|
Blogs
Musings from Batman Movie Online
Batman does kill by ral on Fri, 12th September 2008
[edit: There seems to be a little confusion over the purpose of this blog, probably due to the sensationalist title. It is not a viewpoint that Batman should kill. It is meerly an opinion of the factors that have led Batman to be perceived as a killer in Burton's films. Agree? Disagree? Discuss it here - ral]
 New action hero
 1989 was a strange year. The macho excess of the 80's was drawing to a close and a new decade of political correctness was around the corner. Batman 89 was a response to both of these eras. It is big and brash, yet subtle and mysterious.
During the 80's Schwarzenegger and Stallone were the height of their fame. Movie violence was gratuitous, gory and glorified. The heroes were big, tough and had more muscles than a sea-food restaurant. Enter Michael Keaton in stark contrast to all that was established and enter the backlash, the letters and the newspaper headlines (you know the history).
 Michael was not the obvious choice to many, but Tim Burton had a problem. He wanted to create a believable character - one that would be taken seriously and completely erase the image in peoples minds that Batman was a camp 1960's tv show.
Tim didn't know many within the movie industry but he knew he trusted Keaton as someone who was on his wave length. Having worked with him previously on Beetlejuice, Tim knew Michael could understand the sensiblities he wanted to instil in the character. He also saw the intensity in Keaton's performances (Clean and Sober) coupled with his no-nonsense, and sometimes wise-ass (Nightshift), demeanour. Keaton could portray the more realistic and fractured psyche that Burton saw Batman having - someone who was obsessed with an insane mission, unable to resolve different demands on his life and someone who would need to use theatrics and armour to fight criminals.
With this, a new action hero was born. Not the muscle bound commando with guns blazing but a vulnerable yet calculating crusader. His Batman is a strong skilled fighter. We may not always see it, especially when he is Bruce Wayne, but we are supposed to assume it.
Even if Keaton was in contrast to the conventional action hero, Batman the movie was still in the vain of 80's action films - the action sequences contained fun and hair-raising grandeur even if the story of the movie did not, just like Indiana Jones and Star Wars. Remember the first time we saw the Batmobile on screen. Remember the Bat-wing flying in front of the moon. Sadly, they don't seem to do that anymore!
A Killing Joke?
    Batman isn't supposed to kill is the most received complaint about Batman 89. Burton was not a comic book reader. All the material he was interpreting came via Michael Uslan. Uslan presented Burton with the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers runs, the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil runs (where Batman did not kill) and the first year of the Kane/Finger run (before the CCA, where Batman did kill).
Burton was also influenced by Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.
But the film is what it is - an 80's movie. Being a film that draws from both the 80's and the 90's (whether it was an influence to either, i can't say) we do have to accept that violence is gratuitous at times - Batman is almost Dirty Harry at times (shoot first and ask questions later) with his assault on Axis and the Jokers parade, but then confronted with a virtual army that the Joker has created, what other choice is there but to use maximum force to exterminate the overwhelming odds. This is what the 80's movies were all about. There is a quote "The times get the heroes they deserve" - and wasn't Batman 89 made to appeal the widest audience possible?? Yes!
Exploring the consequence of violence in movies is more of a 90's notion - which we see in the flashback of the Wayne's murder. The scene is in slow-motion. The gunshots linger, mixed with screams and falling bodies that surround young Bruce.
We cut back to Bruce in the cave - the memory still sharp in his mind as he looks at the face of the killer. As the child is the protagonist of the movie (Batman) we identify and the horror of his parents murder is poingent.
Burton's Batman doesn't start out as a killer. He is out to rid Gotham of its evil by spreading fear in Gotham's street criminals and tries to gain the trust of Gotham's good cops by delivering Grissom to them via Napier. He uses heavy-handed (but non-lethal) methods.
Once Bruce learns that Napier is the killer of his parents he gets side tracked by a personal vendetta which, in the end, results in helping achieve the end goal. Ultimately he succumbs to revenge and even though the movie ends with Batman as the hero, he crossed a line that he shouldn't have....he killed.
It could be said that Batman89 carries the bagage of 80's action movies/heroes with it but I think it has the best of the 80's and 90's in it.
Batman is the consequence of violence and we understand why. It is a pity however that the repercussions of his violence aren't addressed fully in Batman Returns (it is to be noted though that Returns is not, and was not meant to be, a sequel), as it made what could have been a wonderful character arc - a tragic hero seeking redemption.
Although helped in no small measure by Michael Gough, Michael Keaton conveyed the character beautifully - an action hero and a scarred tragic figure. To me he is a conflicted anti-hero, making mistakes and painfully learning from them.
It seems that everyone is allowed to have "their" Batman. Each comic book writer has had their spin. Every fan has their opinion. It seems everyone is allowed to have an opinion on Batman except Tim Burton.
Last edited by ral on Sun, 16th August 2009 at 6:33am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
