Welcome to Classic and Contemporary, where I’ll be looking at both a classic piece of cinema and a contemporary one and comparing an element that both films share. I thought it’d be neat to start off with a term many people get incorrectly: the plot hole.
Our good friend Wikipedia (and, yes, I’m citing Wikipedia for this information and am aware of its contributors) defines a plot hole as “a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story’s plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot.” Plot holes are things that cannot be disputed. It’s important not to confuse your distaste for writing, character development, or character decisions in a movie for plot holes. If you have any insight or want to debate what you feel is a plot hole, feel free to use the comment section (respectfully) for your debate!
And now, let’s get to our two features of the day: Men in Black III and North by Northwest.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
8 Comments
You stole that plothole in MIB3 straight out of my brain. I’ve been trying to convince people of it since the movie came out, but no one is willing to think that hard.
I can’t help but gleam a veiled reference to the controversy over The Dark Knight Rises plotholes in your opening paragraph. So, let’s begin shall we? Do you believe that Batman showing up in Gotham without explanation constitutes a plot hole? I believe it most certainly does as it goes against the film’s internal logic of Gotham being locked down so well no one can get in or out except through subterfuge.
Technically, it isn’t.
How Batman gets in is up in the air, but if we can assume that double-agents getting in to assess the situation can do so, then we can assume that Batman can as well. It’s important, also, to remember that Gotham has been under siege for months, by this point, and it’s possible their guard has been let down. Batman has the element of surprise at this point; he knows when he’s going to show up, the LOS has no idea when or if he will. The fact that he’s able to just compliments how he’s able to do everything in the series up to this point: controlling bats, etc. etc.
The Dark Knight Rises has its flaws, but it never sets itself up with a specific set of laws (like that of MIB III), and because of that, it’s much more difficult to find a “plot hole” in the movie.
“a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story’s plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot”
I would contend that it constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. Because such emphasis had been placed on Gotham being impregnable and no one being able to leave, Wayne showing up without any clues as to how he does it constitutes a major omission. The fact that Nolan had to show how the soldiers made it in in the first place proves this. If we could just assume people can make it in somehow then he could have just shown a couple of soldiers walking up to Gordan being like “what up bro?”. Instead we get a detailed explanation of how they snuck in with a convey. Even given Batman’s prowess it’s hard to swallow he just materialized inside the locked down city. For instance, if this were a bank heist film and a vault was stated time and time again to be uncrackable then a safe cracker was shown to be inside the vault with no explanation it would count as a plot hole.
Also, Batman’s miraculous survival constitutes perhaps the biggest plothole in recent cinematic memory. Given that the film establishes that Batman has six seconds before the bomb goes off and the blast radius is six miles, his survival is impossible (the autopilot explanation is totally bogus as this still would not explain how he escapes the explosion).
But couldn’t the logic of the fact that these men were able to get in compliment the fact that Batman plausibly could? The fact that they could opens up the door that someone like Batman can; because one way is explained by someone else in the film, that equally opens up the possibility for another character.
As far as the bomb goes, I’ll direct you to the FAQ at imdb, which details it better than I could: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/faq#.2.1.116
Remember that plot holes abandon the rules set by the movie itself. I don’t see The Dark Knight Rises doing that.
The rules set by the movie is that Gotham is impregnable. It’s the entire scenario the second and third act is predicated on or else the idea of a Gotham under-siege doesn’t work. So to not show how Batman makes it inside of Gotham does contradict the established rules of the narrative or bends them in such a way that warrants explanation. Another major flaw of the film is that Nolan chose to exclude Wayne sneaking in favour of showing more scenes with the quite-frankly pointless Mathew Modine character. It bespeaks lazy script writing.
As far as the explanation for Batman ejecting. I downloaded and rewatched the DKR and paid close attention to the ending sequence. Batman is clearly shown in what appears to be the Bat’s cockpit, and the next shot is of the count down clock reading six seconds, Batman is over the ocean at this point and the bomb explodes. The idea that this is showing the ejected bat’s cockpit is undercut by the fact batman is traveling over the water and not falling down towards it. For Nolan to cut the scene this way is patently manipulative and,again, is indicative of a thoroughly shoddy screenplay.
I can’t defend Nolan’s writing; I’ve been vocal on this site before about how I’m no fan of it. But Batman not showing getting into Gotham is as much a plot hole as Joker getting into the front lines of the funeral in which he shoots Gordon:
You don’t need to see it. It’s implausible in itself, but it isn’t a plot hole. The movie is not reliant on the method of Batman getting to Gotham, just that he does so. It’s something that can exist with either no explanation from viewers, or an elaborate one. That’s what keeps it from being a plot hole. In the above examples, the films rely on their premise (time travel, mistaken identity) and are unable to be consistent in that.
The Dark Knight Rises is not reliant on HOW Batman gets back; just that he does. It doesn’t interrupt the flow of the film, separate itself from the narrative, and abandon any logic.
With MIB III, there’s really no way to fix that plot hole. It’s there, it’s a mistake, it goes against the established rule of the film. With North by Northwest, it’s a different kind of plot hole in that it produces an easy-fix solution, but omits it from the picture and runs a round-about way to a more, all-encompassing, cinematic film. It’s a plot hole in the logic set by the film’s universe rather than one set by the exposition, like MIB III.
The climax of the film and third act may be reliant on Batman’s return, but certainly not his method. If Batman put on an invisible cloak and walked right past the guards, or if he dug a giant hole into the ground to the officers in the tunnel…it honestly doesn’t matter. It might be outrageous, outlandish or anything of the like, and it may go against the tone set of the earlier part of the picture, but it doesn’t constitute being a plot hole.
However, you’re correct in that Nolan’s screenwriting is sloppy. It’s 90% exposition in almost every film. It’s too unnatural for me.
As for the bomb, I’d have to rewatch it. I saw it twice in theaters and am waiting for it to come out on DVD.