Brokebat Mountain
What was with the lovey-dove eyes Bruce Wayne was giving Harvey Dent when running into him and Rachel Dawes having dinner? Clearly Bruce had determined where Harvey would be so he could casually bump into them while on a date with the Russian Ballerina, and then coordinated to join their table. The purpose of that scene was to connect the characters and set up the rest of the scenes in the movie between Bruce and Harvey. It was supposed to display Bruce subtly evaluating Harvey, who was coincidentally dating Rachel Dawes, his love interest from “Batman Begins”. The problem with this scene is that instead of subtle observation, instead of evaluation of his character, the impression the scene gives is that of Bruce giving lovey-dovey eyes to Harvey. If the sound was completely turned down, most observers would think Bruce had a schoolboy crush on Harvey.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
But in the context of the scene, it was awkward and a display of mediocre acting, questionable direction, or poor editing (if the editor had multiple takes to cut from, I doubt that was the best possible versions he could have picked).
Are we being warmed up for the appearance of Robin in the next installment of the series? A return to nipples on the rubber suits?
Filed under: Editing/Sound, Subpar Acting, Writing/Direction Tags: Bruce Wayne, crush, gay, Harvey Dent, homosexual, nipples, Rachel Dawes, robin
Wow, looks like you found yourself another scene to warp didnt you? Well I nor no one else I know thought that, he was just paying attention to what he was saying because he realized harvey could really change things for gotham.
oo nga po.
I dunno about goo goo eyes, I didn’t see them and usually I find ALL even remotely possible gay instances, but the whole scene was lame and way under acted. The only one interested in the moment was the Russian
Yeah, man, I’m on your side here, but this post was very lame. Just because you got THAT out of the scene doesn’t mean anyone else did. Out of ALL THE LAME SHIT just begging to be ridiculed by the movie you pick this… non-moment?
It’s getting time to pick up your game, son.
Well, you know, some of your points concerning some holes in the film’s script here and there are spot on. The same goes for some unrealistic moments that however work in the film’s context (Dent’s burnt make-up), but with this article you devalue the whole purpose your site (to un-hype the film with ARGUMENTS), as well as the rest of your arguments against it.
It’s the moment when the whole masquerade falls and someone reveals his true purpose: schoolyard name calling, or something Homer Simpson might say about a film. And this iconic animated character serves as an avatar for the average hamburger-consuming dumb American, doesn’t he?
The masses you so despise usually resort to that, don’t they? Was it a slow day for TDK bashing today? You don’t have anything “else” to say about the film and started the cliched and lame gay humor, warping (as someone said) everything you see on this film? Is it, finally, so bad that it’s been years since a blockbuster was so loved by many people that were entertained and at the same time enchanted by it?
This article is no better than flaming posts that read like “DARK KNIGHT RULLZ YOU SUCK FOR THIS SITE GETALIVE” etc. etc
@silenig
Spot on man. Get a life tdksucks. I actually visit this site to see how much crazy u get with these posts every day. I think u might turn into a great supervillain for the Batman anytime with the levels of hatred you have for him.
I think you’re a complete idiot. Either that, or you are just trying to provoke people by bashing “The Dark Knight,” which you may have succeeded in doing.
Whatever flaws the movie has — and it does have some — they are fairly inconsequential given how much it succeeds overall. Nolan takes chances in his writing and directing of this film, and as a result The Dark Knight is an action movie with ideas. How may blockbuster films have you seen that go as far as TDK in criticizing dominant conceptions of morality? My take on this movie is that this movie, in a non-abstract way, questions conventional morality as it relates to power, in part drawing upon Nietzsche, as a way of reflecting upon America in this post-9/11 age of a new national security state.
At the level of filmmaking, Nolan’s directing toes the line between a mainstream aesthetic and a more experimental approach to filmmaking. Can you honestly say the shot in which Ledger as the Joker menacingly speaks in a grainy video camera image broadcast on television isn’t completely riveting? Or that Ledger sticking his head out a police car window while riding through Gotham/Chicago isn’t a brilliant image?
C’mon now. I haven’t found any substantial criticism of the movie on your blog. You interpreted the reaction of the audience who you saw the movie with as puzzled and underwhelmed (not clapping). I’ve seen it twice and both times there was a lot of clapping, and even a few “Whewws” exclaimed. Others did seem a bit stunned — myself included — but I attribute that to the power of the closing 30-45 seconds of images/narration.
you are a marvel guy.
just someone who wants to be different.
clearly, you have issues.
I just didn’t like it because Harvey and Bruce are supposed to be friends and for some reason this Rachael Dawes character seems to be ruining both movies. Bruce isn’t supposed to have a love interest (except Catwoman) because he’s fucking Batman…I mean the Dark Knight.
whatever
it sucks
silenig – where am I “gay bashing”? If you were watching a Dirty Harry movie and there was a scene where Clint Eastwood goes out of character and displays outward signs of homosexuality, it’s a valid complaint.
lol. I agree completely with this complaint in the movie… because I thought the relationship between Bruce and Rachel NEEDED to be cemented….
The first movie wrapped them up clearly as friends. The chemistry just wasn’t there.
if you pay attention to this scene, the music also throws you off too because the “harvey dent theme” sounds kind of romantic.
This particular criticism is silly.
Bruce Wayne is portrayed as a very charming guy. It was his charm that you mistinterpret as his having lovey-dovey eyes.
And why should he not show some adniration in his eyes for Gotham’s white knight? Harvey is waging the same crusade as Bruce is, so there is plenty of cause for admiration there.
The part of this article that I did find valuable was the bit about Bale’s acting. I like the guy in some stuff, but in TDK he resembled a wooden plank most of the time, and not in a cool, stoic way.
tdksucks, where did silenig say you were “gay bashing”
“The masses you so despise usually resort to that, don’t they? Was it a slow day for TDK bashing today? You don’t have anything “else” to say about the film and started the cliched and lame gay humor, warping (as someone said) everything you see on this film?”
It would be nice if you could point that out for me.
It’s fine when you point out logic holes in the film, but this one is just a desperate attempt at bashing.
lmao, nice picture..
Jac, I took silenig’s comment as implied, not literal.
The point wasn’t to bash, the point was to show how the combinaton of acting and editing resulted in a display that was completely out of character. It DID NOT look like admiration, it looked like a schoolboy crush.
Plus, let’s not forget for one minute that the first movie ended with Bruce and Rachel as just friends and nothing else.
Their relationship didn’t seem to go anywhere, and all of a sudden, we’re supposed to assume that he’s back in love with her?
The restaurant would have been the perfect scene to show us Bruce’s affection for Rachel in person.
Fievel, I agree. If TDK dropped in Scarecrow briefly in the beginning purely for continuity, then what’s the point of breaking the continuity in the Rachel Dawes storyline? Why not introduce a totally new love interest, where the chemistry is believable, and make the audience truly believe that both Bruce and Harvey are truly in live with the same women and that the woman is truly torn between both of them.
“A return to nipples on the rubber suits?”
quiver
What are you guys talking about? Bruce had always been in love with her, he never stopped. In BB, Rachel turned him down, but Bruce still wanted to be with her. You could see the disappointment in his face. So to say we are supposed to assume he is “back” in love with her is wrong, because he never stopped in the first place.
Well, I bet if they brought in a new love interest, and spent even more time (added into the already 2 hr 30 mins) to really make the audience feel the chemistry between bruce and this all new character, and harvey and this all new character, that it would very well be one of the many complaints on your site, tdksucks.
And also, just because she turned him down, didnt mean he instantly dropped his feelings for her. Plus, she told him if he ever stopped being batman she would be waiting, so she gave him a false sense of hope, further anchoring his love for her. To say that its a continuity issue doesnt make any sense.
I don’t know man. It seems like you’re just going over board with every minor grip. I liked TDK a lot, and at the same time I agree with you that there are many instances in the movie rife with inaccuracies, but that’s according to us. And we are just fans, so what do we know about what should be cemented in fact or taken with many grains of salt.
You say that you enjoyed Batman Begins, so did pal. I’m not too impressed at the way they treated Batman in this movie too much either. Don’t get me wrong because I liked Ledger’s acting, but I think that it overshadowed every other actor in the movie. It wasn’t so much cause Ledger was that good, but because everyone else was written so far in the background. I mean Mickey Rourke should have gotten as much as a shout out for his turn as Marv in Sin City as Ledger in TDK. I enjoyed Marv as much as the Joker if not more. Rourke, Willlis and Owen paved the way for a more serious tone in comic book movies than ledger ever did.
Let’s face it, the Joker was awesome. But was that cause of Ledger’s acting or the Nolan Brother’s script? I think it was the latter. You yourself complained about the “lack of realism” compared to BB. I agree with you. I also think that, in spite of Nolan’s promise that the villians wouldn’t out shadow the hero, they did. Christian Bale was total underwritten in the screenplay, and he’s by far the best actor of the bunch.
As for the gay factor, I think everyone else has answered that clearly enough.
“if Clint Eastwood goes out of character and displays outward signs of homosexuality, it’s a valid complaint.” it would be tdksucks, but neither dirty harry nor batman showed any signs of going out of character and adopting homosexual tendencies. and there was no gay lovey dovey eyes at all in that scene.
That expression was called “interest” as in “i am interested in what harvey is saying” not “ooh, harvey baby”. and before you chime in with “well i thought Bale was clearly conveyng gayness so he sucks at acting” no-one else out there (even your fans) thought so. not a one.
and with the whole “oh, need a new love interest cos rachel and batman are just friends” issue. If you pay attention to the end of dark kinight there relationship doesn’t GO anywhere because she won’t let it go anywhere until gotham no longer needs batman. Bruce is obviously still in love with rachel, its just it wont happen till the batman is no longer needed. so there is still a love interest there (and theres also another reason for bruce to give up the batman, HENCE another reason for bruces interest in harvey. see how things tie together?)
“Are we being warmed up for the appearance of Robin in the next installment of the series? A return to nipples on the rubber suits?”
Nope. just being warmed up for an obvious decline in the quality of tdksucks arguements.
It’s nice how Jimmyboy backs his “arguements” with “Is not! Batman did not do such and such. Because I say so.”
I’d say there was a decline in the quality in your “arguements”, but there wasn’t any of that to begin with. Can you let up on the puerile, mind-numbing and pedantic speeches and learn how to debate, troll?
Holly
I’d love a detailed explanation of how that entire paragraph that Jimmyboy typed all translated into “Is not!Batman did not do such and such. Because I say so.” in your mind. Correct me if I’m wrong, but he did he not just explain the connection between Rachel, Bruce, and Harvey, which in turn explains why Bruce would be interested in what Harvey is saying, and not undressing him with his eyes which is what tdksucks is implying? Do a little analysis before you attempt to critique someone else’s debating tactics.
Okay, I admit it. Jimmyboy and Jac are one and the same.
Yeah, it’s a wicked old posting, but I’m still gonna chime in, since no one has pointed out the obvious. Bruce Wayne is looking to Dent with ADMIRATION, because what Dent is saying confirms his growing belief that Dent is the hero Gotham needs.
Trying to twist that into homosexual attraction is an utterly lame attempt, and proves that you’d already out of ammo.