Looking Back: Batman

This is the first post in what will be an ongoing series in which I take an in-depth look at classic movies; a term I'm going to use pretty loosely. Obviously, spoilers abound. For a complete list of the movies, and their reviews, click here. 

Batman (1989): Starring Jack Nicholson, Michael Keaton, and Kim Basinger. Directed by Tim Burton. Screenplay by Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren. Produced by Peter Gruber and Jon Peters. Cinematography by Roger Pratt. Won 1 Oscar: Best Art Direction/Set Direction.

Tim Burton's Batman gets a lot of the credit (and blame) for the boom in comic book character popularity. Indeed, comic books themselves were something of a misunderstood phenomena up until the late 1980's, as they were dismissed by the general public as kids stuff. Batman as a character was nearing the end of his campy look and beginning to get back to his darker roots with stories like Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and A Death in the Family. It wasn't until the major success of Burton's film that comic books became a staple in American pop culture. Many people credit the graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns as the major contributor to Batman's return to being the "Dark Knight" rather than the "Caped Crusader". I disagree, and cite Burton's film as the major influence instead, simply because it had a much wider audience at the time of its release.

While Burton's film is dark in tone and narrative, it also pays homage to the first Batman comics ever. Many, if not all, of the set pieces and designs of Burton's two Batman films are very much straight out of the 1940's, with Burton's dystopian twist added to make the city all the more mysterious. The film's fictional newspaper, the Gotham Globe, bustles with the feel of a pre-World War II office. Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) even acts like one of those old reporters: a fast but smooth talker trying to get the "scoop", so to speak. However, the character's costumes are straight out of the 1980's. The fusion of these two styles are what I find most fascinating about Burton's two Batman films, as he would continue this style a few years later with Batman Returns, albeit heightened by a significant degree.

Watching the movie for the first time in many years, I can't help but feel as if it can be a bit confusing to someone who doesn't know much about Batman. I feel that the movie would have worked better as a sequel, because it begins with Bruce Wayne already as Batman, although early in his career. We don't really get the explanation for Wayne's reasoning to become Batman until very near the end of the film. Because of this, it makes it difficult to understand why he's doing what he's doing. Instead of this Batman being viewed by the audience as a watchful protector, he comes off as a brooding mystery. While that can really only work for Batman, it just doesn't feel right for a character with such a fascinating beginning. This does distinguish Burton's two Batman movies from the current wave of comic book movies, though; most of which follow the very formulaic trilogy idea of movie 1: origin, movie 2: heightened conflict, and movie 3: disaster/redemption. This idea dates back all the way to The Godfather trilogy, when it's viewed solely as Michael Corleone's story. With this being the first cinematic Batman movie, there really needed to be focus on the origin at some point. If the movie didn't want to waste time dealing with the character's beginnings, it could have worked it into the title sequence. Using graphic novel-like stills, similar to what Spider-Man 2 and 3 did, to tell the early days of Bruce Wayne and the murder of his parents could have been a gripping way to open the movie. It would have been a great compliment to the long time fans of the comic books, and a solid introduction for new fans.

It's important to note that at the time Batman was made, there weren't many guarantees of two to three movie deals. Burton and Keaton left the series after two movies, and some say neither was exactly keen on doing more than one movie. It's safe to say that Burton and company simply didn't want to waste time telling an origin story, and instead just wanted to get right down to business with the character. This would have worked if the movie left more time for the flashbacks it does give us about Wayne becoming Batman, and honestly if it had a more compelling actor in the title role. Like many others, I don't agree with the choice of having Joker being the person who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents. It makes Batman vengeful, which is a trait in him never seen in any iteration before or since. While I don't mind movies taking liberty with their source material, changing Batman's motivation for becoming Batman in the first place just doesn't work.

The highlight in the film is Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Batman's arch rival, the Joker. Just as Burton is to thank partially for the rise in popularity of these characters, Nicholson takes the credit for villains taking center stage in many comic book movies. During the time of the movie's release, Nicholson demanded top billing for Batman, while also getting the most lucrative contract out of all the actors. His attachment to the project, and in such a high profile role as Joker, is what I think really propelled Batman to the huge success it had at the box office, and it's place in pop culture. Because of Nicholson and the role, it seems like many comic book movies nowadays are more interested in colorful villains rather than a compelling hero. Even with Batman Forever, the Batman franchise itself quickly became The Two-Face/Riddler movie, with a special guest appearance by Batman and Robin.

This is not a means to downplay the work Nicholson did in Batman, though, which still holds up after more than two decades. Not only was he able to capture the ridiculous, campy side of the Joker, he also touched on the madness and psychopathic killer within the character. A side that, in my opinion, wouldn't be fully realized until Heath Ledger portrayed Joker in The Dark Knight. There truly is no other movie villain quite like the Joker, and Nicholson's performance feels fresh and new every viewing. It's a difficult task to choose whether Nicholson or Ledger's Joker is better, because they both did things completely different. In my book it's Ledger, but Ledger's performance wouldn't be possible without Nicholson's.

Lando Calris...I mean, Billy Dee Williams, is really underused as Harvey Dent. When he agreed to the movie, it was his understanding that, if there were going to be more movies, he would be there for Dent's transformation to Two-Face. When Tommy Lee Jones was cast as the character in Batman Forever, Williams was crushed, and the filmmakers were forced to buy him out of his contract. I think he would have made a great Two-Face, one much more in tone with the comic book character than Jones' campy portrayal. He's only really used as a nod to the comics in Batman, and it would have been nice to see some more development for his character.

The problem with how fun it is to watch Nicholson presents the movie's major issue: I found myself rooting for the Joker more than I did for Batman. The simple reason is that Jack Nicholson outperforms Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman in each and every scene. It's hard to root for a character when there's not that much there that someone can relate with. Obviously, it's quite the stretch to relate to a billionaire dressing up in a batsuit and fighting crime, but that's why the origin story to Batman is so vital to his character.

Many were unhappy with the choice of Keaton for the title role, and I don't disagree. Throughout the movie he looks lost; not quite sure what his mannerism is supposed to be, only that he needs to look brooding, or something to that effect. Granted, the batsuit made it impossible for him to see anything around him, and he had to come up with the idea of turning his entire body in order to see, so the limitations of the suit were no doubt a burden I don't think Keaton expected. However, even when he's portraying Bruce Wayne there's hardly any emotion from him at all, save the scene in Vicki Vale's (Kim Basinger) apartment, where he suddenly goes berserk holding a fireplace rod threatening the Joker. It's way out of character and is unsettling because there's this sudden burst of emotion when we haven't seen any, and there's no reasoning behind what he's doing.

Basinger's Vicki Vale isn't what I would call the most memorable female character in movie history. Vale does a fine enough job, but the character doesn't really have much of a purpose in the movie other than a means to motivate Batman to chase after Joker. However, this becomes a moot point when Batman realizes Joker killed his parents. Michael Gough does a great job as Bruce's trustworthy butler Alfred, but is sort of pushed aside, only showing up on occasion to kind of remind everyone he's there. In fact, almost all of the characters besides Batman and Joker are pushed to the side. This really is a movie more about Batman vs. Joker, but it would have been good for the movie to build up the secondary characters more.

Two of the classic concepts to come from Batman, besides Nicholson's Joker, were the score and the Batmobile. All credit to James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer for their terrific score in Nolan's trilogy, but I still consider Danny Elfman's the definitive Batman score. The score would go on to be used in the fantastic animated series of the 90's, and the three movie sequels. It's really hard to not think of the score when talking about the character. The Batmobile is arguably the most iconic car in movies as well. Burton and crew wanted to make sure this iteration of Batman was a complete opposite of the campy 1960's TV series, and the Batmobile was maybe the most drastic change.

To the movie's credit, much of it has aged pretty well. I think this is a testament to the fusion of the 40's and 80's styles. It's as if the movie is set in its own time frame, away from the real world. Even though some of the movie still feels very 80's (the Prince soundtrack for instance), it's not so bad that you notice it. The Blu-Ray disc, which I thought would hurt the darker cinematography of the movie, actually helps in bringing it out more. It enhances shots that were otherwise difficult to distinguish, rather than diminish them. I think the movie goes a bit too dark with killing Joker. Although bringing Nicholson back for a sequel would have been highly unlikely, it just seems wrong to kill the best comic book villain ever. Christopher Nolan understood this, even though Ledger's untimely death halted any chance of seeing Joker in the sequel to The Dark Knight. It would have at least been nice to know Joker was around somewhere during Batman Returns.

Despite my issues with it, Batman is still a pretty fun movie overall. It falls short in some areas, but it no doubt has an important place in the history of pop culture. If this movie would have failed, then I really don't think comic book movies would be as popular today as they are. Obviously the four Superman movies with Christopher Reeve were all released before Batman, but Superman IV: The Quest for Peace left such a terrible final note on the series that it was up to Batman to save the genre. It did, and still holds up more than twenty years after it first hit theaters.