Comments on: The Dark Knight Returns http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/06/the-dark-knight-returns/ Stating the obvious since 1982 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:26:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Ben Eastaugh http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/06/the-dark-knight-returns/#comment-60 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:39:13 +0000 http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/06/the-dark-knight-returns/#comment-60 That's certainly a valid point, but I suspect that any film trying to do two things (in this case, tell Batman's origin story and also deliver a recognisable Batman adventure) will also be more difficult to pull off than one that simply does the latter, at least where that origin story is such a huge part of the film. While the rewards are great if it's pulled off well (as it is in ??Batman Begins??), it's a tough tightrope to walk, and Christopher Nolan should be applauded for getting it as right as he did. Movies are perhaps the closest thing we have nowadays to a common oral tradition. In the past, the same tales of heroes and villains were told again and again by bards and poets; Homer, after all, was in a sense "just the guy who wrote it all down". With the development of modern society and technology, that oral tradition (at least insofar as it affects society as a whole) has faded, but we still feel that human need for huge mythologies to draw inspiration and validation from. This is why ??Star Wars?? is so huge (and perhaps why the prequels don't work as well as the originals; they fail to provide the level of human connection, in terms of emotional investment in places, artefacts and characters that the originals did). The telling and retelling of the Batman saga approximates the way a bard's stories change in the telling, but the essentials, the emotional core, remains the same. That’s certainly a valid point, but I suspect that any film trying to do two things (in this case, tell Batman’s origin story and also deliver a recognisable Batman adventure) will also be more difficult to pull off than one that simply does the latter, at least where that origin story is such a huge part of the film. While the rewards are great if it’s pulled off well (as it is in Batman Begins), it’s a tough tightrope to walk, and Christopher Nolan should be applauded for getting it as right as he did.

Movies are perhaps the closest thing we have nowadays to a common oral tradition. In the past, the same tales of heroes and villains were told again and again by bards and poets; Homer, after all, was in a sense “just the guy who wrote it all down”. With the development of modern society and technology, that oral tradition (at least insofar as it affects society as a whole) has faded, but we still feel that human need for huge mythologies to draw inspiration and validation from.

This is why Star Wars is so huge (and perhaps why the prequels don’t work as well as the originals; they fail to provide the level of human connection, in terms of emotional investment in places, artefacts and characters that the originals did). The telling and retelling of the Batman saga approximates the way a bard’s stories change in the telling, but the essentials, the emotional core, remains the same.

]]>
by: Khoi Vinh http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/06/the-dark-knight-returns/#comment-59 Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:25:41 +0000 http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/06/the-dark-knight-returns/#comment-59 While I'm "on record":http://www.subtraction.com/archives/2005/0620_back_to_the_.php as being no fan of the Tim Burton movies, to his credit, that director didn't use Batman's origin as (too much of) a crutch. His first "Batman," while it halfheartedly tried to serve as an origin story, really focused on how the Joker came to be. Which is part of the reason why it was so unsuccessful. Especially when adapting these huge, monolithic comic book legends, directors get a head start when they spend screen time retelling the way a character received his/her powers. Just look at Richard Donner's "Superman" or Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man"; you could argue about the quality of both, but they are the most fun and watchable when they're recounting the story of how their respective hero came to be. Nolan's "Batman Begins" is very obviously an origin tale, which is part of the reason it's so enjoyable (it also happens to be made exceedingly well). This is part of the reason, too, that Miller's "Batman: Year One" is so compelling. As people we actually really do like to hear the same story over and over, just told with new twists. Origin stories for comic book heroes, especially the ones mentioned here, are so well-worn and familiar that they easily evoke strong emotions in audiences when they are retold with creativity and class. While I’m on record as being no fan of the Tim Burton movies, to his credit, that director didn’t use Batman’s origin as (too much of) a crutch. His first “Batman,” while it halfheartedly tried to serve as an origin story, really focused on how the Joker came to be. Which is part of the reason why it was so unsuccessful.

Especially when adapting these huge, monolithic comic book legends, directors get a head start when they spend screen time retelling the way a character received his/her powers.

Just look at Richard Donner’s “Superman” or Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man”; you could argue about the quality of both, but they are the most fun and watchable when they’re recounting the story of how their respective hero came to be. Nolan’s “Batman Begins” is very obviously an origin tale, which is part of the reason it’s so enjoyable (it also happens to be made exceedingly well).

This is part of the reason, too, that Miller’s “Batman: Year One” is so compelling. As people we actually really do like to hear the same story over and over, just told with new twists. Origin stories for comic book heroes, especially the ones mentioned here, are so well-worn and familiar that they easily evoke strong emotions in audiences when they are retold with creativity and class.

]]>