The Berkeley Beacon
March 17, 2022
5
Robert Pattinson is the Batman for the 21st century Cont. from Pg. 1 playboy version we’ve seen, Reeves leans into another vision of the character—one who has “gone through a great tragedy and become a recluse.” The ultimate result is a tantalizingly elusive man whose trauma and anger have overtaken him to the point of hibernation and salvation through vengeance. He’s an outcast, more than ever before, feared by the Gotham underworld and distrusted by the Gotham elite—including his usual police partner Jim Gordon, played by the relentless Jeffrey Wright. Like his character in Robert Eggers’ The Lighthouse—Pattinson turns Batman into an enigmatic Byron: a deeper voice, pale complexion, flowing black locks, and a 90’s grunge aesthetic that makes us ask, what have we been watching? As Batman, Pattinson delivers a perfect balance of rage, tragedy, and sophistication. The trials of his life match the character more, as the emotional depth of this Batman is one we’ve been craving to see. The lack of a playboy nature and
“The ultimate result is a tantalizingly elusive man whose trauma and anger have overtaken him to the point of hibernation and salvation through vengeance.” supplemental disturbed bad boy is an interesting twist that is long overdue. After the failure that was Affleck’s portrayal of the Batman, Pattinson’s take is a refreshing sigh
Illustration Lucia Thorne of relief despite the actor’s concern over his performance. Pattinson’s tour-de-force performance does not overshadow the rest of the cast. Zoë Kravitz embraces her inner femme fatale for Catwoman. Colin Farrell is unrecognizable in his Penguin prosthetics, though his uproarious Robert De Niro impression manages to toe the line between cartoon and menace. And John Turturro quietly steals the show as a slimy mob boss that ends up being much more important than the audience initially suspects. It would be a disservice, though, to reduce the film to the sum of its performances. The score by Michael Giacchino, award-winning composer of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and the Planet of the Apes series (where he also collaborated with Reeves), is the perfect accompaniment to the dismal mood of the picture. The choir vocalizations and echoing instrumentals build alongside a tip-toeing bass—especially in a central track in the film, “A Flood of Terrors.” And “Something in the Way,” slow and yearning, is the perfect song to be dubbed as “The Batman’s Song.” Greig Fraser’s cinematography oozes with neon hues of orange and blue, with an apocalyptic grain that the filmmakers achieved by
running the digital image through film and scanning it again. The color scheme and grading makes the tragic and vengeful reality of
“Greig Fraser’s cinematography oozes with neon hues of orange and blue, with an apocalyptic grain that the filmmakers achieved by running the digital image through film and scanning it again.” the city all-encompassing. The audience is forced to experience the
characters enough to glue them in their seats for three hours. The film, more than any other, transforms Gotham City into a truly lived-in character. Previous adaptations ranged from Christopher Nolan’s no-frills Chicago and Tim Burton’s Gothic extravaganza, this Gotham seamlessly blends the decaying monuments of New York, Glasgow, and Liverpool into a single gruesome and fantastical city. Leaping from the Gotham Police headquarters— Liverpool’s famed Royal Liver Building—an immaculate shot follows the caped crusader soaring across the city in his wingsuit. For someone from Liverpool, it became almost a running joke to see the Liver Building serving as GCPD or St. George’s Hall serving as Gotham City Hall—the best cinematic display of Liverpool ever put to screen (perhaps better if Anfield Stadium had been in it, but beggars can’t be choosers). Reeves’ Batman actively grapples with the notions of class, inequality, and corruption—all tied, implicitly and explicitly, to the paradoxical concept of a billionaire fighting on behalf of the poor and marginalized. Bruce Wayne relies on his parents’ optimistic vision of Gotham as justification for his own brand of vigilante justice, not realizing the negative effects of his campaign of terror.
“ Br u c e Wayn e re l i e s o n h i s p a re n t s ’ optimistic vi s i o n o f Gotham as j u s t i fi c a t i o n fo r h i s own b r a n d o f vi g i l a n te j u s t i c e, n o t re a l i z i n g t h e n e ga t i ve e ffe ct s of his campaign o f te r ro r. ” Central to the film is the realization that Batman’s corrupt world is too much for him to change alone—despite all the flowery notions of “progress” and “renewal,” the rot in Gotham goes to the city’s very core. And though this Batman works closer with the police than ever before—literally invited onto murder scenes as a consultant—it is clear that this film is anything but the “copaganda” that other popular movies fall into. In the course of the film, Batman realizes that he is surrounded by a horrible system rife with abuse, crafted by his heroes just as much as his enemies. The movie, of course, is not perfect. Paul Dano’s talent as the Riddler is criminally underutilized and Catwoman’s story arc becomes unnecessarily convoluted, with a significant twist falling short due to the surface level representations of her relationships. And the third act, in general, is short on set-up and long on runtime. That said, the film is the freshest take on Batman we have seen in years. Reeves’ vision for Gotham is generational, and it can only get better from here. contact@berkeleybeacon.com
The far right is being manipulated by Vladimir Putin to spread false information Justin Chen
Beacon Staff As the Russian military advances deeper into Ukrainian territory, Russian propaganda has been referring to the invasion as a “special military operation.” However, here in the United States, many within the right-wing political sphere have been firm apologists for Vladimir Putin. Take North Carolina Congressman, Madison Cawthorn, as an example. Since the beginning of the Russian aggression towards Ukraine, Cawthron has given several controversial statements on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In a video that was taken by the local TV station, Cawthorn called Zelenskyy a “thug” and the Ukrainian Government, “incredibly evil.” It is downright laughable to hear Cawthorn call the President of Ukraine a “thug.” Zelenskyy is arguably one of the bravest men in the world at this point in history. While Russian troopers have been coming
after him, he has remained present in Kiev aiding the fight against Russian onslaught. This is something that Cawthorn would never have the courage to do. The only association Cawthorn has with military action is the public lie he told on his rejection to the U.S. Naval Academy. He claimed that he could not attend the military academy due to an injury resulting from a car crash when in fact, the car crash happened after he got rejected by the naval academy. Cawthorn’s comment have received criticism from his own party. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham called Cawthorn an “outlier” while Iowa senator Joni Ernst told to her colleague in the House that it’s not Ukraine that is invading Russia, but it is Russia invading Ukraine. What an insightful thing to say. Longtime conservative political commentator Carl Roves also joined the force of criticism against Cawthorn. Meanwhile on Fox News, the chief Russian propagandist Tucker Carlson and former Hawaiian Con-
gresswoman Tulsi Gubbard have also taken on Putin’s side, blaming the U.S. stating it had directly prompted the Russian invasion. In a monologue, Carlson asked, “Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia?” It is funny to see Carlson calling himself “not-racist” when he has been criticized on his racist point of view since the beginning of his career at Fox News. Moreover, Carlson’s Pro-Russian comment made Russian national television and a Pro-Putin political commentator praised Carlson’s comment as good analysis. Meanwhile, former Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gubbard has also been promoting misinformation stating that the Ukrainian government has been making chemical weapons. Criticism is mounting regarding their position on the conflict. CNN political commentator Ana Navarro suggested that they
Courtesy Creative Commons should be investigated by the Department of Justice. A lot of this rhetoric comes from former President Donald Trump. During his presidency, Trump was known for praising and shielding Putin from U.S. intelligence. One prominent example is the events that took place at the Helsinki summit. During the joint press conference between Putin, a reporter asked Trump whether he believed his own intelligence assessment or Putin regarding the 2016 election. Trump declared that “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.” The former President’s comments are not only some of the most scan-
dalous moments in U.S. politics, but it is also making Moscow complacent. Due to their complacency and lack of defense from the former administration, Moscow attacked the 2020 election by posting false information of the media. Sadly, the former administration and the far right has been ignoring it. Cawthorn, Carlson, and Gubbard’s language is an act of treason and anti-democratic. Their behavior is an attempt to defend Putin—a war criminal with blood on his hands. The Republican Party needs to suppress the absurd apologist language coming from these forces. justin_chen@emerson.edu
