Review: The Dark Knight Rises (dir. Christopher Nolan)

Story: Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) lives in recluse. Mentally and physically broken by his years as Batman he sees Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) clean up the streets of Gotham. However, the arrivals of the gymnastic burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and of the cruel mercenary Bane (Tom Hardy) force Batman out of retirement. The question is if he is able to rise up again and confront his present foes as well as the demons of his past.

If The Dark Knight Rises is quite a disappointment, then it is so because of the enormous expectations of fans, and the high bar set by its predecessors, Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008). In fact, to call ‘TDKR’ a bad film is unjustified. It is a good summer blockbuster; by far the best of this summer. It grabs such fodder as The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-man in their necks and scoulingly sends them back to kindergarten. And yet it disappoints.

The biggest let down for me was that director Christopher Nolan does not chart new territories and themes in TDKR. Rather, he returns to the issues already covered in quite some extent in Batman Begins. And although Bruce Wayne / Batman does grow as a character, I miss the expansion to Batman’s universe and psychology that made The Dark Knight so very special. From a storytelling point of view it makes sense to make the circle complete, and Nolan does not hesitate to emphasize this, using quite a big number of flashbacks to Batman Begins. But I think he is mistaken to pressume that his audience is not already overly familiar with the previous films.

Valuable time is lost with these flashbacks, and although I do not think that The Dark Knight Rises is too long, I do think it could have spent some of its running time (a whopping 164 minutes) in a more effective manner. On many an occasion, especially in the climactic final hour, Nolan falls back on cheap short-cuts in his staging of the battle over Gotham’s fate. On first viewing these moments may be mistaken for plot holes, but on second viewing they appear to be the result of cramped storytelling and shoddy editing. Unnecessary mistakes that could easily have been solved had Nolan allowed himself more time to stage these scenes properly and less time reinvoking worn down, and this trilogy unworthy, generic stereotypes.

Nolan likes to work with the same people over and over again: Story writer David Goyer, producer Emma Thomas, writer Jonathan Nolan (yes, the brother), composer Hans Zimmer, editor Lee smith and cinematographer Wally Pfister. If I would recommend Nolan to look for another editor if he continues in action films, I must also praise Wally Pfister. Pfister was nominated for an Oscar for The Dark Knight, and he won one for Inception, and in The Dark Knight Rises he delivers again. The vistas of a Gotham under siege are stunning. In cooperation with the special effects team Pfister does something extraordinary: the stunts and effects that in other films seem weightless and immaterial digital constructions have heft and weight and, consequently, realism in TDKR.

Nolan also prefers to work with actors he already knows. Of course he brings back Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), but he also calls in the services of his Inception veterans Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard (as business woman and love interest Miranda Tate) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as Gotham city cop John Blake). And there are surprising cameos by some old characters as well. The only major new face is Anne Hathaway. And it must be said that, in such an enormous ensemble, it is Hathaway who stands out, next to Bale and Gorden-Levitt. The other actors suffer from the fact that their roles are perhaps slightly too marginal and underwritten. Tom Hardy is imposing, threatening and scary as Bane, but he can not rival Heath Ledger’s Joker. He should not want to either, and we should not expect it from him.

As an action spectacle, this film is stunning. Big set-pieces involve a chase scene with multiple motorcycles, a street battle between cops and thugs and, perhaps most memorable, a mid-air abduction in the opening sequence. We should not underestimate the contribution of composer Hans Zimmer to these scenes. The master of the genre almost overplays his hand with a thunderous score that drowns out bits of the dialogue, but the crucial word in this sentence is ‘almost’. Empire compared Zimmer’s soundtrack with an earthquake, and that is an appropriate metaphor. The music defies further description.

By not offering us something fundamentally new, apart from some interesting characters, Nolan deprives his film from the depth and the political commentary that The Dark Knight had. Complaints that TDKR is politically reactionary or conservative miss the point that there is actually a shocking lack of politics in this film. If there is any, it only serves as a masquerade of or a detraction from the actual plot, which then is too light to justify the epic ambitions of the film.

But Nolan does deliver emotionally. The fans who have made his films the huge successes that they are have invested in this world and in these characters. And although this individual film may not be able to match the quality of its predecessors, it does succeed in satisfyingly finishing this particular story of Bruce Wayne. Actually, it might be its strongest point (and this is the only small spoiler! I put into this review) that it finishes the story of Bruce Wayne, but not necessarily that of Batman. A relief for the studio and for the fans.

Final verdict: The Dark Knight Rises is a fitting and satisfying conclusion to what we can now call the best superheroe franchise to date. However, it is also demonstrably the weakest link in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and so it is with appropriate heartache that fans have to say goodbye to their holiday fling of three summers.

Five things we’ve learned from the Skyfall teaser…

Hello! Kaboom. The name is Fall, Skyfall. And this is the teaser trailer. Which is now officially considered abso-f*ing-lutely f*ing awesome. Awesome.

Some things we’ve learned. First of all: this one is quite tough and strikes home. London is one of the major settings of this film, and it appears we might see an attack on the Underground. With memories of 2005 relatively fresh and the Olympics with all their security fuss on the agenda, this is more than topical.

Second: It looks gorgeous. But that’s to be expected when you pair director Sam Mendes with cinematographer Roger Deakins and costume designer Tom Ford (that’s his tuxedo that Bond is wearing in the Shanghai bit). A bit too gorgeous for Daniel Craig’s ‘roughed up’ version of Bond? Perhaps; we’ll have to see.

Third: The best villain introduction since ever, as Javier Bardem’s big baddie Silva walks away from an explosion, and we only see him in silhouette…

Fourth: the classic Aston Martin DB5 is back!

And finally: is this going to be a perfect double bill with Christopher Nolan’s Inception? I had strong ‘Nolanesque’ feelings with this teaser. It somehow reminded me quite a bit of The Dark Knight, with the terror striking close to home and a protagonist in psychological shambles… And Inception was, as Nolan proclaimed, his “Bond” film. Which does not mean I would not like to see the man doing a ‘real’ Bond flick.

But that’s fantasizing about the far future, while in the immediate one there is so much to look forward to. Not only Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises, but also Sam Mendes’ Skyfall. Officially proclaimed awesome. What a year!

PS Probably a coincidence, but Bane, the villain in The Dark Knight Rises, made his first appearance in the comic book series Knightfall. Not only is this an alliteration of Skyfall, in this comic book Bane also broke Batman’s mind and his back. Is Bond awaiting a similar fate? This teaser surely leaves open the possibility….

Little-known-movie-advice-Monday: Avalon

“He Jasper, you know films, right? What do you think is the best film? Ever?” Wow. You know, that is not what I do. Anyone who “knows his films” would be able to tell you that. There is no way to argue that Jaws is better than Fargo, or Casablanca is superior to The Return of the King (well, that’s an argument I’m willing to get into). You can’t compare them. These films were made in different times, under different circumstances, with different means and intentions and different audiences. You can’t ask me which one is better.

And yet so many people do.

But lately someone asked me a much more sensible question. “Jasper, you know your films. Is there anything you could recommend? You know, like something I wouldn’t think of myself?”

Well yes there is! I mean, there are! So many! So, from now on Monday is ‘little-known-movie-advice-Monday’. And we start with:

Avalon (Mamuro Oshii, 2001)

Avalon is Mamuro Oshii’s life-action follow up of his anime classic Ghost in the Shell. A Japanese / Polish co-production that could easily be seen as just another The Matrix rip-off, weren’t it that a better argument could be made saying that The Matrix rips off Ghost in the Shell.

The plot is set in a future world in which desillusioned young people lose themselves in a Virtual Reality battle game. Literally lose themselves: some never wake up from it, and spend the rest of their life in a vegetative state. Ash (Malgorzata Foremniak) is a fanatical player who lost her lover Murphy this way. When she learns of a secret level in the game, only accessible to the best players, she thinks it is a way to get Murphy (Jerzy Gudejko) back.

This plot is played out relatively straightforward: her new quest for instance requires of Ash that she learns to cooperate in a tem. And it culminates in a final confrontation in which the state of reality is questioned, as happens in most films of the genre (The Matrix, David Cronenberg’s Existenz, Abre los Ojos and its hideous American remake Vanilla Sky, more recently Inception and Source Code). But what makes Avalon so special then?

Well, first of all the graphics in the video game battle scenes. Of course they seem outdated nowadays, and they probably were already outdated back in 2001, in comparison with more expensive American films. But you can see, if you look through the pixels, that they have been designed with flair and originality. They allow for pretty brutal violence without pushing the limit of what is pleasurable to watch. And when they are not used at a moment where you’d expect it, their absence is even more effective.

Second, the performances of Foremniak and Gudejko are excellent. It doesn’t matter that they speak in Polish, a language that I find very hard to listen to in film, as I seem to miss the emotional beats in the characters’ words. It is the eyes that are doing most of the talking. Or at least, most of the truly important talking.

And finally there is that stunning soundtrack, courtesy of Japanese composer Kenji Kawaii, with a stand-out solo by Polish soprano Elzbieta Towarnicka. Just, wow!

Order here (and no, I’m not getting paid by Amazon, just so you know).

Standard Biopic, Unfortunately – the J. Edgar review

It is hard to make a good biopic. Mostly because, usually, a person’s life, the events in it and the order in which they happen don’t correspond well to the conventional structure of a fiction film. So filmmakers have to rearrange, squeeze and fit in and sometimes come up with all kinds of artificial devices in order to have a proper three-arc structure with two clear plot points and a satisfying climax.

The most common device used by filmmakers to make the story fit the structure is the flashback, possibly with voice-over. This gives the filmmaker the chance to tell two parts of a life’s story intercut rather than straightforward. Preferably this is a flashback in which an old person remembers his or her youth. Effective, but a bit boring. Another device is the writing down of memoirs. This is the device Clint Eastwood chose for J. Edgar, his biopic of legendary FBI founder and director J. Edgar Hoover. Also effective, and slightly less corny than the flashback.

Leonardo diCaprio plays Hoover, both in his prime and in his old age. Many have commented on the make-up and prosthetics of the old version of the character, deeming them unconvincing. I disagree. Hoover was completely recognizable, and I had never the idea that I was watching the actor diCaprio. What I found more distracting was the high-pitched voice with a drawl of a Southern accent. It may be a realistic impersonation ofHoover, but not pleasant to listen to.

DiCaprio does a good job, although this is not a performance of the same quality as the ones he gave in Catch Me If you Can, Shutter Island or Inception. Judi Dench is enjoyably creepy as Hoover’s overbearing mother, although the suggested causal relationship between Hoover’s alleged sexual orientation and his relation with his mother is an anachronistic example of ‘momism’ and can be experienced as quite insulting to homosexual people. The stand out performance of the film however is by Armie Hammer, the actor who had is breakthrough in David Fincher’s The Social Network. There he played two twin brothers, here he plays the old and the young version of Clyde Tolson,Hoover’s closest friend and ally and, some say, his lover. And he is very, very good. Unfortunately Naomi Watts is somewhat underused as Helen Gandy,Hoover’s lifelong secretary. That is a pity because when she is allowed to act, she shines.

It is so hard to do a good biopic. J. Edgar is another example of films that just want to squeeze in too much. Much like Oliver Stone’s Nixon and Alexander, or the fictional biopic The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Much more successful examples are Walk the Line, which focused on the early part of Johnny Cash’ career, and Eastwood’s own Invictus (2009). That last film is to me a key example of a good biopic. In that film Eastwood dids not tell the whole story of Nelson Mandela’s life, but chose to capture one period, the Rugby World Cup of 1995, in order to let all the important parts of the man’s character and history come to the surface.

J. Edgar, unfortunately, is nothing like Invictus. It is too long, and in the end a bit boring. And it uses too many of the clichés of the biopic genre. Clint Eastwood obviously played it safe after the disappointing responses to last year’s Hereafter. I, however, would rather see him experimenting more, and would take for granted the inevitable occasional miss.

The Top Ten Best Films of 2011

Disclaimer: due to the usually late release dates of film in The Netherlands I have not yet seen some films that have already had their US/UK releases (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, The Muppets). For the same reason some films are for me part of 2011 despite their first release in 2010 (True Grit, Black Swan). Finally there is one film I really wanted to see but did not get around to: Nicholas Winding Refn’s Drive. I will pick it up on DVD or Bluray and get back in touch about it.

10 Tree of Life

Who would have though that a Terence Malick film, besides ethereal whispers and meditations on the meaning of (a) life, could feature dinosaurs? Brilliant!

9 The Adventures of Tintin

Another film in which the plot did not matter ebcause the visuals were so beautiful. Spielberg explored the possibilities of animation, motion capture and 3D and comes up with some of the most captivating action sequences and original transitions of the year.

8 Contagion

A film that literally gives you the creeps. I was scared to sneeze, to touch my face, to touch objects in public places. Well, for an hour or so at least. Soderbergh manages again, after Traffic, to mix topicality with suspense and entertainment.

7 Bridesmaids

I called it the best comedy of the year, and Bridesmaids is the ultimate proof that, despite the inevitable toilet humor, American comedy is still very much alive. Also: despite the involvement of non-funny-man Judd Apatow.

6 Source Code

The 2011 heir of Inception. A smart intelligent action sci-fi flick that only revealed its plot priblems upon retrospection, never during the movie itself. And upon finally seeing Duncan Jones’ previous film Moon (2009) one could argue that Inception is the heir of Moon…

5 Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Based on the Jasper’s Take Award winning trailer my expectations were perhaps set too high, and my disappointment inevitable. But Thomas Alfredson delivers a moody, beautifully designed and shot thriller with outstanding performances accross the board.

4 True Grit

The best thing about True Grit is that it is not a typical Coen brothers film. It is first and foremost a gripping western and a great adaptation of the Charles Portis novel. The directorial peculiarities are restricted to the details, which is nice after the essential Coen film that was A Serious Man.

3 Carnage

I called it the best comedy of the year. Polanski does Sartre, but with laughs. And the old master is getting a bit sentimental in his old days, considering the last shot. Furthermore Carnage had the best ensemble performance of the year.

2 Black Swan

A film that touched me, literally, physically. I could not get up at first when the ending credits started to roll. Aronofsky may not be for everyone, but for me he is the most consistently overwhelming filmmaker of the last two decades

1 The Artist

It’s not original to think this is the film of the year, but it is. Especially for me, as I am closely studying both silent film and its musical accompaniment, and the aesthetic changes brought about by the introduction of sound. A film that forms a perfect tripple bill with Singing in the Rain and Sunset Boulevard. A feelgood film, a romantic adventure and a modern classic of the postmodern age, but without an ironic tone. The best film of 2011 was without a single doubt Michel Hazanavicus’ The Artist.

Announcement: Jasper’s Take Awards 2011: Nominations

Of course, this being the end of the year, I will publish my lists of best and worst films of the year. These lists will be uploaded on 30 and 31 December. Next to that there will be a novelty on this website: the Jasper’s Take Awards. These awards celebrate all those qualities films can possess that are generally overlooked by the Academy, the Hollywood Foreign Press Agency and the British Academy. Below you can find the categories, if you want to nominate people or films for a category, then just post a response to this blogpost. Also, if you have strong arguments in favor of or against a particular nomination, let me know…

The Tess Benedict Award for Most Mediocre Film of the Year

“Does he make you laugh?’ asks Danny Ocean (George Clooney) to Tess Benedict (Julia Roberts) of her new husband Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) in Ocean’s Eleven. “He does not make me cry” she answers. The Tess Benedict Award celebrates those movies that leave us entirely untouched. Neither arousing nor angering us they simply exist. It is time to acknowledge such mediocrity. The nominees for this award are:

Ironclad

Flypaper

The Rite

The Eagle

The Lincoln Lawyer

The ‘Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark’ award for worst use of 3D in a Motion Picture

Of course we do need to be afraid of the dark. Very afraid. In fact, being too dark and still using darkening 3D is the serious fault in most of the following nominees.

Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides

Nova Zembla

Conan the Barbarian

The Green Hornet

Green Lantern

The Muhammar Khadaffi Award for morally most reprehensible film that is nonetheless succesfull.

Needs no further explanation. Nominees:

Green Lantern

The Change Up

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The Mind Heist Award for most enthusiasticating trailer!

Mind Heist is the song by Zach Hemsey that was used for the trailer of Inception, to great effect. This award celebrates those trailers that make us want to abso-fucking-litely see the film. The quality of the trailer, it should be said, is absolutely independent of the quality of the film. Nominees:

The Guard

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

The Artist

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

The Entire Muppet Parody Trailer Campaign

The Jasper’s Take Awards wiinners will be announced on twitter in real time on the evening of 20 December, and will subsequently be listed on this website.

In Time, Out of Ideas – the In Time review

Let’s make one thing clear: it is a good thing that films such as In Time, are made. On proper budgets, with big stars. There is considerable value in the genre of the intelligent sci-fi action blockbuster. Much more so than in the genre of the stupid-robots-hitting-each-other-while-the-apocalypse-looms films. Not each and every one of these intelligent sci-fi action blockbusters is actually really good. But it is good that they are made. They are brave attempts to make movies based on ideas, with the explosions and chases as extra attractions instead of as the core ingredient. Source Code, earlier this year, was a very successful attempt. And the big example is of course Inception.

In Time, the new film of director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Sim0ne, Lord of War, writer on The Truman Show) is not by far as good as Inception, or Source Code. But it is an interesting film, that at least in its first hour is entirely idea-driven. Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a factory worker in a future society in which time is the currency. People don’t age beyond their twenty-fifth year, but from that moment they have to earn time to stay alive, pay rent and buy food. As a consequence the poor working class, literally, live day by day, while the superrich are as good as immortal. It is only when Will is given 100 years by a rich, suicidal stranger that he can afford to question and fight the system. “No one should be immortal if only one person has to die” is his conviction.

But after an hour or so the idea runs out of steam, and so does the film, and Niccol has to resort to bank heists, chases, running around and even more chases to fill the two hours. All good science fiction combines original, philosophical ideas with universal, or at least classical stories and characters. The problem of In Time is that the first half is all ideas, and the second half is a strange mix of Robin Hood and Bonny & Clyde.

On the plus side Timberlake is convincing as a working class rough. With this film and last year’s The Social Network he has shown to be a proper actor. Perhaps even a better actor then he is a singer. Next to him love interest Amanda Seyfried falls a bit flat. It is striking that I thought of Timberlake’s as Will Salas, whereas I kept forgetting the name of Seyfried’s character. The third major role is played by Cillian Murphy, who is a sinister ‘time cop’ on the hunt for Will. Murphy does his best, but he has little to work with and is obviously typecast, with his strange, sinister big blue eyes.

And while Timberlake, Seyfried and Murphy run circles around each other in the second part of the film, some glaring inconsistencies, mistakes and stupidities show up. And, worse, you have ample time to notice them and worry about them. If no-one ages past twenty-five, then how come Cillian Murphy looks forty? If bank heists are so simple to pull off, then why did no-one think of doing them before Timberlake and Seyfried? And how in God’s name can Seyfried run around on that fast on those heels? Why does her character even bother to wear high heels?

When you start asking yourself these kinds of questions, while the film is still running, than that is a bad sign. In Time is not a bad movie, it is the right kind of movie and more like it should be made. But better. Please.

Where We Stand: Nine Months in the Multiplex

It is September. We’ve had the Oscars, Cannes and the blockbuster season, and this weekend saw the end of the Venice film festival.  So, most of what was to happen in film this year has already happened. Time for a little overview then.

Last year I kept lists of the best ten and the worst ten films of the year. I’ve done the same thing for this year so far. And to start off on a good note: this year’s worst films aren’t that much worse than last year’s worst films. 2011’s Clash of the Titans was Conan the Barbarian, in terms of noisy nonsense, but Conan still offered some fun. Last year we had a Sex and the City sequel, this year we had the third Transformers movie. Those two cancel each other out. The same goes for Sucker Punch and Prince of Persia, and for Get Low and Fair Game. The ‘worst films of 2011’ list, for all the dreadful terrors that are on it, is not my main concern.

I have two main concerns. The first one is the list of films that should have been on the ‘worst film’ list, but aren’t there, because the list is already filled. I’m thinking of Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter, of the superfluous The Eagle, of the failed Horrible Bosses and the incoherent The Rite (review forthcoming). That these films are now in the large bulk of ‘mediocre’ films is a problem.

My second concern is the ‘best films of 2011’ list. There are films on there that really don’t deserve to be there. Mainly because I am still to stumble upon anything resembling A Serious Man, or The Hurt Locker. True Grit, though good, was nowhere near the Coen’s best work, and Oscar grabber The King’s Speech felt strangely tame and artificial, despite outstanding performances.

So on this year’s ‘best of’ list, so far, we find such films as Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Rango. For a film to be simply exciting (Rise…) or simply funny (Rango), and for it to showcase impressive technological advances (both) is now good enough. Just compare: In 2010 the one animated movie on the list was Toy Story 3. Now it is Rango.

Of course The Fighter was excellent, and so was Black Swan. And Bridesmaids was fantastically funny, despite the excessive vomiting and diarrhea. Source Code is the closest we’ll get to an Inception this year. But it is the closest to it, not a match. Furthermore Bridesmaids doesn’t hold up to Four Lions or Kick Ass. And I am yet to find anything as emotionally charged as Winter’s Bone or El Secreto de Sus Ojos. Harry Potter 7.2 was satisfying, but not much more than that…

Nothing to feel really good about then? Well, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger were not as bad as I expected them to be. They were surprisingly entertaining actually, apart from the action scenes. X-Men: First Class lived up to its expectations, and Fast Five was an outrageous guilty pleasure. These films kinda make up for the big let down of Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides.

But in conclusion, all in all? Quite too many films did not live up to potential or expectations or the sheer common decency of meeting the lowest level of quality you can still get away with. 2011 is just not good enough. Yet.

What’s left to look forward then? Well, the award films will start pouring in, with strong contenders in We Need To Talk About Kevin, Martha Marcy May Marlene, War Horse, The Help, The Iron Lady, We Bought a Zoo and The Ides of March. And perhaps the The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo remake. But I’m looking forward most to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which really should see Gary Oldman pick up a long overdue little gold statue.

Best of 2011 so far: Black Swan, The Fighter, The King’s Speech, True Grit, Rango, Source Code, Bridesmaids, Harry Potter 7.2, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and The Tree of Life.

Worst of 2011, so far: The Green Hornet, The Green Lantern, Paul, Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Unknown, Sucker Punch, Get Low, Conan the Barbarian and The Tree of Life.

Yes. Malick’s is in both categories. Everyone who has seen it will understand.

Preview: The Dark Knight Rises

Last week Warner Bros. released the teaser poster for Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises, and yesterday they also put an HD version of the first teaser online. A shoddy low-quality version had already been leaked to the internet, but its quality was so bad that hardly anything could be seen or heard in it.

The new teaser still tells us little about the plot: there are some images from Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and a voice-over by Liam Neeson that comes from the first film. Then: an image of Gary Oldman’s commissioner Gordon on a hospital bed: hurt, weak. He insists that Batman must come back, that they were “in this together”. An unseen Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) doubt whether Batman still exists. Then there are shots of someone climbing out of a hole and of Bane (Tom Hardy). One of his face and one of him approaching a stumbling Batman in an underground location.

And that is it. I am thrilled. I am very much looking forward to the film, yet I am afraid as well. Mostly because of the cast list. The Dark Knight Rises sees Bale returning as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) return as well.

Tom Hardy will be Bane, who in the comics is a genetically engineered super-soldier or villain. Anne Hathaway is cast as Selina Kyle, and may transform into Catwoman. Hathaway is new to Nolan, but Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gorden-Levitt are not: they worked with him on Inception. Gorden-Levitt will be police officer John Blake, and Cotillard will play Miranda Tate, in the comics also known as Talia Al Ghul, the estranged daughter of Ra’s Al Ghul, Batman’s enemy from Begins. Josh Pence is cast as a young Ra’s, and Liam Neeson is rumoured to return as the old version of the character.

Such long cast lists lead to problems; see last years Iron Man 2. All these well-known actors and characters can hardly all be given the screen time they need to develop their characters properly and play a major role in what still should be the story of Batman. At worst, we could get a mess of a film. However, considering Nolan’s disciplined style of filmmaking that is not likely. More likely is that the film will show an extreme version of the template of The Dark Knight and Inception, in which supporting characters’ emotional or personal development are sidelined in order for them to schematically inhabit the various political, moral or mythological points Nolan wants make.

Something else I fear is that Nolan might move away from the realistic tone of his previous Batman films, and indulge in the more metaphysical themes and plotlines some of the comics (for instance Frank Millar’s “The Dark Knight Returns”) offer. That is something I would not be fond of.

But I had similar fears back in 2007, when I first learned that Heath Ledger, whom I, at the time, only remembered as the teenage heart-throb from 10 Things I Hate About You and A Knight’s Tale, would play The Joker, a role made iconic by Jack Nicholson. And I had my doubts about the pitch for Inception as well: A thriller set within the architecture of the mind? And in both cases my doubts and fears were met by great films. Let’s hope Nolan can do it again.

Nolanography

No comment ont his gorgeous little work of love.