*Batman. Batman (1989).
So, I've been thinking a lot recently... About Batman...
REBOOT:
This year will see the release of Christopher Nolan’s latest take on the mysterious crime-fighter in The Dark Knight Rises. It looks to be a grand-send off, because as we all know, neither he or Christian Bail will be returning to the franchise. I’d normally take that ‘insider knowledge’ with a pinch of salt, but both Nolan and Bale come across as quite serious-minded auteurs who don’t make public declarations lightly (though Bale has obviously taken the odd-job for cash, or how else do you explain Terminator Salvation?).
The cynical amongst you will hardly be surprised to hear a re-boot has already been announced. As in the case of the new Amazing Spiderman (whose reboot was announced just 1 week after the release of Sam Raimi’s Spiderman 3), the metaphorical corpse of this Batman franchise is still warm, and already the carrion are stripping away the meat. This is one opportunity the purse-holders over at Warner Brothers studios, or the top head-sheds from DC Comics, won’t be letting fall by the way-side.
Many have greeted this news with shock and distaste, as I did upon first hearing of the new Spiderman reboot (“you have to be fucking kidding me?”), but these films are an obvious cash-cow and Hollywood is an industry like any other- purely functioning to produce money. Surprisingly, I was forced to eat my own words recently when I admitted that the new Spiderman film showed promise, and in an ideal world maybe this new Batman franchise will pleasantly surprise. We’re still too far off any solid details to speculate, but the future is never a certainty, so it would be unfair to assume the worst.
To be honest though, I think the Batman world has scope for a 10-part big-bucks TV show, maybe something akin to the Sin City film, with all the backdrops bought straight to life from the comics in stylish CGI? But hey, I don’t call the shots (more is the pity).
BATMAN VS BATMAN:
That said, I come to the crux of this brain-spill: what are the better Batman films?
Wait- before you all go reaching for your own answers, it’s not quite that simple.
Firstly (and with good reason) I have stripped away the obvious fodder of George Clooney and Val Kilmer, as well as the campy Adam West. If any of these were you’re your first choice, stop reading here as you have neither the authority or mental aptitude to comment. That leaves us looking at a stand-off between Tim Burton’s deranged gothic dreamscape and the gritty hyper-reality of Christopher Nolan’s vision. One character, and two adaptations that are quite literally polar opposites.
And the question itself demands further scrutiny: ‘what are the better Batman films?’ Are we looking for the best ‘film’ or the most accurate rendition of the comic character? Both answers have validity.
THE COMICS:
First, let’s consider the actual source material. Without regurgitating information that is readily available to people who care, Batman has been around for ages, and with the input of so many different writers his career has been both varied and bizarre. Like all comic book characters, Batman has a 'salad-bar' style mythology, with writers dipping in and choosing which aspects they choose to work with and which to ignore- a conceit that seems to justify continual superhero movie reboots; if it's good enough for the comic writers, then why not the film directors?
I like to break down Batman's comic-book interpretations into 4 categories; the rational, the surreal, the fantastical and anything-goes.
- ‘Rational’ refers to stories that take place in a fairly grounded setting, where the majority of the super-powers or technology can be explained- a world populated with characters like the Carmine crime family, Harvey Dent, and the Joker. The best example of this world would be the one presented in Batman Year One.
- ‘Surreal’ refers to stories that take place, if not in a world like our own, then one at least recognisably close to it. Supernatural elements begin to creep in, and characters become capable of feats beyond what is humanly possible- like Poison Ivy and Solomon Grundy. The best example of this world is presented in The Long Halloween.
- ‘Fantastical’ is exactly what you expect; freeze guns, water pools that offer immortality, vampires, ghosts… Batman once went time-travelling and beat up a shark, that’s all you need to know.
- Anything Goes. I reserve this for the hideous number of DC crossovers, all of which technically should fall into the ‘fantastical’ category, except that by there merging they become even more removed from reality! I’m something of a comic puritan, and as unbiased as I’m attempting to be, I can’t hide my dislike for world-merging: I prefer my characters kept separate, it helps suspend my disbelief, and it means pricks like Superman can’t wonder into the middle of my Batman story and screw everything up!
My personal preference for Batman (bias or not, it’s my article so I’ll say what I like) is pitched between the rational and surreal, a niche that allows for some of the more colourful characters to emerge while still forcing the stories to abide by some kind of grounded logic. It allows for a world where a man can dress up as a giant bat for reasons other than visitation rights to his children. I would stress at this point, that although the Nightfall story-arc is set squarely in the Fantastical, it’s still a bloody good read- and thus would be the exception that proves the rule.
XBOX FUN TIME:
Slightly off-topic, but the two most recent Batman games (Arkham and Arkham City), while also both being fantastical, are amazing experiences for the discerning Batman fan- offering a sleek game mechanic that allows for the cunning and stealthy aspects of the character while still allowing for brutal close combat, and offers a genuinely involving (if slightly convoluted) narrative. I defy even the most jaded not to enjoy the Scarecrow section in the first game, or the genuinely shocking climax to the second. It also boasts some striking imagery, which while perhaps a little too science-fiction for some tastes still gives an entertainingly fresh perspective on some classic characters and settings. I’m no consol-bunny, but I can’t recommend them enough!
A WORLD OF IDEAS:
I suppose, back on topic, the thing that all the great stories have in common is ideas. Too many writers concentrate predominantly on the fact that Batman is a superhero and therefore has to routinely crack skulls, yet there is so much in the character and his world to explore. It’s this sort of depth that prevents Batman becoming the one-note character that he is more than often portrayed as, and despite it’s short-term entertainment value it can be very hard to empathise with a misanthrope sociopath. Some of the reoccurring themes are:
- Madness attracts madness: In a world where there is only one Batman, is it more than coincidence that in all the cities in all the world, the Joker can be found haunting the same streets? When Batman first appeared in Gotham, it was a crime-riddled city much the same as many others, and in the years following his arrival it is now home to some of the most insane and dangerous humans on the planet…
- The cost: In the course of Batman’s crusade he has lost many allies and lovers, some of which have become ruthless enemies. How many more people can he stand to loose, and how does this either stoke or subside his fury? A man with such a single driven purpose in life must surely reflect on his circumstances, and does the Batman ever question whether his quest is bringing more harm than good to the people he is trying to protect? Batman, despite his appearance, does have feelings, and cares a great deal for those who are caught up in his nightly struggles. The loss of those for whom he cares can be tragically devastating, often warping his judgement for years to come.
- Driving force:. Many people in this world have been effected by violence, but the majority of them wouldn’t go to such lengths as Batman. Was there something very wrong with the young Bruce Wayne before his parents were ever killed, some genetic failing present (or perhaps absent) in the minds of many other lunatics and serial killers? Is it entirely healthy to dress as a bat and climb rooftops, actively searching out dangerous situations? Perhaps the Batman has more in common with his enemies than he does with the city he has sworn to protect. This is a man who has decided the best way to honour his parents memory is to lurk knee deep in slime and insanity, and not by living a better life.
With that in mind, now we compare the actual films.
BATMAN & BATMAN RETURNS:
1989 and 1992.
Directed by Tim Burton.
There can be no ignoring the romantic gothic charm of Burton’s Gotham, and the post 40’s fashion is a masterful throwback to Batman’s first comic appearance. At once this is a world that we recognise, yet removed from our own enough to allow for the surreal nature of the stories to come.
And it’s not just the city, or the sleek costumes, that attracts the attention- like in most Burton films the screen is packed with memorable imagery. Who could forget death-by-quill, the balloons packed with toxic gas, or an army of bomb-strapped penguins?
Michael Keaten’s Bruce Wayne, rather than the borderline psychotic nature of his alter ego, is the ‘boy who never grew up’- all wide eyed innocence and curiosity (an ongoing theme with much of Burton’s work). It’s much easier to actually ‘like’ this character compared to many of the other on-screen versions, who can range from the irritatingly smug to the painfully introvert.
Kim Basinger makes a striking love-interest (although you have to wonder what Sean Young would’ve been like before her exit from the project due to injury), and one who can actually act. After all, she was the sex-symbol of her generation, and playfully scatty enough for Burton’s directing. Michelle Phifher took over the reigns as love-interest for the sequel, and ‘that’ cat-suit became seared into the imagination of many a teenage boy, shaping the face of S&M outfits for years to come.
Danny Devito’s Penguin was a grotesque and tragic portrayal of a character who’s inclusion could so easily have been a mistake, and whenever he’s on screen I genuinely feel uncomfortable. There can be no better way to handle this character.
The overall mood of the first film was one of darkness-tinged fun, although the second did increase the darkness and the drama substantially. Still, it’s always fun to see a Batman less concerned with collateral-damage in the regard of gunned-down or blown-up mobsters (check the kill-count that Batman is responsible for).
Who remembers the music to the Nolan Batman films? Nobody? Who remembers the soundtrack to Batman? Point made. Who cares that almost every Danny Elfman soundtrack sounds the same, this is it at it’s very best.
I could go on to mention Christopher Walken’s scene-stealing villainy (and hair), but with so many excellent performances from the likes of Jack Nicholson and Michael Gough, it would seem a little redundant. Still, come on- Christopher Walken!
It seems hardly fair to say that these films have dated, but there can be no getting away from the grainy nature of some of the effects. At best they increase the campy-fun, and at worse detract from the otherwise engrossing nature of the films.
As an adult, the inclusion of some of the gimmicks, including the Batwing, seem a little bit childish for what is otherwise a grown-up fairytale. In it’s defence I guess it’s worth remembering that despite the 15 certificate, a huge amount of the merchandise for these films was aimed at children. Off the back of this, even the Robocop films started marketing for children, and you can’t get more woefully immoral than that- short of launching cigarettes in chewing-gum flavour.
The second film sacrificed much of the first film’s fun in return for upping the grimness, and as such viewing it can feel a little laboured unless you are in the right mood- Gone is the upbeat mania of Nicholson's performance, and instead we are left with an experience which is, to put it bluntly, morbid and depressing… And what was with that ending? The whole ‘exit’ of the Catwoman, including the shocking-kiss (no spoiler intended) was just bizarre and unnecessary.
Many of the character motivations are ill-defined, and lunacy seems to be banded about as a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card when concerning the behavior of the antagonsists (especially Catwoman), while the Penguin particularly is prone to devising death-traps that border on an Adam-West level of absurdity- not necessarily in keeping with the comics. And like many Tim Burton films, on closer reflection the plots often make as much sense as a bag full of shaved monkeys.
BATMAN BEGINS & THE DARK KNIGHT:
2005 and 2008.
Directed by Christopher Nolan.
This was the first time in the long-running franchise to actually recall the origins of the character, and while the industry in general is bogged-down in poor origin stories there is always space for a well told one. Now we know how he went from haunted-yuppie to ninja crime-fighter, which is an important void to fill in a more realistic setting.
Rather than the full-on reign of lunacy in Burton's world, this feels like a real city- but one that is slowly being infected by the all-consuming madness of the Batman comics.
On the subject of setting, credible ‘mysticism’ is given to the character of Ra’s Al Ghul, one of the more outlandish of the Batman rouges gallery, as played by Liam Neeson. Both Scarecrow and Joker are also given credibility in these films, realism being Nolan’s watch-word. Extra kudos to Heath Ledger for not only his film-stealing performance, but having the audacity to step into Jack Nicholson’s iconic shoes. It would seem that the backgrounds in the Batman universe don't particularly suffer for this level of realism.
Gone is the sleek Batman design, and in return we have a suit that looks as though it could actually deflect a knife or bullet. Either this is a move you feel is necessary in adding realism to the character, or you feel that style is needlessly sacrificed and Batman now resembles Robocop with a paint job? The jury is out.
Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne is harder to empathize with, but a touching relationship (filled with respect and warm humor) between him and Michael Cain’s Alfred saves the character from his one-note simplicity.
It’s brilliant to see a bigger part for Jim Gordon (a previously neglected character, yet important in the comics), perfectly bought to life by Gary Oldman. I’ve often believed him to be the heart in many of the comics, and the same can be said of him here in the new films. Without Gordon, most of what works in these films falls apart, yet his presence is deceptively subtle. In the second of these films his character shines even brighter, and it’s his pain that sells the climax between the three former allies.
The films are not without flaws. There are a great many plot-dumps and plot-made-easy lines of exposition in the first film- especially concerning the train reaching Wayne Tower in the climax (count the number of times a supporting character adds in cutaways ‘if it reaches the tower, the pressure’s goanna blow!”).
Despite the second film being shot largely in Chicago, there are a great deal of science-fiction touches in the first film that look out of place- the train design being the worst.
Katie Holmes (she of Tom Cruse ‘beard’ fame) is appalling, and is thankfully replaced in the sequel by Maggie Gylanhall playing the same character (OK, still not great, but an improvement). The character herself isn’t really all that sympathetic, and given the time between when these films are set she’s moved on pretty quickly- the cock-teasing little minx!
The inclusion of the super-weapon in the first film always felt a little weak, especially in what was otherwise attempting to be a real-world story- but I guess maybe that’s not so out of place when you consider it was transported into the city by an army of ninjas.
The second film, for all the joy it brings me, is perhaps overly-long, although if it were any shorter it may mean leaving some big unanswered questions (of which there are still a few anyway), and the whole concept of Batman's rigid anti-death idealism seems to fall apart under scrutiny and the constraints of a real world. After all, how can a guy 'pancaking cop cars', blowing up parked vehicles, tossing people down staircases and generally 'doing-damage' ever be sure he hasn't inadvertently killed anybody? Yet the same idealist would (spoiler alert) save a dangerous criminal from falling to certain death? In my opinion, should that criminal ever escape and do more harm (a likelihood, seeing as the walls of Arkham insane asylum appear to be made of cheese), then the blood of the innocent is on Batman's hands...
IN CLOSING:
Fairytale vs. Grit. Adventure vs. thriller. Broad-stokes vs. subtlety. Batman vs. Batman.
Interestingly (even surprisingly) enough, it is Nolan’s films that follows closer to the back-story and characters from the comic, although it’s Burton’s vision that more closely brings it to the eyes. I’d always wrongly assumed it was the first films that were the more accurate, which is untrue, but it must be said that it was Burton’s films that rejuvenated and redefined the character in the comics- which lovingly dipped into both the films’ style and content. Indeed, it is Burton who ‘painted it black’. So, without Burton’s input, without him to take the character into more complicated territory, we wouldn’t have much of the material that inspired Christopher Nolan’s retelling.
So, as both a series of films, and in it’s actual accuracy to the content of the comics (an accuracy rarely seen in any sort of adaption), Christopher Nolan’s Batman films are (at least in my opinion, which is almost the same thing as a fact) superior to Tim Burton’s- but it’s something of a hollow victory. Burton’s films, even today, still entertain and conjure an awe-inspiring gothic wonder sadly missing in Nolan’s clinical storytelling, more of a mood-piece than a coherent retelling of the Batman story.
The above points have led me to the following shock conclusion:
The perfect Batman film has yet to be made. What the reboot needs is a creative mind capable of bringing Burton's stylistic flair along with Nolan's narrative scope, delivering a world that is larger than it's antagonist's personalities and offering a definitive version of the much-loved character.
Fingers crossed for the reboot, because (in the right hands) it has a real opportunity to deliver the goods...
UPDATE (23/05/12):
Oh for fuck's sake. Ryan Reynolds has just been announced as the new Batman. Not what I'd call a step in the right direction...
UPDATE (01/09/13):
Now it's Ben Affleck...
