Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Jojo rabbit, magnificent.
Released in '97, its one of those films that completely passed me by. I'd never even heard of it, let alone seen it.It's a bloody brilliant film with some cracking acting in
Agreed - caught me by surprise when I saw it, one of the best I've seen in the last few yearsJojo rabbit, magnificent.
A very pleasant surprise. Hard watch at times, but the film itself is cracking!Released in '97, its one of those films that completely passed me by. I'd never even heard of it, let alone seen it.
Picked the dvd up in a charity shop, as you do, (3 for a pound, and I normally donate them back a week later) and was pleasantly surprised. One of the best films I've seen for ages.
The Batman.
An atmospheric but mediocre effort.
The best scene in the film - the encounter with The Riddler in Arkham Asylum - is still highly derivative and plagiarises the ending of Kurosawa's High and Low. The Japanese title is 'Tengoku to Jigoku' (literally Heaven and Hell), and the main character in that movie physically and psychologically descends into Hell via the drug dens and seedy clubs in Yokohama.
In The Batman, we have the Iceberg Lounge where the customers consume ‘drops’, and The Riddler explicitly proclaiming, 'I told you I'd see you in Hell'.
Watch the Kurosawa film instead. It is much better.
I see what you are getting at here and do appreciate your defence of the movie.I respect that view, but I'm not sure what film in the modern era (when every single genre, subject matter and style has been covered on celluloid now) doesn't/ cannot, but help produce something not, somewhat, influenced by another film that came before it?
There are brilliant obscure foreign films that always have an effect on decent Hollywood directors that a mainstream audience will never have heard of, so to detract a majorly produced film, because it offered an homage to a scene that a director liked, is perplexing to me.
It's your view (and maybe I ask because I don't understand what others see to deem it "mediocre"), but what makes it an 'average' film for you as I saw the film as a study in character, rather than a typical action film, which is what I think is confusing people; that the action scenes are secondary and a support mechanism to the character, added to which there's the type of approach to the action that happens, that matters for the character.
But that's just what I think!
Yeah bit of a lost classic that one, an amazing cast who were at their peakReleased in '97, its one of those films that completely passed me by. I'd never even heard of it, let alone seen it.
Picked the dvd up in a charity shop, as you do, (3 for a pound, and I normally donate them back a week later) and was pleasantly surprised. One of the best films I've seen for ages.
I see what you are getting at here and do appreciate your defence of the movie.
Films that are parasitic on others can be quite good in their own right. For example, Paul Schrader's First Reformed works but is quite explicitly a homage to Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest. I am just not convinced that this one succeeds in that way.
Of course, The Batman has also been influenced by Se7en.
I just felt that it just wasn't as good as The Dark Knight trilogy, especially Batman Begins. The dialogue is clunky and not terribly imaginative, for example, and The Batman's reflections and musings aren't all that memorable or profound. And when he mouths the content of The Riddler's cards, for me it was like watching someone give a Powerpoint presentation where they simply read the slides they have made.
A lot of the 'user reviews' on the imdb website are very much at variance with what the critics have written, so I am not the only one to have been disappointed.
I like your suggestion that the film should be taken as a character study, though. In this respect, it might be seen as a representation of a shamanic psychological journey of initiation.
In societies that are influenced by shamanism, there is a certain type of person, usually an adolescent, who is earmarked for this process.
Amongst the Tungus of Siberia, it is :
‘A child who has dreams different from ordinary ones, who is subject to strong emotions…refuses food, walks and wanders about aimlessly and without purpose; he or she may have changes of mood – sometimes silent and depressed, sometimes sleeping too long, sometimes unable to sleep’.
In other words, the typical ‘lazy boy or girl’, unhappy with the ordinary world, unaccountably moody or queerly sick, often lonely, orphaned, or separated from their real parents, someone who is oversensitive and has a vivid imagination, is the ideal shamanistic candidate, someone who must go to another world in order to learn how to live in this one.
A shaman may transform themselves into a particular animal by wearing a mask or costume made from its skin, feathers, teeth or claws and by imitating its shrieks or cries. In doing so the shaman demonstrates their control of an otherwise possibly wild and fearsome creature, and perhaps this transformation also symbolises an ability to predict the movements of game for hunting purposes. The spirits that take possession of animals can, in this way, also become familiars of the shaman, allies or messengers in the quest to defeat evil forces and to heal the sick.
Shamans also undergo something called 'soul loss' as part of their apprenticeship, which psychologically entails an experience that is mirrored by the everyday phrases that we use when we say they we are 'shattered' or have 'gone to pieces'. A fragmentation of the personality is implied. In order to put yourself back together, to regain your soul, you have to journey to the underworld, to hell, to get your soul back, and you have to make that journey alone. As a result of this journey of psychological death and resurrection, the shaman acquires unusual powers and is ready to occupy the role of being a tribe's protector and healer.
Must stop there as I need to get on. Hopefully readers of this post can join the dots and see how this journey is symbolically in the film. Robert Pattinson's whacked-out Batman is intriguing in that respect.
That was a REALLY enjoyable response! Thank you!
Just a quick reply to it...
Whether intentional or not (I think the former) Reeves has married the 'Batman: Ego' aspect from the obscure comic book into "Batman Begins" to create this new version. Here is where your shamanic overview comes into play as it does when 'Bruce Wayne' decides on this pathway from the Nolan film, but we skip that step in this offer, especially the transformation aspect you alluded to, but not the healer part as of yet.
I would say there is prevalent PTSD exhibited in this version which is shown in the stunted presentation of the character, clearly struggling with his life and how to process its shattered pieces.
Anyway, I could chunter on all day with this talk, myself!
Thanks!