Friday, December 23, 2011

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: Batman (1989)


"I don't know if it's art, but I like it!"

- The Joker, in Tim Burton's Batman (1989)


Bob Kane and Bill Finger's Batman character has gone through nearly as many cinematic and television incarnations, perhaps, as Bram Stoker's Dracula or Shakespeare's Hamlet.

The Adam West Batman TV series of the 1960s showcased a colorful world of campy characters, stereotypical comic-book affectations (ZAP!) and obsessively-labeled Bat gadgets and devices (like the Batcave's clearly marked "Lighted Lucite Map of Gotham City").

Contrarily, Christopher Nolan's currently in-vogue interpretation of the mythos adopts the opposite tack, grounding absolutely every aspect of Batman's universe in kitchen sink, War on Terror Age reality.  Here, the Batmobile is more Hummer than hot rod, an all-terrain military vehicle adapted by the Dark Knight for urban use.  The Caped Crusader's costume, according to Batman Begins (2005)  is actually a "Nomex Survival Suit" not a mere "costume," and Gotham City appears to be a very real, very grounded metropolis (actually Chicago in The Dark Knight [2008], if memory serves).

Between these opposite poles of  tongue-in-cheek comedy and naturalistic, gritty realism, director Tim Burton presented his own unique take on the Batman legend in the final year of the 1980s.  Given what we understand of Burton's aesthetic at this point in our retrospective series, it's not at all surprising that his vision for the Caped Crusader is largely expressionistic; one that distorts reality, essentially, to create an overwhelming sense of mood or psychological and emotional experience. 

In short, Burton's blockbuster 1989 film largely concerns two men (Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier) who  owe their very identities (and their mutual senses of alienation...) to the failed city-state where they dwell.  Batman and Joker could conceivably exist, according to this film, nowhere but in Gotham City.  The city -- heir to skylines like those seen in  Metropolis (1927), Blade Runner (1982) and Brazil (1985) -- functions  itself as a character in the drama, and as an important player in the action.  In some ways, the very architecture of the city  reflects the mental landscape of the Joker and Batman.  All three "characters" are strange, jumbled, "new" edifices (psychological and concrete) built upon old, shaky, crumbling and "dead" personalities or foundations.  Or as Jack Napier notes, "decent people shouldn't live here."

If you remember the summer of 1989 at all, you'll likely recall the "Bat Frenzy" that seized the nation upon release of Burton's film.  It was an authentic and unforgettable Zeitgeist moment. Although many fans had grown concerned about the casting of "comedic" actor Michael Keaton as Batman, most complaints evaporated once the film was screened.  Never before on-screen had Batman been taken so "seriously," and his world rendered so impressively and expensively.

Accordingly, most critics raved about the picture and the power of Burton's vision.  Ken Hanke, writing in Films in Review, called the film "a work of brilliance" (October 1989, page 480), and David Sterritt of the Christian Science Monitor commended Batman's "haunting tone." (June 29, 1989, page 10). 

For me, those things that remain so vital and and impressive about Burton's Batman are the canny psychological underpinnings.   Batman becomes an understandable/relatable personality only because Burton erects the Caped Crusader's universe from the ground-up.  In other words, Gotham is indeed the "prime actor" on Batman's psyche, and the very thing responsible for making one man "The Bat" and  another The Joker.   In focusing on the surrounding universe (rather than merely the people inhabiting it), Burton's Batman more readily functions as an epic fantasy than either its comedic antecedent, the Batman TV series, or Nolan's big-budget pictures, which are basically action-films played straight, with few fantastic or fantasy elements at all.

Burton's Batman also thrives on its two central performances: Michael Keaton as a man dwelling in the past and wholly absent-minded about the details of the present, and Jack Nicholson as a monster who leaves behind day-to-day matters of concern (like his physical appearance) to dwell on a more abstract (if terrifying...) plateau; that of a "fully functional homicidal artist."  These men, joined by their twisted "origins" -- or more accurately their twisted resurrections -- fight to control Gotham City, and also the love of a woman, Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).

"Haven't you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?"

In crime-ridden Gotham City, crooks and thieves fear a new presence in town, the nighttime avenger known as "The Bat." 

Actually, criminals fear Batman, the alter-ego of millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), who each night patrols the mean streets of Gotham and recalls (and relives?) the crime that robbed an innocent child of his parents.

As a nosy reporter, Knox (Robert Wuhl) and a beautiful photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) plot to learn more about the mysterious Batman, Gotham's Underworld undergoes a dramatic shift.  After a confrontation with Batman at Axis Chemicals, thug Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) is transformed into the mad Joker, and murders crime boss Carl Grissom (Jack Palance).  He assumes control of the Grissom operation and begins a reign of bizarre terror.

While Bruce and Vicki embark upon a romantic relationship, the Joker terrorizes Gotham with his deadly Smilex toxin.  After Batman unravels the Smilex puzzle, the Joker challenges Batman to meet him during the nighttime parade celebrating the 200th anniversary of Gotham City.  For the people of Gotham, the big question is: who do you trust?  The clown, or the man in a bat suit?

"You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."

The Batman character first appeared in May of 1939 in an issue of Detective Comics.  Importantly, Burton's Batman film seems to seize on that era of American history (say 1939 - 1945) and to forge a sense of reality with that epoch as its creative basis. 

Accordingly, the Gotham City featured in Batman is one in which the Art Deco and "futura" style of the late 1920s and early 1930s has given way to the terrors of both fascism and more utilitarian architecture.  The beautiful deco Gotham -- representative of elegant, stylish and streamlined modern architecture -- has been "built over" willy-nilly by a melange of industrial grunge and blight.  It's as though someone constructed a beautiful contemporary city in one decade, and then just kept building and building upon it randomly for generations, with no thought or strategy about how to expand.  And each expansion is uglier, less stylish...less optimistic than the last.

You can detect the late-1930s early-1940s touches not merely in the architecture featured in Gotham in Batman, but in the costumes as well.  The policemen wear leather jackets, and male citizens are adorned in fedoras and other hats.  Also, aspects of the dialogue purposefully play up this era of American history.  Knox (Robert Wuhl) talks like he's out of a snappy, 1940s-era Howard Hawks movie (perhaps His Girl Friday [1940]) and Joker's base of operations is called Axis Chemicals.  As other critics have rightly pointed out, "Axis" is the name of the military alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan circa 1936 - 1945, and so again, a particular era of world history is alluded to, at least sub textually, in Batman.

If we remember what was happening in the world at the time of the Axis Powers perhaps we can understand why this reference is important to an understanding of Burton's Batman.  After the defeat (or death) represented by World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was "resurrected" as a global player...and terrifyingly so, as a monster; as the much-feared Nazi movement. The Joker's journey in the Burton film actually mirrors Germany's in some odd fashion  Jack Napier meets his Waterloo (or Versailles) at Axis, and is resurrected from the toxic (primordial?) goop as the Joker...only to ascend to greater power and tremendous madness.  Like Nazi Germany, he nearly wins his battle for domination too. 

Thus, in some sub textual fashion, Batman seems to be about the idea of a "good" world going very, very wrong, taking a nearly fatal wrong turn; of art deco modernity giving way to industrial blues, and the rise of fascism.  Incidentally, this is also the very production design pattern that George Lucas utilizes in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), showcasing in that film how a chrome, Art Deco Republic transforms into a  utilitarian, totalitarian state, where the ugliness of the movement is reflected in the ugliness of the new architecture.  In both cases, production design and wardrobe represent audience cues to express for us something important about the film's milieu. 

Another way to explain this aspect of the Burton Batman:  It's as though the film maker's took a snapshot of Batman's world in 1939, on the comic book's very parturition, and expanded that snapshot into a full-length film.  Also encoded in that "snapshot" is the idea of one "free" man (Wayne) utilizing his resources and wealth to challenge a system that isn't working.  In Gotham, the police are mostly helpless and citizens cower in fear because of the rampant crime.

In 1939, as America saw Nazi-ism rise overseas and countenanced the ascent of a more socialist state in America, some people would have viewed a capitalist crusader Batman as the express antidote to both: an entrepreneur using his own resources, by his own will, to restore justice.  Some no-nothing hipsters have (only half-seriously, no doubt...) suggested that Batman is actually the "Nazi" symbol in this movie's equation, though that interpretation ignores the obvious fact that the Joker is explicitly linked to Axis; that he ascends from a terrible defeat (like Versailles) and then, afterwards, grows more powerful than before (as the Joker), and -- finally -- that, at the Art Museum, he defaces works representing mainstream Europe (the Allies, essentially).  All these incidents suggest that the Joker is a grotesque, fascist threat to the Art Deco order.

Interestingly, both Bruce Wayne and Jack Napier are depicted in Burton's Batman as victims of what Gotham City has become.  Even as an adult, Bruce remains obsessed with the death of his parents in Gotham, a result of out-of-control crime and the failure of the establishment.  To  characterize this on-going obsession, Burton features at least two similarly-staged scenes.  In the film's opening scene, Batman arrives (too late) to save a family of movie-goers as they are accosted by criminals.  Later, Bruce remembers the death of his parents (in flashback) after a similar night at the movies, and an encounter with young Jack Napier.  These scenes are very similar, right down to the single-child nature of the family, and they suggest that Bruce is caught in a kind of endless, obsessive loop, unable to put the past down.   His nightly ritual of crime-fighting is in fact an attempt to exorcise the images he can't get out of his head: the death of his parents.  A third scene adds meaningfully to this conceit, showcasing Bruce brushing off the optimistic present (a date with Vicki) to return to the alley where his parents tragically died, and lay flowers at the spot where they expired.

This approach is intriguingly contrasted with Bruce Wayne's inability to focus on the details of the present.  He can't be bothered to pay attention to a gala being hosted at his house (in support of the 200th anniversary of Gotham City), and is glib about his wealth and belongings, even offering Knox a "grant" for his work, seemingly off-the-cuff.  A later scene involving Vicki and Bruce on a date at Wayne Manor, in a vast dining room, purposely seems to reflect a famous scene in Citizen Kane (1941) that -- through the spatial gulf across a colossal dining room table -- expressed the idea of marital alienation between an obscenely wealthy man and his emotionally-desolate wife.  Here, the scene reveals the gulf between Bruce and his present.  He can't quite reach it; can't quite touch or embrace it.  Again, notice how the focus in this Batman is upon the psychological state of the characters; on an expression of their interior dilemmas.  And also notice, please, how a visual film allusion to Citizen Kane also functions as a call-back to the time period I mentioned above, say 1936 - 1945. 

It all fits together.

In Burton's Batman, Bruce as he appears now was "created" in the crucible of his parent's death, and has never been able to step outside that person.  He can't live in the present.  He can only live obsessively in the past; the past that Gotham City made for him.  In fact, Bruce has used all his considerable resources to trap himself in a cage, a technological cage in which he becomes a strange alter-ego; one who is always seeking to avenge the one act he cannot undo.  He can't quite reach across that dining room table to Vicki, even though a part of him desires that outcome.  "Are we at least going to try to love each other?" Vicki asks Bruce at one point, and his answer is determinedly a "no."  He's got work to do; a job to do.  Avenging the past.

By contrast, the Joker cannot live in the past.  After being dropped into toxic chemicals and suffering botched plastic surgery (in a very dark, very creepy scene...), the present doesn't interest the Joker.  What interests him, instead, is the very act of creation, or perhaps, more accurately, of transformation.  He focuses on what he can make of himself, the world, and other people around him, like his unfortunate girlfriend.  The Joker realizes that he can be an artist: skilled at the very activity (with some sensitivity and imagination) of destroying and resurrecting lives.  The past is dead to the Joker, and he is characterized in the film by his need to "re-paint" or tarnish the present, which we see during his efforts at the museum.  The Joker survives his pain -- like a true artist -- by making the world share it with him. 

For this reason alone, I must confess that I prefer Nicholson's Joker to Heath Ledger's in The Dark Knight.  Nicholson's Joker is engaged in the act of becoming; of transforming the world into a nightmare reflecting his own point-of-view (again, remember the fascism/Nazi subtext I noted above). By contrast, Ledger's Joker seems more like a force of pure chaos; one whose only purpose is to have no express purpose; destruction for the sake of destruction.

Both performances are powerful, but for me, Nicholson is both funny and terrifying, whereas Ledger was merely terrifying.  The powerful idea underlining a villain like the Joker is that he both attracts and repels; he's both charismatic and totally untrustworthy.  You can readily believe that Nicholson's "showman" Joker would inspire followers and "believers," whereas that's not exactly the case with the character in The Dark Knight.  Also, Burton expresses the hows and whys of the Joker's parturition in this Batman, granting the character a distinctive world view as a "homicidal artist."  The character in The Dark Knight, in my opinion, remains a bit charmless and opaque, if undeniably menacing.  Again, people of good will shall differ on favorites, and perhaps the bottom line is that Nicholson's Joker can exist only in Burton's vision for the mythos, just as Ledger is appropriate to Nolan's vision.

The idea or resurrection looms large in Burton's Batman.  The once beautiful Gotham City has been resurrected as an industrial nightmare of out-of-control crime, Bruce has taken his obsession with is parents' death and resurrected himself as Batman, and out of the battle at Axis Chemicals Jack has been resurrected as that homicidal artist, the Joker.  Each character suggests what happens when a trauma isn't diagnosed or handled, but merely scabbed or built over.  The results, in all cases aren't "exactly normal" to quote Vicki's description of Batman.   The intertwining of Joker/Batman and Gotham is made explicit in the Batman screenplay as Joker and Batman fight atop Gotham's abandoned cathedral and argue "I made you?"  "You made me."

Batman premiered near the end of the pre-CGI age in terms of special effects, when miniatures, animation and other older creative tools were still widely in use.  For some audiences, the effects will seem dated, but for others, they will feel appropriately more tactile and bizarre, in some fashion, than what we have grown accustomed to in the digital era.  Like so many Burton films, this is a messy, organic effort.  We see acid burned on human faces, the bloody instruments from a botched plastic surgery, sweat-drenched criminals and other distinctive horrors.  There's always very much a feeling here that these horrendous events are real and happening, not fleshless, gravity-less affectations superimposed after the characters were actually there.  This fits into the psychological underpinnings of the film, the idea of people living in a nightmare state, in a nightmare city.  You can't achieve that effect that so easily with green screens, or CGI blood spurts.  This movie is about making us feel we live in Batman's world, and for that reason, it's very successful as a work of art.

Back in 1989, I had a high-school friend whom I absolutely loved, named Amy, who described Burton's Batman -- humorously -- as "pretty darn plotless," and perhaps there's some truth to that complaint.  The film is about a  lengthy grudge match between two men in a place "synonymous with crime."  The narrative details are less crucial than the expression of the locations, and the emotional, psychological particulars of the two combatants.  Danny Elfman's magnificent score adds to the aura of a moody, introspective rumination, one overcrowded with ideas, and in some cases, authentic horrors. 

I realize that Batman is far from Burton's favorite film, and yet it does, quite readily, reflect much of his nature as an artist, stressing visuals as psychological symbols of fractured and damaged mental states. The film also diagrams the story of misfits and outsiders, a frequent Burton leitmotif.  As Bruce Wayne might characterize Batman in terms of Burton,  "some of it is very much me," and "some of it is not."   Though there's much of the film's director personal taste evident in the mix, Batman Returns (1992), in some ways,  is an even more perfect representation of the director's aesthetic.  It's weirder and wilder, even, than the gruesome sights on display here.  That film, in my opinion, is some kind of twisted Christmas, Burton high-point, a second run at the Batman legend that improves on the expressive, psychologically-adroit ruminations of this admirable 1989 effort.

[Note: After two months, we've come to the end of the Burton Brief schedule I originally set out, even though we're a week behind and I didn't get to Batman Returns.  I hope you've enjoyed this retrospective on Burton, and rest assured, we'll get to Batman Returns (and Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) in time for the release of The Dark Knight Rises. 

In terms of Burton rather than Batman, I'm very much looking forward to his adaptation of Dark Shadows, which, of course, concerns another misfit outsider:  the vampire Barnabas Collins.  I think what I took away from this Burton series -- and which I did not expect going in -- is that there is really a method to his madness once start gazing across his work.  It's very easy to casually dismiss Burton as weird-for-weird's sake, but while reviewing many of his projects, I've begun to see the discipline and psychological touches he imbues each project with.  I hope you've noticed them too.]

10 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:37 AM

    This film, for me, has always been the best Batman movie to date, for all of the reasons you mention: Keaton's and Nicholson's performances, the contrasting of Batman's and Joker's characters, and the overriding theme of redemption. Sure, it has a few problems, such as Batman shooting into a crowd, but so much of this film is brilliant. I'm always a bit surprised when I hear people trashing it. Excellent review, John, as always.

    Rich Handley

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Rich,

    Happy Holidays, my friend!

    I agree with you about Batman (1989), and wonder why so many people see fit to dismiss it. I think there's a lot of groupthink involved in Batman movie fandom these days, vis-a-vis the Nolan interpretation of the mythos. I'm not saying Nolan's interpretation is horrible or anything (though I personally don't prefer it...), just that a lot of people tear down the Burton Batman to raise the Nolan one. One is sacrosanct and one is a punching bag...

    Great comment, thanks!

    best,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  3. Woodchuckgod12:13 PM

    I recall the general public excitement surrounding this when it first came out, down to the hub-bub surrounding the soundtrack which featured nothing but songs by Prince, many of which weren't in the film but were "inspired" by it. (And many of which still persist in knocking around in my brain) I find it honestly a bit difficult to separate that cultural noise from thoughts of the film, as a result. Kudos to you for giving it such a close read.

    That said, of Burton's two forays into Batman, I think I probably prefer the second on the whole - but his first is definitely interesting. My feelings on it waver from day to day somewhat, but it very much is an unusual film as it's really more a sort of character study than an action flick.

    It's not a precise comparison, but I feel it's the sort of thing you might get transplanting the film 'Heat' into a comic book setting. On that note also - the story feels less like a mainstream comic series, but more like one of the many side-histories done - obscure one-shots set in various time periods.

    Either way you slice it, it was certainly memorable. I very much enjoyed Ledger's Joker - but if I said I didn't also enjoy Nicholson's take on him, I'd be lying through my crooked teeth. They're different interpretations to be sure - one more manic, one more quiet and cerebral; one in bright flamboyant colours and mannerisms, one more subdued - but both deadly, and quite unashamed to use the people around them as their own personal playthings.

    Anyway, before I ramble excessively. Thanks again. Great read! (And applause for mentioning the line about giving Knox the grant. That's probably one of my favorite bits of dialogue in the film. So much character packed in those few words.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. When I first saw this movie, I had the same reaction as your high school friend. I loved the look of the film and all the psychological stuff you pointed out in your review; I just wanted more of a plot. With the release of Batman Returns, I remember Burton bragging that the sequel had even less plot, which made my stomach turn. For that reason alone, I could never fully endorse either of his movies.

    By the same token, I'm not totally sold on Nolan's vision either. While it is closer to my sense of Batman (based on the 1970s comics I grew up with), I think The Dark Knight in particular was a big, rambling, poorly edited mess. As you said, they are action films with very little context.

    Therefore, I'm resigned to the fact that no one will make a Batman movie I can fully love. At least we have moved beyond Batman and Robin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John, you identified some wonderful key points and aesthetics in Tim Burton's BATMAN. Man, oh, man do I recall the buzz this one generated. It was that year's summer blockbuster (same year of my father's death and my marriage, as well). It was quite a time as the 80s were closing out, too. I do still admire many things in this version of the Batman mythos.

    One, Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader (I groaned as I wrote that, btw). An inspired choice for the lead that to many (on announcement) seemed absolutely wrong... me among them. I was never so glad to be proven otherwise. In fact, he's now the reason I return to the film today. I love the various tonal changes he exudes throughout the film.

    Two, I was never so happy as to have a Batman inhabiting close to the comic series circa mid-80s of Frank Miller (someone i use to admire before he went off the deep end of recent times). You see, I'm old enough to remember the 60s Batman TV series when it was first run. As someone who loved reading the DC comic book, all I can say it was better than nothing. However, in the long run the campiness and purposeful miscasting of Adam West didn't endear. This film, for its time, was in my wheelhouse.

    That said, the least of it for me, now over 20 years later, is Jack Nicholson. I'd agree his performance is powerful and was an important part of the film. However, the 'Jack/Joker' persona seemed to follow this actor's performances some afterwards in later work (i.e., watch his role in THE DEPARTED and you'll pick up on it). So, while I think what JN did here was great, what developed subsequent to it was something I bemoan. It makes it hard for me to get enthused with it on re-screenings.

    Of course, Christopher Nolan's take on this character I really do like (as you may recall). Yet, there is still a lot to really like in Burton's more fantastical take. His BATMAN RETURNS does seem like something closer to the filmmaker's heart -- I really do like some things in that film more and some campy aspects that took me back to the 60s (and not in a good way). The sequel remains underrated, especially as a alternative Christmas movie, but with aspects that I wish Burton hadn't put in.

    Sorry to see this series end, John. It was a pleasure to read and re-experience a good portion of this director's filmography. Another highlight, my friend. Many thanks and Happy Holidays.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi JKM;

    Loved your analysis, am ambivalent about the movie. From a pure storytelling perspective I have to give the nod to "Dark Knight" because it is an engaging narrative, which Burton's is not. I tend to agree with Neal P that there hasn't a really good live-action Batman story to date; this comment does not apply to animation, which consistently excels (and I include the 70's Adam West cartoons in this paen - Zarbor!)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brandon2:31 AM

    Still the best BATMAN movie, and it just doesn't get any better than Michael Keaton. I really think he nailed his performance and made people believe he was that character.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:47 AM

    Definitely an excellent film with outstanding performances by its cast. Particularly those by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. You can really sense the quiet tragedy, darkness, and sadness within Bruce Wayne. Let alone the violent mania in Jack Napier. Still a classic after twenty years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just stumbled upon this article, and I must say, its absolutely stellar

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nicholas9:41 AM

    I, like GothamStreets above me, just stumbled upon this. And I have to say that I 100% agree with everything you said in it.
    The only difference is that I LOVE every second of the movie (and its sequel) for me, even the "flaws" (like batman shooting in a crowded street) are perfect for the kind of Batman Burton was presenting to us.
    No Batman film to date has being able to even come close to it (even though I enjoy TDK and TDKR, I wholeheartedly despise Begins, I don't know why honestly...)
    And it saddens me to KNOW (judging by the "new standards" superhero movies and movies in general are adopting these days) that we will NEVER see anything like this again. Ever.
    Nice article man. I'd like to read the one you did (if you got around doing it) on returns but I can't seem to find the link for it.

    ReplyDelete