The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 4

[Tacit Ronin]

Yep, sure have. I'm thinking of the Bruce/Talia scene from TDKR, for example. No prudeness there, especially in the way Cotillard's generous bosom is brought into focus when she's checking out the picture of Rachel.

They kissed. And then we cut to a post coital conversation. A scene like that would not be out of place in 50's Hollywood. Or many modern soap operas from conservative/puritanical countries.

In any case, I just think Nolan's the kind of director that only uses sexual tension and scenes of a sexual nature when there's a need for them.

But he writes movies (don't forget he writes or cowrites his films) so that he needs to use sexuality, sensuality and eroticism as little as possible. Which feels like he wants to avoid it as much as possible.

Don't think it's a case of him being a prude, but more a case of his movies not focusing on such themes/subjects.

He deliberately avoids such such subject matter. This combined with the fact that on the whole his entire career is filled with films that are entirely sexually dry points to the fact that he is relatively prudish.

 

[The Joker]

I don't get why you would believe that he deliberately avoids this subject matter. Did it never occur to you that it probably isn't there simply because it doesn't serve the story, not because he is actively avoiding it. A lot of great directors, including Steven Spielberg, barely touch on erotic sexual scenes, or sex scenes in general.

 

[AnneFan]

I can understand.
I've often defended Spider-Man 3, the game, the Treyarch developed one, and wrote long posts defending it and telling what I don't like about a lot of criticism it received.
My view did not change, but I grew tired of trying to bring others to my side of the view, and resisting them trying to convince me I'm wrong.

I'm at that point now. Ultimately it's a waste of time. You write a defence or rebutall and someone replies with 'but Snyder isn't a good filmmaker', or something to that effect, as if that ends and 'wins' the argument. I don't reply to that anymore. I'm done with it.

 

[The Joker]

I think that was your mistake, Aziz. Trying to bring others to your side of the view I mean. They were equally wrong to try and convince you that you were wrong to like the game. Never state your opinions with the intention of doing that. Its pointless and a waste of time. You can't make people like what you do, and vice versa. You can explain your point of view, but at the end of the day it won't alter people's feelings about something subjective as liking or disliking something like a video game or a movie. No wonder you got tired of it.

Also I don't know why you'd even care enough to try and sway others to your way of thinking. Your own opinion is all that should matter to you.

 

[DACrowe]

They kissed. And then we cut to a post coital conversation. A scene like that would not be out of place in 50's Hollywood. Or many modern soap operas from conservative/puritanical countries.


But he writes movies (don't forget he writes or cowrites his films) so that he needs to use sexuality, sensuality and eroticism as little as possible. Which feels like he wants to avoid it as much as possible.

He deliberately avoids such such subject matter. This combined with the fact that on the whole his entire career is filled with films that are entirely sexually dry points to the fact that he is relatively prudish.

I don't know if we can say he is relatively prudish, but he does seem less interested in sexuality as subject to tell stories about. Maybe one day that will change, but just because it narratively doesn't interest him does not mean we can make judgments on his personal life.

With that said, the only time he showed any interest in sexual tension that I can recall was between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle. And it was fun but obviously very muted. Hell, any actual romance was implied to occur between their first kiss and an epilogue where they're together.

That always struck me as amusing for some reason.

 

[BatLobster]

They kissed. And then we cut to a post coital conversation. A scene like that would not be out of place in 50's Hollywood. Or many modern soap operas from conservative/puritanical countries.

FWIW, I do think it's kinda hot when they go in for a round 2 after the talk. Watch Bruce's arm there, haha. There's your "some sensuality".

 

[Brother Jack]

I credit a lot of that to Bale and Hathaway. They had great chemistry together that made their relationship work despite how streamlined it was. You can see from their first scene together. They're having fun with each other. It's exactly what Bruce and Selina's dynamic should be.

One thing I've noticed recently is how Selina and Miranda are set up as parallels within the structure of the story. Their scenes are usually very close to each other. Bruce talks to Miranda at the ball and then dances with Selina right after. Bruce sleeps with Miranda then fights some thugs with Catwoman. Nolan is great at stuff like that. There are examples in the others films too, like Joker's meeting with the mob taking place just before the rooftop scene with Dent, Gordon, and Batman. Establishing the opposing power structures.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm at that point now. Ultimately it's a waste of time. You write a defense or rebutall and someone replies with 'but Snyder isn't a good filmmaker', or something to that effect, as if that ends and 'wins' the argument. I don't reply to that anymore. I'm done with it.

It's harder when someone writes an essay in reply.

I think that was your mistake, Aziz. Trying to bring others to your side of the view I mean. They were equally wrong to try and convince you that you were wrong to like the game. Never state your opinions with the intention of doing that. Its pointless and a waste of time. You can't make people like what you do, and vice versa. You can explain your point of view, but at the end of the day it won't alter people's feelings about something subjective as liking or disliking something like a video game or a movie. No wonder you got tired of it.

Also I don't know why you'd even care enough to try and sway others to your way of thinking. Your own opinion is all that should matter to you.

I learnt that is was my mistake the hard way.

 

[BatLobster]

I credit a lot of that to Bale and Hathaway. They had great chemistry together that made their relationship work despite how streamlined it was. You can see from their first scene together. They're having fun with each other. It's exactly what Bruce and Selina's dynamic should be.

One thing I've noticed recently is how Selina and Miranda are set up as parallels within the structure of the story. Their scenes are usually very close to each other. Bruce talks to Miranda at the ball and then dances with Selina right after. Bruce sleeps with Miranda then fights some thugs with Catwoman. Nolan is great at stuff like that. There are examples in the others films too, like Joker's meeting with the mob taking place just before the rooftop scene with Dent, Gordon, and Batman. Establishing the opposing power structures.

Yup. I noticed that too. I like how they both are played as parallel femme fatales in a way, but by the end of the movie one who betrays Bruce gets a redemption arc, while the one that Bruce was trying to replace Rachel with is revealed as pure evil.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

BBC polled 177 critics from 36 countries and made a list of 100 best movies of 21th century. The whole list isn't revealed yet (only movies 31-100), but it's already known that TDK is № 33.

https://www.facebook.com/BBCCulture...0.1471869270./741821075955934/?type=3&theater

 

[The Joker]

BBC polled 177 critics from 36 countries and made a list of 100 best movies of 21th century. The whole list isn't revealed yet (only movies 31-100), but it's already known that TDK is № 33.

https://www.facebook.com/BBCCulture...0.1471869270./741821075955934/?type=3&theater

Nice. So far the only CBM on the list, too.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Nice. So far the only CBM on the list, too.

Saving that No 1 spot for BvS: Ultimate Cut.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Saving that No 1 spot for BvS: Ultimate Cut.

 

[The Joker]

Saving that No 1 spot for BvS: Ultimate Cut.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't get why you would believe that he deliberately avoids this subject matter. Did it never occur to you that it probably isn't there simply because it doesn't serve the story, not because he is actively avoiding it. A lot of great directors, including Steven Spielberg, barely touch on erotic sexual scenes, or sex scenes in general.

That's the thing. He never uses sex or sexuality as serving his narratives. And since he writes or cowrites his scripts, that's on him.

As for Steven Spielberg:

Munich much? You see Eric Bana spooning Superman's mom (who is pregnant) pretty explicitly for an uncomfortably long time.

[BLACKOUT]In the same movie, the 'honey trap' assassin is shot and left for dead totally bare naked. [/BLACKOUT]

Later on, Eric Bana screws Superman's mom again in a hilarious fashion. And it's dragged on for a while.

AI Artificial Intelligence:

Jude Law's robo Gigolo character is seen pleasuring a woman. Later we see drive on a bridge that goes through a structure designed after a woman's mouth. Recalling oral sex.

Minority Report:

The movie starts with a saucy sex scene that starts off the plot.

And I haven't watch Catch me if You Can (gotta get on that) but I heard it has some naughty scenes.

I know that's not much compared to, say, Scorsese. But it's a hell of a lot more than Nolan.

Also, The Spielberg version of Interstellar (the script can be easily found online), Anne Hathway and Matthew's character have floaty space sex. It's not just a brief thing either. It's pretty explicitly written (by Jonah Nolan). Descriptions of floating bras and panties and stuff. The whole scene is excised by Nolan. That doesn't qualify as him avoiding sexuality?

How about Insomnia? In the Norway version the main character is a sexual deviant. At some point in the movie he almost finger bangs a young girl. In the Nolan version, the main character has no sexual hangups.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't know if we can say he is relatively prudish, but he does seem less interested in sexuality as subject to tell stories about. Maybe one day that will change, but just because it narratively doesn't interest him does not mean we can make judgments on his personal life.

With that said, the only time he showed any interest in sexual tension that I can recall was between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle. And it was fun but obviously very muted. Hell, any actual romance was implied to occur between their first kiss and an epilogue where they're together.

That always struck me as amusing for some reason.

I am not talking about his personal life, let's get this clear. I am referring to filmmaker Nolan.

 

[The Joker]

That's the thing. He never uses sex or sexuality as serving his narratives. And since he writes or cowrites his scripts, that's on him.

Why is that a thing if he honestly believes sexuality is not needed to drive the narratives he is writing? Why would you believe this is not written as creatively for the best?

As for Steven Spielberg:

Munich much? You see Eric Bana spooning Superman's mom (who is pregnant) pretty explicitly for an uncomfortably long time.

[BLACKOUT]In the same movie, the 'honey trap' assassin is shot and left for dead totally bare naked. [/BLACKOUT]

Later on, Eric Bana screws Superman's mom again in a hilarious fashion. And it's dragged on for a while.

AI Artificial Intelligence:

Jude Law's robo Gigolo character is seen pleasuring a woman. Later we see drive on a bridge that goes through a structure designed after a woman's mouth. Recalling oral sex.

Minority Report:

The movie starts with a saucy sex scene that starts off the plot.

And I haven't watch Catch me if You Can (gotta get on that) but I heard it has some naughty scenes.

I know that's not much compared to, say, Scorsese. But it's a hell of a lot more than Nolan.

Out of over 30 movies he's directed you found 3 examples. Again I ask does this make Spielberg a prude for barely touching on it in his career?

Also, The Spielberg version of Interstellar (the script can be easily found online), Anne Hathway and Matthew's character have floaty space sex. It's not just a brief thing either. It's pretty explicitly written (by Jonah Nolan). Descriptions of floating bras and panties and stuff. The whole scene is excised by Nolan. That doesn't qualify as him avoiding sexuality?

No that avoids the storyline of there being a romantic relationship between the two characters.

How about Insomnia? In the Norway version the main character is a sexual deviant. At some point in the movie he almost finger bangs a young girl. In the Nolan version, the main character has no sexual hangups.

Almost finger bangs? So it doesn't happen? Then what exactly are we missing here other than something nearly but not even happening?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Why is that a thing if he honestly believes sexuality is not needed to drive the narratives he is writing? Why would you believe this is not written as creatively for the best?

Human sexuality is a part of us. If he honestly believes it's not needed in any of the variety of subjects he has made films over -- from dreams to Victoria era magicians -- then yeah, it's pretty suspect.

Out of over 30 movies he's directed you found 3 examples. Again I ask does this make Spielberg a prude for barely touching on it in his career?

If he never made those films, then yeah, he would be. But he did make those films. Nolan might too, in the future. Then he wouldn't be a prude anymore. But presently, yeah, he is a prudish filmmaker.

No that avoids the storyline of there being a romantic relationship between the two characters.

But the film is about love, right? About love transcending space and time. He even has Hathway make cringeworthy speeches on it. Having a romantic relationship between those two would serve the thematic purpose of the story. But Nolan avoids this aspect completely because of sexuality.

Almost finger bangs? So it doesn't happen? Then what exactly are we missing here other than something nearly but not happening?

Because of the way it's shot? He touches her legs all the way up to her privates and stops right at the moment of touching it. He also forces himself on the owner of the hotel he was staying at in a pretty uncomfortable scene.

All of these sexual element is erased in the Nolan version.

 

[The Joker]

Human sexuality is a part of us. If he honestly believes it's not needed in any of the variety of subjects he has made films over -- from dreams to Victoria era magicians -- then yeah, it's pretty suspect.

If you want to be that pedantic he has touched on sexuality then, since we see Bruce and Talia topless in bed together. Didn't need a expositional speech to know they had done the deed.

I mean is Tim Burton a prude for not showing Vicki and Bruce going to bumper to bumper and then being all clothed in bed afterward;

If he never made those films, then yeah, he would be. But he did make those films. Nolan might too, in the future. Then he wouldn't be a prude anymore. But presently, yeah, he is a prudish filmmaker.

He didn't make those movies until nearly 30 years into his career. So for 30 years Spielberg was a prude?

But the film is about love, right? About love transcending space and time. He even has Hathway make cringeworthy speeches on it. Having a romantic relationship between those two would serve the thematic purpose of the story. But Nolan avoids this aspect completely because of sexuality.

Sex doesn't equal love. Having sex in space doesn't send the message that love transcends space and time. Showing the love between Matthew and his daughter after being years and eons apart does.

Because of the way it's shot? He touches her legs all the way up to her privates and stops right at the moment of touching it. He also forces himself on the owner of the hotel he was staying at in a pretty uncomfortable scene.

All of these sexual element is erased in the Nolan version.

So in other words he decided not to make his character a sexual pervert/rapist. Sounds like a creative choice, not a prudeish one.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I mean is Tim Burton a prude for not showing Vicki and Bruce going to bumper to bumper and then being all clothed in bed afterward;

Spoiler

You reminded me of the sex scene in Dark Shadows.
Maybe he is a prude one.


McDonald's logo in the spell book.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

If you want to be that pedantic he has touched on sexuality then, since we see Bruce and Talia topless in bed together. Didn't need a expositional speech to know they had done the deed.

I have already addressed this. The sexuality he has touched on is extremely dry. The bed scene is soap opera soft.

I believe that having a more extended love scene would've served the film. It would've made the betrayal at the end feel stronger.

I mean is Tim Burton a prude for not showing Vicki and Bruce going to bumper to bumper and then being all clothed in bed afterward;

We are talking about the same Tim Burton that had Catwoman lick Batman's face in the film right after right?

And regarding the scene above, the kiss that leads up to it has more passion than anything Nolan has directed.

I am not simply referring to scenes, the way they are executed plays a part too. And Nolan's are very 'let's get it over with' rushed.

He didn't make those movies until nearly 30 years into his career. So for 30 years Spielberg was a prude?

Yes. People change. Even Kubrick directed Eyes Wide Shut. Will Nolan delve into human sexuality? I would love to see it.

However, the small scenes of sensuality Spielberg did direct before those films are way better than Nolan's.

Sex doesn't equal love. Having sex in space doesn't send the message that love transcends space and time. Showing the love between Matthew and his daughter after being years and eons apart does.

Sex is a cinematic shorthand to show love. It's always been this way.

And you can evoke a movie's themes in more ways than once. The daughter/father love is the primary thread. But the Anne/Matt thread could be another. Just like Anne's love for her previous lover made her choose the planet she chose at the end.

Plus, the sex scene would help us connect to the couple. We would be emotionally roused that Matt is traversing space and time to be with Hathaway, because of his love for her, thus completing the theme of the film.

In the actual film, it's like whatever. Matt is going back to save Hathaway because he maybe sorta loves her? The lack of any sexuality makes their connection less believable and thematically cogent.

So in other words he decided not to make his character a sexual pervert/rapist. Sounds like a creative choice, not a prudeish one.

In isolation, yes. But in the context of the rest of Nolan's films, it feels like that is why he did it. Especially because the sexual aspect of the original film is so interesting. Nolan simply does away with it.

 

[The Joker]

I have already addressed this. The sexuality he has touched on is extremely dry. The bed scene is soap opera soft.

I believe that having a more extended love scene would've served the film. It would've made the betrayal at the end feel stronger.

You believe? In other words your standard of what is sexual and what is prudeish is what is the yard stick here.

I thought your argument was based on him actively avoiding sexual scenes at all. Not how raunchy you would like to see them get. That's just your opinion, not interested in that. I thought we were talking fact here about Nolan actively avoiding, or not as the case is, sex at all.

We are talking about the same Tim Burton that had Catwoman lick Batman's face in the film right after right?

Yes. The very same. Is he a prude for doing this with Bruce and Vicki?

And regarding the scene above, the kiss that leads up to it has more passion than anything Nolan has directed.

Opinion.

I am not simply referring to scenes, the way they are executed plays a part too. And Nolan's are very 'let's get it over with' rushed.

If that were the case we wouldn't even have been shown Bruce and Talia in be together at all. It would have ended at the kiss and a line of exposition later that they slept together.

Yes. People change. Even Kubrick directed Eyes Wide Shut. Will Nolan delve into human sexuality? I would love to see it.

No. Spielberg was no more a prude than Nolan is. They just simply chose the best narrative for their stories. There's no reason to believe they were actively avoiding sexual stuff.

But wait 20 years and maybe he'll drop his "prude" side like Spielberg and give you a full blown raunchy sex scene you're craving for. Might be even hotter than listening to Rachel and Batman panting on top of each other for you

However, the small scenes of sensuality Spielberg did direct before those films are way better than Nolan's.

Opinion again.

Sex is a cinematic shorthand to show love. It's always been this way.

So? You've just acknowledged one of the greatest film makers of our time didn't touch on sex in his career for 30 years. So why pray tell was it such a necessity here?

And you can evoke a movie's themes in more ways than once. The daughter/father love is the primary thread. But the Anne/Matt thread could be another. Just like Anne's love for her previous lover made her choose the planet she chose at the end.

You can, but you don't have to. One central theme, if properly executed, is more than enough to get the theme across. Adding a sexual scene wouldn't have added any new layer to the movie's theme. You just said yourself Anne made a choice for her previous lover. Adding a sex scene between them wouldn't have altered that.

Plus, the sex scene would help us connect to the couple. We would be emotionally roused that Matt is traversing space and time to be with Hathaway, because of his love for her, thus completing the theme of the film.

What couple are you talking about?

In isolation, yes. But in the context of the rest of Nolan's films, it feels like that is why he did it. Especially because the sexual aspect of the original film is so interesting. Nolan simply does away with it.

Not in isolation, in general. It looks like a creative choice to make the character one specific way since this other angle goes nowhere. What was so interesting about it to you? Where did it go in the story that was so interesting and the movie suffered for it being removed?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

You believe? In other words your standard of what is sexual and what is prudeish is what is the yard stick here.

When were we talking facts? This has all been strictly opinion.

I thought your argument was based on him actively avoiding sexual scenes at all. Not how raunchy you would like to see them get. That's just your opinion, not interested in that. I thought we were talking fact here about Nolan actively avoiding, or not as the case is, sex at all.

My argument was about both him avoiding sexuality, sensuality and being dry at those he didn't avoid.

Yes. The very same. Is he a prude for doing this with Bruce and Vicki?

No. Because the scene leading up to is far more sensual. And this is my opinion, yes. I have never been talking facts.

If that were the case we wouldn't even have been shown Bruce and Talia in be together at all. It would have ended at the kiss and a line of exposition later that they slept together.

I told you execution matters. And that scene is pretty dry. As is rthe scene when Hugh Jackman and his wife gets it on in the Prestige. Which is also edited away pretty fast.

So? You've just acknowledged one of the greatest film makers of our time didn't touch on sex in his career for 30 years. So why pray tell was it such a necessity here?

I explain why it's necessary in the passage below.

And so what? Plenty of others did. How does that change the depiction of sex and love on film?

You can, but you don't have to. One central theme, if properly executed, is more than enough to get the theme across. Adding a sexual scene wouldn't have added any new layer to the movie's theme. You just said yourself Anne made a choice for her previous lover. Adding a sex scene between them wouldn't have altered that.

But Nolan always manifests his themes from different perspectives. This feels like blatantly avoiding sexuality. Especially since it would be so appropriate for this movie. It was in the original script for a reason.

And that lover was dead on another planet. How pray tell would they have a sex scene?

What couple are you talking about?

Matthew and Anne.

Not in isolation, in general. It looks like a creative choice to make the character one specific way since this other angle goes nowhere. What was so interesting about it to you? Where did it go in the story that was so interesting and the movie suffered for it being removed?

Because it added an element of shadiness to the character. And yes, this is my opinion. No need to be surprised.

 

[The Joker]

I'm sorry, Tacit, I thought this was all based on something grounded in some kind of fact. You can have your prude opinion.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Why would you think this? How does one measure one's opinion on some element of somebody's work in statistics?

BTW, I urge everyone to watch the Norway version of Insomnia. It's IMO far superior to the Nolan version.