Review of Batman (1989) by Irfaan J — 02 Sep 2013

When Tim Burton's Batman was released, I was only a couple of years old so I missed out on all the hype and hysterics surrounding its release. Of course a quick breeze through the internet is all that's needed to find out how big of a deal this film was at its time. The first real attempt to portray the immensely popular comic book hero in a serious, epic light, it quickly became the highest earning film of 1989, with ticket lines allegedly circling city blocks they were so long. Fans of the dark comic book character finally had a faithful cinematic version to enjoy, a far cry from the tongue in cheek, candy coloured comedic Adam West series of the 60's. To this day it's still considered by many to be a classic; some even say its the best Batman film ever to appear on screen, even in leu of the more recent interpretations from Christopher Nolan.

My memories of Batman started with the Adam West series, which I thoroughly enjoyed growing up. It then moved on to the cinematic incarnations, which for me started with 1995's Batman Forever, followed by 1992's Batman Returns and then 1997's Batman and Robin, all of which (with the possible exception of the dark and unsettling tone of Returns) I found to be fun, exciting movies that any kid could lap up. But it was the Warner Brother's ground breaking Batman the Animated Series created by Bruce Timm that really grabbed me as being the Batman that I ended up siding with as the definitive one. I watched it whenever it was on and I still look upon it with great fondness and affection. Not being a comic book reader, these were the versions of Batman that formed my initial opinion of the character. I didn't end up watching the first Tim Burton Batman till much later into my teens, at which point my opinion of films in general started to mature somewhat. So for me it was a chance to experience the movie from a fresh perspective, unbiased by nostalgia or an easy going childlike sense of wonder. So what did I think of it? ... Eh, it was alright.

The plot takes place in the fictional, gothically staged Gotham City, a cauldron of crime and misery where no pedestrian is safe, day or night. With the police largely ineffective and riddled with crookedness, it takes a dark, mysterious figure known only as Batman to clean up the streets. Considered to be an urban legend by the police and govenors, he has the criminal underworld frightened and its up to journalists Vickie Vale and Alexander Knox to get to the bottom of it. In reality, Batman is actually the alter ego of playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne, who's tragic past has driven him into a lifetime of crimefighting at night, whilst by day he hides in plain sight in his extravagant mansion, holding high class parties and fund raisers for Gotham's upper crust. On the other side of the tracks, crime boss Carl Grissam attempts to set up his number one heavy Jack Napier for assasination under the guise of a chemical factory heist, after he finds out he was having an affair with his girlfriend behind his back. The attempt is interrupted by the police, who get tipped off about the job, and in all the chaos as the gangsters engage in a shootout with the cops, Batman appears and in trying to apprehend Napier, ends up accidently throwing him into a vat of chemicals. This leaves him horribly scarred and deformed, both physically and as it turns out mentally, driving him to go under the name Joker, alluding to his pale white skin and grotesque grin. The Joker quickly cements himself as a chaotic menace in Gotham and its up to Batman to stop him.

I have never been a huge fan of the Tim Burton Batman movies (both this and Batman Returns). I remember liking Returns a bit when I was little, but over time both movies have deteriorated in their appeal. It should be said that the first movie should be commended at least for its place in history; it reinvigorated both comic book adapations and Batman on the big screen, and gave us an interpretation that has had a big impact on how popular culture sees the character now. In fact without Tim Burton, we wouldn't have had the awesome animated tv series, which was directly influenced by the Burton movies. On top of that they were huge tentpole movies of the time and massively successful. Unfortunately, they're just not very good movies and that comes both from the quality up on screen and how they measure up to how comic book characters have been treated on film in the years since (I was a late comer to the first film).

Batman's biggest flaw is how unfocused it is as a movie. There is no real central plot, or even a central character so to speak. Indeed, even though it bares his name, the movie treats Batman almost like a side character, battling for attention amongst the rest of the cast. Sure we learn of his backstory and in one of the few interesting writing choices, his backstory ends up tying right into the main villain's, the Joker, which adds an underscore of drama to their inevitable confrontation. But in terms of screen time he has as much if not less than any of the other major players, including the two journalists. In fact, their story of trying to track down the truth behind Batman is given just as much relevance as Batman himself, which doesn't add anything to the movie other than a love interest, who promptly becomes the damsel in distress that has to be saved. Vickie Vale's scenes with Bruce Wayne do have an easy going charm to them, but it's not enough to invest fully in their relationship, especially with the amount of weight attributed to it.

But amongst all these players, the one who rises above them all is the Joker, who we see before and after his transformation and all the way through his diabolical plot to spread chaos through Gotham. Thanks to Jack Nicholson's brilliantly manic performance, the character ends up making the biggest impression and the only one who seems to push events forward. Everyone else, including Batman, don't seem to accomplish anything but chasing the Joker around till he eventually stays in one place ready for the final confrontation. But even despite his presence in the movie, the Joker's story isn't particularly interesting either; once an intimidating enforcer betrayed by his boss and accidently turned into an insane, psychotic clown when Batman couldn't save him, now just wants to screw with Gotham's residents and out perform Batman in the popularity stakes. While entertaining to watch in parts, there's just no drive to the Joker's madness, he merely exists to enact chaos, which I guess is the point, but the film never once points that out so it ends up just seeming aimless. There's no real tension behind whether or not Batman stops him and that makes the movie seem ultimately pointless by the end.

With all that being said however, Batman is still a perfectly watchable film and there are things about it that still make it worth while. There are three main area that film excels. The first being the visuals, which are wonderfully atmospheric and moody. Gotham City is brought to life in all its grimy detail with sets, backdrops and miniatures that create the illusion of a sprawling metropolis of decay and darkness. There's a great use of shadows throughout a lot of the film, whether its obscure the presence of a mysterious figure or to accentuate features of a character, particularly Batman's eyes. While certain special effects do look dated now, the film's overall look is still very impressive.

The second area of merit are the the performances, namely that of Michael Keaton as Batman / Bruce Wayne and Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Keaton was a controversial choice back on the film's release, mainly known for his comedic performances and previously working for Burton in Bettlejuice. And while he certainly isn't a very physically imposing person, he does a great job of portraying the duel identities of Bruce Wayne and Batman. As Wayne, he has an understated, likeable charm that succeeds in disarming anyone into thinking such a person could be the caped crusader. But as Batman, even with the ridiculous costume (which looks a little too rubbery and short in my opinion), he has an effortlessly cool, confident and menacing presence without really having to do much. It all mainly comes through the subtly modulated voice and his general body language, as well as the occassional moments you get to see his eyes. He doesn't even have to say much to be convincing as a deadly criem fighter. Nicholson on the other hand is the complete opposite of Keaton's understatement. Embracing the lunacy of his character, he goes all out in delivering on the Joker's unhinged, exuberant personality. It doesn't go so far as to be annoying, but it's enough OTT to be thoroughly entertaining. Unfortunately, with the exception of a couple of scenes, it also proves to rob the character of any kind of dramatic weight. I could never take him seriously as a threat, despite how entertaining he was to watch. The other performances are all fine but ultimately inconsequential. Michael Gough as Alfred is the only other one that makes an impression.

The last but not least element that shines in Batman is the musical score by Danny Elfman. Elfman has composed all of the Burton's movies to date and this represents one of his most iconic works. The main theme of this film, which we hear immediately in the opening credits, sends tingles up my spine everytime I hear it. It's one of the most recognisable movie themes and almost rivals John William's Superman score for it's grandeur. The rest of the movie's music doesn't quite reach the same level as the main theme, although it's still effective in underscoring the movie's action. As for the Prince soundtrack, I like to pretend like it doesn't exist for the most part. With the exception of one scene, where the Joker and his henchmen deface an art gallery, it feels like it belongs in another movie and clearly was only there to capitalise on the musical artist's popularity at the time.

In the end, Batman isn't an awful film and out of the four major live-action Batman films released in the 90's that were technically part of the same franchise, it is probably the best of them. It's the most fun to watch for sure and has the best performances. The overall technical quality of the production, along with the engaging performances, are enough to make it worth at least one watch and it's fairly inoffensive on repeat viewings on tv. But as a standalone film taken on the merits of what I consider at least to be good filmmaking, it falls short. And especially when compared to the recent resurgence of comic book movies, this looks thoroughly dated in comparison in regard to character and story development. A fun diversion overall, but not the Batman movie I turn to when thinking of a classic.