Nolan Goes to War and Wins

I can tell you that this is Tom Hardy, but this is the classic nameless soldier that Nolan uses to magnify the breadth of the viewer to the film.

These are really hard to write, because as anyone will tell you it's much harder to write a good review than a bad review, but I was swept away by Dunkirk (ok that was a tired metaphor) ...it blew my socks off ...no even worse. It was amazing ok? And I dare to surmise that it's Christopher Nolan's best film in his repertoire. I know he has a strong following not only of fan boys, comic book nerds, but also cinephiles, and is revered as like the next Orson Welles or something, I mean he makes good films and is very skilled but he's not Orson Welles. Here's the thing, I watched Memento because everyone was pressuring me to do it when it first came out in 2000, and at the time I was still smoking pot so I watched it. I watched it literally the day before I saw Dunkirk for the second time and after all of these years it's still brilliant. 

Now, I know I'm going to get murdered for saying the following, but apart from The Dark Knight, which I don't even think is the best superhero film; I mean it's up there, but no. I don't like his movies. I think they are very conceptually interesting but very self-indulgent; from the crazy runtimes to the weird time parallels he loves to fuck around with, which I see as very self-serving. I didn't bother watching The Dark Knight Rises, and I hated Inception; Interstellar -- same thing. He's one of those people that I think starts out as a massively talented maverick indie filmmaker who turns completely cray once a studio gives him some money a la Darren Aronofsky. 

I'm a history buff, or huge History Channel nerd however you want to call it, and I am actually completely obsessed with World War II so going into the film, I was well aware about the battle and subsequent evacuation of Dunkirk. 

One of the most iconic scenes in the film, and Nolan spared no expense to make it look as authentic as possible. Word has it that over 10,000 extras participated in the film. 

Nolan does not give you any backstory, and good for him. He's a filmmaker that doesn't talk down to his audience and assumes that they are all as smart as he is. Except for in Inception, where there was a character who's whole purpose was to explain the convoluted plot to the audience by asking the questions that we all silently were. 

But back to Dunkirk. If you don't know the story -- The Nazi army is basically a few kilometers from total occupation of France. The only countries allied against Hitler at this time are France and England. The British are retreating and the only way out is across the English Channel which is pretty fucking far even though we have people swimming that shit now. But then again, those people don't get torpedoed by U-boat's or shot down by the Luftwaffe like fish in a barrel. At this time, Churchill had focused all of his military preparedness on fortifying England with the British Navy which was the best in the world. Unfortunately, he didn't plan for the aggression of Hitler's Luftwaffe air force. About 400,000 British men needed to be evacuated off of the beaches in Dunkirk, France, and this story is about the miracle of their survival. 

An actual photograph of the evacuation of Dunkirk.

As a film, it is a towering achievement in the war film genre. I haven't seen anything quite like it. In a world with wall-to-wall CGI, Nolan used basically none. It is breathtaking what he was able to accomplish filming from the three main locations of the evacuation; land, sea, and air...and yes it did lead to Churchill's 'We Will Fight Them on the Beaches' speech. 

I saw it with a Russian who shall remain nameless, and they're an art major (or were); educated in the Soviet Union. There, they are apparently taught to play against action. It's a very character driven, character-centric aesthetic. In fact, they they refer to excessive action as 'Zhelezo' which means metal. As in, too much metal, not enough humanity. 

A scene where the chaos is humanized and meditated on is usually one of a deafening silence. And yes that's Harry Styles on the left. Happy now?

I countered that by arguing that most war films; yes, have a singular viewpoint. Some of the best in fact; from Saving Private Ryan, to The Pianist, to Kubrick's Path's of Glory because someone apparently wrote it down somewhere that war has to be humanized. I understand that sentiment, but in all actuality war is the exact opposite of that. It is a conflict of chaos where everyone who fights in it from the generals to the privates are anonymous and just have one initiative in mind; survival. I would rather actually compare it to a film like Black Hawk Down, which according to my estimates has about 50 speaking roles. You don't remember who's who most of the time; their rank; and what they're whole deal is, because guess what; it doesn't matter. There is a mission, it goes wrong, soldiers are trapped under huge enemy fire and that's the story right there. It's a documentary style of narrative filmmaking, and Nolan just nailed it. His camera work, his beautiful imagery, and his signature aesthetic all worked in his favor and the film is an absolute masterpiece. Because in war, nothing really matters except staying alive am I right? Did that sound too Hunger Games?

But back to the filmmaking, again with about 30 principals in the cast, with seasoned actors like Kenneth Branagh who basically has like 5 lines and Cillian Murphy who just repeats the same thing over and over again, it's a sacrifice of telling the story as accurately as possible without making it about a particular person or a particular viewpoint. During the evacuation of Dunkirk, everyone's objective was the same, and that's how Nolan approaches it. Most of the characters don't even have names, IMDB it. All in all, well worth the hype, the wait, and definitely now that I come back to it, the best Nolan film to date. 

Trailer below: 

Affleck as Batman? It's Time for the Lamest Riot Ever.

Ok let me just start off with saying, I'm not into comics and really don't know much about Batman outside how I've seen him in the movies. Also let me preface this with saying that it's not even 9:30am and I've heard almost 15 jokes about Matt Damon being Robin, so can we not talk about that at all? (The Matt Damon part I mean, like that has any relevance) So news broke today that Ben Affleck will be the new Batman in the Man of Steel sequel and social media erupted with Affleck backlash, the likes of which we haven't seen since Lindsay Lohan got cast as Elizabeth Taylor. First of all, can everyone please calm the fuck down? It's actually a pretty sound decision considering, and here's why. Out of all the iconic Batman's I'm of the firm opinion, and I might have just put a target on my back, that Christian Bale's is down there with worst. The only reason the Nolan Batman films are any good is because of the villains (discounting Anne Hathaway), not because of Bale's Clint Eastwoody existential deadpan performance. Bale as an actor is very versatile, he can go from playing a superficial sociopath in American Psycho (2000) to playing a malnourished, tortured soul in The Machinist (2004), to a crack-addled good-for-nothing walking disaster in The Fighter (2011). We are all aware of his capabilities. Apparently though, when he puts on the rubber suit with ears, he becomes basically a fucking robot. I mean like no delivery whatsoever, even when he's not the caped crusader you might as well be acting opposite a mannequin. You know how I can tell his acting is not up to par? It's because he's not even the star of his own movie, he just moves along with the plot like 'well this might as well happen'. No one talks about Bale when the movie is over, it's all about OMG Heath Ledger, or OMG Tom Hardy, or OMG Chritopher Nolan uses wayyyyy too many cuts. Anyway! I was always underwhelmed to say the least at Bale's Batman, not that I expected him to chew the scenery and get all Hamlet on the mofo, not that there was any opportunity to do that because the writing was let's admit it, banal at best. 

Take it easy on the intensity Bale, no one is asking you to rip 15 phone books in half.

You would expect someone like Bale to seriously step it up considering his CV as an actor but he held back, and not in that good subtle way that wins people Academy Awards. 

Now, on to Affleck, he isn't exactly Marlon Brando either. The guy gets so much flack for his acting, but lately has shown some serious range...and yet not in acting. The guy is a writer/director, he's got two Oscar's to prove it. His acting is borderline ridiculous at best, but at least he has that strange sensitive endearing charm that I think will work well for Batman. I mean hey, it's worked well in keeping him in the favor of the public eye. Maybe he just hasn't gotten meaty roles yet because no one has taken him seriously since Mallrats (1996), but maybe that's a good thing. I mean, being Batman is not exactly training for the acting Olympics. It's a visual icon, so strap on the rubber suit, tie up the utility belt and breath heavily, but at least add some bravado into it, don't just stare beyond someone's eyeballs like you're The Terminator every time you talk to them. I don't know, maybe it's time to bring some damn emotion back into Batman and stop making him a catatonic killing machine.

Maybe I'm just for this whole thing, because perhaps now I can be sexually attracted to Batman.

I know Affleck ruined Daredevil (2003) for you, but did you honestly expect much from that movie to begin with? It's like saying 'oh, Anne Hathaway ruined Les Miserables (2012) for me!) Well here's his chance to redeem himself. He's working with a good writing/directing team, and everything is ripe for interpretation now. And Affleck always had those great sensitive eyes. Even when crying and screaming for Harry not to sacrifice himself in Armageddon (1999) (ok, now there's definitely a target on my back) I was totally buying it. Bale will always have a harshness to his demeanor in my opinion, there's a dark side to him that is just that...a blanket of pitch black nothingness, while Affleck I think, at least, I hope can play both ends of the spectrum. And I think we're all in agreement that we need Batman to lighten up just a little bit. I mean, I know you're protecting an entire city, but take a Lexapro and drink a box of Chardonnay every once in a while. In Affleck's case it will probably be a case of Guinness, but whatever. And since when does Hollywood not love to shock you with against-type casting. I mean seriously? Since it's not up to Nolan anymore, they thought they'd pull a fast one on us, you know why? Because they fucking can.

A Violent Incarnation of Batman is Greeted With Sensless Violence

apparently the shooter, 24-year-old James Holmes was dressed as Bane, played in The Dark Knight Rises by Tom Hardy

I'm sorry but I am so shocked and saddened by this news, that I might come off is a self-righteous prick but I don't care. I'm sure you have all by now heard of the senseless violence that killed 12 people in a Colorado movie theater, some as young as 3 months when a 24-year-old superfan of The Dark Knight barged into a crowded movie theater dressed as Bane and started popping caps in people's asses. This right on the heels of 'superfans' sending death threats to New York critics who gave The Dark Knight Rises (2012) poor reviews, because that's their job, to give their objective opinion, god forbid they have the wrong one.
Christopher Nolan thinks himself to be a batman poet and aficionado that has completely re imagined the genre, by which I mean made it way more violent than it needs to be and basically made it up to par with disaster films, most of the spectacle coming from over the top explosions and destructions of public buildings and landmarks. Which is actually nothing like it was when DC Comics first envisioned it.

What's most infuriating is that The Dark Knight Rises, despite its gratuitous and endless violence, the film was able to fenagle a PG-13 rating. Thanks for nothing MPAA. When we actually need you to do your job, it's nice to see you can be paid off by a basket of mini-muffins from Warner Bros. I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but it's about time we adapted the system in Europe, where it works quite like the opposite. If the film is heavy in violence, it gets the equivalent of an R because they are afraid of this violence becoming something young and impressionable idiots latch on to and subsequently use on others. Oh! Just like what just happened in Colorado, it's all coming together! While if the film is heavy on sex and sexual content, they usually let it slide, because what is the worst that could happen? Someone who sees a film overloaded with sex will go on to have too much sex with people?

I'm not blaming it all on the MPAA, nor Christopher Nolan, nor Warner Bors. I'm just saying that with making a series of such blatantly violent films that are marketed basically on that very angle; the sensationalized, the hyper-real, the loud and explosive, a certain level of responsibility and accountability comes with it. I think we as the public have proved we can't handle it, and it's time to take a big step back from the precipice and really think harder before we make such creative and marketing decisions.
In Russian film, there is a term for this. It's called 'Zhyelezo' which translates into 'metal'. A film with too much 'metal' is not a good film. 'Metal' in this case meaning anything that doesn't pertain to humanity, and in the last analysis every film, even something like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) is about humanity or the lack thereof. Metal just has to do with how much action you can cram into one film without it becoming gratuitous and total sensory overload. It's a film that is trying too hard and doesn't have enough actual content so it attracts viewers through violent spectacle.

I'm not even going to get political about this and talk about gun control or violence in the media, but I am just going to say that Nolan went too far, and he should have foreseen that accentuating and celebrating gratuitous violence was going to lead to nowhere good. This is just such a shame, and a horrible tragedy, and perhaps Nolan will take a big step backwards and focus on his narrative more than how big his explosions are going to be. Just saying....Tim Burton would have never had something like this happen.
Here's the bottom line. And I want to be absolutely clear about this. I am not putting blame on Christopher Nolan or Warner Bros. No one has blood on his hands today except for James Holmes. And no one yet knows what his motives were that night, but authorities recently have found out that his hair was dyed green and he told the police that he was The Joker. But what I am saying that in an age of such aggressive and aggregated violence, I think we all need to be more responsible with the content that we present to the public. With a franchise like Batman where you are going to have many fanatical people, it is good to play it safe and not go balls to the wall with marketing it as the most violent film to come out for the year, there is some responsibility that goes with it.

Here's the link to the story 12 Killed in Colorado Movie Theater

Below is the trailer: 

How Big of a Let Down is Anne Hathaway's Catwoman Suit?

I had to turn off the Animal Planet before I completely lost my shit on how cute newborn golden retriever puppies were and channel surfed until I came upon Current TV who was showing arguably the best Batman film that exists, Tim Burton's second in the franchise, Batman Returns (1992) with Michael Keaton as the titular character, Danny DeVito as the most complex and three-dimentional comic book inspired villain, Penguin, and the unforgettable Michelle Pfeiffer as the sexual icon Selina Kyle/Catwoman.

Now, strictly aesthetically speaking, because the Nolan films are a mainstream reboot of an otherwise cult horror tradition, I was expecting Anne Hathaway's Catwoman get-up to blow apart every incarnation that came before it. I thought it would be S&M on meth, with lots of pad locks, zippers, and leather embellishments. I thought it would be avant-garde and modern, yet harkened to a campy 50's style, exaggerated and fabulous. I wanted to get a headache from the bling, jealous from the cleavage, and finally enjoy Anne Hathaway, but how much was I disappointed when I remembered just how boring it's actually going to be? 

It looks like a wet suit you wear to go surfing with a fanny pack around it and cheap costume store kitty ears that set you back 5.99$ on Halloween. What a major fake orgasm, or more appropriately build up to an orgasm that never happens, either way, it's trag-fest. 

With all do respect to Julie Newmar, Michelle Pfeiffer was the greatest Catwoman, and with all do respect to Michelle Pfeiffer, her performance would have been nil without that suit. It is an instance where you have to really look the part to embody it, and when they put her in those Bettie Paige stilettos, and pleather body stocking that literally had to be sewn unto her, it was a definitive moment in our pop-culture history. 

'Ahhh, there's my favorite pussy' -The Penguin

This goes without saying that Tim Burton has always been an aesthetic genius, and for a franchise like Batman, aesthetics are of immeasurable importance, you can't just throw someone into a cheap plastic costume and headband ears. Catwoman might be the most outwardly sexual superhero that was ever created by the minds of Marvel comics, and she's written to be deliberately over-the-top in her prowess (no pun intended). With the release date quickly approaching and anticipation brewing all over the place, it looks to me like The Dark Knight Rises (2012) dropped the ball on Catwoman.
I'm speaking strictly visually of course, but I don't think you have to sacrifice spectacle for the sake of character study. Perhaps everyone's playing it safe after the hyper-sexualized overtly ridiculous leather-clad Halle Berry version of Catwoman tanked like a fat kid in the deep end, but I for one am pretty disappointed that they've turned everyone's favorite horny femme fatale into a bad girl even grandma can get on board with.