Messages

I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on this one.

While all of the films have taken liberties with the origins and depictions of the characters, that's not really what I'm interested in. I can care less about what is accurate and what is not, and Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents, Bruce being a recluse, Ras training Bruce, and Joker creating Two-Face (just some examples) are not legitimate faults in any of the films.

However, how the films portray "comic booky-ness" in terms of frame composition and editing is what I find the most compelling. And it is on this criteria which I feel that Batman 89 is truest to the comic book form.

For example, there are some sequences that just seem like they were splashed from the pages of a comic to the screen. I've read the articles comparing panels from the comics to various screenshots from the films, and those are great. I always pull that out to show people that the Burton films are more comic accurate than they are believed to be.

But I'd like to take that further. Costumes and events are only part of the equation. Look at the Axis chemicals scene. The set prominently features lots of sharp, horizontal and vertical lines (pipes, the metal stairs, the catwalk, etc) which give us the subconscious effect of reading a comic. Comics are all about scenes being divided up by sharp horizontal and vertical lines. In addition, the camera angles, which were done before in the TV show, also give us the cinematic impression of reading a comic. Burton films the scenes from a variety of "cooky" angles, and those totally mirror various odd angles that we would see in a comic. When you see the camera angled slightly to the right, or angled a little higher, or whatever, you feel like you're reading a comic. In addition, the editing mirrors the experience of reading a comic. There is not too much camera movement in the film (at least compared to other big budget action films), and the scenes are often chopped up by editing. This gives us the impression of reading a comic panel-by-panel. Obviously, shots are divided up into storyboards on every film, but when you combine the editing with the off-kilter camera angles, the horizontal and vertical lines, the shots come at you in sequences that give you the same feeling as if you were reading a comic.

I hope that makes sense. I just kind of typed it up in about 5 minutes, and I probably forgot a lot of things.

Some other great scenes to look at in this context-

the newsroom scene where the anchor is poisoned (look at the prominent vertical lines that separate the two TVs where the anchors are broadcast)
Joker getting his botched surgery
flashback of the wayne murders

what do you guys think?

While I do like Batman Returns, I feel that it ultimately is hampered by these two opposing forces- Tim Burton and Warner Bros. While I'm not positive on the history of the film, it seems as if there is this grating contrast between some of the more romantic elements in the film, and the run-of-the-mill, Big Mac action sequences and dialogue. For example, "Eat Floor- High Fiber!" has absolutely no place in that film, and most of the slick action sequences do not as well. If anything, Batman Returns would've worked much better as a stage play, musical, or even opera. There are already connections to Wagner's work in the film as it is, and since Tim Burton's intent was so different in tone than the traditional Batman stuff, it just makes the action sequences and traditional superhero stuff seem horribly out of place. I personally wouldn't mind a Batman art film, or a Batman film without explosions and action. But when you put the "Tim Burton-y" stuff together with the mainstream, Warner Bros. Batman action material, it just creates this unpleasant combination. While I'm sure that Tim Burton was satisfied with what he got, I don't think that he was able to make 100% the film that he wanted. I truly feel that if Burton made it say, on a lower budget without the backing of a major studio (obviously an impossible scenario), we could've gotten something revolutionary. Instead, I would rank Batman Returns more as an "interesting failure." Even with its flaws, it's still a great film, and probably better than any of the Nolan or Shumacher entries, but that's more of a case of me not particularly liking those than considering Batman Returns to be a truly great film.

As for how this all relates to the topic, I just think that Burton really wanted to do a stand-alone film without any influence at all from the original. In his mind, it's not a sequel. It's kind of what he wanted to do the first time around. But you can't just re-do something and expect us all to forget Batman 89. We have these expectations. And unfortunately, the big-budget action sequences is what links the two.

To be honest, I'm just more disappointed in Batman Returns than anything else. We could've gotten something remarkable in the comic film genre, and due to the simple fact that you can't make a Batman film without action sequences and commercialization, we are left with an interesting failure. Not Burton's fault. Not anyone's fault, really.