From: (No Email available)

Date: 2004-04-14 22:39:29

Comment:

Agreed. I have only one comment...I believe that Batman can exist in so many different incarnations, so I completely appreciate the 60s tv shows and the 66 movie as well--why, because, in their own loopy way, they worked.  They really were Kill Bill before Tarantino stepped into the limelight.  The reason I don't like the last two, is because they didn't work in any capacity...aesthetically or commercially.  I appreciate the first two for what they were, but even here, they were a bit clunky.  My one objection with how most people portray Batman, a trend that really came full steam in the 70s comics, is with the manner in which too much dramatic emphasis is given Batman's darkness, without acknowledging the degree to which Batman loves what he does.  Granted, Batman is not Superman, but I think Batman has always been a much richer character when people realize there's a lot of light to his character in the same way that Superman becomes a much fuller character when people acknowledge his dark side.  I think many people assume Batman is a complex character just because he broods, and he wears black...a characterization that is all too easy to cash in on.  But the best Batman comics have always been those that show Batman's emotional range and texture.  This is why I still can appreciate Returns, despite its flaws, because it acknowledges that, in many ways, the Batman universe is ridiculous at best; but it's only ridiculous because it mirrors our own reality, and our own inability to take off our socially imposed masks. Still, I'm thinking I will prefer Nolan's version of Batman to all others.  Why? Because as you said, it will be a more serious take.  But serious should not be equal to "darker"; it should be equal to "more faithful," which is why I'm certain Nolan is the only man (outside of myself) to revive the Batman franchise.  Visually speaking, Nolan's films are incredible, and the ways in which he plays with camera technique and blocking to really drive the story home is amazing.  My one concern regarding his direction, and it is a minor one, is in regards to the action scenes.  From a critical standpoint, Nolan has yet to stage an action scene just for the sheer pleasure of watching guys get stomped.  His action has always had a Hitchcockian feel to it--very psychological, very cerebral.  This is certainly a good trait, but when you're dealing with a character like Batman, some of those action scenes need to be studies in choreography, style, and wit, and not just suspense.  Just watch the opening of Temple of Doom to see how Spielberg shifts from suspenseful action to action for the hell of it, to see the difference in mood and tone.  Two other directors come to mind who can do a range of action, William Friedkin, and Brian De Palma...oh, and John Schlesinger (Marathon Man).  If Nolan can combine Hitchockian suspense with the flash-bang actions scenes of a Woo film (of course, he'd have to tone it down), I'd rest a whole lot easier. Oh, and sorry, I guess I had more than one comment.