'Decent men in an indecent time' (a.k.a. WARNING: Fucking Long Post Up Ahead)

Okay, so most of you should definitely recognise the picture at the top of this post. If you don't, then you should definitely go and watch The Dark Knight. It's not too late for you. Anyway, spoilers beckon is what I'm trying to say.

So yes, it's finally here - the first part of my series on Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy and I will start with what's widely considered the crème de la crème of this movie series, 2008's The Dark Knight or TDK for short. Now, there's a lot of ways to view this movie, all of them valid to varying degrees: the epic struggle between Batman and his arch-nemesis the Joker, a pertinent social/political commentary, a crime drama that just happens to feature Batman or the movie that transcended the superhero genre. You could even describe it as the story of how a guy dressed up as a bat tries to stop a homicidal clown, if you're feeling cheeky. In short, it's a movie with a lot of layers to it and as a guy who likes being given food for thought by the movies he watches (read, hipster), this film is at the very top of the list of my all-time favourites. The multi-faceted nature of it also makes it a bitch to write about seeing as I could really just go on and on about it and it would probably take up at least two blog posts (consisting of at least 1000 words each). But it's Christmas, so I will have pity on you. Consider it a gift. This particular post will probably still be fucking long though.

I will attempt to look at the film through a prism that I don't think has been talked about as much as others, although considering how vast the Internet is, I'm probably very wrong. Anyway, enough with the cryptic blabbering, what I'm trying to say is that The Dark Knight is a paradoxical movie (in a good way). In more ways than one. Many people view it as the quintessential Batman movie and I remember hearing a lot of folks saying back in 2008 that 'this is the way Batman should be!'. And it's hard to argue with that: Bruce Wayne spends most of his screen time in the batsuit; all of the main aspects of the Batman character are emphasised (to varying degrees), from his colossal ability to kick ass to his detective skills, to his remarkable ability to appear/disappear out of/into thin air. And then you also have the presence of Batman's most iconic villain, the Joker, who puts the 'essential' into 'quintessential'. Despite this, it's interesting to note that TDK is such a thorough deconstruction of the idea of Batman it's not even funny. For one, everything bad that happens in the movie is basically his fault. The Joker is a direct response to Batman's extreme and theatrical brand of vigilantism, he is the embodiment of the 'escalation' police commissioner Jim Gordon was talking about at the end of Batman Begins (or BB - the subject of my next post), and he goes on to terrorise the city and blow up a lot of crap throughout the movie, including Batman's girlfriend (yes, I know that sounds funny), not to mention turning Gotham's citizenship against him. The villain even mentions this dynamic at various points in the movie: 'you complete me' and 'this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object' he says to Batman, as Bruce comes to see the madness he's brought upon the city ('I was meant to inspire good, not madness, not death'). To top it off, Bruce initially dismisses the threat posed by the Joker, gravely underestimating him with a casual 'Criminals aren't complicated' line (which is a nice throwback to Ra's Al-Ghul's philosophy back in Batman Begins). What's more, the only 'good' that Batman seems to inspire amongst the citizens is a bunch of idiots dressed in hockey pads (note: Batman does not wear hockey pads) who can't even fight for their lives and use guns. So in other words, a perversion of Batman himself.

Then we have Harvey Dent, whose character is in direct contrast with Batman - he is the hero with a face that Gotham's citizens look up to, the one who battles corruption and criminality as ruthlessly as Batman, but within the boundaries of the law. If the parallels weren't clear enough, both Batman and Dent are directly referred to as Gotham's 'Dark Knight' and 'White Knight' respectively. So it's clear that Batman's presence in Gotham is practically redundant with Harvey Dent around (Bruce recognises this). But this all becomes moot by the end of the movie, as the latter is corrupted by the Joker and becomes the murderous vigilante Two-Face. In other words, Batman is indirectly responsible for Dent's fall as well, seeing as how the Joker is a direct response to the former's brand of vigilante justice. In the end, Batman can only defeat the villain by turning to morally dubious and desperate methods, such as spying on the entire city and creating a lie in order to preserve Dent's reputation in the eyes of Gotham's citizens.

There's this undeniable air of cynicism to the movie and it's brought about by aspects such as the hero bringing copious amounts of grief, inadvertently of course, upon the city he aims to protect. This is again pointed out by a character in the movie, namely Jim Gordon's wife, who exclaims: 'You brought this craziness on us, you did!'. This cynicism is blatantly spelled out through the Joker's philosophy, which he details in that famous interrogation scene: 'When the chips are down, these uh, these 'civilised' people, they'll eat each other'. So basically, what he's saying is that society is inherently flawed and that shitty circumstances will bring out the worst in people (also, if given the chance, people will fuck each other up). In other words, 'deep down, everyone's as ugly as him' and he sets out to prove just that through his ferry experiment. Towards the end of the movie, he has two ferries (one filled with ordinary citizens, the other with criminals) rigged with explosives. The catch is that he hands each group of passengers the detonator to the other boat's explosives thereby putting the people's fate in their own hands. Of course, he also keeps another detonator for himself so as to actually give the boats a reason to want to blow each other up (he details his entire plan over the ferries' loudspeakers). The ferry scene has been criticised by some viewers for its rather overtly dramatic execution, but the truth is that it's an essential sequence and one of the only genuine rays of light in an otherwise very cynical and dark movie. The people on the ferries decide to NOT blow each other up, to the Joker's utter surprise (and frankly mine as well, because I'm convinced that in a real-life situation, either one or both of the ferries would've been blown up) and this is basically Nolan's way of saying that despite all the ugliness that the world is obviously plagued by, there IS good out there. This idea is further emphasised by the fact that Batman is the only one who has faith in the people to not blow each other up, as Jim Gordon is already on scene together with a bunch of SWAT teams ready to intervene. Bruce Wayne's unerring faith in the people of Gotham is also one of the only positive aspects about the character throughout this movie. The ferry scene is the moment where Batman's crusade is vindicated: the people of Gotham prove themselves to be worth saving and he is consequently proven to be right to place his trust in them despite all the crap that he's been through, both physical and psychological. Like I said, the scene is rather unrealistic in its outcome and that's why it stands out; it's like Nolan just stopped and said 'alright, enough with all this doom and gloom crap, time to show the viewers that there is indeed hope in this shitty city...also, time to prove Batman right for a change in this film'.

In fact, it's towards the end of the movie that Batman is brought back together. We have his aforementioned faith in people, which is all the more remarkable when you consider just how close one of the ferries came to blowing up the other. The possibility of either one deciding to blow up the other was distinctly present, and still Batman chooses to trust in the good of people. And then we have his actions at the very end. Never mind him saving Jim Gordon's son from getting shot, the fact that he's even willing to take the fall for Harvey's murders as Two-Face is very powerful and a rather tragic turn of events. And this is because, in the end, it turns out that Batman is indeed the hero Gotham deserves as he willingly chooses to look like a villain in the eyes of the public so the city does not lose faith in its 'true hero'. The shocked expression on Gordon's face as Batman tells him to 'call it in' offers a glimpse into how emotional this turn of events is. To recap, Batman's been through a LOT of shit before this moment: he was pushed to the edge of his psychological boundaries by the Joker's machinations; he blames himself for the loss of his childhood friend Rachel (his romantic interest and last hope for a normal life) - who was basically the last shred of the innocence and life he had before the murder of his parents (Bruce Wayne, lest we forget, also had his parents shot down before his eyes when he was freakin' 8 years old); he is indirectly responsible for the tragic fall from grace of Gotham's one true ray of hope in years, Harvey Dent; not to mention the fact that the Joker turned the city against him. Oh, and he's also found the time to beat up a bunch of SWAT teams, get mauled by some rottweilers and have his wind pipe almost crushed by the Joker beforehand. And after all that, he's still willing to become the villain for the good of the city. 'You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain' comes to mind.

There's another slight paradox in there as well. As previously mentioned, Harvey is made out to be Gotham's one true incorruptible hero throughout the film, as well as a counterpart to Bruce Wayne/Batman. Moreover, they both pursue Rachel as a romantic interest. Harvey proves to be anything but incorruptible though, pursuing murderous justice against those he considers responsible for Rachel's death (she had also told him she'd chosen to marry him, seconds before she's blown up) following a 'final (metaphorical) push' into madness courtesy of the Joker. So it's rather paradoxical that Batman's the actual incorruptible hero all along even as he takes the blame for Harvey's crimes. I also see this as the movie telling us that, at the end of the day, Bruce is the better of the two men: he doesn't cross that line of no return between murderer and vigilante despite having to go through the same emotional trauma as Dent and then some. He's very close to crossing it earlier in the movie when Joker urges Batman to run him over with his bike, with the latter deciding against it at the last moment basically. That moment pays off in their final confrontation, when Batman saves the free falling Joker, prompting the villain to say 'You [Batman] truly are incorruptible'. It's here that The Dark Knight truly earns its superhero movie tag: Batman's one true superpower is his unbreakable spirit (well, I guess his money too, but that's not very inspiring) and in the end he proves to be the better man.

It's inspiring stuff and this is a descriptor I've not often seen used when discussing TDK. Inspiring is also the way I would describe the feeling immediately after seeing this movie at the cinema: it's a little hard to describe, but it was something along the lines of 'my faith in humanity has been restored'. There's this underlying theme of hope and optimism throughout the movie that comes in stark contrast with its cynical and bleak outlook. Harvey foreshadows this theme with the line 'The night is darkest just before the dawn' and it is prevalent in the ferry scene. Beyond all the theatricality (clowns dressing up as nurses and guys growling in batsuits in the case of TDK), the spectacular action scenes and explosives inherent to any superhero flick, The Dark Knight basically tells us that being cynical is all well and good, but without taking a chance and having faith in people, good things will not come about and our perspective will remain bleak. It's a situation which we've all been confronted with at one point of our lives or another and this is one of the movie's main strengths, its capacity to tap into a reality of the human condition (and society as a whole) and to get it across even with all the other things it has going for it. 'Sometimes truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more' is another example of such a situation. It's one of the reasons I love this film to death and really, I could just go on and on about the various aspects of this goddamn movie, but I'll stop here, as my initial promise of this being a fucking long post has been fulfilled.

I'll leave you with the epic (and cheesy) monologue that concludes this flick, which actually doesn't come off as cheesy thanks to the nature of the movie it's said in, the timing of it and Gary Oldman's godly delivery: Chills, I tellz ya'!

Nothing mind blowing - part deux (a.k.a. The Lana Del Rey Addendum)

At this point, you're probably wondering 'Where the fuck are those Batman analysis posts we were promised?' or alternatively, 'Since when does the rroawm blog have such a high post rate?'. I'm not going to mention that I'll get to the Batman analysis in due time because you're probably already thinking 'this guy is one of those assholes who never makes good on his promises' (if that's actually the case, take a look at my previous post). What I will mention is that this particular post was brought upon by a skimming-through session of one of my previous posts, namely the one where I use a lot of swear words to talk about the modern pop industry. More precisely, it was that short part about Lana Del Rey towards the end of that post. Here it is for those of you who have no fucking clue what I'm talking about: '[...]there's also positive signs such as Lana Del Rey, who while being crap live, seems to understand the importance of not going monotonous. [...] and she's done something no other mainstream artist has done in a while, namely keep the melodrama in check for an entire song'.

Having expanded my horisons vastly when it comes to Lana's music since then (and what I mean by that is that I've listened to her 'Born To Die' album a fuckload of times), I just can't help but find those particular phrases I wrote about her just plain laughable. The reality is that Lana's music is basically the opposite of what I said there: the melodrama is almost omni-present in her songs and that's exactly the reason that they get a bit monotonous after a while. This complete confusion on my behalf is rather explainable by the fact that my knowledge of Lana back then was limited to just 'Video Games'...but even then, that particular song contains lyrics so melodramatic ('They say that the world was built for two/ Only worth living if somebody is loving you') that they would make even the Queen of Melodrama herself, Adele, envious. I'll get back to this comparison further down the line. 'Video Games' is obviously about some sort of failed relationship that's left some pretty nasty and long-lasting emotional, perhaps even psychological scars. Some pretty standard Adele like material (alright, screw the 'further down the line thing', I'll be bringing up that comparison on a consistent basis). Then we have songs such as 'Born To Die', 'Blue Jeans' and 'Lucky Ones' which basically sound the same way (no shit, Sherlock, they're sung by the same fucking emotionally-scarred chick).

By now you're probably thinking that I've truly lost all hope in the mainstream industry and that I'm letting out my frustration by bitching about Lana Del Rey. The truth is that both of those statements are false. I've stopped caring about the mainstream industry for some time now and I usually mention it in comparisons that are meant to show it as a bad example (read, an exaggeratingly bad one). As for Lana, maybe you got a hint when I said I listened to the Born To Die album a fuckload of times by now. The truth is, I like her music and I do indeed believe she brings something fresh to the mainstream table (I still think she's crap live though). And here's why: while the melodrama in her songs does indeed get repetitive and rather tiring after a while, I get the distinct feeling that it's presented in a different way in comparison to you-know-who's style (and yes, I'm talking about Adele). 'Video Games' is a prime example, not only because of the chilling piano and harp instrumentals (practically the only two aspects I got right in my original analysis), but because of the way the melodrama comes across as well. It's not your run-of-the-mill 'hey, look at me despairing irrationally about how I'll never find someone like you ever again' (that's the last one, I promise). It's much more subtle in a way, and at the same time it's not subtle; just take a look at the lyrics I mentioned earlier. It's this conundrummy aspect of her music that's intriguing. The melodrama is obviously there, but it comes across in a rather underlying way, which owes a lot to how Lana's voice (which critics have accurately compared to lounge music vocals) intertwines with the haunting instrumentals. The way the song builds up towards its chorus, you wouldn't be surprised and you'd maybe even expect some sort of explosion of all the remorse building up in the lyrics. But 'Video Games' never gives us that - this is basically what I was referring to in that original post when I was talking about 'keeping the melodrama in check' (so not that laughable at the end of the day...hindsight's a bitch). It's almost like the melodrama is numbed, despite the fact that it's pretty clear she's singing about a traumatising experience. It's a rather fresh take on melodrama in a pop song, at least to me. The nature of the song makes you think of how getting intoxicated (something which Lana has confirmed to doing in interviews...not like it's obvious from her songs) numbs your perceptions when you're going through these sort of experiences. It's rather fascinating, in spite of not being some sort of musical ingenuity. 'Born To Die' and 'Blue Jeans' are similar in this regard, although 'Lucky Ones' is more basic and melodic.

Another thing that comes off as fresh to me is her willingness to admit that she is not the most healthy of people, mentally speaking (I'd be willing to admit that after Born To Die too). I can't honestly remember a particular lyric that suggests this self-awareness on the aforementioned album, but I can certainely refer to a more recent song of hers, namely 'Serial Killer' (which I think is from one of the extended editions of the BTD album). Some of the lyrics here are telling, 'Baby, I'm a sociopath, sweet serial killer'. Now some of you may be thinking 'well geez, I could've told her that after listening to a bunch of her songs' and that's obviously true, but I don't think I've ever heard a melodramatic pop singer willingly admit her obsessive tendencies before (I think she makes such references in 'Ride' as well, I'm not really familiar with that song's lyrics). And that sincere self-awareness (which I'll admit, may be circumstantial) is interesting to me. It makes her music fresh, especially when considering peers such as, you guessed it, Adele. I don't think you'll ever hear the latter so non-chalantly admit to her obsessive tendencies within a song. 'Serial Killer' is also interesting because it lacks any clear signs of the unique melodrama I've been talking about so far. It's a rather playful and quite addictive song (it's also sexy and fun in a disturbing way). 'Ride' also seems to point towards a more optimistic direction for Lana's songs, although her issues (namely her daddy issues) come across as well. It remains to be seen if she'll actually do a complete 180 with her music, that is to release exclusively optimistic songs, but I really doubt that. Somehow, I think that underlying, conundrummy, subtle/not subtle melodrama of hers will almost always be present in her songs in one form or another.

While you're probably tired of my continuous Adele comparisons, I think it's interesting to consider whether or not Lana would've enjoyed the success she has if it weren't for Adele's subtle as a bolder type of melodrama. My analysis at least, was based on a consistent comparison between the two, but maybe that's a mistake on my part. Maybe these continual comparisons do not allow me to appreciate Lana's music to its fullest. But I'll be damned if making fun of Adele isn't entertaining (short disclaimer: I think Adele has a great voice and like I've said before, I think it's admirable she's managed to turn emotional traumas into mainstream success - she's just not my cup of tea, like at all; also, this is my blog, so fuck you). Then again, I think it's rather likely that if it weren't for Adele's success, another similar singer would've taken her place. Why? Common sense (human nature as well). Anyway, food for thought.

I'll end this surprisingly long post with my latest musical obsession: Jack White plays an absolutely killer bass on this one; also, does anyone think the singer from Mellowdrone sounds suspiciously like Beck?

Is hate a valid reason for voting?

I'm going to deliver on a pledge I made when I first created this blog today, namely talking about politics. Yeah, yeah, boring subject I know, but the political landscape in my country has been undergoing a rather drastic change for a year or so and I think it's pertinent to write about it. I won't get into specifics, but people who are familiar with the subject will know what I'm talking about.

I'll start by saying that following a recent voting poll regarding a fresh edition of parliamentary elections in Romania, the final phase of the change I was talking about earlier has been put in motion. Frankly, this change has been coming for a while now, but I think it's interesting to investigate the main reason for its instigation. As some of you may know, Romania hasn't been doing particularly well for a couple of years now (since the aftermath of the 1989 Revolution for that matter). But since joining the EU in 2007, there have been reasons to be optimistic regarding the country's future. That of course did not prevent Romania from being plunged into an economical crisis, but there's no denying that funding from the EU helped Romania, including on the educational side of things.

Speaking of the economical crisis, the ones in power back then decided that it was high time Romania went through a reform and with that came unpopular decisions such as cutting salaries and pensions. Thus, the first seeds of hate among the people were planted. Television channels and mass-media outlets opposed to those in power had already been conducting campaigns to discredit them by then, but these very unpopular measures gave them the perfect opportunity to press forth aggressively with their campaign. People gobbled up those campaigns because the ones in power had 'stolen' their money. And thus, a 'culture' of hate was born. It has been cultivated and brewing since then and it has subsequently culminated in a drastic change of power towards the opposing parties (of which the main ones have conducted an alliance).

My question is this: is hate truly a valid reason for changing the political landscape of a country? I understand where it's coming from, but voting is about deciding the future course of a country not about spiting those you hate. I mean, if the guys who are coming into power would have a clearly defined plan for the future of the country I would understand the choice. But it's painfully clear they don't. Every time I've heard their interviews on TV, they've talked and complained about the current president (let's call him B.) even though his current (and last for that matter) mandate ends in two years' time (soon to be one year). Their efforts since gradually taking power about a year ago have almost exclusively been directed at suspending and eliminating him from the political landscape even though he's basically finished as a politician (what with his popularity being almost non-existent among the people). What's worse is that they've consistently been butting heads with the higher members of the EU, essentially endangering Romania's status within the union. And what's saddening is that people have bought into this 'culture of hate', not because of logical reasons (although I will concede there are people who make valid points in this sense) but because of spite. What it basically boils down to is this: 'B. stole my pension/salary, so I hate him and will vote against him any chance I get'.

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming B. and his guys were some sort of saviours. Not by a long shot. It's pretty clear that there are rotten apples in all of Romania's political parties. But there were reasons to be optimistic regarding the future of this country during their mandate. They consistently talked about the importance of the EU in Romania's future (and indeed, Romania became a member state during their mandate) and had the backing of some of the most influential members of the union (as evidenced by Angela Merkel's backing of B. during the latest suspension attempt). What's more, they constantly talked about enabling the justice system and stamping out corruption. More importantly, they backed up their words: one of the most notoriously corrupt bastards in Romania's recent history, namely Adrian Nastase (who also happens to be one of the country's fucking former prime-ministers) was locked behind bars during their mandate; and he wasn't the only one. Maybe that's not much to look at, but they certainly set a couple of wheels in motion or at least tried. And while denominators such as 'drunk sailor' for B. are true in a sense (even though they're obviously hyperbole), the country started moving in a different direction during his mandate. And I dare say a  rather positive one. The main leaders of the opposition (let's call them V. and C.) may have made vague references to a better future for Romania, but they haven't actually done anything to support that. All they've been preoccupied with since gradually assuming power is discrediting a president who was: a. already unpopular and b. already finished politically by the time they truly came into power. It's mind-boggling when you consider the delicate situation Romania finds itself in at present. Oh, and the less said about V.'s doctorate fraud and the example it sets for the young impressible generation in Romania, the better (it's not like it's been confirmed by authorities or anything). What's even worse is that some people seem to have lost confidence in the voting/democratic system altogether, as evidenced by the approximately 42% of people who voted at these latest elections. These people seem to have simply given up and this lack of hope that is permeating throughout the country is quite disheartening. The truth is that there's always a choice in these situations, even when the choice is 'choosing the lesser evil'.

I'm not trying to generalise here. There are obviously people who have objective reasons for voting in favour of V. and C.'s party, but the existence of this 'culture of hate' and its influence on people cannot be denied. And quite frankly, it's a downright flimsy reason to have when the future of your country is at stake. Aspects such as whether the previous guys who were in power actually did good during their mandate (which is obviously subjective) are irrelevant in this context. So the question arises again: 'Is hate a truly valid reason for voting'?. Food for thought.

PS: I know that in my last post I talked about doing a Nolan Batman Trilogy marathon of posts and I WILL get to it...just as soon as I have some free time to re-watch each individual movie again. But I just couldn't ignore the political topic any longer.

"It's been a long time coming" or The 'Random Ramblings' Blog Rises

Not the most subtle of titles, I know (quite ominous as well, isn't it?). The quote is actually part of the lyrics to a song by The Kills called "Kissy Kissy". If you haven't listened to The Kills, you should do so right away before you fail completely in my eyes (like that would actually be an incentive...but seriously, listen to them, they're a fine band). Anyway, the use of that particular lyric is not coincidental. Besides the fact that that particular Kills song is quite catchy - perhaps it should've been called "Catchy Catchy" instead hehe, that passage from the song is very fitting considering the fact I haven't written a blog post in 8 bloody months (I haven't suddenly become a woman and we haven't been plunged into a new war either, don't worry).

The other reason is that a post concerning director Christopher Nolan's excellent Batman movies has always been on my mind, from the moment I started this blog. As my friends will attest, my passion for these movies (as well as the character himself) could be said to often border on the obsessive. I've always had a fondness for the character, from the days I used to watch the Batman Animated Series in the 90's. They were my first exposure to the character. Then there were Tim Burton's movies, "Batman" (1989) and "Batman Returns" (1992). Even though I recognised the characters in the movies, I can't say I was ever really into them. Penguin was over the top, commissioner Gordon was laughably underused and useless, Batman seemed distant and Catwoman...well actually, Catwoman was fine, in more ways than one (apart from the supernatural side of the character within Burton's universe). It's clear Burton wanted to tell his own, distinctive take on the character, but I've never really been into his style as a director and that's probably one of the reasons I don't really like his batmovies (there's also more specific reasons, such as Batman being and out and out executioner, as well as the personal nuance his relationship with the Joker gets). I don't hate them either, so I guess the best way I could describe my feelings toward them would be "rather indifferent". But it's no doubt that the movies were revolutionary for the character...they were, after all, his first steps into the world of Hollywood. Then came Joel Schumacher's two movies, "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" and, well...the less said about them, the better. Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkTHtWX7CCY

Anyway, even as a young boy I couldn't help but be disappointed in those movies. By that time the animated series were no longer being televised either, so my passion for Batman was left hanging aimlessly in the background. I still had contact with the character, in the form of the Batman Beyond TV show, but it wasn't really the same, even though that was a great show. And then, in 2005, I heard news that a new Batman movie was released, but my interest in Batman movies was non-existent. I had seen some bits of footage on TV, but I wasn't terribly impressed. I hadn't even heard of Christopher Nolan either. That 2005 movie was "Batman Begins", but I didn't get to see it until three years later. The year 2008, the year "The Dark Knight" was released. Once again, my indifference was initially prevalent: I had no idea a new Batman movie was coming out that year, much less a continuation of "Batman Begins". [INTERLUDE] Because repeatedly writing down the entire names of these movies is becoming a chore, I will henceforth proceed to refer to them by their abbreviated versions, namely BB (Batman Begins), TDK (The Dark Knight) and TDKR (The Dark Knight Rises).[/INTERLUDE] I first heard about TDK from a friend who was enthusiastic about it and had also seen BB beforehand. His enthusiasm did nothing to influence my indifference however, but I still decided to take him up on his invitation to see the movie when it came out in our country. I had also heard of Heath Ledger's tragic passing in the meantime, but that wasn't on my mind when I actually got to see the movie.

Long story short, TDK is what brought Batman back into my consciousness, stronger than ever. Perhaps my low expectations, my diminished interest in the character, the rather bleak emotional sequence I was going through back then is to blame. Perhaps it's a combination of these reasons. And perhaps it's also because it was a damn fine movie (read: it definitely is). It was certainly the best cinematic experience of my life so far (more on this in a future blog post). Needless to say, I watched BB shortly afterwards and was thoroughly impressed as well. This trilogy was what brought back my dormant love for the old 90's cartoon, as well as a new-found interest in comic books (which I wasn't really into before). I haven't actually become an avid comic book fan in the meanwhile, but I definitely have a much more active interest in them, as well as a genuine appreciation for graphic novels (especially the ones about Batman, obviously), which are sometimes underrated.

These movies were also my first glimpse into the world of Christopher Nolan. One of the best directors out there at present, he's been delivering quality movies throughout his short career so far (beginning with 1998's "Following" up to 2012's "The Dark Knight Rises"). Now that his Batman trilogy is done, it will be interesting to see what project he chooses to do next. The end of the trilogy also gives me the chance to bring this blog back to life. I had initially planned on this post being solely about TDK, as my intention is to cover each of Nolan's three batmovies in individual posts. I decided against this because I really want to re-watch each movie before making my posts about them (even though I've probably watched them too many times by now). I plan on getting these particular posts done until the end of the year, even though my plans do not always come to fruition. My passion for these movies will ensure that I do make an effort though and the fact that I'll be moving towards actually analysing and talking about the movies themselves will make things way more interesting, I assure you. Whether this post about my history with the character will be relevant in the context of those future posts, I will leave it for you to decide (although, as you may have noticed, I do have a tendency of making more general and boring posts following a long hiatus from the blogging lands).

For now, I will leave you with the thoughts of a friend of mine who recently watched the entire trilogy: "[...]I think I haven't appreciated a movie as much as this in a long while. This movie is great and important and almost perfect and I'm saddened when I think that I won't be seeing something as good for a long time. It is impossible for me to care about another superhero movie in the near future and it is (probably) impossible for another director to reach the heights Nolan has reached. Right now, I am pleased, but sad at the same time."

Also, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SINdVagq7Gc

PS: Like I said at the beginning of this post, I had always planned on writing about Nolan's movies, but it was only a week ago that these thoughts truly gathered steam again. I had never thought I would actually see the day, but a course at my university about comic books is where I was reminded of the brilliance of The Dark Knight (it all seems to come back to that movie). Like Bruce Wayne in TDKR, I was waiting for something to hasten my return...in that sense, watching TDK again was my Bane (not literally, of course). Also, feminists, please don't take that joke at the beginning out of context. Thank you.