Farewell and Adieu to You Spanish Ladies (JAWS)

Jaws is a wonderful movie that I have analyzed. I will talk about editing, music, and what made Jaws a scary movie. If you haven’t seen Jaws, I’m sure you’re well aware of the plot. It’s one of the scariest movies I have ever seen... and that’s saying something, for horror is my favorite genre. Everything about this film is wonderful. The cinematography is just gorgeous and it makes you want to go film out in the middle of the ocean, although the plot and the music make you want to stay at home and never go near the ocean.

The tension in Jaws was increased by the editing, for the way it cross cuts and leaves long shots before sharp noises created suspense.

Parts of the film were cut fast, using an abrupt or discontinuous style. Those parts were basically whenever someone was in the water with the shark. This worked very well for the film, for it creates a sense of urgency for the viewer. It makes them think it’s all happening very fast. 

The cinematography in Jaws was absolutely gorgeous. The scene where Chief Brody is sitting on the beach and everyone starts crying shark, when the camera zooms in on Chief Brody... Ooh. It was a beautiful shot and with his reaction it was all just great. Along with the shot of Quint holding his gun on the front of the boat... all of it was just wonderful. 

The music is what made the film. You didn’t even see the shark all that much, it was mainly the music that made the viewers afraid... letting us know that the shark was coming. If this film came out today, I feel like it would do very well. Of course things would have to be a little faster as far as pacing goes, but other than that it would probably be a hit in the box office, as long as they wouldn’t use crappy CGI like Sharknado, Jaws would do great.

Spielberg made it very scary with the help of editing (as I mentioned before) and the music (I also mentioned that before). The story was also very scary. After Quint dies, nothing was off limits! It didn’t seem like Chief Brody had a chance. The scene with the cage and Hooper... wow. I was terrified. Overall, I’ve loved this film since I was four years old, and it will always be a favorite of mine.

Rocky

Diegetic Sound- The dialogue, the punching, etc.

Non-Diegetic Sound- The popular music that plays when Rocky is running.

What is the THEME of this film?- Going the distance, making a name for yourself, etc.

Why was this film so well received in 1975-76?- Boxing was big back then. The soundtrack was also PERFECT for the film. So 70’s. The story was also really good. It showed you can be a winner without actually winning. 

Give at LEAST three examples of "Save the Cat" from this film. How do they relate to the Anti-Hero concept?- Some save the cat moments were when Rocky plays with the puppies in the store, when he goes up to that foul mouthed girl, and when he takes Adrian out on the date (ice skating specifically) it seemed like a save the cat moment to me. 

I actually don't know how I felt about Rocky. I liked it, but I didn't like Slyvester Stallone. His acting was just... ugh. But it was successful, and I could see why. I guess that's all that matters. I just really really didn't like the scene where Adrian and Rocky go back to Rocky's after the date, and he gives off some pretty negative vibes... like I sincerely thought he was going to rape her. But she suddenly changed her mind about him and started making out with him? That didn't seem realistic at all. Totally written by a man in the 70's who had no concept whatsoever about what rape looks like. 

Other than that. Good movie. I'd give it a 7.5/10. 

The Godfather

The use of color-

Red was a color that stood out to me throughout most of the film. The red rose Marlon Brando wears, the blood, the wine, I can name many scenes where red was worn. I also noticed that the woman in Italy that Michael is attracted to is wearing purple in the scene she is introduced in. Purple often stands for enchantment. Perhaps she was enchanting. I noticed when the were in Nevada that most of the powerful men were wearing yellow, which surprised me. Yellow is a color that often represents hope, happiness, etc. Perhaps it was used to show how they didn’t take the Corleone family very seriously.

How were the shots framed?-

Most of the scenes were shot following the rule of thirds, and they were usually medium to close up shots, depending on the scene. In one of the last scenes, where Michael is about to kill his sister’s husband, it uses a close up on Al Pacino and the other guy, probably to show that this is a very emotional conversation, considering the fact that the other guy is crying. The very last scene of the movie however, is neither a medium shot or a close up, but a wide shot of Kay looking at her husband. This is probably to show how far away she really is from him (emotionally). Comparing the last scene with these two characters to the first scene with these two characters is interesting, because usually they are in the same frame together. Actually, even the scene where they are talking about Christmas (what they got, what they want) they are in the same frame. I think it was after Vito Corleone got shot that they were no longer in the same frame at the same time. Most of the time, Michael was on his own. I would definitely like to talk about the cinematography in the horse head scene, how it started with a close up and ended with a wide shot. Nowadays that’s pretty normal and expected, but back then I think that just really showed how loud his scream was. I could go on about the cinematography of this film forever, but for now, this is all I will talk about.
The use of shadow-

My film teacher talked about how there was a scene with Marlon Brando and how he was in the shadows, his eyes weren’t able to be seen. I looked and looked for that scene, but honestly, they used shadow on him in almost every scene. Except for the ones where he is no longer head of the family. They didn’t start using shadow with Michael until after he got back from Italy. I think the shadow was used to show how little we actually knew about these people and how they were very good at covering their tracks, hell, they didn’t even let their family (wives, kids) know about what was going on.
Did the camera move?-

The camera moved, but not in a “shaky Blair Witch” way, more in a “Stanley Kubrick The Shining” way. Very slow, subtle movements... mostly they would be panning across the room or table. This only happened when there was more than two important people in the room, and by important I mean powerful. For example, when the five heads of the families got together, the camera panned across the table, introducing all of them. Or whenever a powerful person moved, the camera would follow. In other scenes, the camera mostly did stationary shots.
I actually don’t know when the extreme close up was used, but I know when close ups were used, and they were usually used right before someone died.

Why was this film important? What made it successful?-

I think it talked a lot about of things that no one really had gone over successfully. Family, crime, etc. It was a successful film because of the crew. All of it tied in beautifully together. The cinematography was full of things that people in 1972 had probably not seen a lot. The only other film I can think of that had this kind of lighting, use of color, and cinematography is probably A Clockwork Orange, and that film was very controversial. I don’t think The Godfather is controversial at all. I think that is what made it so successful.

Nothing is more important than family. I think that is the theme of the film. 

The Godfather actually reminded me of my own family. My grandfather, Ronald, died when my father was only 13. When my father got older, his uncles told him all of the wild things my grandfather did before he died. A lot had to do with drugs, gambling, and businesses.

I started to think when I was watching this film "If my grandfather hadn't died, would he have taught my father how to do what he did? What kind of man would my father be?" I don't know. I just thought it was interesting. I guess I will never know.

Amadeus

Now, this film won 8 academy awards... and I know why. It was an amazing film.

The wardrobe in the film was fantastic. It really looked as though we were in the latter half of the 18th century. All of Mozart’s outfits were very playful, really representing him as a person and how he viewed music. I got the feeling throughout the film that all of the music and all of his work was just one big game... until the end of course. But Mozart wore very playful colors, like purple, pink, gold, orange... most of them with some sort of intricate pattern.  Mozart was sick, he looked SICK. It was obvious he was going to die. They did a wonderful job with his makeup. 

All of Salieri’s outfits were very serious looking (they were all brown, which I consider a very dull color) and that represented him and how others viewed his music compared to Mozart’s. Might I add that the makeup for Salieri when he is old was just... ah! There aren’t enough words to describe it. It was wonderful. 

Constanze (Wolfgang’s wife) was usually wearing blue, white, and gold. In one scene I believe she wore pink. I think the color of her wardrobe really depended on the scene, because she didn’t have a super definite color. I’m actually not 100% sure as to what message the director and costume designer were trying to send with Constanze. I think in the beginning it was innocence... and when they had a lot of money perhaps they were trying to show how much Wolfgang liked to shower her with gifts. Because between Wolfgang and Constanze, during the period when they actually had money, they looked so marvelous. Like royalty almost. But we knew they weren’t royalty because they weren’t wearing red. Whoever was in power was usually, almost always, wearing red.

Now, with Wolfgang’s father, he wore that black outfit with the mask... and later, Salieri wore that outfit to scare Mozart. But back to the wardrobe, I think the mask really showed what kind of person Wolfgang’s father, Leopold, was. He was very passionate and willing to do anything for his son. Until his son moved to Vienna. I think that is why there is a happy face and and a sad, almost disappointed look on the other side. 

I still cannot believe they only had about 4 sets that needed to be built (Salieri’s hospital room, Mozart’s apartment, a staircase, and the vaudeville theater). The design of them was so beautiful. After doing some research though, most of the film was filmed in Czech Republic. Except for Salieri’s flashback in Italy (which was filmed in Italy), a scene filmed in France, and a few scenes filmed in Austria (most in Vienna). What a wonderful time it must have been to film all of these wonderful scenes and see all of the beautiful sights in Europe.  I think the production design added to the story and not take away. With the colors, the furniture, all of it was just wonderful. With Mozart’s apartment, it was obvious when they had money and when they didn’t. The vaudeville theater was magnificent. With the candles, the balconies, the stage, it was all just wonderful. It really helped you believe you were in the late 18th century. Even if some things were off as far as time goes, no one cares because it was so beautiful. Which means that they did an excellent job with production design.

By watching this film, we learned some things about 1984. The Cold War is what was going on around that time. Perhaps... Salieri was trying to create his own Arms Race with Mozart... but the fact that he couldn’t keep up meant he had to kill Mozart. I think this might also say something about how much music and film were important in 1984. I mean, 80’s music. C’mon. Safety Dance, Take on Me, Whip It, Head over Heels, Mad World. While some of those songs came out after this film, it still shows how much music meant to people during the 80’s.

The theme of the film is having the gift of music given to you by god. Salieri was not given that gift. So he instead decides to have punish god by killing Mozart. I think that is the theme.

 The explicit meaning of this film is- a musician want to become a great musician, but is living in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s shadow. So the musician does everything he can to get back at god for making him have this need to make music but no talent to do it. Now the musician wants to kill God’s star... Mozart.

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is my favorite film I have analyzed so far.

The film was a big hit in 1967 for many reasons. The soundtrack is amazing (it really reflects what the style of music was back in 1967), it stars Paul Newman and Robert Redford (so the casting director did a good job!), and it was overall just a beautiful film (story structure, cinematography, soundtrack, everything!)

The film's implicit meaning is about running away from your problems and how your problems will always follow you, no matter how much you run.

The film used montage successfully, for you could tell the character's emotions in the pictures and you could see Butch's and Sundance's adventures through photographs. They used great music during the montages to get us to feel what the characters would have felt. Overall, I'd say the montages I saw in Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid were the best I have ever seen.

Now, why did this film win an oscar? It won two, actually. One for the music and one for the writing. I would say that the music was great at matching the emotions and the story correctly. Other movies have copied the famous scene where it plays Rain Drops Keep Falling On My Head, because that scene is just absolutely perfect.
Here's the soundtrack if you haven't heard it- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyTBQ9KfCwg
Now the writing, there was just so much beauty in it all. The rhythm and the syntax of the dialogue, the irony of "I can't swim." some badass (and I must add good looking) robber who is quick with a gun can't swim. Now that is funny, that is just simply good writing right there. I honestly didn't know what was going to happen until the last 5 minutes of the film (which is what every film should be like, nothing should be completely predictable). I sat and waited to see what was going to happen and it paid off once the finale came around.

An antihero is basically a protagonist who isn't doing the greatest things... a great example is Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid! At first, I was thinking "God, I'm not really rooting for them." especially the scene where it leads you to believe that The Kid is going to rape that one woman (I don't really remember her name...) 

But anyway, it wasn't until halfway through the film that I started to actually root for these guys... and I guess that is because of how funny, good looking, and somewhat relatable they became. I wanted them to escape so badly. 

The film speaks to me mostly because of the implicit meaning. That meaning right there made me love this film, because it is such a relatable topic. 

This film is a crime film. For the main characters are anti-heroes and it shows us what a life of crime entails. 

If this film were to be released today, I'm sure it would be a success.

I really enjoyed this film 10/10 would recommend. 

Singin' in The Rain Analysis

Opening Image- The opening image of Singin’ in the Rain is of Don Lockwood as a mostly happy Hollywood silent film star and his usual co-star, Lina Lamont. “Dignity, Always Dignity.”

Inciting Incident / Catalyst- The catalyst is when the film The Jazz Singer is released to theaters. It is the first film to have sound. A talking picture.  

Mid Point- The midpoint is when Don gets the idea to fix the joke of a film, The Dueling Cavalier. He gets the idea to turn it into a musical, The Dancing Cavalier. The one problem is Miss Lamont’s voice... so they decide to use Kathy’s (Kathy is Don’s love interest) voice to dub over Lina’s. Everything seems to be going quite well. 

All is Lost- All is lost when Lina Lamont finds out that they used Kathy’s voice. She becomes very angry (which I would be too, so I don’t blame her). Lamont is angry about Kathy getting screen credit, for she feels that it will ruin her career if word gets out that it isn’t her voice. So Lina consults a lawyer and threatens to sue Monumental Pictures if they give Kathy credit. Everything that could have gone wrong has. 

Finale- At the premier of the film, Lina Lamont is asked to sing for the audience live. So she makes Kathy sing behind the curtain for her. Don, Cosmo, and R.F. lift up the curtain, revealing Kathy. Cosmo runs to the microphone and starts singing in the place of Kathy, showing the audience that Miss Lamont wasn’t singing at all. Lina leaves the stage and Don announces that Kathy is the real star of the film. What a great finale, right?

The film is a musical, you can tell it is a musical because of all of the singing and dancing. It is over the top with wardrobe, acting, set design, etc. It could also be under the comedy category, for it has plenty of irony (with Lina Lamont being a famous actress and having a silly voice). It also has great timing with the jokes. I would say it is more slapstick with the timing... for example, when Cosmo is singing Make ‘Em Laugh he walks above a board and two men pick it up, lifting Cosmo up. I would say this is good timing because it is around the time the song could get boring. 

The film was very successful. It had a budget of $2.5 million and it made $7.7 million in the box office. It was the tenth highest grossing movie of the year in the US and Canada. Singin’ in the Rain was nominated for and it also won plenty of awards with American Film Institute. With 100 Years... 100 movies it was #10. With 100 Years... 100 Laughs it was #16. With 100 Years... 100 Passions it was #16 again. Lina Lamont was nominated as best villain. Singin’ in the Rain was #3 in 100 Years... 100 songs, Make ‘em Laugh being #49 and Good Morning being #72. "What do they think I am, dumb or something? Why, I make more money than Calvin Coolidge! Put together!" was nominated in the 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes category... and it was #1 in AFI’s Greatest Movie Musicals. 

Explicit Meaning- Some of Hollywood’s biggest silent film stars must adapt to talking pictures. 

Implicit Meaning- How change can be difficult on everyone, but it is a way of life and we must embrace it, not fear it. Rolling with the punches is something you must do in the film world.

The film teaches you more about Hollywood in 1927 than anything else, how there was no color in film, how The Jazz Singer changed Hollywood and film making forever... and one thing that really stood out to me (of course being a feminist I had to notice this) is that women weren’t seen as anything more than sex objects or love interests in film back then. It shows how women were seen back then as well. 

If you look more at the film, you can get an idea of what was going on in 1952. The Cold War was just nowhere near over, and the U.S. was testing atomic bombs. While Singin’ in the Rain didn’t come out and say “Hey there is some live atomic bomb test being shown on Television” the film definitely reflects change. And the atomic bomb test being shown on television was a huge change, for most of our nation had never seen anything like it. I would imagine that some thought “It is about time we got that atomic bomb made for our safety, and we need to end this Cold War.” 

Most probably felt comfort and fear. In Singin’ in the Rain, the fact that sound is added to films that were once silent causes fear for most studios and production companies. They realize that this is how things are, and we can’t change it. Protesting didn’t really become a thing until the 1960’s with Vietnam and feminism. Most were flourishing financially and we were conforming to social norms in 1952, and we were most likely conforming in fear that we would be accused of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Singin’ in the Rain, if you think about it, is really about conforming and adapting, even if you fear the unknown or fear change. 

Overall, I actually like Singin’ in the Rain. It is my favorite musical (that doesn’t really say much because I only really like 3 musicals total). Fun fact for y’all- my grandfather, Ron, was a smart man who knew how to launder money. He worked with the infamous George Jung (watch Blow and you’ll learn about his career) and the infamous Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal (watch Casino to learn more about his career). My grandfather taught Jung how to launder money and in return was given a Harley Davidson dealership for very little money. Ron had a skull and crossbones tattoo on his right shoulder, he gave it to himself when he was about 13. Anyway, he sounds like a super tough guy, right? Well, his favorite movie of all time was Singin’ in the Rain. How funny is that? I think that says a lot about how successful the film was.  

Amazing Grace Story Structure Analysis

The second film I'm analyzing is Amazing Grace.

Opening Image- This story takes place in England, 1797 and we have William Wilberforce as our main character. He is riding in a carriage, when he comes across two men whipping a horse in the rain. They pull over, and he speaks to the two men. Immediately we can tell that William is rich and is also sick. 

Theme- Change, the abolition of slavery. "Change the world."

Catalyst- William is shown the chains used on the slaves at a dinner party type thing. The people at the dinner table are basically telling him he can do the work of god and be in politics at the same time. This just means that there are higher stakes, but now that this is put into Wilberforce's mind, life will never be the same. 

Debate- He is deciding on what he should do... I mean this is the debate period. 

Break into 2- He decides to do both, and we stop with the flashbacks and go into the present. 

B Story- William's romance with Barbara Spooner. 

The Promise of the Premise- Naive attempts at changing the world... basically changing it one step at a time. 

Midpoint- One of the guys who weren't going to sign the petition end up signing the petition, I'm sorry I don't remember his name... again I didn't really enjoy the film so I wasn't super interested in the characters... 

Bad Guys Close In- Strained Relationships/Illness

All Is Lost- William gets into a fight with his friend, Pitt, the prime minister. Making their relationship strained, and I believe that leaves William feeling very alone in this fight. 

Dark Night of the Soul- William basically has a pity party with the red head (Spooner). 

Break Into 3- William goes back to London and marries Barbara. 

Finale- Abolition of slave trade, Pitt dies.

Final Image- Dumbledore talking. (Not really Dumbledore from The Harry Potter series, but it's the same actor)

Deus Ex Machina- Too late to call adjournment, he sent everyone to the races.

SET UPS- "I talk about botany when people bring up politics", singing Amazing Grace.

PAY OFFS- "I don't care for botany.", wedding (they sing Amazing Grace)

Yes, the dialogue was fine in the film. It moved the story along and it revealed character. It flowed... fine... and it didn't do a simple Question/Answer type thing.

To be honest, I didn't like it... for many different reasons. First of all, I wasn't a fan of all of the actors. Second of all, it was just too predictable... the way the actors would speak was just frustrating... overall I would give it 0 stars for not being original enough. I mean, it served it's purpose, but that doesn't mean that I think it should go down in history as a great film. However, it followed the story structure beats like it was supposed to, so it wasn't a terrible movie... it just wasn't my style. There was this part... and as soon as they were sitting at the dinner table and the red head was slouching a little while she was eating I could see it coming... for some reason in movies (and it bugs me so much when this happens) while the characters are eating, there will be one character slouching ever so slightly. Then, they will sit up and clear their throat, and say "So.... ahem... blah blah blah" and try to strike up a conversation. It makes me very angry when this happens. I just wasn't a fan of the dialogue in most scenes, but talking about dialogue is for the next analysis.

Batman Begins Story Structure

Being a film snob requires me to analyze films as much as possible. The first film I analyzed for this blog was Batman Begins (I had never seen it before). While I would love to analyze the cinematography and editing (I'm much better at doing that), I've analyzed the story structure.

The opening image of Batman Begins is of a young Bruce Wayne, running around with his friend Rachel. He stole an arrowhead from her, saying "Finders Keepers", which is a set up for another part of the film. While running around and having fun like normal kids do, Bruce falls down a dry well and is attacked by a swarm of bats. This causes his intense fear of bats. His father comes down the well and saves him and Bruce gives Rachel the arrowhead back, which is a Save the Cat moment. There is another opening image, (well, flashback), of Bruce Wayne in jail. The scenes of him being in jail show that he isn't liked and that he knows how to fight. Especially in one of the first scenes of him being in jail, he starts beating up a ton of guys in the mud... and while I was watching it all I could imagine was the writer thinking "Yeah, let's have him beat the shit out of some guy... yeah... in the mud. That would totally be bad ass." but that's mainly because I hate pointless fighting in films... but it wasn't completely pointless, because it showed that he knew how to fight and it led us to meet Ducard, the man who would train Batman. But anyway, so Bruce steals a piece of fruit and gives it to another person who needs it more. Why did the writer do this? It's another Save the Cat moment. It causes us to think "Aw. He did something shitty, but now he is making up for it by being nice to someone." I think Save the Cat moments are there to remind us that the characters are human.

The theme of the film is set up once Ducard approaches Bruce, telling him he needs to find himself... that he could become a legend. I personally think for a super hero film, that is a pretty good theme. Wayne is asked to become a member of The League of Shadows, led by Ra's Al Ghul.

Next we get to the Catalyst of the film, which is in a flashback. It is the death of Bruce Wayne's parents. They are shot by Joe Chill. Wayne is devastated, and this changes his life forever.

Debate- Fast forward 14 years later, there is a trial for Joe Chill to see if he is going to be released (because he testified against mafia boss Falcone). The trial goes well for Joe Chill, and he is set free. Bruce Wayne however, well, he is not too happy. He brings a gun to the trial... and this is where the debate starts... "Could I kill the man who killed my parents" and all that jazz. He pulls out the gun to shoot him, but before he can do it, one of Falcone's assassins kill Chill. Bruce tells Rachel what he was planning on doing, and Rachel brings him to Falcone's restaurant that he's always at? I don't know. But she brings him to a shady part of town. Bruce goes to see Falcone that night, and Falcone is just being a jerk about the whole situation (I mean, he is a villain, so I'm not sure what I was expecting). They throw Bruce Wayne out... I think this is when Bruce decides he wants to fight crime, not kill it, but fight it. There is a homeless man by a fire. Bruce takes off his coat and gives it to the man, this is another set up. Back to The League of Shadows, Bruce burns down their temple because they plan to destroy Gotham. They ask Bruce to kill a criminal, and Bruce refuses. This really shows Bruce's character. I think this scene really reflects how his parent's death changed his perspective on death in general (I mean, how could it not impact that??) Bruce saves Ducard from the fire, showing that he knows that killing is wrong. I think this is also part of the debate period.

We break into 2, Act 2 that is... and we learn the B story... with Falcone and drugs and all of that fun stuff.

Then we get into Fun and Games. Bruce comes back to Gotham after being gone for 7 years and everyone is shocked. When he gets back, he gets all of the gadgets and starts creating Batman. The car, the weapons, the gadgets, the costume, all of it... it's all fun and games.

NOW, to the mid-point. Falcone is in custody, and all should be well in Gotham. I mean, Batman went out and beat the hell out of Falcone and his men. He made a name for  himself. This is also where the pay-off comes in. That homeless man from before with the whole coat thing is right there watching as Batman beats the hell out of Falcone. Batman looks up at him, and says "Nice coat." Hehe, how cool is that. Batman also has this big thing with Rachel and Crane that involves a police chase and all that jazz.

Another pay off is Bruce's 30th birthday, Rachel shows up that morning and gives him a present. It's the arrowhead, with a note that says "Finders Keepers". She also says "It's what you do that defines you." THIS IS ANOTHER SET UP.
Anyway, Falcone is threatening to reveal Dr. Crane's hallucinogenic he has been using, and Crane uses it on Falcone... causing him to be mentally unfit for the trial, and he is transferred to Arkham Asylum.

Now we get to the Bad Guys Close In/All is Lost beats, which is at Bruce Wayne's party. Ducard shows up with the rest of the League of Shadows. Revealing himself to be the real Ra's Al Ghul. After Bruce kicks out all of his party guests, Ducard burns down the house and leaves Bruce Wayne to die. Ducard also mentions his evil plan to make the hallucinogenic drug airborne using a device they stole from Wayne Enterprises.

Dark Night of the Soul is the next beat, where Bruce Wayne basically has a pity party... and rightfully so. I mean, his house is burning down. Alfred, the butler type person comes in and saves him, taking him to the Batcave.

Now we break into three, act three that is.

Batman leaves the Batcave, and runs around Gotham trying to save people. He runs into Rachel and reveals his identity to her, a pay off... he says "It's what you do that defines you."
He runs off, trying to stop Ra's Al Ghul from getting the vaporizer thingy to the city's main water supply. Batman succeeds, especially after Gordon uses the Batmobile to blow up a section of the monorail's track.  That all is the Finale.

Now we get to the Final Image, Batman being a hero... but losing Rachel because she can't be with Batman. Bruce has the controlling shares of Wayne Enterprises, so he hires Fox and fires Earle. Gordon tells Batman about The Joker... marketing for the next film.
So yeah. I would say overall I enjoyed the film. Christopher Nolan did a great job as far as directing goes.