So I watched Christopher Nolan’s cinematic tour de force ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, on the afternoon of 17 August 2012. It was my first visit to the cinema in South Africa. I was expecting the facilities – the actual screening room -- to be far more technologically advanced than what’s available back home, in Zimbabwe, but that wasn’t the case. It was the same, at least in terms of theatre size, screen size and screen structure/mechanics.
A tiny portion of the screen seemed to have been singed off by a naughty patron. During the showing, the picture was slightly out of focus and the sound wasn’t 100% clear. It was slightly ‘muffled’, making it hard to hear the dialogue. The audio output wasn’t ‘multi-channel’ or ‘surround’, it was stereo. Granted not all theatres are equipped with multi-channel audio. And this was one theatre within a multiplex and one branch within the Ster-Kinekor chain. This is hardly reflective of all the cinemas in South Africa, Ster-Kinekor or otherwise. It’s just that I was expecting a gigantic screen; a super-sharp, bright picture and super-clear, multi-channel sound – a top notch experience. This was Ster-kinekor, after all. The seat was the most comfortable cinema seat I’ve sat in thus far, though.
Anyway, the result of the poor sound, was my missing (verbal) narrative points that would have enhanced my understanding of the story and therefore my enjoyment of the film. I could be wrong but, I don’t think that the problem was the particular print or reels, that we were watching, but the playback system – the film projector and related equipment. It’s a little over a month (at time of writing) since ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ had its global theatrical debut, so it’s too soon for the reels to have worn out. Isn’t it, dear reader? Oh! Another thing, the end credits were cut short. I hate that. There are many interesting things that one can discover from watching the end credits roll.
Enough of that.
I am supposed to put forth a synopsis of the film here, but that seems rather redundant, therefore I shall not. Actually, what interests me most about writing film reviews is sharing my thoughts, so I’ll use artistic licence and skip the synopsis.
Hans Zimmer’s score was impressive, as expected. It was dark, epic and immensely beautiful. It added a great deal of impact to the visuals. The dialogue – that which I managed to catch – was good. It was appealingly dense – chockfull of references to past events -- and in some moments insightful, philosophical, thought-provoking, funny and witty. The kind of dialogue I like. I am no film expert, but I didn’t find the cinematography particularly striking. Which isn’t to say that it was bad, it’s just… there isn’t a shot that struck me and made me go “wow, that’s beautiful”. (Writer’s introspection: what’s the point of all this writing about movies again?)
Tom Hardy’s Bane was exceptionally good. Bane stood head and shoulders above everyone else, both literally and figuratively, and stole the show. He was genuinely menacing and there was depth to him. He wasn’t a cardboard villain, he had a back-story that was actually kind of moving. Bane’s speech, which was filtered through his mask, was somewhat hard to decipher, and the poor audio made it harder.
I’m noticing that I usually enjoy more and have more to say about the supporting performances than the lead performance. Anne Hathaway’s Selina Kyle/Catwoman, because I couldn’t make out some of the dialogue, I’m certain I missed things that would have led me to appreciate her more. Because I didn’t understand how she knew so much about Bane, how she could saunter in and out of Bane’s lair/hideout, without being harmed, and yet tell the police (I think it was the police) that they should be as fearful of Bane as much as she. Perhaps I’ve become hard of hearing. Hathaway looked spiffy in a cat-suit but I couldn’t quite make out what was going on in hand-to-hand fight sequences involving her. The hand-to-hand fights in this film, I found generally hard to follow. I think it was Editor Lee Smith’s quick cuts. My current stance is that there really wasn’t much meat to Hathaway’s role, dramatically, but I could be singing a different tune in future. We are such fickle creatures we human beings. But seriously, I’m certain I’ll appreciate her more when I watch a visually and aurally pristine copy of this film.
I felt that Christian Bale’s performance was adequate. Bruce Wayne isn’t an awfully emotive man, he plays his cards close to his chest, and Batman is without emotion, automaton-like, which is as it should be. But that’s what makes it difficult for me to gauge Bale’s performance because it was so restrained – internalized. Taken at face value, one would think that Bale didn’t break much of a sweat in portraying Bruce Wayne/Batman, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I wonder though, how much of Bale’s performance as Batman – underneath the face-concealing cowl – was actually his, considering that it was easy for a stunt-double to play most, if not all, of Batman. I’m just wondering. I felt that Gary Oldman’s, Michael Caine’s, Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s, Marion Cotillard’s, Morgan Freeman’s and Cillian Murphy’s performances, as Commissioner James Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, Robin John Blake, Miranda Tate, Lucius Fox and Jonathan Crane respectively, were adequate too. The scene towards the end of the film, where Alfred (Caine) weeps at the graves of the Wayne family, feeling that he failed Bruce’s parents, felt contrived and overly sentimental. I wasn’t moved.
The scene where Catwoman leads Batman to Bane’s lair, leading to Batman and Bane having their first meeting and physical confrontation, was disturbing. Because of Bane’s then superior fighting prowess, I genuinely feared for Batman’s life. Bruce’s punches, kicks and fancy gadgets had no effect on Bane. And as Selina Kyle looked on regretfully from above, as Bruce was pummeled almost to death, I was moved. There was a real sense of danger… grave danger, in this scene. That’s testament to the power of cinema. When Bruce valiantly persisted in the face of a then unbeatable force, the futility of it made me deeply sad. But what I liked about the ending of this sequence was that, although Bruce was defeated, his body broke before his spirit -- a good sign, some encouraging subtext from the writers. This film was very well written.
I liked the scene where Gordon, in the presence of Blake, laments the restrictive nature of legal structures in the pursuit of justice and describes the events surrounding Harvey Dent’s death. Gordon’s skillful use of words was impressive – something to do with plunging one’s hands into the filth and so on -- bravo!
The special- and visual-effects in this film were well done. It was thrilling to see Bruce and Selina working together to retrieve the stolen fusion core – the ‘batpod’ racing through the deserted streets, while ‘the bat’ whizzed overhead. The fictional mechanics of both contraptions were impressive – especially the unusual way the wheels of the batpod turned when making a sharp turn. And the ‘rider’s view’ shots when either Batman or Catwoman was riding the batpod, were fun. They gave me a sense of the speed and maneuvering of the bike. There’s a scene where Bruce alighted his vehicle to be met with a barrage of reporters’ camera flashes and questions, and promptly disabled the cameras with an unseen device on his person – nice. I wonder what it was, I’m thinking EMP – electromagnetic pulse burst.
Alfred wanted Bruce to leave Gotham, find himself (another) good woman and live a normal life – this struck a chord with me, because I drew parallels… I was also struck by the simplicity of the sans-serif typeface used for the title of the film. It was just blocky and unadorned – uncharacteristic of big-budget comic book adaptations, which usually have elaborately designed titles; with glows, 3D effects and so on – very ‘Nolan’. The ending was reminiscent of Nolan’s ‘Inception’, with the hint that things aren’t quite what they seem; that there’s more to come.
‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is a solid film. It’s so engaging and well executed, that I didn’t feel the long running time of approximately two hours and forty minutes. I felt that it’d all gone by too quickly instead. It’s moving, thought-provoking, disturbing, funny and spectacular. What appealed more to me were the drama and themes explored, than the action. It was an afternoon well spent. That is, despite the aforementioned technical issues.
I walked out of the theatre feeling as though I was Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character, Blake. I like it when I leave the cinema feeling as though I’m one of the characters in the film I‘ve just watched. It’s one of the ways I know that I’ve enjoyed myself. I’ll be revisiting ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ for a long time to come.
