Christopher Nolan sure likes his women dead, doesn't he?

[Gaith]

I'm kind of confused about the point of this entire thread.

Hint: as evidenced by the posts made before and after this question, it's a thread to discuss the roles of women in Nolan's movies.

 

[stj]

]

....

Sci is an earnest fellow who tries really hard to get things right. Why be so hard on him?

()

...First off, it's really odd to define not being mercenary as "innocent 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....

Actually I think it's possible to be tempted and reject it and be a good person. Not resisting non-temptation isn't particularly virtuous. It's not that Rachel doesn't commit herself to something besides money, it's that she doesn't even notice! Maybe the words I used were a little too strong, but this is really noticeable, second only to her complete and total loyalty to Bruce. Frankly, both strike me as a blend of innocence and naivete.

....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....

On the other hand, strictly speaking, this is quite correct. Dent was always a bad guy. The police called him Two-Face and he tried to torture a prisoner. And yes, the whole city is naive to believe in him. But then Nolan seems to believe people are rabble who can only be led to virtue by noble myths. Rachel, as his lover, should have known this too. You are also correct that this is a silly idea, but I have to say that it's in the movie.

....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?....

Of course, because she did betray both men. True, she's also a victim and I can see that aspect of her character coming to mind first. But if I remember correctly, this woman was one of Nolan's misimprovements to the novel. I think she was added for the element of betrayal. Hugh Jackman could have had his dead wife, one Christian Bale could have had his confused wife and the betrayer could have been Michael Caine, an engineer sent to the enemy camp to spy. I think Nolan wanted the betrayer to be a woman because he felt it more appropriate.

...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....

Arthur notices, but he actually has an emotional bond. The other men are too macho to be emotionally perceptive. Didn't you notice?

...That's because this "Mal" is definitely not real...

The "real" Mal framed her own husband! And I still say that the "real" Mal's susceptibility to inception leaves her as gullible as Cillian Murphy's character. Most of all, since most of the characterization is so dreamlike anyhow, we cannot really distinguish the various versions: They are all one character. Yes, that's kind of silly but, again, it's in the movie. I don't think Nolan is a particularly brilliant director.

...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.)
...

Forcing Nolan's female characters into just two boxes is fun because it's true enough to make it pretty easy. If you want to get really deep into the subject, you might make a case for three or maybe even four boxes. Maybe. Or you might just hit bedrock because Nolan's pretty shallow I think.

Your point about Bruce's mother is quite true. It's also true of Cillian Murphy's mother in Inception. Michael Caine's Jove-like creation of Mal is also a good example. I think Nolan's movies overlook these mothers because women aren't as important in his basic outlook.

 

[DevilEyes]

Actually I think it's possible to be tempted and reject it and be a good person. Not resisting non-temptation isn't particularly virtuous.

Well I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer a person who, let's say, doesn't feel tempted to cheat on me than the one who resist temptation. And I do respect someone more if they aren't tempted to marry for money or screw someone over, than the one to "resist temptation". In other words, the idea that you're better person if you feel the desire to do something bad than if you don't is crap. By those standards, the most virtuous people in society are the pedophiles who are resisting the urge to molest children or people who have fantasies of committing mass murder, and all the rest of us are worse people by comparison.

It's not that Rachel doesn't commit herself to something besides money, it's that she doesn't even notice!

How do you know that?

Maybe the words I used were a little too strong, but this is really noticeable, second only to her complete and total loyalty to Bruce.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. What was she supposed to do about Bruce?

On the other hand, strictly speaking, this is quite correct. Dent was always a bad guy. The police called him Two-Face and he tried to torture a prisoner.

Now, I'm sorry for the wording, but this is completely ridiculous. They called him Two-Face because he was trying to bring the corrupt cop to justice, which, guess what, is the purpose of Internal Affairs, and which the cops themselves generally aren't too fond of, especially the corrupt ones (which in Gotham was the majority of cops). Are you really claiming that bringing corrupt cops to justice makes one a bad guy?

His torture of a prisoner was the first sign that he was starting to be corrupted and that he could go really dark. Of course he had a capacity to go dark, just as many people do, but he certainly wasn't a bad guy, and to claim this is to completely miss and/or misrepresent the entire point of the story.

Of course, because she did betray both men. True, she's also a victim and I can see that aspect of her character coming to mind first. But if I remember correctly, this woman was one of Nolan's misimprovements to the novel. I think she was added for the element of betrayal. Hugh Jackman could have had his dead wife, one Christian Bale could have had his confused wife and the betrayer could have been Michael Caine, an engineer sent to the enemy camp to spy. I think Nolan wanted the betrayer to be a woman because he felt it more appropriate.

Or maybe because it would be less believable if the wife of one of the Bales came to believe that her husband was having an affair with Michael Caine, and if the other Bale actually fell in love with and had a relationship with Michael Caine but then lost him because he wouldn't "divorce" "his" wife.

Arthur notices, but he actually has an emotional bond. The other men are too macho to be emotionally perceptive. Didn't you notice?

No, actually I completely missed their macho credentials.

...That's because this "Mal" is definitely not real...The "real" Mal framed her own husband! And I still say that the "real" Mal's susceptibility to inception leaves her as gullible as Cillian Murphy's character.

So she's a schemer and she's too naive? Which is it?

Forcing Nolan's female characters into just two boxes is fun because it's true enough to make it pretty easy. If you want to get really deep into the subject, you might make a case for three or maybe even four boxes. Maybe. Or you might just hit bedrock because Nolan's pretty shallow I think.

Sure, it can be fun and you could shove them into two boxes or three, if you tried really hard and skewed things enough. You can do the exact same things with his male characters. You could even do these with other writers who tend to focus much more on characters and who write much better and more complex characters - and I've seen that done. In most cases this consists of a lot of over-simplification, skewing and ignoring the facts that don't fit. And in the majority of cases, this attempt results in nothing but the affirmation and promotion of those same stereotypes that the critic is claiming to be against. (Your post is a good example of that. Rachel has no gold-digging urges? Well, she's obviously naive! But if she had, I'm sure we'd be seeing rants about Nolan making his female characters into gold-diggers. Rachel is naive! Selina and Scarlet Johansson's characters are selfish betrayers! Harvey Dent was always a bad guy! Obviously, Nolan can't make his character non-complex enough for his critics to read them as even more ridiculously simple than they really are,)

I don't think Nolan is a particularly brilliant director.

You probably meant "writer". His direction would only come into focus re:characterization if we were talking how he directs the actors. As a writer, I think he's great in some aspects, but he's not what you're looking for if you're focused on strong female characters, or strong characters in general, for that matter. His characters tend to be chess pieces in his plots/puzzles/mysteries.

 

[stj]

No, I didn't have to force and skew. I didn't ignore facts but watched what was on screen. It's not my fault that what was up there was silly with a strong undercurrent of nasty. For instance, the real Mal is indeed both a treacherous schemer and a gullible fool. These are not incompatible and it is simplistic to hint otherwise.

You on the other hand had to falsify a quotation ("innocent naivete") in an effort to make a vain case for Nolan. I specifically said Rachel was innocent for not thinking about what life with a billionaire could be like (the mercenary motive you find so detestable.) And I specifically said Rachel was naive to believe in Dent. But you have falsely attributed another position to me. To be blunt, this sort of stuff is lying. You have to lie because you're wrong. You should ask yourself why you are driven to lies about a mere movie director.

Your belief that not being tempted is morally superior stems from religious notions about purity of soul, some people good inside and other people bad inside, etc. This bigoted reactionary twaddle is both naive and inhumane, a truly ugly combination.