Bat Movies Part 1: Batman & Batman Returns
Let's stop here, this is Bat Movies: a five part article series exploring the films and cultural impact of Bruce Wayne and his night moves as justice-dispensing vigilante. In this first installment: Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns.
Say it's 1987. The Superman franchise has properly imploded. It will be another decade before we get a decent Marvel movie. Yet, there's no keeping down the superhero! Once The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke redefined Batman for a new age, Warner Bros opted to pursue a film adaptation with a similarity gloomy tack in mind. Tim Burton was hired to direct, Michael Keaton cast, Gotham built as a gnarled landscape of rising steam, crime, and nightmares.
Of all the Batman movies, this is the one most at war with itself: The architecture clashes and Gotham's citizens are killing each other, going all the way down to a millionaire loner who can't reconcile what it means to have seen his parents gunned down before him. Burton himself is ambivalent, once quoted dismissing Batman as more of a cultural phenomenon than a functional movie. Burton is always more interested in villains than heroes and, in this case, you can't blame him: Batman has far and away the best villains in comics lore. As The Joker, Jack Nicholson's performance remains deliriously unhinged. In Nicholson, and in Heath Ledger's portrayal, one can witness the necessary commitment to the character's paranoia and mania.
Fans were understandably miffed by two things: that Jack Napier/Joker, not Joe Chill, is revealed as killer of the Wayne couple, and that late in the movie Alfred has the audacity to invite Vicki Vale (love interest played by Kim Basinger) into the Batcave. I find these forgivable: Burton and Keaton weren't contracted to do a sequel and so focused on putting all they had into one movie. Flesh out Napier as the parents' killer and allow Vale into the Batcave to boost the romantic tension and all of a sudden you have a very full-bodied drama. It's refreshing to watch a superhero movie that actually feels like a complete movie and not a starter kit to an insta-franchise.
Here's an aside: I was very young when the movie came out so was only vaguely aware Something Big was happening. However, the NES video game, which came out a few months after the movie, was introduced into my homestead. The Batman game is known for both its brutal difficulty and fidelity to Burton's aesthetic. Cut scenes are lifted from the movie, along with the film's dark palette. The years I spent trying to conquer it was enough to maintain my interest in the character even when there were movies were coming out I wasn't allowed to go watch. Batman, the video game, prompted me to start reading Batman, the comic books, and Batman, the fantastic animated series. In that regard, Burton is correct: The film was truly a cultural phenomenon: blockbusters had ceased becoming just another type of movie and, for better or worse, became monoliths upon which empires of media are borne.
If Batman didn't figure too heavily in his own movie (and that's fine, the best Bat stories feature byzantine casts and stories), he's virtually a supporting character in 1992's Batman Returns. Directors tend to show off their true sides in Batman sequels. Here, the film's set design is unified to Burton's liking (loads of arches and spirals), the violence is purely comic, and all the characters depicted with a sort of tender horror.
Batman Returns is a pretty terrible vehicle for Batman but it's great for Burton. The first one is far more entertaining but the characterizations are weak, especially Vicki Vale (I wondered if she spent that much time screaming and fainting while covering the Corto Maltese). This probably irked Burton, who usually takes care to unearth the humanity in inhuman lands. Thus, Returns depicts Catwoman, The Penguin, and even Batman as utterly bizarre characters who wish to find their place in Gotham. Michelle Pfeifer was fantastic as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, striking a comfortable balance between sad and sultry. Danny DeVito: also fine, but Burton relished the gross-out makeup a bit too much, and Penguin's subplots of running for mayor and then kidnapping firstborns I felt were both half-baked.
Upon release, the film was criticized for being darker than its predecessor. Burton refutes this assertion and again I'm going to agree with him. Seeing the electrofried face of Max Schrek (Christopher Walken) at the end of the movie was played for shock and laughs, in what Roger Ebert once defined as the cinematic equivalent of your older brother putting worms up to your face. In Batman, when The Joker is prancing around and holding conversation with a realistically charred board executive, that's dark.
I'm fascinated at how distinct the Batman movies are to each other, the way a predecessor directly influences on what and what not to do in the next installment. The heightened Burtoness and lowered box office of Batman Returns caused Warner Bros. to initiate a more family-friendly outing for sequel. And, well, we all know where that road's gonna take us. See you tomorrow, same Bat channel.
Mike Christensen
First one was damn good...still entertaining. But Batman Returns was a major disappointment. Burton just couldn't help himself.
Jul 17 - 04:07 PM
David Busby
First one was good the second was ok. i noticed that some ppl didn't like batman returns. that film wasn't burtons fault WB wanted him to tone it down. they thought the first one was to violent and wasn't suitable for children.
Jul 17 - 07:39 PM
Þórður Björnsson
I'm sorry, tone it down? Have you watched Batman Returns? It's probably the darkest Batman film to date after The Dark Knight.
If the competition was for who's the darkest picture and the competitors were Batman Returns & Batman, Batman Returns would kick Batman's ass.
Jul 17 - 09:41 PM
Joshua Henderson
Batman Returns is darker than the first one but also feels cheesier than the original one at the same time.
Jul 18 - 08:11 AM
Ryan Nolan
Returns was definitely the darker and more violent film. Neither were great but both were entertaining enough.
Jul 17 - 10:12 PM
Gordon Terry
Batman was Over-Hyped (it was the largest advertising campaign ever) and was not entertaining in the least and Batman Returns was an ugly film (SAGE STALLONE Remembrance . . . remember him when you watch any GRINDHOUSE MOVIE . . . especially CANNIBAL FEROX and THE BEYOND--I can't believe he's gone but untimely death happens)
Jul 19 - 07:50 AM
King Simba
With Batman Returns, I think a lot depends on how much of a Tim Burton fan you are, as it really is more of a Burton film than a Batman film. Personally, I always feel Burton is best when he doesn't hold back of his style, which is why I loved Batman Returns more than Batman. Infact, it was easily my favorite Batman movie before a guy named Nolan came around....
Jul 18 - 12:13 AM
Jon Hatchell
Yeah, he "couldn't help himself" from making a sequel superior in every way to the original.
Jul 18 - 03:10 PM
Gordon Terry
"THIS TOWN NEEDS AN ENEMA" . . . during the Batman promotional campaign, the radio played Prince's Batman theme song 20 times a day minimum. UGH! (SAGE STALLONE . . . we will never forget you: "FULCI LIVES"!!! CHAS. BALUN!!!! BLACKEST HEART MEDIA!!!!
Jul 19 - 07:52 AM
THGhost .
Returns is the far more superior film. Darker and more brooding; perfect.
Jul 19 - 04:53 PM
Mark Marquis
You are correct, Joshua. The mood is more bleak. The villains more twisted and tragic, the architecture of Gotham more imposing. However, it features a plot to blow up the city with bombs strapped to penguins and a proximity radar that quacks. Having said that, Returns had much more of an impact on me than Batman, mainly because I felt the depiction of Catwoman and Penguin were perfectly in line with the kind of fantasy elements I like in the Batman universe. Having seen Nolan's Bat Trilogy do such a good job of grounding that universe in our world, I now am longing for someone to come along and create something that lies between the imaginations of Tim Burton and Chris Nolan.
Jul 25 - 01:39 PM