| |
|
Again:
1) He lies about his origin, twice
2) He lies to mob about his plans
3) He lies to Batman about the location of Rachel
What makes anybody assume he is being honest to Harvey? He is not a "schemer" in the sense that he is trying to amass a power base for himself beyond anarchy (hence the relative lack of concern about his own safety). But he does plan and manipulate people. The only truly honest moment is when he says to Batman: "We could do this forever."
--
4) I assumed he was lying in the "boat" scene. In fact, I bet that if one of the groups had pressed the button, they would have found themselves blown to smithereens.
Did anyone else have this take?
---
Speaking of lies:
I agree with a criticism about the trick Gordon pulls, but not because I think it is a blazing plot hole, but because it violates the classic story-telling rule of "showing the gun." I think it purposely pulls a trick on the audience. But rather than being an amazing stack of coincidences, there was some planning involved with the characters.
-I don't think Batman was really planning to give himself up. I think that Harvey and he planned the set-up, but off screen. This plan was formed after Harvey screamed "You can't ever give in!"
If you watch the scene with Bruce and Rachel when he discusses giving up the Dark Knight persona, Bruce seems very smug and cocky: like he has a trick up his sleeve.
After the arrest scene, Rachel asks Alfred why Bruce "just stood there?" Alfred replies that perhaps "they" felt that it was not good to give into the demands of criminals.
I think this might also explain the scene with Alfred where he and Bruce destroy the files and evidence connecting him to Fox and Rachel. He is playing a trick on the butler too...hence the gag about, "I am going to tell them it was your idea."
But the destruction of the files, the cutting of the links, is symbolic of Bruce cutting himself away from his support. It is the birth of: Batman the dick.
-On the other hand, I think Gordan's trick may have been totally independent. He may have just been concerned about his wife's safety.
- On the other other hand, I may just be over-reaching to explain a major flaw in the story's creditability--either way, it is something of cheat, but it is forgivable since so much of the movie rocks despite these two possible flaws.
I'd have to see the film again to get a better reading of some of the scenes though. |
|
|
