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.
© James Travers 2012
The above content is owned by filmsdefrance.com and must not be copied.
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...
© James Travers
The above content is owned by filmsdefrance.com and must not be copied.