Part 2 in our countdown to the release of The Dark Knight Rises, in which we learn there is a lot of money to be made with this whole "Batman" thing...
THE BAT-FILM: “This isn’t your father’s Batman” - a line you were likely to hear in 1989 when Tim Burton’s Batman opened and broke pretty much all the box-office records at the time. There was no mistake about it: Batman was huge, and during the summer of ‘89 it was unlikely to find a corner where the ubiquitous bat-symbol wasn’t plastered everywhere (I have especially fond memories of eating Batman cereal).
It didn’t come without its share of controversy, however. Tim Burton was still a fresh-faced young director, unproven in the world of blockbusters and known for oddball comedies like Beetlejuice and Pee Wee’s Big Adventure. Michael Keaton was about as left-field a choice as it got for the role of Batman, the modestly-proportioned actor not exactly fitting the image of a superhero to most. With those two in place, it would have been easy to think that Warner Brothers was just doing the Adam West show all over again. But the gamble paid off (at least from a financial standpoint) as Batman became the biggest film that year - a bonafide cultural phenomenon that would ensure the character’s legacy for years to come. But the question begs to be asked… Now, over twenty years later, how does the film hold up?
Not terribly well, I’m afraid. What Burton does here isn’t really all that removed from the Batman of the 60’s, despite all proclamations to the contrary. It’s darker, and far more violent, to be sure - but never really as complex or “adult” as it would lead you to believe. The film is an exercise in production design, with all hints of story or character just there as a clothesline from which to drape the costumes and the scenery.
The biggest problem is the script. Sam Hamm’s original script is actually pretty solid, but the Writer’s Strike of 1988 kept him from providing rewrites on-set, and in his stead the film was cobbled together in a hurried rush. Batman is painfully underwritten, giving us the thinnest of characters and no real through-line or focus for the story in general, and often resorting to nonsensical one-liners instead of actual dialogue. There is an attempt to connect everything together at the end (by having the Joker responsible for killing Bruce‘s parents - more on that below), but the finale is so ham-fisted and under-thought it almost feels like an insult hurled the audience’s way (Supposedly, when Jack Nicholson asked Burton why he was climbing the stairs of the cathedral at the end, Burton told him he had no clue).
A lot of the early criticisms of Keaton’s casting were abruptly silenced by the time of the film’s release, but looking at it now… Something’s just not right with his performance. Keaton’s fine when he’s in the bat-suit, considering all he really has to do is grimace and be stoic (the suit does most of the work). But as Bruce Wayne, Keaton just looks confused, as if he’s waiting for someone to give him some kind of direction. He mumbles and twitches his way through all his lines with increasing uncertainty, and there’s an encounter late in the film between he and Nicholson that comes completely out of nowhere (“YOU WANNA GET NUTS, JACK?!”). I know acting in a role of this magnitude was a tall order for Keaton at the time, and ordinarily he's a fine actor, but here it shows on screen just how much the actor was out of his depth in a summer blockbuster at the time.
Faring not much better is Kim Basinger as photographer Vicki Vale, although that’s just as much a fault of the script. Basinger’s lovely to look at, but her sole reason for existence in the film is to get into trouble so Batman can rescue her. She doesn’t have much motivation - there’s talk early of her arriving in Gotham so she can snag a picture of Batman and hopefully win a Pulitzer, but that’s pretty much forgotten by the time the film ends. Batman needs a girlfriend, I suppose, but you’d think he could find someone a whole lot more interesting - and less likely to wind up in a body bag.
The rest of the cast includes talented veterans like Michael Gough, Billy Dee Williams and Pat Hingle, but they’re in the film so little they barely make an impression. Robert Wuhl plays the reporter Alexander Knox, who seems like he’s going to be an important character early on but is pretty much forgotten by the end. Jack Palance also makes a brief appearance as the mob boss Carl Grissom, and the late actor seems to have fun with his far-too little screen-time.
The real star is the production design by Anton Furst, who makes Gotham City into a far deeper character than any in the script. His Gothic towers and steam-filled streets fit the movie perfectly, as does the 40’s era costumes worn by most everyone - expect no shortage of snappy fedoras and trench coats (indeed, the film would have been far better had it been set in the 1940’s). Even the Gotham police get fancy leather jackets and matching hats. The costume of Batman himself is also suitably iconic: instead of the grey and blue tights from the comics, Burton and costume designer Bob Ringwood opt for solid black body armor - a staple that’s still in place in the Batman films through today (and although the sculpted mask looks cool, you’d think it would be important for a crime-fighter to be able to, you know, turn his head).
It’s also kind of shocking that this was what passed for a blockbuster back in 1989. The various set-pieces and effects are rough when looked at today. Burton has never really been all that good with action, and the fights and chases staged here are so clunky that - take away all the expensive sets and costumes - and you have something not really that dissimilar from the old Batman movie serials.
If anything in the film works, it works because of Danny Elfman’s mesmerizing score. At once dark, exciting and instantly hum-able, Elfman’s music is note-perfect for the film and character, and the score really feels like a coming out party for the film composer (who would go on and receive the same clout and recognition of legends like John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith). Once the movie closes on Batman standing on the rooftops to Elfman’s stirring, triumphant final theme, it’s easy to see how audiences left the theaters buzzing for an otherwise mediocre movie.
THE VILLAINS: The producers lobbied hard for Jack Nicholson to get the part of the Joker, talks starting with the actor as early as 1986. Nicholson wound up negotiating a rather sweet deal for himself, with a salary of $6 million and a considerable portion of the box office returns (it’s been rumored he wound up with over $50 million, when all was said and done), and a schedule that saw the actor dictating just how many hours he was required to be on-set - he had Lakers games to go to, you see.
If you believe the buzz surrounding his performance, all the trouble the filmmakers' went through to secure Nicholson was worth it, as his Joker was near-universally praised at the time, even garnering himself a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor. But looking at it him now, while the visuals are arresting... I just found something off with Jack as the Joker.
What is great are Nicholson’s scenes before his transformation: Jack’s basically playing himself as the gangster Jack Napier, and is a joy to watch - whether annoyed at his moll Alicia or trading barbs with his boss Grissom. But once he takes the dive into that vat of chemicals and becomes the Clown Prince of Crime, things start to become troublesome.
Much like Keaton, it’s hard to say what exactly is wrong with Nicholson’s performance as the Joker, other than it just feels off. An actor known for his many manic roles, you would think Nicholson would be perfect for the Joker, but somewhere along the line the performance just didn’t add up. Perhaps Nicholson felt he should reign himself in, like maybe he or the filmmakers’ were concerned with his performance getting too off-the-rails. Perhaps it was the script, which bounces the Joker around from scheme to scheme, never really giving the character a proper motivation. Most importantly, his Joker just isn’t menacing enough. The Joker should make the audience feel on edge in every scene he’s in - his unpredictability should make him dangerous. With Nicholson’s performance, he just feels like too much of a cartoon character to be truly threatening.
Even worse is the decision to make the Joker responsible for the death of Bruce’s parents. I can understand why the filmmakers’ included it, to raise the personal stakes for Batman in the climax, but it’s introduced so late in the film that it ultimately bogs down an already thin script; landing with all the thematic resonance of a wet fart.
THOSE WONDERFUL TOYS: The Batmobile here is probably the most iconic of them all, and with good reason - it looks like some kind of demon from hell, although still with it’s own goofy charm. It’s instantly recognizable, but doesn’t look like it would handle turns terribly well (which I guess is why it has that nifty grappling hook). Less successful is the Batwing, although that’s probably more a victim of the lackluster special effects (except for the moment where it aligns with the full moon to make a bat-signal - that still looks pretty sharp). You know you’re in trouble when the most exciting thing Batman does with his plane is steal a bunch of parade balloons.
The most popular of Batman’s weapons have always been his trusty batarangs, but he surprisingly only uses them once here, in the opening when beats up the two muggers. Getting more screen-time are his various grappling guns, and Batman uses a rather nifty gauntlet that shoots out a zip-line for him to make quick escapes (and was actually designed to work in real life!). There’s also a really bizarre item he uses at the end to stop a thug with knives strapped to his feet, which as far as I can tell looks a brake pedal from a car attached to Batman‘s arm. Don’t know where they got the inspiration for that, but whatever.
THE BAT’S IN THE DETAILS: Batman wound up being one of the most influential movies released in its day, for reasons that have very little to do with the actual film itself. First and foremost was the marketing push, which saw everything from footwear to toothpaste - basically, if you could buy it, then there was a Batman version of “it.” Promotional tie-ins had become increasingly important in the wake of the blockbusters of the 80’s, but nothing on the scale of Batman had ever been attempted before. The film kick-started a trend that lasted over three more Bat-films and a decade’s worth of blockbusters, a trend that had almost a brainwashing effect on kids and the culture at large (I was certainly one of them as a tyke - I remember anytime a Batman movie came out, it was a big deal. It didn‘t feel like a movie so much as the Second Coming). Such massive ad campaigns are still in place today, although somewhat softened compared the heyday of the 90’s (The Phantom Menace was sort of the last straw when it came to those all-encompassing types of product branding).
Moreso, the release of Batman placed a greater importance on breaking box office records, especially nabbing that coveted opening weekend. Before Batman, the highest-grossing weekend was $29 million for Ghostbusters II - Batman pulled in a staggering $43 million. The attention and press got from breaking box office records got more headlines than any of the Joker’s crime sprees, and set in motion the dick-swinging contests the studios still engage in to this very day. Also important was the added component of home video sales - eager to make even more money, Batman was rushed onto home video as soon as it left the theaters, with almost as big a marketing campaign - which effectively killed the second-run theater market. Even more than all that, Batman solidified the still-recent PG-13 rating as box-office gold. The studios figured out they could sell more tickets to kids for an “adult” movie without it being rated R - a rating that was able to include pretty much the whole family, without automatically being labeled a “kid’s film.”
The opening tricks you into thinking we might be seeing the origins of Batman as a family of three is mugged by a pair of hoodlums, but it turns out Batman’s watching it all happen from above on the rooftops. He beats up the muggers and scares the holy hell out of them… after they’ve already taken the family’s cash and knocked the father unconscious. Nice going there, Batman.
The music of Prince belongs in a Batman movie about as much as a nipple belongs on a pinky toe. This is another element that horribly dates the picture, and instantly takes the viewer out of the film whenever it invades the soundtrack.
I know who Bob the Goon is primarily because he had an action figure which would kick his leg out whenever you pushed a button on his back. I was very disappointed that the real-life Bob the Goon at no point does any kicking here in the film.
I’ve been kind of harsh on Batman, but its importance and legacy is undeniable. Although it was not as dark and serious as many at the time claimed, it did turn audience’s and critic’s heads in regards to taking the character of Batman, and superheroes as a whole, as subjects worthy of deeper analysis. It just took many more years for the superhero film to get to that place.
BEST QUOTE: I’ve always loved the moment when Alicia puts her hand on Jack’s shoulder and tells him he looks great, while Jack admires himself at a mirror. Annoyed, he says “I didn’t ask,” and gives her one of those perfect Jack Nicholson looks as he gestures down at her to take the hand off his shoulder.
THE LAST LAUGH: Although not without its charms, the 1989 Batman can’t help but feel anything but horribly dated when viewed today.
No comments:
Post a Comment