The Golden Age Batman

[johnnygobbs]

I don't really see Batman's line at the end of BR as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy = saying one thing and doing another. If what he said to Catwoman was uttered at the commencement of the movie, or sometime in the middle - ala TDK Rises, then we're talking real hypocrisy.

People can change viewpoints throughout the journey of life, and at the end of the movie, it seems Bruce is on track to do so. In BF, Schumacher followed through with it, where he warns Dick against revenge.

I don't necessarily disagree with you Dark Knight but since we see Batman killing random thugs for a good portion of Batman and Batman Returns what do you think was the point at which he underwent this epiphany about his methods?  We never really see Batman undergo his own conversion regarding his killing policy during the film so by the time he lectures Catwoman on taking out Shreck it does still feel like hypocrisy.

[The Dark Knight]

I assume the finale with Selina brought it to a head. He saw someone he fancies destroying themselves over revenge, just as he went on a warpath after finding out The Joker killed his parents. Selina's angry with wild hair everywhere and cracking a whip. He doesn't want her to be this way. He wants her to come with him, away from the nightmare before them. When you set out on revenge first dig two graves.

We do know Batman, in particular the Burton version, was internalised and kept things to himself. He may have thought there's still time to reclaim some sense of justice. Having some soul left to salvage, especially on the part of Selina - who he was intoxicated by.

[Silver Nemesis]

We never really see Batman undergo his own conversion regarding his killing policy during the film so by the time he lectures Catwoman on taking out Shreck it does still feel like hypocrisy.

That's the problem. We can infer all the character development we like, but the film itself doesn't present us with any such progression on screen. I understand what The Dark Knight is saying about the evolution of Batman's morals. But it was Schumacher who addressed that point in Batman Forever with Bruce's speech about searching for new faces to replace those of old enemies. Burton never even hinted at this in Batman Returns. He couldn't have done since he was so hell-bent on avoiding any continuity with the previous film.

Some fans would argue that Bruce does undergo a moral change in Batman Returns. But that argument is based on information given to us in Batman 89 and Batman Forever, not information given to us in Batman Returns. The film itself, viewed as a standalone narrative – which is what Burton intended – doesn't present any character development for Bruce Wayne whatsoever. He's presented to us as a purely reactive character who responds to other characters' arcs without having one of his own.

In my opinion the good guys in Batman Returns were horribly underwritten. Which is a tragedy, because Burton got so many other things right in this movie. But he failed to give Batman, the eponymous character and central protagonist, a compelling character arc. Here's how I would have fit a character arc for Bruce into the existing narrative:

At the beginning of the movie Bruce has become a total recluse. He's no longer appearing in public and has essentially given up on his playboy persona to indulge his crime fighting alter ego fulltime. Killing Napier didn't free him from the past, so now he's going out night after night in search of new enemies to defeat as a way of anaesthetising his pain. He's like a drug addict looking for his next fix, and his methods are getting more and more brutal (this would make it more believable when the people of Gotham turn against him later in the film). Vicki's walked out on him, Gordon is having to make excuses to the press to defend Batman, and Alfred is making excuses on Bruce Wayne's behalf every time someone shows up at the manor looking for him.

Then Bruce meets Selina. And suddenly he feels the lure of a normal life beckoning to him, as it did once before when he met Vicki. At the same time he becomes obsessed with Catwoman. The press keep comparing her to Batman, and even Gordon tells him he's noticed similarities between the two of them. As Batman sees Catwoman descending deeper into darkness, he gradually becomes aware of his own parallel descent. He realises that both he and Catwoman are turning into the very monsters he'd originally vowed to fight. His own redemption lies in helping divert her from the murderous path she's embarking upon; a path which he himself is already treading.

Alfred would react with joy when Bruce tells him he's going to Max's masquerade ball. This would be symbolic of Bruce taking a step back into the light, towards a normal life. The other guests at the party would likewise be shocked to see the reclusive billionaire stepping back into the public eye. When Bruce tears his mask off in front of Selina, that would symbolise his triumph over his addiction; his willingness to discard the dark side of his personality and fully embrace the normality of Bruce Wayne's existence.

In the end he'd lose Selina. But her self destruction would be the final straw that sets him on the right path. The film would end on a redemptive note with Batman apologising to Gordon and vowing to never take another human life. In effect he would have evolved from the bloodthirsty Golden Age Batman into the more familiar Modern Age version over the course of the film. And this character arc could have been implemented without having any major impact on the rest of the movie.

This might be my memory playing tricks on me, but I think I once read an interview with Daniel Waters where he said he wished he could have left Batman out of the film altogether because he was less interested in him than the villains. Unfortunately that antipathy towards the character comes across in his finished script. What makes it even more frustrating is the fact that Keaton was on such top form in this movie. No actor has ever looked as confident and self-assured in the Batsuit as Keaton did in Batman Returns. But sadly Burton and Waters didn't give him anything substantial to work with.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm bashing the movie. That's not my intention. I love Batman Returns and I think it gets a lot of things right. But the portrayal of Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon is something that's lately been bothering me whenever I rewatch it. Burton got so many things right, but this is one aspect of the movie where I think he dropped the ball.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. And sorry for yet another overlong post.

[The Dark Knight]

The characterisation of Batman and Gordon in B89/BR doesn't bother me at all.
They are spot on considering the era of comics in which they are based. Gordon was a side character.
If people want another type of portrayal, look elsewhere - because it's not here.
You can't punish a movie for something it never intended to be.
Batman and Gordon didn't meet and he pretty much just handed out messages, ala the batsignal note at the end of B89.

Even if Bruce didn't have a 'progression' or 'realisation' in that moment, some people will do or say anything to defuse a situation. In any case, Bruce's comments to Selina are about 'bringing her back to the light' and therefore to him. I don't think we need an overlong Nolan exposition to infer that. You can see it in the performance. He even pulls his mask off, Watchmen style, to connect with her further. From there, the film makers could have gone anywhere they liked thematically. Schumacher decided to roll with it all the way.

And I am well aware that BF is Schumacher's baby. In my opinion, the Burton Bruce would have never been able to move on with his life afterwards. Selina would have been one of his salvations, but she disappeared and left him alone again.

[johnnygobbs]

Sorry if it sounds like I'm bashing the movie. That's not my intention. I love Batman Returns and I think it gets a lot of things right. But the portrayal of Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon is something that's lately been bothering me whenever I rewatch it. Burton got so many things right, but this is one aspect of the movie where I think he dropped the ball.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. And sorry for yet another overlong post.

That's a great post Silver Nemesis.  I think some of the concepts you outline are implied in the film but I do agree that they're merely implicit and whilst the film didn't need the heavy-handed speechifying of some other comic-book movies I do which Batman's 'journey' had been explored in more explicit detail in this film.

Also, like you I love this film but what the hardcore haters on other forums don't understand is that one can be a fan of the film whilst still recognising its flaws.

[Silver Nemesis]

They are spot on considering the era of comics in which they are based. Gordon was a side character.

"Character" being the operative word. In Batman Returns Gordon doesn't really display any characteristics in common with his comic book counterpart. In Batman 89 he did:

•   He had some kind of relationship with Bruce Wayne, as evidenced by his place beside Bruce's empty seat at Dent's press conference, as well as his presence at Bruce's party. This is consistent with his first appearance in Detective Comics #27, in which he was also shown to be friends with Bruce.
•   At the beginning of the movie we're told Gordon is compiling a file on Batman. Later he attempts to arrest Batman following the Axis Chemical shootout. This is also consistent with the early Bill Finger stories, back when the cops treated Batman like a wanted criminal.
•   We also see Gordon working closely with Harvey Dent throughout the movie as they attempt to bring down the crime rackets in Gotham. This is a faithful representation of their working relationship in the Modern Age comics.
•   A future relationship between Gordon and Batman is hinted at in the final scene where Batman gives him and Dent the Batsignal.

Batman Returns fails to follow through with any of these strands. It reduces Gordon to the status of glorified extra. Suddenly he has no relationship with Bruce Wayne or Batman. He has about four lines of dialogue in the entire movie and all of those lines could have been spoken by any other generic police officer. You could delete Gordon from the movie entirely and it wouldn't make any difference to the narrative. In the Modern Age comics Gordon is probably the second most important character after Batman himself. I just don't think Batman Returns does him justice.

Kevin Smith discussed this very subject in one of his podcasts. Watch from the 1:15:00 mark.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SumnRaGVoM

It's well worth listening to the rest of this podcast as Smith's co-host in this one is a fan of Batman Returns. He defends Burton's movie and criticises The Dark Knight Rises.

If people want another type of portrayal, look elsewhere - because it's not here.
You can't punish a movie for something it never intended to be.

But where else could audiences have looked in 1992? At the end of the day Batman Returns was marketed as an adaptation of the Batman comics and a sequel to the 89 film. Bruce Wayne and Gordon were the two most important characters in the Batman mythology at the time. Audiences had a right to expect them to be treated as fully rounded characters, and not just supporting players in the villains' narratives. Especially since the preceding film had established them both as important spheres of action (to use Vladamir Propp's terminology).

I don't think we need an overlong Nolan exposition to infer that. You can see it in the performance.

Keaton's performance is fine. It's the writing I have a problem with. I'm not suggesting we needed copious quantities of expository dialogue. But it wouldn't have hurt to have included a few scenes between Bruce and Alfred to let us know what he was feeling. We got those kind of scenes in Batman 89, and get them for Catwoman and Penguin in Batman Returns. But we don't get them for Bruce.

What really annoys me is that Sam Hamm's script for Batman II did have those sort of scenes. Hamm treated both Bruce and Gordon as fully rounded characters and gave them each important roles in the storyline. Waters just didn't bother.

Like I say, I still love the movie. I just find it frustrating that Waters didn't put the same effort into writing the good guys that he did with the villains. Many of the critics picked up on this, and Keaton himself expressed dissatisfaction with the film for the same reason. He once said that making Batman Returns was a dull experience, like being the host introducing guests at someone else's party. I understand what he meant by that.

That's a great post Silver Nemesis.  I think some of the concepts you outline are implied in the film but I do agree that they're merely implicit and whilst the film didn't need the heavy-handed speechifying of some other comic-book movies I do which Batman's 'journey' had been explored in more explicit detail in this film.

Also, like you I love this film but what the hardcore haters on other forums don't understand is that one can be a fan of the film whilst still recognising its flaws.

Cheers, Gobbs. I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from with this. I think Batman Returns is a fantastic film that's been horribly misunderstood by the fanbase. For every negative thing I could say about it, there are a thousand positive things I could point out. That's why I've written several lengthy features for this site highlighting its merits. But I can't pretend it's a perfect film, and for me the main problems come down to Waters' marginalisation of Bruce and Gordon. I can't help thinking the film could have been just a little bit better if they'd taken more care with the script.

[BatmAngelus]

Love the ideas you've presented here, Silver Nemesis.  Makes me feel like we should move the discussion to the BR forum and open up threads for this topic on Batman Returns and all the other live action films.  They can be along the lines of Doc's "Fix the film" thread in The Dark Knight Rises forum where you have to stick to the general framework and intentions of the movie (i.e. you can't say "Scrap everything and bring in Scarecrow" for Batman & Robin).

As for this topic, it wouldn't be complete to talk about the Golden Age Batman without mentioning its direct inspiration, The Shadow. 

Detective Comics #27 is actually an adaptation of a Shadow pulp called Partners in Peril. 
http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/390/

The pulp version of the character is completely different from the more famous radio version (who can cloud men's minds and turn invisible) and is the definite precursor to Batman, right down to specifics like the nickname (The Knight of Darkness), imagery (he's sometimes associated with bat imagery as the creator envisioned the character as Sherlock Holmes in Dracula garb), gadgetry (The Shadow uses a boomerang-type weapon in a story called Lingo), and even the villains (one of the character's enemies was a murderous clown).

[Silver Nemesis]

Detective Comics #27 is actually an adaptation of a Shadow pulp called Partners in Peril.

That's very diplomatic of you to write "adaptation" instead of "flagrant rip-off".

right down to specifics like the nickname (The Knight of Darkness)

Lol, I've never heard about this before. Next thing you know we'll find out the Shadow had a sidekick called Sparrow and together they were known as the Dynamic Duet.

Bob Kane had no shame. He'd never have gotten away with it if they'd had the internet back then.

(one of the character's enemies was a murderous clown).

I didn't know this either. I sounds like there's enough material for a site feature in these comparisons. Well, maybe not so much a site feature as an exposé on Bob Kane's aptitude for plagiarism.

Have you ever read 'Who Knows What Evil?' (Batman #253, November 1973) and 'The Night of the Shadow!' (Batman #259, December 1974)? These were the two Denny O'Neil stories where Batman teamed up with the Shadow in the seventies.



Batman #259 is particularly interesting as it reveals that Bruce and his family were once saved by the Shadow when they were caught in the middle of a robbery. The Shadow's actions influenced Bruce later in life when he himself adopted the mantle of costumed crime fighter. It seems that O'Neil was open to acknowledging the Shadow's influence on the character, even if Kane wasn't.

[BatmAngelus]

That's very diplomatic of you to write "adaptation" instead of "flagrant rip-off".

Haha, true.  I've read both stories myself and was amazed.

I didn't know this either. I sounds like there's enough material for a site feature in these comparisons. Well, maybe not so much a site feature as an exposé on Bob Kane's aptitude for plagiarism.

Yep, the story was called Death's Harlequin and it came out in 1939, predating Batman #1 by a year.

Then there's the Murder Master (1938), who hijacked the radio airwaves to announce who he was going to kill next.

There was also a radio story of The Shadow called The Laughing Corpse in March 1940.  I believe it pre-dated Batman #1 by a few months, but essentially the villain had developed a toxin in which the victims would laugh themselves to death and, if I recall correctly, die with a smile on their faces...

It's also been said that the villain The Voodoo Master from The Shadow was an influence on Doctor Death, but I haven't read enough of that character to see the connection yet.

Have you ever read 'Who Knows What Evil?' (Batman #253, November 1973) and 'The Night of the Shadow!' (Batman #259, December 1974)? These were the two Denny O'Neil stories where Batman teamed up with the Shadow in the seventies.

I have, awhile back.  I agree that it was definitely O'Neil paying homage and it was about time.

[thecolorsblend]

Admittedly, I've only read two reprints so I've yet to read them all in order. But I did notice that Gotham didn't even get named until a little later. I was intrigued, though, by all the crime stories had an anti-mob agenda trying to discourage readers from admiring organized crime. In Catwoman's debut for example, when Robin defeated all these crooks easily, Batman breaks the fourth wall and tells the readers "Well kids, here is your proof. Crooks are yellow without their guns!" Even for all the criticism for supposedly corrupting the youth at the time, there were moments in comics that tried to dissuade young kids from getting involved in petty crime, which I thought in that particular example was admirable.

It's interesting how Batman's violent course of action comes across believable; preparing to kill in self-defence or to save others if need be. If you ask me, this is a much more believable than the 'I won't kill' policy that is forced in contemporary Batman comics.  He wasn't always bloodthirsty either - he found it regrettable that he had to kill one of Hugo Strange's giants while riding the Batplane.  One thing I do credit writers nowadays is having Batman refusing to use guns - a believable psychological reasoning since his parents were gunned down.

I think that experience would teach Bruce just how pathetically cheap human life really is. A no-kill/no-gun policy just seems unlikely to me. Big Daddy is probably a lot closer to what Bruce would grow up to be. A thirst for vengeance is a more probably outcome for someone who'd been victimized like Bruce was than a quest for justice.

Yes yes, the real explanation for Batman's no-kill policy is to keep the Joker and other characters on the table for future stories. I understand that; I'm just talking about the character's psychological profile.

And here's the revised version from Secret Origins #6.



Batman's "A fitting end for his kind" line is preserved, though it loses much of its sting in this revised context.

Yes, there is that, but I think the entire thing is unnecessarily sanitized. Stryker breaks free because he can't stand the shame of being sent to prison? Really? THAT'S what he's afraid of? In Tec #27, he says he's afraid of the electric chair. But if you must use a prison thing... well, horrible things happen in maximum security prisons so, um, why not show him being afraid of that? But the shame of prison? I just don't buy it.

As to all of The Shadow stuff, I've really come to enjoy The Shadow in recent years... and it's somewhat come at the expense of my Batman fandom. It's undeniable how much of Batman was stolen directly from The Shadow.

Plus, The Shadow is everything that Batman thinks he himself is. Batman hangs out in darkness. The Shadow IS darkness.