Amph Does anyone else love Tim Burton's BATMAN?

Growing up, I had always assumed this was a universally-embraced film; it wasn't until delving into the Internet fan forums that I realized how divisive it really was.

Honestly, I think my adoration for Batman '89 stems from a general apathy towards superhero movies. I find them so disposable: the tidy character arcs; the incessant teen-angst; the predilection to spell out every damn theme via monologue. Hero's Journey, cut n' paste, cut n' paste.

In contrast, there's Burton. And what a pleasure it is to see a genuine director take this genre by the stones and make opera out of it. He's still the only one who really got it, recognizing the Batman and the Joker for the magnificent demigods they are and unleashing them on one of the more beautiful, otherworldly playgrounds in cinema. My God does this movie cast a spell: the energy is kinetic; every scene overflowing with iconic imagery that has burrowed and nested in my brain. The nutso performances, the Wagnerian score, the eminently quotable dialogue...heck, if it weren't for the miscasting of Kim Basinger, I'd just declare this an out-and-out masterpiece.

For the record, I couldn't care less how faithful this is to the mythos. I want daydreams and nightmares from my genre films. I want to be swept away. In this, Batman '89 delivers.

Does at least one other person concur?

 

I like the movie, it made Batman dark like the comics and not a parody as he had been since the Adam West days. He had a much cooler costume then in the comics (a trend I notice Nolan has continued in his movies). Ok Nicholson's Joker is very OTT, but he's still dangerous and Keaton does a good job as Bruce Wayne.

Plus that Batmobile was awesome.

 

I've always loved it! I was deeply enamored of the character from a young age, and had been following the production -- as much as it was possible to do so pre-interwebz -- as it developed.

The day it came out -- June 23, 1989 -- I told my friend that there would be no need to make another movie again, ever; the cinematic form would be achieved par excellence, rendering all other efforts in film pointless. I was only half-kidding.

Sure, I saw it too many times in the theater and video, till I began nitpicking it to pieces. There were a few years there where I thought the sequel, Returns, was superior to the original. But recently I've come to my senses, recognized the 1992 film as an absurd cartoon, and restored the 1989 movie to my "Best" list.

It's dark, weird, funny and imaginative. And while it is set in a separate reality from the comics of the time, it creates its own distinct world and remains consistent within that. "It's a genius-type situation," as my friend and I used to say back in the day.

 

I'm not a fan. I like the second film quite a bit; I think that I entered puberty spontaneously seeing Michelle Pfeiffer in the Catwoman outfit. But the first? Keaton is wooden, I'm not a fan of Prince soundtrack at all, and the film has my least favorite version of the Joker. Seriously, I'll take the Batman 1966 version of the Joker over the Batman 1989 version of the Joker.

Still, the visual aesthetic was good.

 

[image=http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/public/news_images/4/42671_90875_4.jpg]

Genius at work.

 

It was good for what it was, but it wasn't really 'Batman', y'know?

People have said Michael Keaton was the best one under the cowl. Sure, I guess -- I mean, I didn't see what was so superior about his Batman, but it certainly wasn't bad. His Bruce Wayne was all wrong, though. They didn't have the playboy "mask" aspect at all, and Bale's regular Batman was superior in any event, I find.

The Joker was entertaining and had some good lines, but the Joker isn't really a mafioso. "The Dark Knight" had him right: he's motivated by less tangible things.

 

Well... Oh, who cares... BATMAN!!!

 

It was the sixties. Batman 1989 had no such excuse.

[image=http://mimg.ugo.com/200902/21401/Batman-1989.jpg]

 

Keaton is wooden,

Wooden??? Your definition of wooden acting must be different than mine.

The scene where he goes "nuts" on Jack in Vicki Vale's apartment is explosive
and unrestrained acting. It's about as emotive as you can get. That's anything
but wooden.

Chuck Norris's acting is wooden. Steven Seagal's acting is wooden. Keaton has
tremendous range, playing both comedy and drama and he's proven it repeatedly.
He's anything but wooden.

Anyone who can play Beetlejuice, then Bruce Wayne & Batman, and also play a
psycho in Pacific Heights and an alcoholic in Clean and Sober (his best
dramatic performance) is not an actor I would call wooden.

 

Yeah, Keaton is far from wooden, in Batman or anything else he's in. I was one of those initially disappointed by his casting, because I knew him from Night Shift and Mr. Mom -- in both of which he is naturally, improvisationally comedic -- and could not see him filling the role of either Bruce or the Bat. Yet he handled both parts with aplomb.

Keaton is by turns light and heavy, funny and intense, and he has a way of stammering that approximates real human behavior in a way that few actors have a handle on. In retrospect I wish he had stuck around for parts 3 and 4 of the Batman series; I think some of the absurdity of those movies could have been reined in by Keaton's centering, charismatic presence.

 

I admit to having a soft spot for Burton's Batman films, particularly in the set design. There is just something about the Dick Sprang era of Gotham City that just makes it so unique. Burton was able to keep the Gothic feel of the city and all the interesting advertising symbols in the skyline without making it seem hokey.

Then Schumacher took the reins and made it ludicrous.

But back to the Burton goodness... While the Nolan films are more "realistic," Burton's Batman had more character. The Joker had character, Catwoman had character, the Penguin had character. Their portrayals were unique to them, made them stand out. Would the actors be many a fan's first choice for those characters? Probably not. But, one has to admit that the actors took the roles as their own and gave them plenty of life. And Gotham City itself was a character. I miss the giant cat heads, the gargantuan typewriters... Sure, they were silly, but I really liked them. They gave the city character. They helped to individualize it from every other gritty portrayal of a dark and foreboding city.

Repeal the Sprang Act! Bring back the old skyline!

 

Whatever you guys, Joel Schumacher's Batman films had more consistent internal cohesion than either of Burton's. Also they're hilarious, they aim for camp and succeed spectacularly. The ridiculous neon on everything, nipples on the Batsuit, Bat Credit Card, endless so-bad-they're-good ice puns, George Clooney's nonsensical bathrobe, Tommy Lee Jones delivering the most accurate Joker ever captured on film, it's all a delightful package of cheese. And like a good cheese it goes great with wine. Lots and lots of wine.

 

But back to the Burton goodness... While the Nolan films are more "realistic," Burton's Batman had more character. The Joker had character, Catwoman had character, the Penguin had character. Their portrayals were unique to them, made them stand out.

Er... not really.

Firstly, we actually are invested LESS in Batman's character than the Nolan films. We only learn his motivation more than halfway through the film, and when it happens it's more of a revenge tale. We don't learn a whole lot about why he specifically became Batman.

Joker, Catwoman, Penguin... I fail to see how any of these characters were particularly compelling compared to Harvey Dent and Ra'as Al Ghul. I mean, the Penguin spent a good part of the BR film being a lecherous and creepy guy.

As for stand-out portrayals -- Heath Ledger?

 

Ledger brought depth to the character better than any version so far. Nicholson was pretty much just playing his persona with clown make-up. With Ledger you felt that he didn't follow any rules, everything was up for grabs and he didn't care. Take for example the scene where Nicholson & his henchmen are trashing a museum. There really isn't any rhyme or reason for it, they're just vandalizing and it makes them come off as petty jerks. The scene doesn't work with that version of the Joker and it only diminishes his threat. This was rather consistent with Cesar Romero's take on it and would feel more proper in the TV show. It wasn't until The Dark Knight that I finally felt that the Joker was a brutal villain that could pull off anything because he felt the rules didn't apply to him. He walks into a police station & gangster's lair with the same attitude. Nicholson has henchman yukking it up with him, Ledger wastes his colleagues in the opening scene. There is no honor among thieves and no one can trust Ledger's Joker. Not to mention that Ledger's origin is far more interesting in the fact that we don't know what the truth is as opposed to what we see with Nicholson's origin.

I'd also like to point out that Burton's version of the Batplane has to be the most useless weapon ever. Batman has the Joker in his sights & locked but the bullets don't hit him, he doesn't move an inch. Wayne has billions at his disposal but the sights on his guns are off. Also what's the point of the plane when it can be brought down with a single bullet from a ridiculously long barreled gun? I doubt Lucius Fox has built anything so useless.

Burton deserves credit with getting an audience to take a comic book film more seriously but it still comes off as cartoonish. Nolan put Batman in a much more realistic environment and I think transcended the genre with The Dark Knight.

 

i love comic books but im not huge a fan of Batman and especially not Burtons first Batman film. im not a big fan of superhero films at all for that matter im beginning to realize as i get older but I do believe Nolans renditions are " the " superhero movies for the ages. Even if dark noir aesthetic is what you love I believe that Batman Begins and Burtons sequel trumps 89 all the way. and Michael Keaton is by no means wooden. i actually thought he was the saving grace of the film.

 

I agree a fair amount with the last two posts.

The thing about Burton's work is that the environment is dark, but the characters are not particularly dark, or at least not complicated.

There is this odd tendency in Burton's work for his heroes or villains to not be above petty behavior, which can sort of undercut stuff. It's sort of ironic that the interrogation scene with the Joker was in Nolan's films and not Burton's: here is EXACTLY the sort of dialogue that provides the core center of not just Burton's Batman films, but quite a lot of his work. The digression on human nature, and just how crummy the average person is at heart. Exactly the sort of thing Burton tries to convey or sympathize with, but IMO, doesn't have the depth or discipline to showcase it.

I've come often to the conclusion that much of B'89 is the way it is because the character of the Joker runs counter to Burton's ethos: the Joker is first and foremost, a freak. But he is also a villain. In Burton's works, it's always the freaks who are the heroes. So there was an effort to link Joker to "the establishment". That is, part of "normal" society. Yes, he goes off the rails, but his goals are ultimately still rational or quasi-rational. My guess has been it's because Burton wants Batman to occupy the "hero-freak" role, and so downplays the Joker being a freak and outsider.

Nolan plays this from what I think is the more mature storytelling angle. That they are BOTH freaks, and that the Joker might adhere closer to Burton's traditional freak aesthetic doesn't make Batman less of a freak, just one who is stoic and in greater denial. And those personal aesthetics don't really have a relation to their moral codes: the fact that Nolan's Joker is one of the few elements in "The Dark Knight" that looks like it might come from a Tim Burton film isn't the indicator that he's an evil guy: it's because of the things he does.

 

I never thought about the freak angle Gonk. I think its quite an astute assessment of Burton's work & for me probably why I never cared for the franchise he started. The villains in Burton's films are freaks and that might be why they are front & center in his films while Batman is pushed off to the side. I think this is especially true in Batman Returns.

In Burton's version Batman & Joker are supposed to be echoes of each other, with each one creating the other. I don't think it works the way Burton intends because Joker isn't really the opposite of Batman. In Dark Knight Batman & Harvey Dent are two sides of the same coin with Joker as the wild card that sets things off in motion. I think Nolan's take is far more complicated and rewarding. Batman & Dent both fight crime but Dent refuses to work outside the law. He believes in the law and wants to uphold his ideals and is not above sacrifice. Making it all the more tragic when he succumbs and becomes Two Face. Batman takes up Dent's cause after he has fallen and decides to play the role of villain in order to make Dent a martyr to his cause. Burton's Batman never has to make a choice as complex as this one. Nolan's Batman/Wayne sacrifices everything and what does he have to show for it?

 

I never thought about the freak angle Gonk. I think its quite an astute assessment of Burton's work & for me probably why I never cared for the franchise he started. The villains in Burton's films are freaks and that might be why they are front & center in his films while Batman is pushed off to the side. I think this is especially true in Batman Returns.


Well in Burton's films, the HEROES are freaks. And those villains that are also freaks are tragic precisely because they are freaks. Thus in Burton's film, Batman is the freak hero. The one who 'does not fit in'. The Penguin and Catwoman are freaks, but sympathetic primarily because they don't fit into society. And much of Penguin's villainy stems from that desire to fit in and the corruption it brings.

Maybe it's the fitting into society that's key here.

The Joker in B'89 is not quite a freak in the same way, you see. Yeah, he's crazy, but he seems to 'fit in' to society when not operating at an individual level: he's got cronies that love him and don't seem as nuts as he is, he's able to generate public support, in a way, by appealing to the greed of the average person, he wants rudimentary things like Vicki Vale and Money and Power... if the Joker didn't murder so many people he might be mistaken for just an eccentric mobster.

If you take Heath's Joker and make him less of a killer, he's still NOT a mobster. At all. The Joker and Maroni never traveled in the same circles, never will.

The heroes in Burton's films are rarely if ever charismatic. They're not loved by the public. It's the villains who are all that.

Ergo, in a Burton film, society is evil. Individuals are good. The more an individual does not 'fit in', often the greater their moral character. Those that do fit into society or make efforts to fit in are either evil or are corrupted, because said human society is inherently awful.


In Burton's version Batman & Joker are supposed to be echoes of each other, with each one creating the other. I don't think it works the way Burton intends because Joker isn't really the opposite of Batman. In Dark Knight Batman & Harvey Dent are two sides of the same coin with Joker as the wild card that sets things off in motion. I think Nolan's take is far more complicated and rewarding. Batman & Dent both fight crime but Dent refuses to work outside the law. He believes in the law and wants to uphold his ideals and is not above sacrifice. Making it all the more tragic when he succumbs and becomes Two Face. Batman takes up Dent's cause after he has fallen and decides to play the role of villain in order to make Dent a martyr to his cause. Burton's Batman never has to make a choice as complex as this one. Nolan's Batman/Wayne sacrifices everything and what does he have to show for it?

You're onto something here. Batman, essentially, has many opposites. The Joker IS an opposite of Batman, but only his literal opposite. He looks and acts totally opposite of Batman. But they're not as emotionally linked as Burton would have us believe. Batman has a hard time with the Joker because he really wants to kill him and cannot, not because he'd feel empty without the Joker. It is, as you say, Harvey who mucks up his mind a lot more.

See, the Joker creating Batman doesn't work so well because Batman is more than the Joker, and it is Batman's story. Batman is about fighting crime, not about defeating the Joker. If the Joker were to die in an accident half a world away, Batman would say "good" and that would be the end of that. He's not all that interested in the Joker as a person and doesn't think about him much. Harvey, yes. Ra'as, yes. Catwoman and Talia, hell yes. Almost everyone else, no -- and the Joker's just the most ominous of a great number of villains whom he really doesn't care about any more than they stop doing what they're doing. It's Batman whose actions unintentionally INSPIRED the Joker, just as they inspired Catwoman in different ways. Just as they inspired most of his rogues gallery, with the notable exception of Ra'as Al Ghul and, I guess, Deadsho

 

I don't quite understand the ?establishment? ties, Gonk. Napier is a psychotic mob-enforcer whose acid-bath liberation gives him license to recreate Gotham in his own vain, lascivious image. He fancies himself ?the world's first fully-functional homicidal artist,? and thus operates as the quintessential iconoclast.

My perception of the Burton/Nolan cosmologies is very different than yours: the former amoral in the sense that it is content to pit two freaks against each other without making any sort of statement; the latter is fiercely moral, in that it pits an indefatigable monster against a righteous, unfathomably noble man.

 

I don't quite understand the ?establishment? ties, Gonk. Napier is a psychotic mob-enforcer whose acid-bath liberation gives him license to recreate Gotham in his own vain, lascivious image. He fancies himself ?the world's first fully-functional homicidal artist,? and thus operates as the quintessential iconoclast.


But he's a psychotic that works very much in society. In fact near the end of the movie he's out in public dancing up a storm with not a single person trying to apprehend him or call the cops. Rather, the public cheers him on despite the fact he's very clearly murdered many people.

Consider further how he functions as a man in the world he lives: he is sleeping with his boss's woman. He tries to take over the city for the purposes to rule over it. He goes after Vicki Vale because he thinks she's attractive. He wants the public to like him, and gets angry when Batman 'gets his press'. In other words, the Joker of Burton's world is recognizable human, with human needs and/or wants. There are indications that he actually COULD be bribed, bargained or negotiated with. Surely, he would turn on you for fun, but death, for instance, is NOT part of his plan. When the Joker stands before Batman's plane, he's NOT trying to get killed: it's actually a macho standoff. The Dark Knight's version of this standoff on the downtown street is very different: he actually WANTS Batman to kill him. Had it been Nicholson's Joker in that scene where Batman in approaching on his bat-bike, that Joker would have just kept shooting, because that Joker actually does just want Batman out of the way.


My perception of the Burton/Nolan cosmologies is very different than yours: the former amoral in the sense that it is content to pit two freaks against each other without making any sort of statement; the latter is fiercely moral, in that it pits an indefatigable monster against a righteous, unfathomably noble man.

I don't see that at all. As with all of Burton's films, I see a story about the virtues of standing outside society. A film that judges the common individual and assumes their guilt without trial. The loner in black -- in this a sort of "goth" stand-in -- is the hero, doing the right thing and putting down his enemies without questioning the morality of murder when it comes to it. The director does not put Batman's actions up for debate as does Nolan: it merely presumes that blowing up Axis chemicals and murdering the Joker is the right thing to do and that there is no moral quandry.

"The Dark Knight" is not like this. Batman's actions and motives are often brought into question. Batman is not unerringly noble; merely more noble than many others. He's certainly more noble than Keaton's Batman, but he's not necessarily more noble... in fact he's sort of LESS noble... than Harvey Dent before his disfigurement.

That the Joker in "The Dark Knight" is a complete monster is true. But he IS his role. He has no obsession with anyone save Batman. He cares only for his intangible concept of Chaos. Money is meaningless. Women are meaningless. Adulation is meaningless.

Yes, like in B'89 the average person's morality is questioned, but it is an actual trial with the Joker as the Prosecutor and Batman as the Defense. The decision in the end, naturally, is split, but at no point is the human race's guilt presumed. In fact it is carefully weighed against balances and counter-balances.

 

Why wouldn't they? He's appealing to their avarice. And that's the key to understanding his character. He doesn't work in society; he subverts it to cohere to his twisted vision.

Yes, he sleeps with the boss's woman, and then proceeds to deform her and delight in her suicide.

Yes, he tries to take over the city, insofar as murdering every man, woman and child via Smilex.

Yes, he pursues the attractive Vicki Vale, and then aims his acid-spraying flower at her visage.

Nicholson's Joker is very much a freak. The difference is that rather than feeling alienated by his maladies, he revels in them and uses the moral weaknesses of others to pervert and destroy. The enema is Gotham's, but the pleasure is his alone.

 

Great thread and great discussion. I too enjoy the first two Burton films. They are absurdly stylized, but that's the charm of them. There's a place for Batman in this operatic and gothic nightmare world of Gotham City, just as there's a place for Batman in the more realistic and serious Gotham City of Nolan's films. I have no real problems with either of the first two Burton films; they stand up, even after Nolan's work in the franchise.

And I think we can all agree the Elfman scores are fantastic.

 

You mean there was a time when one could be entranced by a superhero score?

Speaking of which, does everyone remember a scene early on in Batman Returns? Wayne is brooding in his manor, when suddenly the Bat-Signal appears in the wintry sky above, reflects off a series of dishes, pours through the window...and Wayne rises to meet it?

Is that not the most iconic, breathtaking, coolest (insert expletive here) thing in any comic book flick? Hell, it lasts all of twenty seconds, and it's worth more than all the Marvel adaptations put together. I want that scene played on a loop at my funeral!

 

The movie is really good overall, but there is one scene that I absolutely hate and fast-forward through it whenever I watch it: the scene where the Joker and his henchmen go through a museum vandalizing all the artwork, complete with some of his thugs holding boom boxes on their shoulders.

 

I have a book of interviews with Burton, it's called BURTON ON BURTON, and the subject of Prince's music in Batman comes up.

Burton was a big fan of Prince, but didn't really feel quite so much of his music belonged in the movie.

This is something that was not under Burton's control, it was a decision of producers Peter Guber and Jon Peters who sold the idea to the brass at Warner Brothers. Prince was a big Warner Bros. recording artist and they wanted the cross-promotion of him being involved with the film so they could make a bunch of extra income off Prince's music sales.

It was an awkward situation with Burton and Prince. Even though Burton was already a successful director (he had two big hits behind him) he still didn't have quite enough clout to have final say on everything.

I love Elfman's scores!