The Batman

Spoilers

Director Matt Reeves promised us a detective Batman in a 90's grunge style noir setting, and cast the master of brooding and angst, Robert Pattinson, as his caped crusader. Well. I'm happy to report that he delivered on his promises. Nary a sliver of sunlight is seen in this movie. Gotham is looming all around, grimy and shining in the rain and harsh night lights. And the movie begins with Pattinson's early years Bruce Wayne delivering a cynical and brooding narration as he chooses which of many, many crimes he should spend his efforts on one Halloween night. The sequence caps off with the pent-up drone of Nirvana, and by then I was hooked and ready for anything.

If I have to turn off the lights in my den to see anything once I'm watching at home, it'll be worth it. This movie is dark and beautiful.

Two years into his crimefighting, this Bruce is still working out his place as a vigilante. He revels in the fact that even the idea or suggestion of his presence will repel even the pettiest of criminals. "They think I am hiding in the shadows," he says in his noir narration. "But I am the shadows." But a sense of futility is creeping in. No matter how much crime he stops, more evil is around the corner. Then—it's The Riddler's turn, played by Paul Dano with eager gusto. Appropriately, Riddler's goals are parallel with Bruce's. He begins to bring to light the corruption and scandal of wealthy and influential Gotham residents, but with the one significant difference from Batman, in that he kills them first. 

He leaves letters and clues for "The Batman" at his crime scenes, which Bruce dutifully follows with help from Gordon, (played with quiet intensity by Jeffery Wright) and Selina Kyle, (Zoe Kravitz, and the film's character highlight.) I loved the sequence where Selina and Bruce team up and infiltrate the club for information—a perfect amalgamation of noir and Batman sensibilities. But elsewhere, scenes that seem to want to mimic the disturbing factor that The Dark Knight did so eerily well played on my nerves here. The writing of Riddler's plan, motivations, and even characterization felt uninspired, as if the acting alone could carry this villain. They spend too much time on him, and the veneer begins to fall.

Besides Kravitz and Dano, (and the actor who claims to be Colin Farrell, which I'm still suspicious of) a general increase of facial emoting wouldn't have gone amiss. People feel things in noir stories, too.

Pattinson is the ideal choice for this iteration, but his performance feels restrained. Stoic Batman is fine, but I hope Bruce Wayne isn't left as a blank slate. They have a good start here. Grungy emo Bruce is different and fun in a dark way that fits the aesthetic, and I know Pattinson can dig into that—if the script and direction allows. Here, the writing keeps him one step behind the Riddler. Even when Riddler allows himself to be arrested, and even when his final plan is implemented, Batman seems there only to react, powerless to stop it. And that bothered me. I wanted Bruce's detective skills to matter to the plot. Or a satisfying moment of revelation where he "solves the case." But there isn't really, and for better or worse, it is done intentionally. 

Through his inability to stop Riddler, Bruce is forced to confront this mirror villain and consider what the difference between them is. Why doesn't Batman kill, if he's the same as Riddler in every other way? So Bruce's moment of revelation turns introspective as he realizes that the point of stopping crime isn't only about the crime itself, but to protect those against whom is the crime is being committed. At the beginning, when Batman beats up the gang of thugs with skeleton paint on their faces, their victim is every bit as afraid of Batman as they are, and Batman does nothing to dissuade his fear. But once he fails to stop Riddler's plan, he realizes it's not over, because there are still innocent people he can help. So he does. And that's what's important, and what makes him the hero rather than the villain.

The style, with bookends of narration and grunge music made me happy, but it still all comes down to character.

So even though I was hoping for a more satisfying mystery plot, and even though I tend to tune out emotionally when superhero movies resort to a city-level event for their final act, I do greatly appreciate this character arc which is beautifully minute. No massive, life-altering realization—just Bruce shifting his focus a little and seeing a ray of hope in the bleak and endless line of evil that's standing before him. I don't think this movie is perfect, but that's why I think I love it.

Persuasion (2007)

Ah, another adaptation of a Jane Austen novel. Persuasion isn't as popular as some of Austen's other novels though. This one is more serious, dramatic, and (almost) despairing. Anne Elliot, at the ripe age of twenty-seven is resigned to being an old maid. Eight years ago she had the affections of a man, who she loved in return, but he was a nobody, and her high-ranking family would have nothing of it. She was persuaded to nullify the engagement, and Fredrick Wentworth left and joined the Navy. Now he is quite accidentally back in her life, a Captain, just as handsome as ever with a great fortune, and still not married. Will they get a second chance, or are they doomed to misunderstandings, and bitterness, secretly longing to rekindle the past?

The answer of course, is yes, to all. And that shouldn't be surprising even if you've never seen or read Persuasion before. It's a romantic drama -- what else could happen? It's not the destination after all, but the journey that we love, and with Jane Austen at the helm, you know the journey is going to be a good one.

Anne Elliot, heroine.

Persuasion is different from most of Austen's other novels in one major way; it's not very much of a comedy. It still has her wit, and there's still those moments to laugh at, but the wit is deeper -- mellower -- and you laugh very thankful that you're not in that annoying or otherwise unpleasant situation. This movie embraces all that drama boldly. The filming style is elegant and not overdone, with deep blue undertones matching and creating the mood. Simple shots let you take in the natural beauty of locations, and creative camera work and editing in the right spots embellish the story stylishly.

Interestingly, this is one period drama where I actually appreciate the men's costumes more than the women's. Not that the women's are bad at all, they are very nice and at times wonderfully ridiculous, but the men look really good and like real gentlemen in this film, and especially Captain Wentworth, though it doesn't hurt that he's actually very handsome anyway. And also acted very well by Rupert Penry-Jones -- he's a wonderful Austen hero.

Captain Frederick Wentworth, dashing hero.

They definitely got him right in the adapting process. And the rest of the cast looks good and right too. Sally Hawkins' appearance as Anne is good, she's past her bloom, but not ugly, but I don't enjoy the way she acts as much-- too timid and breathy, and it's slightly annoying at times. Anne's sisters Elizabeth and Mary are both also -- and much more often -- annoying, but they are supposed to be, so that's a praise. Anthony Head as her father, Sir Walter Elliot is brilliant. He's very good at being angry, but the way he preens in the mirror is what really gets me. Mr. Elliot is wonderfully pompous, though perhaps a bit too much, I begin to wonder how Anne could stand to be around him. As for the rest of the cast I have no particular praises or criticisms.

Anne's sisters, Mary and her husband Charles, and Elizabeth, and father Sir Walter.

The adaptation for the most part of the film is good, and follows the book well, but then near the end, as if by requirement, everything falls apart, for what seems to be no reason other than saving time. It's pretty disappointing, especially if you like the "letter scene" from the book as much as I do, and at only an hour-and-a-half, you'd think they could spare some time to make the end match the beginning and middle. But my biggest criticism has to be that kiss -- first of all, totally inappropriate for the era, but then good grief, it takes them what seems like hours to lean in, until I feel like yelling at them to just get it over with already. By then, I'm obviously kind of out of the romantic mood of the movie.

I guess it's a good thing, then, that it waits til then end to come undone; up until then I get to enjoy everything immensely, and that's exactly what I do. So much so, that I keep going back and watching it again, so I guess I must think that the good outweighs the bad. It is, after all, only about ten minutes of disappointing, to the hour and twenty of reserved, aching romance, thoughtful, real characters, and that wonderful, insightful, classic storytelling distinctive to Jane Austen's talented hand.

Twelve!