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 Dark Knight highlights falling standards

I went to see The Dark Knight last night. It was very good, go and see it. But this isn’t a review – this is a blog about the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), sparked by seeing the film last night.
The Dark Knight was classified as a 12A (more on the existence of the 12A rating itself in a moment). According to the BBFC’s website, the 12A rating includes the following (italics mine):

“Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated.”

Anyone who has seen The Dark Knight will know that it clearly contravenes this rule – there is blatant emphasis on the facial burns sustained by Harvey Dent, one of the main characters.

The website also says, on violence:

“In making decisions our concerns, especially at the lower categories, include
• portrayal of violence as a normal solution to problems
• heroes who inflict pain and injury
• callousness towards victims
• encouraging aggressive attitudes
• taking pleasure in pain or humiliation”

I’m pretty shocked at this, because The Dark Knight arguably contains every single one of these. As Gotham City descends into anarchy, violence is the only solution considered, both by the police and by Batman. Batman and Dent, the heroes, both inflict pain and injury. The Joker and Two-Face are both very callous towards victims. Batman’s and the Joker’s actions encourage aggressive attitudes. And the Joker takes much pleasure in the anarchy and intimidation he is causing.

There’s more; check this out:

“Dangerous techniques (eg combat techniques, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on imitable detail or appear pain or harm free.” (from BBFC’s description of a 12A)

“in one of the stronger scenes, Batman repeatedly beats the Joker during an interrogation. The blows however are all masked from the camera and despite both their weight and force; the Joker shows no sign of injury” (from BBFC’s justification of classifying the film as a 12A”)

Contradiction anyone?

Also: “sadistic violence or terrorisation” is one of the BBFC’s taboo themes, which is of “particular concern” to them. Usual action is “intervention such as making cuts” or “refusing classification altogether”.

However The Dark Knight’s villain The Joker indulges in both sadistic violence and terrorisation. Now I’m not saying this should cause it to be refused classification, but it should really be a higher rating than 12A, because one of the BBFC’s 3 golden considerations is “is the material, at the age group concerned, likely to be harmful?”, and I really think it could be for children.

There is no conceivable way that The Dark Knight should be a 12A. It’s easily a 15. Based on the BBFC’s own rules, it is a lot worse that The Matrix (rated 15). The inconsistency is highlighted by the fact that the original cartoony Batman films from the early 90s were rated as 12s, a higher rating than the darker recent films.

Now, about that 12A classification. It was introduced in 2002 as a replacement for the 12 certificate at cinemas. The meaning of 12A is that it allows under-12s to see the film at the cinema if they are accompanied by an adult. The information isn’t explicit but as far as I can tell, ‘adult’ can be any ‘responsible adult’ over 12, including a sibling, and “cinema staff are required to use their discretion” to decide on admittance. In terms of who is allowed to see a film, this is almost the same as a Uc, U or PG – except that all an under-12 needs to see a 12A is a 13 year old sibling. Not difficult. The old 12 classification worked well – it prevented under-12s from seeing inappropriate material, just like the 15 and 18 rating do. The cynic in me is very interested that the 12A rating was given the go-ahead just before the first Harry Potter film came out – a franchise which would include films which would really have to be classified at 12s but would be immensely popular with under-12s.
Maybe I’m just conservative, but I think it’s clear for anyone to see that film classification standards are falling. Films that would have been a 15 a decade ago are now 12s, and 18s are becoming 15s (did anyone see The Last King of Scotland? Never should have been a 15). I’m just worried that if this trend continues, in 20 years time films that would have been 18s when I was growing up will be PGs.