The Dark Knight Rises

So, the saga is complete.  The Dark Knight, having fallen, has risen.  I've seen it twice now and, for various reasons (the main one being the Olympics), I probably wont't see it again at the cinema.  So it's time for some sort of verdict.

Firstly, the film on its own.  It's very good.  The acting is excellent.  The plot, and twist, are great.  The action is impressive.  The length is not excessive (anything but).  My main emotion is satisfaction.  I am not disappointed.  But, this films suffers in the way that, as far as I can tell, a few of Nolan's films suffer.  Although he's a great storyteller, his films don't always make sense.  I sometime think that Nolan tries to be too clever, and, given time constraints, doesn't always explain the stories well enough.  Inception is the classic example of this problem.  If you really think about Inception (and I have), even though it's brilliant and everything, it doesn't actually make sense.  This is either because it just doesn't make sense and Nolan isn't as brilliant as everyone thinks, or it makes sense in his head but doesn't make it onto the screen, either because Nolan doesn't notice the gaps, or because he's restricted by time/budget/film length/whatever.  It's not quite as bad here, but there are three quite important things in The Dark Knight Rises that don't quite make sense to me.
One: how do Blake and Bane know that Bruce Wayne is Batman?  According to Blake, he 'just knows'.  Bane...there's no explanation.  No-one has managed to work it out in a decade, and suddenly these two just know.  I don't buy it.
Two: why does Selina Kyle betray Batman to Bane?  She says something like "I had to do something to stop them wanting to kill me" - but why would Bane want to kill her?  Until now, the two have had no dealings together.  One website suggested that, because Bane and Daggett were working together, and Daggett tried to have Kyle killed, Bane would want Kyle dead.  I don't think so.  I can't see Bane really caring about the fate of the girl who supplied Bruce Wayne's fingerprints.  Even if he did, it is quite plausible that Bane would take Batman and then kill Kyle anyway.  The whole betrayal by Kyle didn't ring true for me.
Three: why does Kyle go back to rescue Batman and Jim Gordon?  Up until she does, her main appearances have been stealing the necklace, dancing with Wayne, and fighting with Batman on the rooftop. Then Batman goes to the prison and comes back, and gives her the Clean Slate program.  She takes him to Bane and then...sticks around.  Instead of legging it, as has been her aim for the last 90 minutes of screentime and 5 months of lifetime, she stays to help.  At this point, she even makes it clear that she doesn't think Batman's plan will work and she asks him to leave with her, saying "You don't owe these people any more, you've given them everything".  Batman stays to try to destroy the bomb, and she stays too.  She goes from essentially selfish, aiming to get away and start a new life, to selfless, staying with Batman even though she believes his cause to be hopeless.  No reason is given until the end where she and Wayne are seen in Florence together (more on this later).  If they are meant to have fallen in love, I am not at all convinced.  She and Wayne have a minute fraction of what Rachel and Wayne had.

These issues do not mean I disliked the film or thought it was a bad film.  But from a director and writer of the quality of Nolan, I am disappointed that there are so many problems in a story that, to be honest was far, far simpler than that of Inception.  These issues would all be explainable, but the time is not taken to explain them.

Now, the film as part of the trilogy.  To start with, I do not think that The Dark Knight is significantly stronger than Batman Begins.  Yes, it is stronger, but not by much.  I think The Dark Knight Rises is on a par with them both.  It is not a disappointing end to the trilogy.  They are very strong films, across the board.  I like how the themes continue throughout the trilogy and some are particularly highlighted.  Symbolism, obviously, with the concept of Batman being greater because he can be anyone (note: not the same as anyone can be him!).  I loved how this theme climaxed with the flaming bat symbol on the bridge, and the effect Batman's presence had on the Gotham police.
Another thing I was excited to see was the return of the rise/fall conversation.  This began in Batman Begins: "Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up."  This idea keeps raising its head.  At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman has both appeared to have fallen, by apparently killing Harvey Dent and other members of the public, and actually fallen, by descending almost to the Joker's depths in his ruthlessness.  Although I think 'The Dark Knight Rises' is an awful name for the final part of the trilogy, the idea of him rising from this fall and fulfilling what could be seen a s prophecy from Batman Begins (Why do we fall...etc), is exciting.  And, of course, he does rise.  He reappears as Batman and inspires the resistance against Bane.  And he meets the perfect end, sacrificing his life to save the city he cares so much for.  Perfect redemption.  Finally the hero, after eight years of being wrongly labelled the villain.  The perfect sacrifice, the perfect Rise. Except...that's not how it ends.  When I saw that Bruce Wayne had survived and ended up in Florence, I felt both gutted and cheated.  I really did.  Batman's final heroic act was perfect, and I really, honestly thought that Nolan had the guts to finish with bittersweetness.  Bittersweet endings happen so rarely in films, but Nolan has always been a director who respects his audience and is not afraid of throwing tough stuff at them.  I thought that if there was any director who would finish such a huge and successful series in such a shocking and poignant way, is was Chris Nolan.  I was wrong.  This is my biggest complaint with The Dark Knight Rises.  In fact, with the whole trilogy.  I can accept plot holes and other things I don't understand.  No film is perfect.  But the ending left me feeling cheated.  I was in tears at the funeral.  Then, a few seconds later, my tears seemed fake.

What else?  The revelation of Blake as Robin?  Yes, I'm happy with that.  I'm not a die hard Batman fan (not even close), and purists may rage about it, but I thought it made sense.  Obviously it changes Robin from Batman's sidekick to his successor, but within the story Nolan has told, it works.  Blake's character was set up for this from the start of the film.  Will they make a sequel?  I don't know.  I don't think Nolan will.  But someone else may get together with Gordon-Levitt and make a Robin film.  I might see it, I might not.

Overall, Nolan's trilogy is excellent.  It might sound like I'm complaining a lot, but I often find that, at least for me, the more I like something and the more I care about it, the more complaints I have about it. The idealist in me sees what it could have been, and picks up on all the things that fell short.  If you think I have a lot of complaints about this film, you should hear me on The Lord of the Rings.  Talking of which...although Nolan is superb, Jackson is still king.  One stat I saw today - Nolan made The Dark Knight Rises (just the third film, two and three-quarter hours long) on a budget of $250 million.  Jackson made The Lord of the Rings (all twelve hours of it) on $281 million, just $31 million more.  Jackson is still king.  Bring on December 14th.

The Hunger Games - part 4

This is post 4 of 5.  The first three are here, here and here.

I've now read the second book in the trilogy, Catching Fire.  I liked it.  Just like the first story, this middle part is easy to read, entertaining and gripping.  Plenty of cliffhangers and bombshells dropped in to keep me reading.  It probably helped that I'm on holiday so I had time to read it fairly quickly.

Some things I particularly liked:

• The power of the capitol is simultaneously portrayed as invincible and vulnerable.  They are able to ship in hundreds of 'peacekeepers' into District 12, but President Snow still feels the need to urge Katniss personally to play along with the love story set up in book one.  This both paints a picture of extreme peril for the heroes and also shines frequent rays of hope into the story.
• It's good to meet lots of new characters like Johanna, Finnick and Mags, and learn small parts of their stories.  This helps show that even districts 1, 2 and 4, which are suggested to be more powerful than the others, are just as under the yoke of the Capitol as district 12.  It reminds me of a section in The Goblet of Fire which says "It was Voldemort, Harry thought, staring up at the canopy of his bed in the darkness, it all came back to Voldemort....He was the one who had torn these families apart, who had ruined all these lives....".  The scope of what is going on is far bigger than the lives of the few heroes we know most about.
• I love how Katniss has become a symbol of hope without meaning to or even completely realising it.  It puts her into a perilous position that sets everything up nicely for book three.  It's also quite nice that I've recently watched The Dark Knight Rises which also has a lot to say about symbols.
• Katniss' flawed character still grips me - her confusion, her inability to lie convincingly...as I said in post two "I love how she finds it hard to make friends, how she often doesn't know what to say, how she doesn’t always get jokes.  Brilliant."

Something I'm still not convinced about is Katniss' feelings for Peeta and Gale.  Maybe it's because Gale has still had very little page time.  Maybe it's because more is to be revealed in book three.  Maybe it's because it isn't written that convincingly.  Maybe it's just because I'm not a girl.  We'll see what happens in Mockingjay.


I think these are the first books I've read having already seen the film.  I've noticed how much my imagination is influenced by the film.  When I read about Katniss and Peeta, I see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.  I guess this isn't surprising, but I think it's the first time I've experienced it.

One final thing.  I'm really enjoying reading a series that (a) has a female lead, and (b) isn't Twilight.

The Hunger Games - part 3

This is the third of five posts about The Hunger Games.  The first two are here and here.
I've now read the first book in the trilogy.  The film was very similar to the book, very few changes.  Most of the changes made a lot of sense for the film.
After seeing the film, the two things I wanted more of were more backstory on District 12 and Katniss' home life, and more detail on the buildup to the games and how the sponsorship worked.  I was happy that both of these issues were addressed in the book.  I feel satisfied.
I will now read book 2, and post my thoughts in a little while...

The Good Samaritan

I've never really understood the parable of the Good Samaritan.  It's a Sunday School classic, and is generally (I believe) used to make the point that we should be nice and help people, even people who are different to ourselves.  A good principle, but surely not what this particular parable is about.

Context.  Luke chapter 10.  An expert in the law asks Jesus how to have eternal life.  Jesus tells him to obey the commandments 'love god, love your neighbour'.  The guy asks 'who is my neighbour?', so Jesus tells the story...
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’


Then Jesus asks 'who was his neighbour'.  The man correctly replies 'the one who had mercy on him'.  Jesus says 'go and do likewise'.  End of the scene.

The first problem is that according to the parable, your neighbour is the person who helps you.  Implying that we only need to love the people who are nice do us.  This is contrary to the rest of Jesus' teaching.
The second problem is that Jesus' story doesn't match the original question he was asked.  He was asked about who counts as a neighbour.  It seems that Jesus (mistakenly or intentionally) gets it back-to-front.  The man asks who his neighbour is, i.e. who he should love, but Jesus describes who his neighbour is in terms of who loves him.  The question put the 'neighbour' in the role of the person to be loved, but the story has the 'neighbour' in the role of the person doing the loving.

It is surely significant that the man's question 'who is my neighbour?' is precede by the phrase 'But he wanted to justify himself'.  The man wants to justify himself.  As a law expert, he may have been quite self-righteous, thinking he was keeping the law and on the path for eternal life.  The question about who is his neighbour could be seeking the answer 'your family and friends' or 'other Jews'.  He may have been hoping for this so that he could say 'go, well I love them, so I'm sorted'.  By getting the man to agree that the Samaritan (historically enemies of Jews) is the neighbour, Jesus shows him that he should be loving all people.
This is quite like the Sunday School message.  But it ignores the difficulty of Jesus answering in a back-to-front manner.  The story changes the role of the neighbour from the one to be loved (in the man's question) to the one doing the loving.  Why?  Is this intentional from Jesus?  If so, what point is he trying to make?

Instagram

Another brief post about technology that I don't understand.  Instragram.
The blurb from the website says:

"It’s a fast, beautiful and fun way to share your photos with friends and family.

Snap a picture, choose a filter to transform its look and feel, then post to Instagram. Share to Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr too – it's as easy as pie. It's photo sharing, reinvented.

Oh yeah, did we mention it’s free?"

Sounds cool, I guess, though nothing particularly spectacular. Taking photos is nothing new, nor is sharing them on social media. The things that makes Instagram different is these 'filters', which can change how the image looks (see image). The issue I have with Instagram, is that, from the photos I've seen, the filters just don't look that good. They generally appear to be low quality and not particularly interesting or eye-catching. There are four possible reasons for this:

1. I have been unlucky in seeing many of the minority of pictures taken with Instagram that don't look very good. Statistically unlikely.
2. The people whose Instagram pictures I see are bad photographers or bad at using Instagram. From what I know of these people, not true.
3. Instagram is genuinely rubbish. Given its popularity and that it doesn't seem to be just a fad, incorrect.
4. The quality of phone cameras is not sufficient to produce good quality photos through Instagram. This seems the most plausible.

I had a quick look at Instagram images on Google. There are, admittedly, some decent pictures on there. But still plenty that look poor, or at best, very average.

It occurs to me that there may be a fifth reason.  Perhaps I just don't get it.  Perhaps Instagram really is a good program, that produces good quality and interesting pictures, but I just can't see it.  I'll be the first to admit to not being arty or creative in that way, so maybe I just can't appreciate the photos that Instagram produces.  Is this the reason?