*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...
