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Yep I'm with you and CIG, would have enjoyed seeing more of the Penguin.
Perhaps instead of John Turturro who is a very good actor but always annoys me for some reason. I think I've been permanently triggered from all the neurotic jerks he plays; Miller's Crossing, Quiz Show, Barton Fink etc.
challenge_everything
Active Member
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Colin Farrell's actually doing a Penguin spinoff mini-series with HBO Max, so we're getting our wish.
Einherjar86
Active Member
@CiG and @challenge_everything did either of you find yourselves thinking, "Damn, this music sounds suspiciously like the imperial march"? I found myself thinking it a couple times, and then realized after CiG posted this gif...
The homages to Fincher's work were really cool, I was on board for the Se7en vibes throughout--especially when they visit the Riddler's "lair," which just resonated so much with when Mills and Somerset find John Doe's lair.
The homages to Fincher's work were really cool, I was on board for the Se7en vibes throughout--especially when they visit the Riddler's "lair," which just resonated so much with when Mills and Somerset find John Doe's lair.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I didn't notice any "Imperial March" similarities in the score, but...
Holy shit, nice catch. This went right over my head.
Absolutely. It was about as direct an homage to Se7en as you could get! Tastefully done though.
Holy shit, nice catch. This went right over my head.
Absolutely. It was about as direct an homage to Se7en as you could get! Tastefully done though.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Apparently I'm not the only one to notice the imperial march thing; if you search "batman imperial march" on google you'll get a ton of hits.
Anyway, on a more theoretical note...
Anyway, on a more theoretical note...
I've been thinking about the film since seeing it, and I think this might be the most subversive, or at least traditionally challenging, Batman film we've had in a long time (maybe ever).
I agree with a lot of what challenge_everything said about gadgetry and physical stunts, which the film downplays. But on top of that, I also think the film demonstrates an ambivalence toward, if not implicit condemnation of, the neoliberal politics that I find problematic in the Nolan trilogy. Those politics boil down to the by now familiar commentary that Batman's superpower is that he's wealthy; but the Nolan films really promoted more than that. They fundamentally set a politics of neoliberal financial power against a horde of anarchist and collectivist antagonists, reducing the superhero plot to "only a billionaire can save us." On top of that, they seriously fetishized state power in the mode of "cops are essentially good but there are some bad apples." In the end, there's an unsteady mix of individual triumph (embodied in Blake/Robin) and bureaucratic beneficence (embodied in Gotham generally). Collectivist politics, insofar as they're imagined, amount to a pathetic kangaroo court and general "thuggery." As much as I enjoy the Nolan trilogy, I'm deeply troubled by their inability to think beyond a neoliberal capitalist politics when it comes to widespread societal crisis.
By contrast, The Batman--even if it doesn't fully imagine an alternative mode of politics--seems more comfortable with acknowledging the problems of Batman/Bruce Wayne's neoliberal core. The Riddler is all about enticing Batman to trace Gotham's corruption back to his father's original sin; it demystifies the Wayne enterprise and locates fault at the foundation of social systems within a capitalist society. Granted, the film softens this blow by humanizing Bruce's father--i.e. "when he realized his mistake, he walked it back"--but it still places some accountability in the figure of mythic origins, the infallible father. That's more than we've seen in a Batman narrative thus far (on film anyway).
Finally, I think the homages to Darth Vader underscore this implicit neoliberal critique. The superficial takeaway is... Batman is an imperialist! The narrative encodes a reading of Batman's neoliberal power (wealth, individuality, nonconformity, etc.) as imperial force, the idea that Batman (and by emblematic extension, Gotham, the all-American city) is an exceptionalist form of power, a valorization of vigilante violence. This is, at its core, an apology for imperialism. I'd argue that the film doesn't celebrate this valorization but critiques it; or, at the very least, presents an ambivalent attitude toward it.
I agree with a lot of what challenge_everything said about gadgetry and physical stunts, which the film downplays. But on top of that, I also think the film demonstrates an ambivalence toward, if not implicit condemnation of, the neoliberal politics that I find problematic in the Nolan trilogy. Those politics boil down to the by now familiar commentary that Batman's superpower is that he's wealthy; but the Nolan films really promoted more than that. They fundamentally set a politics of neoliberal financial power against a horde of anarchist and collectivist antagonists, reducing the superhero plot to "only a billionaire can save us." On top of that, they seriously fetishized state power in the mode of "cops are essentially good but there are some bad apples." In the end, there's an unsteady mix of individual triumph (embodied in Blake/Robin) and bureaucratic beneficence (embodied in Gotham generally). Collectivist politics, insofar as they're imagined, amount to a pathetic kangaroo court and general "thuggery." As much as I enjoy the Nolan trilogy, I'm deeply troubled by their inability to think beyond a neoliberal capitalist politics when it comes to widespread societal crisis.
By contrast, The Batman--even if it doesn't fully imagine an alternative mode of politics--seems more comfortable with acknowledging the problems of Batman/Bruce Wayne's neoliberal core. The Riddler is all about enticing Batman to trace Gotham's corruption back to his father's original sin; it demystifies the Wayne enterprise and locates fault at the foundation of social systems within a capitalist society. Granted, the film softens this blow by humanizing Bruce's father--i.e. "when he realized his mistake, he walked it back"--but it still places some accountability in the figure of mythic origins, the infallible father. That's more than we've seen in a Batman narrative thus far (on film anyway).
Finally, I think the homages to Darth Vader underscore this implicit neoliberal critique. The superficial takeaway is... Batman is an imperialist! The narrative encodes a reading of Batman's neoliberal power (wealth, individuality, nonconformity, etc.) as imperial force, the idea that Batman (and by emblematic extension, Gotham, the all-American city) is an exceptionalist form of power, a valorization of vigilante violence. This is, at its core, an apology for imperialism. I'd argue that the film doesn't celebrate this valorization but critiques it; or, at the very least, presents an ambivalent attitude toward it.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
That reads like somewhat of an oversimplification to me, perhaps due to a lens heavily biased in a certain direction.
In the Nolan trilogy Batman doesn't just wield "neoliberal financial power against a horde of anarchist and collectivist antagonists, reducing the superhero plot to only a billionaire can save us" because first he must wrestle Wayne Enterprises back from William Earle (Rutger) and redirect its focus to be in line with the philanthropy of his father's legacy, which could be seen as a critique of corporations who prioritize shareholders over the social good.
"On top of that, they seriously fetishized state power in the mode of "cops are essentially good but there are some bad apples."
Not sure where this comes from, because the whole reason Batman teams up with James Gordon (still a sergeant in Batman Begins) is he views him is one of the very few honest cops in Gotham, which completely contradicts what you just said.
A lot of what you said follows on from these (imo) faulty views of the Nolan trilogy. Though I do agree it is generally anti-collectivist.
In the Nolan trilogy Batman doesn't just wield "neoliberal financial power against a horde of anarchist and collectivist antagonists, reducing the superhero plot to only a billionaire can save us" because first he must wrestle Wayne Enterprises back from William Earle (Rutger) and redirect its focus to be in line with the philanthropy of his father's legacy, which could be seen as a critique of corporations who prioritize shareholders over the social good.
"On top of that, they seriously fetishized state power in the mode of "cops are essentially good but there are some bad apples."
Not sure where this comes from, because the whole reason Batman teams up with James Gordon (still a sergeant in Batman Begins) is he views him is one of the very few honest cops in Gotham, which completely contradicts what you just said.
A lot of what you said follows on from these (imo) faulty views of the Nolan trilogy. Though I do agree it is generally anti-collectivist.
challenge_everything
Active Member
I think these are valid points. I would add that in the Nolan trilogy to the extent Batman wielding is neoliberal financial power, it's moreso being wielded by Falcone and the mob and their influence on the institutions. That is not being portrayed as an exceptional occurrence; it is a critique of those institutions and their susceptibility to corruption. I can still kinda see why Ein is saying the Nolan trilogy ultimately endorses neoliberalism though, because it's concluded that we shouldn't abandon the structures, we just need a few good men (Batman, Dent, Gordon etc) to hold their ground and the institutions will regain their integrity. Which is a pretty common Hollywood copout.
I'm more struggling with the notion of Batman as imperialist - if capitalism is the empire then he doesn't strike me as its tool. If we are talking about the Reeves movie, I'd say it's quite the contrary.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I think superheroes are, at a pretty fundamental level, bound to uphold the dominant power structures of whichever society they exist in, even when simultaneously targeting corruption within said power structures.
The whole reason they exist is to combat individuals or groups that exist outside of whatever systems of law & order exist, that police cannot handle, that prosecution cannot reach, and so superheroes necessarily act as a force to bring them back within the purview of said systems, thereby upholding them.
Batman doesn't tear down the corrupt police force, rather he excizes the corruption and replaces it with the Gordons of the world.
I don't think it makes sense to say that the Nolan trilogy is ideologically neoliberal, rather that the society it depicts reflects the neoliberal realities of our own. To expect Batman to pursue the deconstruction of neoliberal power structures is a bit bizarre, considering he's in the business of restoring order, defined by the ideals of the society he lives in.
The whole reason they exist is to combat individuals or groups that exist outside of whatever systems of law & order exist, that police cannot handle, that prosecution cannot reach, and so superheroes necessarily act as a force to bring them back within the purview of said systems, thereby upholding them.
Batman doesn't tear down the corrupt police force, rather he excizes the corruption and replaces it with the Gordons of the world.
I don't think it makes sense to say that the Nolan trilogy is ideologically neoliberal, rather that the society it depicts reflects the neoliberal realities of our own. To expect Batman to pursue the deconstruction of neoliberal power structures is a bit bizarre, considering he's in the business of restoring order, defined by the ideals of the society he lives in.
challenge_everything
Active Member
I agree with that.
A noticeable divergence b/w the Nolan trilogy and the Reeves movie is that in the former, Bruce Wayne is still a functional and engaged (albeit reluctant) participant in his society and its structures, eg he socialises, runs charities, he publicly endorses Harvey Dent and throws him a fundraiser.
Pattinson's Batman is a true outsider despite his wealth. And of course the Riddler is similar. A lot of tapping into the Qanon zeitgeist and such things.
A noticeable divergence b/w the Nolan trilogy and the Reeves movie is that in the former, Bruce Wayne is still a functional and engaged (albeit reluctant) participant in his society and its structures, eg he socialises, runs charities, he publicly endorses Harvey Dent and throws him a fundraiser.
Pattinson's Batman is a true outsider despite his wealth. And of course the Riddler is similar. A lot of tapping into the Qanon zeitgeist and such things.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
For sure, and a huge inspiration for this iteration of Bruce Wayne was
Kurt Cobain, in particular the film Last Days. Like Cobain, this Bruce feels crushed beneath the weight of his wealth and public image, almost ashamed of it.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm sure there's some bias going on.
You definitely remember it better than I do, but I'd still argue that Wayne Enterprises as a force for good, or philanthropy, etc. isn't as ubiquitously upheld in Reeves's film. If anything, it suggests that even if the corporation has done good things it's only because it has also done terrible things (boiled down to the actions of people, of course, and really just one terrible thing done in the past; but to me that's emblematic of the notion that Wayne Enterprises can never be purely good because it's founded in part on an unethical act).
re. the police: I hadn't recalled the line you mentioned about Gordon (good point); but I did remember that in order for Bane to realize his sloppy utopia, he has to imprison most of the police force underground. The end, of course, is Batman releasing them and they all storm in together. To my mind, this redeems the police force as a beneficent force in the film's narrative.
re. neoliberalism: I'd say that the most ideologically invested neoliberal narrative is one that depicts neoliberal institutions overcoming their corruption. As you put it, the film doesn't critique neoliberalism but the way people operate within it; it's less interested in the way that neoliberal institutions cultivate corruption and reproduce certain kinds of behavior. I'd argue that Reeves's film actually is interested in that element, to a degree.
re. imperialism: I don't think the film is even on this issue at all. At most, it's an uncanny insinuation expressed through musical and visual tones. I'm not sure how it works narratively or theoretically, or if it even has to. It could just be a vaguely cashed token to render a sense of confusion about Batman as a symbol.
I would argue that it's in the very expectations of what Batman can do that marks its ideology. The Nolan trilogy can't fathom restructuring or transformation because its institutions are inherently good, as long as good people run them (i.e. it's people who corrupt, not institutions--especially those of gratuitous wealth). I think Reeves's actually can imagine restructuring, even if it doesn't pursue it plot-wise. The Riddler's point is that these institutions have never been pure, they're corrupted down to the core/origin. Obviously Reeves's Batman doesn't advocate for a total overhaul, but he does seem to realize that he's both one possible solution to a problem and, simultaneously, a source of the problem (or rather, his "empire" is).
You definitely remember it better than I do, but I'd still argue that Wayne Enterprises as a force for good, or philanthropy, etc. isn't as ubiquitously upheld in Reeves's film. If anything, it suggests that even if the corporation has done good things it's only because it has also done terrible things (boiled down to the actions of people, of course, and really just one terrible thing done in the past; but to me that's emblematic of the notion that Wayne Enterprises can never be purely good because it's founded in part on an unethical act).
re. the police: I hadn't recalled the line you mentioned about Gordon (good point); but I did remember that in order for Bane to realize his sloppy utopia, he has to imprison most of the police force underground. The end, of course, is Batman releasing them and they all storm in together. To my mind, this redeems the police force as a beneficent force in the film's narrative.
re. neoliberalism: I'd say that the most ideologically invested neoliberal narrative is one that depicts neoliberal institutions overcoming their corruption. As you put it, the film doesn't critique neoliberalism but the way people operate within it; it's less interested in the way that neoliberal institutions cultivate corruption and reproduce certain kinds of behavior. I'd argue that Reeves's film actually is interested in that element, to a degree.
re. imperialism: I don't think the film is even on this issue at all. At most, it's an uncanny insinuation expressed through musical and visual tones. I'm not sure how it works narratively or theoretically, or if it even has to. It could just be a vaguely cashed token to render a sense of confusion about Batman as a symbol.
I would argue that it's in the very expectations of what Batman can do that marks its ideology. The Nolan trilogy can't fathom restructuring or transformation because its institutions are inherently good, as long as good people run them (i.e. it's people who corrupt, not institutions--especially those of gratuitous wealth). I think Reeves's actually can imagine restructuring, even if it doesn't pursue it plot-wise. The Riddler's point is that these institutions have never been pure, they're corrupted down to the core/origin. Obviously Reeves's Batman doesn't advocate for a total overhaul, but he does seem to realize that he's both one possible solution to a problem and, simultaneously, a source of the problem (or rather, his "empire" is).
Last edited:
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
Watched that Batman movie everyone's talking about. I didn't feel like the story went anywhere interesting but man, the visuals were out of this fucking world. It was like watching those eye-popping chiaroscuro panels in The Long Halloween come to life. I hope I'll come to find more merit to the story in time because I'd love an excuse to watch this again. The casting was on-point across the board, too.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,683
- 9,656
- 113
stop your slutting around with letterboxd and update your criticker, thanks
