It has been years since I watched the 1989 Batman film and so I was rather interested to see that it was on Turner Classic Movies. I like watching films on television movie channels, in fact I may even venture that I prefer them to the DVD release or the on-demand services where you can pause or rewind the film. There is an immediacy that television shares with the cinema which you lose with VHS or DVD. You’re forced to sit there and concentrate for the entire length of the film. On TCM you’re not diverted by adverts – it’s just the movie unfolding without your control.
I find that rather captivating as I’m an appalling person to watch DVDs with. I watch them like novels – a chapter here, a chapter there, put them down for a few days and then pick them up again. Or I’ll blast throught the entire thing in one marathon sitting – movie, commentary, extras, the works! The televised film removes those luxuries and forces you to watch it on its terms.
Watching Batman that way was like watching the film anew. In fact, I think I’ve enhanced my personal understanding of the film. Back in the 1980s Burton was talking all about the early Batman strips and how he was influenced by their dark gothic character. And yes there is a very strong element of that Batman in the film, particularly how the Batman treats his enemies, but there is another element that had really passed me by. I’m sure other people spotted it, but I think I was probably trying to ignore the possibility that it was there.
This film for all its curious blend of the neo-gothic with the art deco still owes a huge debt to the pop culture of the 1960s television series. Just count the times you see coloured gas or even the slight camera tilts to add a sense of imbalance to the scene. Jack Nicholson’s Joker is also far closer to Cesar Romero’s Joker than he is to the comic book version of the crown prince of crime (how long since we’ve seen that referenced!).
Joel Schumacher reintroduced camp into the franchise for his two films, but he really missed the trick. The 1966 TV show used camp as a nod and a wink for the adults, but it was never meant to be noticed by the children. All they got was the action, adventure, and the thrill of seeing the Batman in action. Burton’s film keeps that sense of action that we loved as kids, but he doesn’t try to make us grow up (he left that for his sequel). Burton remade a version of the Adam West show what we watched as kids while Joel Schumacher remade the version that we watched as adults.
(Another thing I never noticed: Vicky Vale can’t keep her shoes on. She has dinner with Bruce Wayne and looses her shoes. She goes off running with the Batman and looses her shoes. She goes climbing with the Joker and she… looses her shoes. I don’t know if that’s a metaphor, but it’s in there. )
The other obvious contrast is to Christopher Nolan’s recent Batman Begins. Burton takes the 1939 Finger and Kane Batman and mixes him with a goth version of the 1960s show; Nolan on the other hand takes the 1970s O’Neal/Englehart Batman and mixes in a bit of Bladerunner and Superman: The Movie. Having gone back and watched the first film I think I can honestly say that I think it’s a better film than Batman Begins – not necessarily a better version of Batman, but a definitely a better film.
Subscribe to new posts with RSS
Follow @JLAblog on Twitter
Contact Us
Batman Begins is far better. Tim Burtons Batman was a good effort and a soild comic book movie but it doesn’t reach true greatness. Batman Begins was a fantastic adventure that might be the best comic book movie ever. It totally got into Bruces head and totally explained everything about his character. Micheal Keatons Batman is underdevloped and poor at martial arts. Jack Nicholoson was a good joker but doesn’t quite match Hamils preformance in the animated series. All the villians in Begins rocked and were totally believalble. Overall Begins is the best by far in my opinion.
There is an interesting interview with Michael Uslan at the Pulse – he’s been the producer or exec producer of every Batman film since the 1980s (check IMDB he’s even exec producer on all the animated direct to video Batman releases). He’s got an interesting quote on the comparison of Batman and Batman Begins, “Batman Begins is a better film that elevates comic book movies to a new plateau (It’s a great film, not simply a great comic book film.), but Batman was revolutionary.”
Batman Begins is a terrific film and is one of the high points of the genre, but it doesn’t have the iconic stature of the first film. I think we often forget just how big an event the 1989 Batman film was – it was the first DC film to have a video game spin off, it powered a massive number of commercials (just think how many places you saw Alfred in TV commercials), it prompted serious academic discussion on superheroes and their icons, and it created a merchandising phenomia the almost rivalled Star Wars.
I really wish they’d put out a DVD boxed set of the Batman The Movie (1966), Batman (1989), and Batman Begins (2005) – just a pure collectors dream.
Batman Begins
Well as a self confessed nutcase who’s been obsessed with Batman on numerous occasions, seeing this film left me with mixed feelings as did the two by Tim Burton.
1) Bruce Wayne was a much stronger character as was the spoilt only child having a bad tantrum
as he always should be.
2) The fights were very good as well as the general plot and is well worth buying later
However here are the problems
1) Alfred was entertaining but again was not accurate, a cockney this time rather than a type-cast well spoken english senior citizen.
2) Jim Gordon was hopelessly weak, and when on earth was he meant to be a Gotham Cop? – he hated Gotham as a cop, couldn’t wait to get out of it if I remember correctly. And he wanted to capture Batman by his groin rahter than join in with his escapades immediately – bit poor this rendition of him, but still more accurate then Burton’s
3) Wayne Manor burning down – this was unforgivable, what happens now? – does he go back to living in his penthouse and using an abandoned subway for his headquarters like he did in the 70′s and early 80′s?
4) There were other hopeless inconsistencies with the Batman Legend but are too too numerous
to count, I mean Ra’s Al Ghul as one of his sensei’s – yeah right!!
As for the Tim Burton collection, well from an artistic point of view they were excellent. The blending of neo-gothic and art deco architecute via reinventions of Broadway, Rockefeller Center etc really
was truly excellent.
However he did use far too much artistic licence with the characters. Selina Kyle as a Jewish
Secretary instead of a prostitute, plus having an equally type cast Jewish New Yorker mother was an interesting varient. Aside from that his indepth characterisations of Selina Kyle’s and Oswald Cobblepot’s
grief alone left poor old Brucie taking a back seat. But Batman Returns still remains my second favourite Batty film purely for it’s outstanding artistic achievement. Problem is after that his films just became a much of a muchness in a lot of ways.
J
Forgot to say. Even though the mantle of directing Batman has been passed on from Tim Burton, his invention
of Batman’s costume does appear to have been his most lasting legacy. I noticed in Batman Begins that he still retained fully black body armour instead of black/grey saggy tights and tiny ears with more of
a soldier’s/carpenters style utility belt.
I reviewed this on my blog here…, but not very well. I like what you say, but I think that Batman Begins is the best, maybe it reflects its own times best, although its an eternal story.
WRT why Vicki Vale’s always losing her shoes, its probably a Kim Bassinger/Michael Keaton hieght thing. Batman is meant to be tall.
“Another thing I never noticed: Vicky Vale can’t keep her shoes on. She has dinner with Bruce Wayne and looses her shoes. She goes off running with the Batman and looses her shoes. She goes climbing with the Joker and she… looses her shoes. I don’t know if that’s a metaphor, but it’s in there. )”
In reference to this comment – a woman losing one or both shoes is used to portray one as a
damsel in distress which Vicky Vale is in this movie.