more Batman Begins thoughts- death and stuff.
Still thinking. (or, part II.)
Outside my personal world of "I like cartoons", I did have some other thoughts.
One thing that bothered me a bit was how Bruce was more reacting to others than being active. An important part of Bruce's character to me is how much he built *himself*. Here, he seemed more aimless until kicked in the pants, and he didn't have any particular principles until Rachel slapped some into him... meh. But I can accept that- just as toon!Bruce is not comics!Bruce, movie!Bruce doesn't have to be either one. Different world.
Stronger, though, were my feelings about the whole... killing. Thing. I've been thinking about the no-killing rule in the toonverse, and how and when it's ignored (*pokes half-finished post*) so it was very interesting to me the way they addressed it- and didn't- in the movie.
I could go with Bruce- this Bruce- wanting to kill his parent's murderer, and being prepared to do so. (Maybe that's the key to the rest of it, I don't know.)
His first *real* test of this rule, then, is when he's expected to murder a criminal for his entrance into the... league of shadows, or whatever. Ra's' ghouls. (Oh ho, a pun. Didn't even realize.) And of course, being a man of principle and honor, he refuses.
...aaand then burns the whole building down in order to escape, thereby not only endangering the life of all the ninja-whatevers, "Ra's'", the man he considers his mentor, but *also* the man he just refused to kill. And he thinks that Ra's' Al Ghul is dead. And he's...pretty okay with that.
...buh-huh what? I mean, does this strike anyone else as a little... odd? What's the difference between killing someone by cutting their head off and killing them by burning their building? Okay, they have a *chance* to escape, but odds are good *somebody's* gonna die. What makes their deaths okay, but the death of that other guy (who... probably died anyway) not okay? (incidentally, none of these are rhetorical questions. I really want people's thoughts.)
Then we get to the car-chase scene, and... dude. I know it's a thing of the genre to have lots of shit blow up and cars explode and stuff- or maybe it's just me and my terrible fear of car accidents- but I can't *watch* a scene like that without thinking "Some of those people are going to die."
And those were cops. Not bad guys. *Cops*. Admittedly, a lot of them are corrupt, some more than others, but *dude*. For the most part, these are just guys doing their jobs. (Okay, at this point I have to mention that at certain points in the movie where I was a bit more detached I occasionally had a running commentary from various characters in my head, and thinking about that I can *hear* toon!Bruce saying "Putting those innocent lives at risk was unacceptable." thus cementing my theory that no version of Bruce would like any other version of himself. And also proving to y'all that I'm insane because I have comic characters talking in my head, but that's nothing new.)
Anyway. So that scene was kind of bothersome. A little.
And the final fight with Ra's'. Now, I'm all for reversal of cliche, and I love it when people play with expected outcomes. The "hero tries to save the villain from dying, because he's a hero and that's what heroes do" scene is one I personally like playing around with. But... hmm.
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
Okay, the first thing I thought here was "Oh, Bruce. You need to find you a Jason stat so you can go around pushing people off buildings watching people fall off buildings together. You would be so good for each other. Er, in a terribly messed up way." This is a Bruce who might, in fact, altogether *approve* of Jason's tactics. Well. The early ones, anyway. He might draw the line at decapitation. Maybe.
But really, *is* there a difference? This is an actual question. I mean, obviously in some situations, there is a very big difference between "killing" and "not saving." But in this one, particularly? I mean, train which Bats derailed and gave Ra's' little to no way to escape from. (Although he probably did anyway, because we didn't find a body, did we?) How is that *not* killing him? How did he not kill the man he thought was Ra's' earlier? His actions are directly responsible for their (assumed) deaths. Where's the line here? Is there one?
...I think I've shaken all the thoughts out of my brain for tonight. Maybe more later.
(ETA: edited for clarity and spelling errors.)
(ETA: edited again to clarify: I kinda sound like I hated the movie, but I didn't. I did like it, and I will no doubt end up seeing it again.)
Outside my personal world of "I like cartoons", I did have some other thoughts.
One thing that bothered me a bit was how Bruce was more reacting to others than being active. An important part of Bruce's character to me is how much he built *himself*. Here, he seemed more aimless until kicked in the pants, and he didn't have any particular principles until Rachel slapped some into him... meh. But I can accept that- just as toon!Bruce is not comics!Bruce, movie!Bruce doesn't have to be either one. Different world.
Stronger, though, were my feelings about the whole... killing. Thing. I've been thinking about the no-killing rule in the toonverse, and how and when it's ignored (*pokes half-finished post*) so it was very interesting to me the way they addressed it- and didn't- in the movie.
I could go with Bruce- this Bruce- wanting to kill his parent's murderer, and being prepared to do so. (Maybe that's the key to the rest of it, I don't know.)
His first *real* test of this rule, then, is when he's expected to murder a criminal for his entrance into the... league of shadows, or whatever. Ra's' ghouls. (Oh ho, a pun. Didn't even realize.) And of course, being a man of principle and honor, he refuses.
...aaand then burns the whole building down in order to escape, thereby not only endangering the life of all the ninja-whatevers, "Ra's'", the man he considers his mentor, but *also* the man he just refused to kill. And he thinks that Ra's' Al Ghul is dead. And he's...pretty okay with that.
...buh-huh what? I mean, does this strike anyone else as a little... odd? What's the difference between killing someone by cutting their head off and killing them by burning their building? Okay, they have a *chance* to escape, but odds are good *somebody's* gonna die. What makes their deaths okay, but the death of that other guy (who... probably died anyway) not okay? (incidentally, none of these are rhetorical questions. I really want people's thoughts.)
Then we get to the car-chase scene, and... dude. I know it's a thing of the genre to have lots of shit blow up and cars explode and stuff- or maybe it's just me and my terrible fear of car accidents- but I can't *watch* a scene like that without thinking "Some of those people are going to die."
And those were cops. Not bad guys. *Cops*. Admittedly, a lot of them are corrupt, some more than others, but *dude*. For the most part, these are just guys doing their jobs. (Okay, at this point I have to mention that at certain points in the movie where I was a bit more detached I occasionally had a running commentary from various characters in my head, and thinking about that I can *hear* toon!Bruce saying "Putting those innocent lives at risk was unacceptable." thus cementing my theory that no version of Bruce would like any other version of himself. And also proving to y'all that I'm insane because I have comic characters talking in my head, but that's nothing new.)
Anyway. So that scene was kind of bothersome. A little.
And the final fight with Ra's'. Now, I'm all for reversal of cliche, and I love it when people play with expected outcomes. The "hero tries to save the villain from dying, because he's a hero and that's what heroes do" scene is one I personally like playing around with. But... hmm.
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
Okay, the first thing I thought here was "Oh, Bruce. You need to find you a Jason stat so you can go around pushing people off buildings watching people fall off buildings together. You would be so good for each other. Er, in a terribly messed up way." This is a Bruce who might, in fact, altogether *approve* of Jason's tactics. Well. The early ones, anyway. He might draw the line at decapitation. Maybe.
But really, *is* there a difference? This is an actual question. I mean, obviously in some situations, there is a very big difference between "killing" and "not saving." But in this one, particularly? I mean, train which Bats derailed and gave Ra's' little to no way to escape from. (Although he probably did anyway, because we didn't find a body, did we?) How is that *not* killing him? How did he not kill the man he thought was Ra's' earlier? His actions are directly responsible for their (assumed) deaths. Where's the line here? Is there one?
...I think I've shaken all the thoughts out of my brain for tonight. Maybe more later.
(ETA: edited for clarity and spelling errors.)
(ETA: edited again to clarify: I kinda sound like I hated the movie, but I didn't. I did like it, and I will no doubt end up seeing it again.)