Why Christopher Nolan's trilogy is NOT definitive, but damn close. (Part 1)

While I think that the Christopher Nolan trilogy comes closest than any of its live-action predecessors, I would hardly call it the definitive representation of Batman.

Before you brand me a heretic, hear me out.

Let's start from the beginning.

Batman Begins takes us through Batman's origins, Bruce Wayne's transformation.

A story that I love. From the comic Batman: Year One to the animated Mask of the Phantasm, the different takes on an iconic story have held up.

Where Batman Begins falters is the exact moment that Ra's Al Guhl reveals that Gotham City is to be the target of the League of Shadows. Why is the city to be targeted? Ra's explains that the city represents the penultimate in decadence and corruption. We are told this several times throughout the film, but we never see it. (Yeah, there is that moment between Wayne and Rachel where she gives the nickel tour of homeless, but what city doesn't have that?) Gotham is supposed to be the worst of the worst. But it never really looks too bad. I'd live there. It looks like what you would expect a city to look like. Charlotte. Chicago. L.A. (But I would say that L.A. has more menace.)

Detective Flass is somehow supposed to encapsulate the police corruption and perhaps even the city's, but he isn't enough. He's not dangerous. He's a thug that steals money from street vendors. He never has any real teeth, so when Batman intimidates him, while being cool to watch, lacks the dramatic power that it should have had.

Flass' character works in the comics because he's a tool of the corrupt Commissioner Loeb (a missed opportunity for the film). He's also a threat. At one point, Flass and a few other venal cops in ski-masks ambush the young James Gordon and give him a message in the form of a beating. Get wise or else. Flass as portrayed in the film is little more than a clownish buffoon.

But enough about Flass.

The real culprit is when the Wayne Tech microwave emitter is introduced. This frankly marks the downturn in what is otherwise (with a few exceptions) a good film. Since the microwave emitter hasn't even been alluded to until two-thirds of the way through, its not an easy plot point to work in. But it is necessary.

How is it accomplished? By this point in the story, the only way it can be. It's delivered as a bit of undramatic expositional dialogue to Rutger Hauer's Mister Earle with cut-a-ways to a ship being sunk by the device (the cut-a-ways, I assume were meant to make the exchange of information dramatic. It doesn't).

What makes the introduction of the microwave emitter worse is that it is an obvious story device, one that is wedged in. There's no finesse in this. It's a big deal, but not because we see it as a big deal. The characters tell us, so it must be so. But it is a big deal.  The finale rests on it. Wouldn't you think that it would rate a better intro?

But enough about the damn microwave emitter.

The nail in the coffin. Where the film loses its credulity (not entirely, mind you, but enough to bother me for what that's worth), is when Ra's returns from the dead (at least metaphorically), to wreak havoc on the city of Gotham. His reasons are still the same. Corruption and evil must be purged. I'm still not buying it. Why? We haven't seen it. People have talked enough about it, but talk is cheap. If you're building a whole movie on this, then we have to see it. Seeing is believing after-all.

I still love Batman Begins, but I say that with reservations. For me, of all the live-action representations, it comes closest to capturing the essence of the Batman myth.

Next:

Why the Dark Knight is the worst of the trilogy and brings us closer to why the trilogy  is not the definitive Batman.

Marketing vs delusional hyperbole.

I have to admit that I'm not one for self aggrandizement. I don't trust myself well enough for that luxury.

Maybe trust isn't the right word. I believe in the last script I wrote. I believe it's good. Do I believe that it's going to change lives? With the exception of my own, I have to admit no.

That doesn't make it less. I am a realist. I believe in the power of story to change lives. If I didn't, I wouldn't be writing. But I'm not going to be so blind as to try to sell every story as a revolutionary event that is going to change your world and how you function in it. Number one, I don't believe that's going to happen. Number two, that's only setting up your audience for disappointment.

Let's face it. Hyping unrealistic expectations is a bad idea. You might have the greatest story ever told, but that's going to be subjective. There's no way around it.

I mean, look at Sin City the movie. Look at Avatar. They had revolutionary technology, but in the end, everything hinged on story, and you could argue that in that department, they fell flat.

My point, I guess is this. Hype the story first. That is to say, tell me you have a story that you think is good, and you are experimenting with a medium for said story that is unusual or not traditional. I might take a look. But don't try to sell me on the medium first. Now I am wary. And if your story doesn't hold up, then I don't care how you package it. I don't care how new or cool looking it is. Without a great story, I just don't care.

"The Way" = the beauty of subtle story-telling.

I haven't watched "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" yet. I am excited to, but my schedule (and the availability at Redbox) hasn't allowed for it. My wife and I did, however, pick up Emilio Estevez's "The Way".

We were both impressed.

It had a quiet power akin to "Lost in Translation". I was absorbed by the story of a man's journey to find the relationship with his estranged (and now dead) son. It made me acutely aware of my own troubled relationship with my father and how fragile these relationships can be.

In terms of writing, well, I don't know what to say. There are rules (more like commandments really) of show, don't tell. I'm not sure how it applies to this film. In today's more mainstream and even indie environment, there are often extremes. Perhaps that isn't fair. It's just- It seems everything has to be large, over-the-top, or blatantly stated.

I must admit, I haven't been watching enough recent releases to perhaps justify that statement, but it seems to me, even a film like "The Descendants", which I liked, for the most part, went for something overly dramatic. The comatose mother/wife. The revelation of an affair. All make for "loud" dramatic performances. (Again, I liked them.) But what if there is no affair? What if there is no body to yell at? (That happened more than once in The Descendants.) What if there is only a journey?

I would have told you, it can't be done.

And Emilio Estevez would prove me wrong.

Every once in a great while there is one of those films that do more than wow me. Every once in a while there is a film that touches something within me. "The Way" is one of those films.

And I think the main reason is he didn't try too hard. He didn't go crazy with the humorous moments. The dramatic moments are not filled with actors chewing up the scenery.

Quiet. Sincere. Honest. That's it. My hat's off to him.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I just downloaded what looks like the shooting script. I haven't watched it yet, but I might just have to watch and read. This is going to be great learning.

On to the new.

Finished the third draft of my script. Now it's ready for a reading, then on to submission to Bluecat.

Now I'm into the next script which I have mixed feelings about. It's been 20 years in the making.

Batman classes.

I feel like I could begin teaching a screenwriting class based on my process(es) as a screenwriter.  Is that arrogance?  I'm not sure.

My first class would revolve around Batman as a franchise.  It is a gold mine of information.  What to do and what not to do.  It has mood, story, theme, structure, etc.  A huge history.  An iconic figure.  It would be fun.

I blogged about rewriting the Dark Knight a while back (deleted them), and while I did that as an exercise, I tried teaching it in a class and it was a dismal failure.  I didn't have the skills to communicate it well enough.  I'm getting there, though.

More rewrites - Character introduction.

Character introduction says a lot.  That was my issue with the last Batman movie, The Dark Knight.  Batman had the lamest intros in the history of the franchise.  But that's for another blog.

I think when we meet the character, it should say a lot about the character we're meeting.

Sample:

INT. ADDIE’S THRIFT STORE

MISS HOKE, a spiteful widow in her seventies, leans impatiently on a walker by the counter.  She wields a broken umbrella like an extension of her gnarled hand.

MISS HOKE

Arthritis.  Contractures.  Diabetes.  Gout.  Angina.

Natalie’s heard this before.

MISS HOKE

And I’ve got cataracts in both eyes.

NATALIE

Sorry I kept you waiting, Ma’am.

MISS HOKE

Do you run this store or don’t you?

Natalie goes behind the counter.

NATALIE

You need three scratch-offs?

MISS HOKE
Don’t tell me what I need, little girl.

End sample.

I describe Miss Hoke as spiteful in the scene description, but obviously an audience won't be privy to that.  And since, Miss Hoke was a secondary character, it had to come across in the dialogue right out of the gate.  We aren't going to spend a lot of time with her, so how she introduced herself was important.  She is a catalyst for the story, but that doesn't mean she has to read like it, or be nothing more than a tool.