Batman (1989)
Directed by Tim Burton

Film Review

Fans of the original DC Comics Batman adventures and their kitsch 1960s television revival were generally unimpressed by Tim Burton's attempt to give Batman a darker, more mysterious persona, in the first of what was to be a phenomenally successful series of superhero films which dominated mainstream cinema in the 1990s.  It was the popularity of Burton's first film Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985) that led Warner Brothers to hire him for his first blockbuster action film, and the film's massive success at the box office (it took over 400 million dollars worldwide) established Burton as one of the leading American filmmakers of the decade.  Critical reaction to the film was less encouraging, and Burton himself claimed to be disappointed by the film, dismissing it as one of his lesser efforts (although its success doubtless earned him far greater creative control over his subsequent films).  Media interest in the film necessitated that it be shot in England (at Pinewood Studios), an experience that the director described as torture.

Whilst it cannot be denied that Batman is a visual tour de force - production designer Anton Furst does an excellent job creating a superb backdrop for Batman's adventures, a decaying Gothic metropolis mired in crime - the film overall is somewhat lacking, marred by a lacklustre screenplay and some less than brilliant casting decisions.  No amount of impressive action sequences is going to make up for the glaring lacunae in the plot and characterisation, and as the film drags itself towards its totally predictable conclusion it is painfully evident that there is not enough story to carry the bloated monolith through to the end.  The idea of making Batman and the Joker alter-egos, each responsible for the creation of the other, is an interesting one but it is not developed as fully as it might be, and is somewhat undermined by the fact that the clowning villain gets far more attention than the brooding bat-eared hero, who seems to skulk about in the shadows like a sulky teenager for most of the film.

The casting of Michael Keaton for the dual role of Bruce Wayne / Batman was always going to be controversial, particularly as the actor was known for playing light comedic roles in such films as Night Shift (1982) and Mr. Mom (1983).   It was on the strength of his performance in Burton's previous film Beetlejuice (1988) that the director felt Keaton would make a superb Batman, and sure enough the actor does bring the required menace and mystique to the part.  Keaton's creditable performance is however frustrated by a script that fails to make his character as complex or sympathetic as he needs to be.  By contrast, most of the attention appears to be focussed on Batman's far more colourful enemy, the Joker, played with manic relish by Jack Nicholson.  Again, the Joker suffers from a deficit of character detail, but Nicholson at least manages to make him interesting (as well he might, given that the part earned him somewhere in the region of fifty million dollars, thanks to a very shrewd piece of contract negociation).  By contrast, Kim Basinger's bland heroine is instantly forgettable, again because the actress has very little to work with.  Jack Palance has far more impact as a truly nasty crime boss (even if his character is too hastily written out of the picture) and it is a treat to see the English character actor Michael Gough comfortably ensconced in the role of Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred.

Batman owes its extraordinary success not to its artistic achievements (which are pretty minimal) but to a fantastic global marketing campaign, the like of which the world had never seen before.  Not only did the film spawn three popular sequels - Batman Returns (1992), Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997) - it also engendered an acclaimed animated television series, Batman (1992-1995) and established the modern superhero blockbuster as one of the most important genres in cinema today - a magnificent triumph for hype over substance.  Will our descendents fifty years hence look on this gloomier Batman reinterpretation with the same affection and enjoyment that we now have for those wonderfully daft Adam West (Holly cow!) television episodes?  I doubt it.  Visually impressive it might be, but this glossy Batman reboot seems to be little more than a hollow exercise in style for its own sake.

Film Synopsis

Gotham City is a sprawling metropolis mired in crime and the detritus of social decay.  The town's district attorney, Harvey Dent, is fighting a losing battle against an army of hoodlums led by criminal mastermind Carl Grissom.  Yet Dent is not alone in his struggle to clean up Gotham - a mysterious vigilante figure, described as a man-sized bat, is reportedly tyrannising criminals across the city.  Grissom is incensed when he learns that his second-in-command, Jack Napier, has been having an affair with his mistress, so he arranges a little set-up.  Having sent Napier out to raid a chemicals factory, the crime boss tips off the police.  In the ensuing shootout, Batman shows up and causes Napier to fall into a vat of chemicals.  His face badly disfigured, Napier becomes highly deranged and embarks on a new career of crime under the name The Joker.  Meanwhile, reporter Vicki Vale is keen to uncover the identity of Batman.  Her investigation brings her into contact with the reclusive millionaire Bruce Wayne who, unbeknown to her, is Batman.  Wayne suffers from a split identity caused by witnessing his parents being gunned down by a street criminal when he was a small boy.  Since, he has waged a personal vendetta against crime, disguised as a caped crusader.  When he catches a glimpse of The Joker, Wayne recognises him as the man who killed his parents...