Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming
As rightfully heralded as good films Nolan's Batman was, it doesn't hold up as a 'comic' book movie like Burton's does. He captured a real sense of fantasy that this story is about. The world was beautifully realised and unique unlike the generic city Nolan's is set in.
I would respectfully disagree. People often mistake Nolan's Gotham as just a generic city. They just see the lack of "gothic" compared to the previous movies, and automatically presume it has nothing to offer. Its much more than that. Nolan shot gotham in realistic way, but not without its own atmosphere. The city has been treated the way classical "gangster cities" have been potrayed in many criminal sagas, such as Michael Mann movies. In TDK Gotham along with its citiziens feel like an important, living background to the story, whereas in Burton films it was just a bunch of now dated, set pieces and decors. Top that off with fantastic cinematography by Wally Pfister(many are hoping, he finally get recognised by the academy this year), some great memorable shots and the IMAX cameras, and You get a movie, that offers the best visuals of all the Batman films.
Then there is also the fact that the visual style and atmosphere of Burton Batman's is a bit overrated. People usually just base their view of the Batman movies on the simple divide of Burton - atmospheric and gothic, Nolan - high-tech and plain, without an indepth look at what the movies really have to offer on that field. Burton IS a visionary, but the problem is that his Batman's are nowhere near the best examples of the visual styles in his movies. They are atmospheric sure, but to look at the two films from the perspective of time that passed, they are really rather plain, compared to other examples of visual splendour, feel and mood in movies, and no, I dont mean the CGI. It takes a lot more that a few poorly constructed psudo-gothic statues in a city plaza(that now looks really dated, artificial and "set-piece"looking) and some gloomy, poorly lit shots with a lot of steam, to call the movie a visual and atmospheric achievment, especialy considering what we saw in the last two decades. I am not saying that Burton Batman's are not visually strong, I just believe that the praise they get on that field is mainly the product of "Burton Movie" label.
To put it in example. This year saw the release of another great Batman product, the Arkham Asylum game. Reviewers universally praised the art-design of the game, some of them writing that it was "clearly inspired by Burton". SAY WHAT? Seriously? First of all, its complete BS.
Like I said, Burton Batmans are just a collection of now dated, set piecs. An industrial building here, a gothic statue there, and sure when You put it all together it definitely works, but it doesnt hold a candle to the intricate, taste-full art-desing of the AA game, where every enviroment and set is pushing the gothic nature of the asylum to the limit. I wouldnt even put Burtons vision of Gotham on the same shelf. Secondly, not only is the "inspired by Burton" false, its also a face-slap to all the writers and artists, that have created the Batman mythos over the decades. Like what the hell was that supposed to mean? That Batman wasn't "gothic" and "dark" until Burton entered the stage? Please...
Besides if You compare the styles side-by-side You can see that AA has in fact very little to do with Burton imagery, and draws heavily on the 60+ years of Batman comic book fiction.
Dont get me wrong. I love Burton Batmans, they are the movies of my childhood, but looking at them from the perspective of time, I believe that Danny Elfman score, and a great deal of childhood sentiment is what really holds the films together.
As for the Bale discussion, CB has been heralded by the american critics as one of the most talented actors of his generation, long before BB, and not without a reason. The man specialises in both the dark, introvertical, obsessive types, and the very intense characters, and he does both with great mastery. There are several roles in his career, that many, both viewer and critic alike, believe are on oscar level. The kind of roles that are very technicaly difficult, subtle and nuanced, and despite his now Hollywood star status, he is still sought after the best directors.
As a film-buff I could go on and on about Bale, but I better stop, couse looking at the lenght of this post I have probably crossed some internet "Pretensious pseudo-intelectual douchbag level"
its funny how people always come back to this kind specific anecdotes...like its so special or so surprising or such a big deal
I bet in every other great movie every actor that has some kind of special role also has the same professional dedication that Bale had for his Batman role...
That's becouse most of the stuff, that actors do while prepearing for a role, doesnt even come close to dropping 63 punds, while eating an apple, a can of tuna and a cigarrete a day. Oh, and the examples You mentioned: actors going through weapons training, and the team of Matrix learing Kung-Fu. The first one is more fun than difficult with the way it is done in hollywood, and the second one is complete BS i am afraid.
Though personally I dont give a rats-ass about the weight losses. Its impressive sure, but its not what makes him the great actor that he is.
Thought I'd scan over the last few pages to catch up. Forget that.
