Batman Films 1989 - 97

 It feels as if Batman is everywhere now but there was a time when he’d been all but forgotten by the mainstream, his eternal development limited to the comic book fraternity. In 1989 however Warner Bros revived the character and started us on a road that arguably has led to the superhero movie era in which we now live. So I thought I’d take a look back at the quartet of Batman movies made in the late Eighties and Nineties. Often forgotten since the Chrstopher Nolan trilogy these four films offered some interesting takes on the legend.

Batman (1989) started it all off, a pivotal movie in changing our perspective on comic book adaptations. Before it was released the character of Batman was viewed differently depending on your media of choice. For comic strip fans the character had been reinvented with darker themes by the likes of The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke yet for the wider public perception was rooted in the camp Sixties tv series with its colourful aesthetic and over the top POW! WHAM! dialogue. In a lot of ways Tim Burton’s 1989 film never quite reconciles these two approaches. Its literally and thematically dark- so much so that the action is sometimes obscured by shadows and smoke – yet it also contains some larger than life performances and a certain garishness associated with the Joker. The most popular theme of more recent iterations- the duality between Bruce Wayne and Batman – is not really explored here. We see Bruce brooding in his bat cave of course but Michael Keaton’s performance is lighter in touch than the sort of Bruce Wayne we’re more familiar with nowadays.

The other aspect that stands out now is how unlike a Tim Burton film this is. Compared to the preceding Beetlejuice and the subsequent Edward Scissorhands, this feels as if Burton was either pressured or opted to try and squeeze his eccentricities into a mainstream film. While arguably they may have been more exciting in the cinema, the action scenes now seem somewhat stilted especially as the movie’s main car chase seems to have been filmed on a set. The admittedly impressive Gotham soundstages confine the action; when we see how mighty the Batmobile looks and then watch it barely exceeding the speed limit it sucks the life out of what should be an edge of seat scene. Action has never been Burton’s forte (though he’s got better at it) so it’s not surprising that the more memorable sequences involve the characters.

Most people remember Jack Nicholson’s extravagant turn as the Joker though with the hindsight of later interpretations it seems less crazy. I’m sure its just the editing but the film seems to suggest Napier was back on his feet the following morning after being dropped in a tank of acid (and why is it only his face that’s damaged?) There is a similarity and a link between Batman and the Joker though this is summed up in a couple of lines here and could do with a lot more attention especially given the power of both Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton. While the latter’s casting caused some consternation amongst fans back then it makes more sense now. His Bruce is more believable though the actor has to take second billing to the showier Nicholson whose involvement came with provisos.

His performance is definitely memorable creating more of a theatrical than a psychotic Joker. Interestingly Burton’s original choice for the Joker was John Glover, obviously not as big a marquee name, but I reckon he would have been fantastic.  One thing I had forgotten is how good Kim Basinger is throughout this movie. Given a role that could easily be a cipher she brings real personality to the table and is a good match to Keaton.

Visually it does look sumptuous- Gotham’s always intriguing mix of old fashioned and new - its never clear in what year Batman movies are supposed to be set. Tim Burton is most at home in Bruce’s extensive wood panelled house or the dusty cathedral where the climax takes place. Gotham itself is rendered like a 1930s Art deco masterpiece with strange buildings rising above the offices and much of the action is set during night time. Looking back hiring Tim Brton to helm this film was a risk -it’s only his third big screen project- and often it pays off. He brings his macabre strangeness to a lot of the scenes from Joker’s art gallery vandalism (accompanied by music from Prince) to Batman’s enigmatic nocturnal appearances shrouded in smoke and darkness.

I would say that the main reason why the film doesn’t thrill as much as its reputation suggests it does is down to the editing. It lacks a flow, we leap from one set piece to another and developments sometimes lack context. It feels like we’re still scene setting half way through and the script lacks motivation for Joker. He just seems to want to take over and kill lots of people but why? Batman is less than the sum of its parts but has purple patches; perhaps had Tim Burton (who later called the film “boring”) enjoyed more creative control things might be different? Three years later we’d find out…

 

Batman Returns (1992) is very much more of a Tim Burton film thanks partly to the director being given more creative control and his increased aesthetic confidence after Edward Scissorhands. Burton has been reluctant to return but after the success of Batman, Warner Bros tempted him back with the promise of more creative control. In the end while successful, Batman Returns made almost half the amount of its predecessor;  an interesting example of how creative and commercial aspirations often diversify.

Set in winter and introduced with a lengthy Burtonesque prologue that sees a couple so shocked by the deformed baby they have recently sired they take it to the park and throw it in the river. As an introduction to a blockbuster it could scarcely be darker but Burton is setting out his stall here to show this is a different film to Batman.

Its three main participants have similar storylines- each suffered a defining shock in their lives (murdered parents, thrown off a tall building, abandoned as a baby and brought up by sewer dwelling penguins) from which they have re-emerged with resilience and determination to pursue their agenda whether for the good of Gotham or otherwise. Whereas Jack Nicholson dominated the first film, the material is more evenly divided though Michael Keatons’s Batman remains- as he should be- a shadowy, elusive figure. The quips often associated with the character are largely absent here; under the cowl he is stone faced and as Bruce has a casual, light air that contrasts well with the larger than life performances he’s surrounded by. It seems some of this was down to Keaton himself who asked for a minimum of dialogue while suited up.

Much has been made of the sexual undercurrent of the film- there are some double entendres lurking- courtesy of Michelle Pfeiffer who slinks across the screen with sensual aggression. While its never quite explained how she can survive that fall thanks to some cats licking her and without serious physical damage, she is soon leaping and somersaulting around Gotham like an athlete. Danny de Vito is snarling eccentricity all the way; his Penguin eschews the comedic look of the cartoon version to become a feral creature who lives to hate everyone with a look as offputting and alarming as Catwoman is sexy and alluring.

It is interesting to watch both of them and see how the script tries to change our feelings about them. The scatty pre- fall Selena is a delightful character almost like someone from a sitcom so her recovery is something we enjoy. Yet the more she is Catwoman it becomes clear she is not a straightforward vigilante like Batman. She’s a bit crazy- the scene in the empty shop where she decapitates five mannequins (really performed by the actor on first take!) makes it clear she is unhinged and dangerous. Or are we thinking that because she is woman who has been wronged? The film and Pfeiffer’s performance certainly suggest a sexual liberation while also that she becomes a feminist warrior. A telling scene sees her save a woman and then lambast her for allowing it to happen which doesn’t seem especially feminist. Maybe time has moved on since 1992. Either way this isn’t explored much further as Catwoman becomes increasingly concerned with Batman. The PG-13 rating restricted how far things could go in this direction.

With Oswald while his story is sympathetic, his actions are not and the film could really have done with making more of the difference between his public image projected by Shreck and the reality. Penguin and Catwoman make a most odd couple for Batman to deal with the addition of Chrisopher Walken’s industrialist Max Shreck who wisely doesn’t try to compete with his fellow villains opting for a more laid back delivery.

The film looks tremendous from the `look` of the main characters to the gothic environs of Gotham. Issues with being studio bound from the first film are rectified and this time the vehicles run much faster and the larger scenes pack more impact. The extensive use of penguins gives a surreal touch even if you can spot the animatronic ones a mile off.

The set design is epic in every sense, even more than the first film Gotham has a real character here with unusually shaped structures, towering buildings and Oswald’s underwater lair. The Gotham zoo set resembles those topiary gardens in Edward Scissorhands.  Burton can never resist melodramatic moments that lean into the darker aspect of his films yet he is careful to include plenty of action too with some chaotic attacks and unexpected arrivals.

Where the movie is less sure footed is the plot. While underscoring the similarity between the main characters, the plot often seems designed to let the actors show off rather than propel a narrative. The Penguin’s mayoral bid for example; the way it gains and then loses support so quickly doesn’t ring true even in this context while Catwoman’s meanderings don’t necessarily have an aim. Her target should surely be Shreck yet she seems to spend much of her time trying to kill Batman. And you have to laugh at how many times the poor Mayor has to put up and light another giant Christmas tree in the main square. Does he have a warehouse full of them? Tim Burton was never going to do a third Batman movie and Warner Bros seemed to be happy to try someone else next…

 

Batman Forever (1995) saw Joel Schumaker step into the directors’ chair bringing a different sensibility to the franchise. In place of steely blue and dark stone, his version is bright and colourful brimming with pep and energy. At times it resembles a circus with its larger than life characters and set piece stunts. Its enjoyable yet does start to wear out the viewer as it progresses.

 Schumaker certainly cuts to the chase; one of the two villains featured, Two Face, aka Harvey Dent has already suffered his life changing accident allowing the film to open with his latest scheme. Admittedly his methods are not that far removed from either the Penguin or the Joker in previous movies. Gotham must have an agency Goons for Hire where any villain can employ rambunctious folk to dress up like clowns and cause mayhem. Two Face’s main objective seems to be to kill Batman because the latter failed to save him though we find out he did try. Because the previous films have already explored duality Dent seems something of a repeat of those themes and whether it’s the script or his performances, Tommy Lee Jones doesn’t quite really define two separate personalities coming across as very similar to the Penguin with his psychotic laughter. Meanwhile our other villain is Edward Nygma played as only he knows how by Jim Carrey. In 1995 he was in the ascendent with his rubbery eccentricity so his performance here as the soon to be Riddler is very similar to the one he gave in The Mask.

What might have worked better – and certainly more suited Jones’ acting style- would be for Two Face to be more menacing and less frantic to counteract the Riddler’s endless prancing. The latter is the only character as eccentric before his transformation as after. Towards the end of the movie the duo’s relentless gurning and laughing does become a bit repetitive.

With Michael Keaton declining to return, the Bat cape is handed to Val Kilmer who does a good job of taking some of Keaton’s low key performance while also being more of a conventional leading man. As psychologist Chase Meridian (a name surely for a Bond girl) Nicole Kidman can’t match the impact Michelle Pfieffer made in the previous film though she is given some (deliberately?) corny lines. Chris O’Donnell is introduced as Robin and I know it’s canon but you have to smile at yet another character story whose circumstances match that of Bruce Wayne, an aspect that does get repetitive over these films. The way people don’t recognise each other through masks and Chase can’t even tell she’s kissing the same guy when she snogs Batman and later Bruce seems silly. Mind you there’s a fetishism apparent throughout the film and a suggestion that its really the rubber costume she’s into.

Schumacher’s Gotham is even wilder than Burton’s but with gothic towers replaced by Thirties style blocks. The script edges towards the tongue in cheek style of the Sixties show though stops short of copying it. There’s even a scene which pokes fun at Robin’s turn of phrase in that series. Overall the dial is set to Fun with a minimum of brooding in dark rooms and a maximum of jaunty conversations in between loud action. The latter are definitely the best staged so far.

Tim Burton isn’t really an action director and some of his sequences seemed laboured compared with the way Schumaker’s cameras whizz through the action. He uses lighting and even smoke to great effect and creates a palpable momentum. The only issue is that there is no light and shade, no reflective periods and the Bruce/ Chase relationship is played mostly for laughs rather than to explore either character

The results are a much more audience friendly proposition, Balman Forever is an easier watch for the mainstream viewer than the darker hues of Batman Returns and has more spills and thrills than Batman. In many ways it is more traditional harking back to the older comics before Batman was reinvented on the page.

 

Batman and Robin (1997) The most frivolous of the four films, Joel Schumacher’s second Batfilm is never less than frantic. Nothing is too over the top! Packed with about five antagonists of varying importance the narrative can do little more than leap from one set piece to another filled with extravagant performances of varying effectiveness. Of course, it’s hugely entertaining partly because its mostly aware of its absurdity, even more so than its predecessors.

We open without any atmospherics but with an action sequence. Mr Freeze is already up to no good, stealing diamonds and blasting anyone who tries to stop him with a large freeze gun. A couple of lines later on explain just how he can survive after falling into a tank of frozen water (why do people keep falling into tanks in Gotham?) but he’s the least likely villain. Played by Arnold Schwarzeneggar in quiptastic mode its hard to believe he was one of the world’s biggest film stars at the time. Later when called upon to show a little emotion, the results are as cold as his character. He’s not of course intended to be a subtle character- his name before his accident was already Doctor Freiz. Knowing comics probably Frank Freiz.

Yet you get the sense he realised how silly he looked in his ice costume and painted blue face. Uma Thurman on the other hand seems wholly serious as Poison Ivy, a character who doesn’t even get to fall into a tank, instead is pushed into a table full of plant toxins she’s been using to create a super soldier, Bane. The actor is aiming at the same alluring mix that Michelle Pfieffer showed in Batman Returns but somehow falls short.

In an even less convincing alliance as that between Riddler and Two Face in the last movie, these two team up to generally kill Batman, freeze the world so it can start again, oh and kill Batman. Naturally they have a squad of lackeys to do some of the fighting; amusingly called Ice Thugs in the credits, but though they do a lot of bad things, the staging never makes us horrified. Had everyone dialled down their performance just a bit, the results might have been much better.

Though it runs to over two hours there’s not much let up from endless chases, fights and explosions. Given the budget and scale of the sets the director manages to make it look like a tacky Vegas show sometimes, notably the introduction of Batman and Robin at the start. Had they run into shot and launched into a song amidst all those lights and smoke, I wouldn’t have been surprised. This film’s Bruce is George Clooney who brings a lighter touch and a good rapport with Chris O’Donell’s Robin and Alica Silverstone’s Batgirl.

What is surprising is the latter part of the film wherein the script suddenly discovers something of a heart; paralleling Mr Freeze’s wife (whom he’s cryogenically frozen after she became terminally ill) and the fate of faithful Alfred who has the same illness. This connection might have been established earlier, though does provide a welcome break from the shenanigans elsewhere. Eventually of course the film ends in an avalanche of icy effects and melodramatic confrontation.

Batman and Robin ended this run; a proposed fifth film Batman Unchained, was cancelled and when the franchise returned to the movies eight years later it looked very different.