Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Memento: A dude mourns his dead wife. Batman Begins: A dude mourns his dead mom (and dad). The Prestige: Two dudes mourn their dead wives. The Dark Knight: Two dudes mourn their dead girlfriend/girl friend. Inception: A dude mourns his dead wife. Bonus!: We see her die three different times. Extra bonus!: We also see the other girl (sorta-)die once. The Dark Knight Rises: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that dude in black will start out still mourning his dead girl friend.
Boy, did I get that last part right! Eight years later, and Bruce can still barely leave the house because he's so upset over her. TDKR definitely keeps up Nolan's signature Dead Women motif.
Especially with the whole "French chick he thought was one person symbolically dies when she reveals herself to be someone totally different, and then literally dies" for bonus Dead Woman points!
I don't think you should get any points for Talia. Her role is absolutely nothing like the role of the "Dead Woman in a Nolan movie" who exists to make hero mourn and obsess. She's one of the main players in the movie, in fact, its primary villain; and her role is definitely not to make Bruce mourn or for her death to have any sort of affect on Bruce, especially as it has none, at least none that we can see (and happens near the end of the movie). By the same logic, you may as well count Bane, Ra's al Ghul and Dent/Two-Face as "Dead Men in Nolan movies". Especially since Talia's role is essentially that of Ra's al Ghul 2.0 (minus the sex with Bruce, which was completely unnecessary and pointless plot point).
I'll give myself partial credit here. They do seem to end up together, which I didn't expect, but they hardly had much chemistry, and their one quick smooch came out of nowhere for me at least.
Only if by "out of nowhere" you mean "what could have been expected to happen all along, what with the obvious UST built up between them from the start". Their relationship might not have been incredibly well developed, but it was blatantly obvious where it was going. (BTW, the smooch was greeted with cheers and applause in the cinema I was in.)
It was certainly better than Bruce/Miranda, which really came out of nowhere and felt forced (even more so when you find out who she is and that she hates Bruce).
Ultimately, I didn't find Selina as developed or interesting a character as TDK's Rachel.
I'd say they are about as well developed and interesting. Miranda, however, really was under-developed, which is especially a problem considering the significance of her role.
I think it'd be fairer (and more relevant) to compare Nolan's films to, for example, James Cameron's Aliens, an action movie which only vaguely gestures in the way of any romantic plots, but also has a female lead, who kicks ass, takes names, and doesn't exist in the film solely to be killed off so some guy can be troubled emotionally by it. The issue isn't why don't Nolan films have better romantic plots and more how he uses (or is argued to use) the female characters in his movies generally.
I'll give myself partial credit here. They do seem to end up together, which I didn't expect, but they hardly had much chemistry, and their one quick smooch came out of nowhere for me at least.
Well, the chemistry is a matter of opinion. The film definitely wants the audience to think that they have chemistry - Bruce trusting Selina a second time doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise, and their scenes are about probing their respective viewpoints and realizing they're more alike then they are disalike and so on and so on, her role is comparable to Rachel Dawes as a romantic interest.
It may be a romantic subplot that failed to move you, but it's definitely a romantic subplot.
I don't think you should get any points for Talia. Her role is absolutely nothing like the role of the "Dead Woman in a Nolan movie" who exists to make hero mourn and obsess. She's one of the main players in the movie, in fact, its primary villain; and her role is definitely not to make Bruce mourn or for her death to have any sort of affect on Bruce, especially as it has none, at least none that we can see (and happens near the end of the movie). By the same logic, you may as well count Bane, Ra's al Ghul and Dent/Two-Face as "Dead Men in Nolan movies". Especially since Talia's role is essentially that of Ra's al Ghul 2.0 (minus the sex with Bruce, which was completely unnecessary and pointless plot point).
Well said on both points. I definitely found the chemistry of Bruce and Selina to be believable. About Miranda though...
I saw the sex with Bruce as actually being part of her plan to lower his defenses and get him to trust her further. She'd already gained his trust enough to turn over the company, but the night together - I think - was intended to further cement his trust in her, and thus to make it easier to stick the (metaphorical and literal) knife in him - and more painful to twist it. I think it tied into the whole "slow knife" speech she was giving him before attempting to detonate the bomb. Unnecessary, perhaps, but I don't think pointless.
ANNE HATHAWAY
OK, I'll take you to [Bane]. But be aware, I'm a female in a Christopher Nolan movie, which means I represent either innocent naivete or selfish betrayal.
ANNE HATHAWAY
OK, I'll take you to [Bane]. But be aware, I'm a female in a Christopher Nolan movie, which means I represent either innocent naivete or selfish betrayal.
I'm struggling to think of any women in Nolan movies who represent innocent naivete. Rachel represents idealism and strong ethics, but not innocent naivete. If anything, she's a lot more adult and down-to-earth when it comes to some important things, like relationships, compared to Bruce with his "Rachel is my One Twu Wuv because we grow up together, even though we never actually had a real relationship, and she'll be content to wait for me for years and years, there's no way she could ever fall in love with someone else. And now that she's dead, I will sit and mope in my mansion for years".
I don't see how the women in The Prestige or Inception fit either of those description.
ANNE HATHAWAY
OK, I'll take you to [Bane]. But be aware, I'm a female in a Christopher Nolan movie, which means I represent either innocent naivete or selfish betrayal.
I'm struggling to think of any women in Nolan movies who represent innocent naivete. Rachel represents idealism and strong ethics, but not innocent naivete. If anything, she's a lot more adult and down-to-earth when it comes to some important things, like relationships, compared to Bruce with his "Rachel is my One Twu Wuv because we grow up together, even though we never actually had a real relationship, and she'll be content to wait for me for years and years, there's no way she could ever fall in love with someone else. And now that she's dead, I will sit and mope in my mansion for years".
I don't see how the women in The Prestige or Inception fit either of those description.
For Rachel in The Dark Knight, I'd agree with that analysis. But I do think Rachel in Batman Begins came across as very naive at times -- as did Ellen Page's character in Inception.
Well, TDK Rachel did accept a proposal from a guy who would soon think murdering a little boy was a fair response to the cops' failing to save her despite their best efforts...
BAT-BALE
Again, completely out of character for me, I will clear your criminal record if you help me locate Tom Hardy.
ANNE HATHAWAY
Not going to use some kind of technology? Bat-sonar? Heatmap? Nothing? We're just going to force this relationship because we had a thing in the comics? Fine, I'll lead you to him. Meet me tomorrow night.
The woman in The Prestige who lives hand to mouth existence while unknowningly married to a Lord qualifies as naive. The one sent to seduce another man for his secrets who then falls in love may not be selfish but is definitely a betrayer.
Ariadne in Inception is not really a character, but an exposition fairy. But if you want to take seriously her supposed concern over Cobb's instability, then you have to conclude that her innocent trust in Cobb is naive. She doesn't even bother to tell Arthur. Mal (French for "evil," isn't it?) is also definitely a betrayer. She's so altogether monstrous it is hard to ascribe any motives to her.
The neglected billionaire orphan so unloved not even money grubbers are interested in him, with only the totally loyal forelock tugging servants and their kids as company, is such a loopy vision that it's hard to assign any recognizable human personality to any of these "characters." But Rachel's complete lack of any mercenary interest in Wayne is very much a paragon of innocence. And falling for such dross as Harvey Dent is naive.
You're talking about Cobb's memories' reflection of her, I think, but the dead character we only saw in flashback could definitely be called naive for delving so deeply into literally mind-altering technology without extensive caution and safety protocols, particularly given that she had two young children who'd be better off with a mother that didn't accidentally lobotomize herself for the sake of a few kicks.
^^Even that woman is named Evil. But your point is correct. She also is so naive that she not only falls for Cobb's inception, she blindly follows it to her destruction.
Ra's mentioned his dead wife, his "great love" who was taken away from him. I'm surprised you forgot this, since this is a detail that's important to TDKR and gets referenced in a flashback.
Since he was talking about Talia's mom, who died in that prison hellhole.
The woman in The Prestige who lives hand to mouth existence while unknowningly married to a Lord qualifies as naive. The one sent to seduce another man for his secrets who then falls in love may not be selfish but is definitely a betrayer.
Ariadne in Inception is not really a character, but an exposition fairy. But if you want to take seriously her supposed concern over Cobb's instability, then you have to conclude that her innocent trust in Cobb is naive. She doesn't even bother to tell Arthur. Mal (French for "evil," isn't it?) is also definitely a betrayer. She's so altogether monstrous it is hard to ascribe any motives to her.
The neglected billionaire orphan so unloved not even money grubbers are interested in him, with only the totally loyal forelock tugging servants and their kids as company, is such a loopy vision that it's hard to assign any recognizable human personality to any of these "characters." But Rachel's complete lack of any mercenary interest in Wayne is very much a paragon of innocence. And falling for such dross as Harvey Dent is naive.
Nolan's treatment of female characters isn't great (as far as their function in the story; characterization-wise, it's hit and miss, but it's debatable if he does better with most of his male characters, either), but this is really forcing it.
First off, it's really odd to define not being mercenary as "innocent naivete" (?). Unless you're talking about someone born in a jungle who has no clue what money is. If we're talking about normal adults, it's a character trait that's about one's moral and emotional makeup, not "naivete". You're suggesting (and I'm guessing that this wasn't your intention) that any woman who isn't a gold-digger has to be naive, which is pretty offensive. And if that's how you define "innocent naivete", well then of course everyone else is going to fall into the "selfish betrayer" category!
Second, it's pretty silly to suggest that Rachel should have been psychic and known that Harvey might go crazy under duress... such as, when Rachel gets killed... and if she should have, why don't you expect the same out of everyone else in Gotham? If Rachel was naive to think that Harvey Dent was a good man (which he actually was, before going nuts), then so was everyone else in Gotham. If anything, agreeing to be his wife seems to me like much less of a problem than making him Gotham's DA; the former does not require one to believe that he's Gotham's incorruptible great white hope, it just requires things like mutual love and established relationship, which they had.
Re: The Prestige - I guess you could describe Johansson's character as a betrayer, but that's not the first thing that would pop into my mind; can you call her a betrayer with a straight face, when the men she's "betraying" are all about lies and deception, and Hugh Jackman's character was basically using her?
Re: Inception - it can be argued that none of the characters apart from Cobb are real characters. Ariadne is an audience stand-in; it can be argued that she's naive for not telling Arthur, but it can also be argued that Cobb's entire team is naive for not noticing that something's really wrong with Cobb, which only Ariadne seems to notice.
She doesn't even bother to tell Arthur. Mal (French for "evil," isn't it?) is also definitely a betrayer. She's so altogether monstrous it is hard to ascribe any motives to her.
That's because this "Mal" is definitely not real. I have no idea why you even bring that up, when the film makes it as explicit as possible that it was Cobb's twisted dream version of Mal. (You're talking about the first projection of her, I suppose, the one we see in the first couple of dreams; she's really just monstrous, since Cobb's mind is giving her all the scary, creepy traits. The projection of her that Ariadne meets, and the projection of her in the deep limbo, are still scary but have a clear motivation to get Cobb back so they could always be together.) "Mal" is a classic femme fatale, because she's a product of Cobb's guilt-ridden mind and represents his fears. Complaining about her characterization is like complaining about the characterization of a imaginary friend or a boogey-man in a child character's head. The real Mal, we're told by Arthur, was nothing like this.
Speaking of which, it's hard not to think of Cobb as a Nolan substitute (who "directs" dreams, like Nolan does films) and his wife (who worked with him on the "dreams") as a substitute for Nolan's wife (and producer of his films) Emma Thomas, and when Cobb gives the speech to his Limbo!Projection!Mal where he says that he's unable to ever recreate her faithfully in all her complexities, but ends up with just skewed and pale versions of her, it's fun to think of it as Nolan's meta self-criticism about the inadequacies in the characterization of women.
edit: If you want to complain about the women in Nolan's films... I can state other complaints that are, IMO, much more legitimate, than simplifying the female characters and trying to force them all into two boxes (even though you could do the exact same thing for the male characters).
For starters, why doesn't anyone (Bruce, Alfred) seem to give a rat's ass about Bruce's mother? Why is she so unimportant and such a cipher and just a prop at Thomas Wayne's arm? It's all about the father for Bruce. (Which seems to be an annoying trait of superhero movies in general lately; see Iron Man and The Amazing Spider-man.)
Rachel is supposed to be very capable at her job, she's worked for years in the DA office, and was the assistant DA in Batman Begins before the DA was killed. Why didn't she get promoted to Gotham's DA? Why did it have to be Harvey Dent, who came from the Internal Affairs? It would've made more sense if she were the DA and he were the assistant DA. OK, OK, the story required Harvey to be the DA and the Great White Hope of Gotham... but it grates that nobody even explains in-universe why Harvey is more suited for the job than Rachel (and Batman even had a line in Batman Begins about Rachel being the DA that Gotham needed), unless it' pure sexism that exists in-universe - but it never gets called on.
Rachel is supposed to be very capable at her job, she's worked for years in the DA office, and was the assistant DA in Batman Begins before the DA was killed. Why didn't she get promoted to Gotham's DA?
BTW, while granted I don't suppose Nolan had to do a Batman movie, I don't think it's particularly fair to count Batman Begins in this list. Rachel yes, but his parents? That's more or less a given for Batman.
BTW, while granted I don't suppose Nolan had to do a Batman movie, I don't think it's particularly fair to count Batman Begins in this list. Rachel yes, but his parents? That's more or less a given for Batman.
True, but it would be fair to cite in in evaluating Nolan if he placed especially strong emphasis on her.
Which he doesn't. Bruce's primary parental relationship in Batman Begins is with his father Thomas. Which mostly leaves Martha as a voiceless victim -- which I suppose fits in with the idea of idolized naiveté.
