James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
News that Christopher Nolan has hired Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway to play Bane and Catwoman respectively in The Dark Knight Rises, the third of his successful Batman trilogy, raises interesting questions. Hardy is an inspired choice. You only need to see the film Bronson, in which Hardy plays the violent prisoner Charles Bronson with a mixture of aggression and humanity that is simply spellbinding. If you could take anything from this it would be to go watch Bronson. His turn in the Nolan-directed Inception was similarly beguiling. Bane in the execrable Batman and Robin was a pumped up bodyguard played by a former wrestler, but in comic books, he’s far more cunning. Hardy should hopefully bring some sly intelligence to the role and uphold the Holllywood rule that if you want your villain to be evil, give him a British accent.
Anne Hathaway I’m less sure about for two reasons. Firstly, although she has played many good roles – Rachel Getting Married, Brokeback Mountain, The Devil Wears Prada – she has equally appeared in her share of rubbish – The Princess Diaries 2, Bride Wars, Alice in Wonderland. In addition, the character of Catwoman is a dodgy one at best. I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers Halle Berry’s stint in the role, with a leather suit, a whip and not much else (such as plot, direction, or anything good). Nolan obviously hopes she’ll bring some gravitas to the role, which I hope for too, considering I enjoyed his first Batman films so much.
Nolan has already avoided the first mistake that other comic book threequels have made (most notably Spiderman 3) by avoiding fanboy favourite characters. Instead of the Riddler, we’ve got Bane, a character who fits seamlessly into Nolan’s dark universe with his belief that Gotham City is governed by fear. An idea already examined at in its predecessors. This could prove particularly interesting if the director choses to use the narrative that places Bane as the successor to Ra’s al Ghul, the deceased villain of Batman Begins. It’s all too easy to see how Nolan could channel this into a dark, bleak and thrilling climax. It is, however, harder to see where Catwoman fits into the picture, since the feline lacks the brutality associated with Nolan’s universe and a femme fatale has been done before in Batman Returns and doesn’t quite seem to fit in to this darker version of the character. However, with his roots in Neo-noir (with Following and Memento), Nolan may find this attractive and it is certainly a possibility.
On another note, Nolan is currently constructing the film using state of the art high definition IMAX technology to shoot the film (with the help of regular cinematographer Wally Pfizer). The result should be a step forward in a different type of film whilst remaining two dimensional in an effort to maintain cinematic brightness.
What's your problem with Bride Wars? It only confirmed that Hathaway is the female Will Smith - she's excellent in everything.
What aside from it being stupid, idiotic, deeply unfunny, generally depressive and to quote one critic sending feminism 'back to the stone age'
It wasn't the most intellectual fare on the market, but so what? And how was it "generally depressive"? I take it you thought the first Princess Diaries was excellent, then?
No I did not actually write that section of the article and have to admit it is not something I have seen on the grounds it received generally negative reviews. I considered Bride wars depressive on the grounds that I could find nothing interesting or at all relatable in either of the protagonists and they seemed vacuous and deeply irritating. Essentially I found the film depressing because it was essentially 89 minutes of particularly annoying and foolish chatter based around a premise that was both entirely unbelievable, cliched and full of negative stereotyping. As well as the fact that Anne Hathaway is a good actress as revealed in Rachel Getting Married and it is always a real shame to see talent go to waste.
Dear "Anonymous":
I wrote that section of the article so please stop ragging on James. As for "Bride Wars" and the "princess diaries 2" I have watched both and they weren't intellectual fare, nor were they fun, witty, pithy, watchable or indeed anything I would go and see at the cinema. They were souless overmarketed films whose story was seemingly written in crayola and whose characters were effectively join-the-dots puzzles. In particular I found Bride Wars' message - that weddings are the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER - and that the more materialistic, bigger and consumerist the better - utterly distasteful, and portrayed women in terms that would have seemed backwards in the 50s.
I have no problem with films that are not the cinematic version of Proust, but I do ask that films have decent characterisation, a plot that is not see through, predictable to the extent you can guess the dialogue, and are not marketed with a shrieking hyperbole designed to disguise the fact the film is rubbish, something Bride Wars did especially.
If you find my opinions so distasteful - or indeed any opinions that contradict your own - my advice would to be not to read any reviews ever, as we wouldn't want you getting challenged?
Calm down dears, I'm not "ragging" on anyone - simply commenting on a particular line in an article (which, the whole, was good, by the way) which I disagreed with. You feel differently, that's fine. But I don't understand why you're being so heavy handed about it. If you get so shirty about inoffensive comments that simply state a different view - which I thought was allowed on The Yorker? - then my advice would be to never write any reviews ever, as God forbid someone might leave a comment which mildly disagrees with you.
I think this has gone a bit to far. I am willing to admit that my first comment was a hasty response that was not thought through. I certainly did not explain what I consider to be the problems with the film but I believe that I did explain them later on. If you consider Bride Wars to be an enjoyable comedy then that's fine with me I am glad someone enjoys what I found an incredibly tedious experience, it means there is some good in it. However, this said I do believe I explained my reasons quite well in my second comment for the dislike I felt towards the film.
Dear anonymous
Glad you liked the article. However I'm confused. You take issue with a throwaway comment I made. I respond by effectively giving my reasons for making said comment and saying it's my opinion. You respond by getting offended with my statement of my opinion. Come on dude I want to talk about batman
James: thanks for your considerate response. I certainly don't have a problem with you NOT liking those movies, just so long as you don't have a problem with others liking them, which seemed to be implied by your categorical dismissal of them as stupid, unfunny, etc.
Michael: Again, I'm certainly not offended by you not liking something, but it's slightly insulting to claim that those things are therefore crap, because it implies that people who DO enjoy them are undiscerning morons. And I was somewhat taken aback that simply offering a different judgement precipitated such a verbal onslaught.
Anyway, what do you think Michael C. Hall's chances of playing the Riddler are now?
No chance of him playing the Riddler; people will see him as a sub-standard Joker replacement. Nolan has followed a trend of having villains who are very similar to Batman; r'as al ghul in Batman begins was the mentor/pupil relationship, The Joker was an anarchist whose way of thinking wasn't that dissimilar (see the interrogation scene) and Bane is a self-learned self-taught man who is cunning and has obviously had a gym membership for some time - voila batman. Personally I hope we don't even see Catwoman - I've always seen her as a joke character to be honest but maybe this time it would be different
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report