Batman's repressed memories

[The Laughing Fish]

While watching the fan edit cut of Forever a couple of months ago, I realized I had forgotten how the film continued something that was introduced in B89: Bruce Wayne's repressed memories.

As everyone knows, Bruce hadn't recognised that Joker was his parents' murderer till much later in the film. In Batman Forever, his repressed memories not only come back, but they seem to be worse than ever. He forgets a lot about the diary and the bat that inspired him in the cave, and he even blocks out his parents' deaths once he tried to settle down with Chase Meridian, until the trauma comes back to him shortly before Wayne Manor was attacked. It's kind of odd that Bruce represses a lot of memories. But I suppose it goes to show how unstable the guy is, and that's why he believed that being Batman was a curse for him.

What does everyone else think? Do you think the repressed memory was a clever continuation that B89 introduced, or do you think it could've been fleshed out better?

[Edd Grayson]

I liked Bruce repressing memories and I wish they had kept the scenes in Batman Forever that dwell more on this.

[The Dark Knight]

I've thought of about this, and I don't like the concept of repressed memories.

His past comes with a lot of emotional heartache, but I think Batman should be a relatively sane individual in terms of remembering his origins. It should be burned into his psyche. He knows why he started his crusade in the first place. He may not talk about it often, but it's important for him to feel that hurt.

The insanity comes from suiting up every night in a bat themed costume and vehicle.

[The Laughing Fish]

Normally I'd agree that Batman is driven by an incident that haunted him to the very core of his being, and yes, it's not something for him to forget so easily. It's a scar that will never heal, and it's a reminder why he'd want to make sure what happened to his family will never happen to anybody else.

But I won't lie: I am kinda drawn to the idea of what's presented in BF. Whether it's well executed or not is debatable, but I think the idea does tie with what was implied in B89. And besides, it does reflect Batman's deep psychological issues, as Burton subtly intended.

I don't particularly think Forever is a sequel to Burton's films, but if I did, I guess I'd argue that this repressed memory was a side effect of Batman's lethal ways. As Bruce himself admitted while trying to discourage Dick from taking revenge over Two-Face, his lust for revenge continued even after avenging his parents until he ended up forgetting why he wanted fight crime in the first place. That is until his final confrontation with Catwoman. Batman realized that he was just as disturbed as Catwoman, and needed to come back from his moral darkness, and later prevent Dick Grayson from entering the same path. Now, I'll admit that this could've been executed better. Hell, for all I know it may have been unintentional on the filmmakers' part. But I still appreciate the idea, and I'd definitely think it could've fulfilled its potential under a better director.

[JokerMeThis]

I like the idea fine but I always assumed they went the "repressed memories" route in this movie as a way to justify why we didn't get a whole lot of background information on Bruce in the first two movies, especially the second. The "in universe" explanation is that Bruce didn't remember a whole lot of what happened after his parents were murdered. In the Burton movies the only thing Bruce has to say about "why bats" is because "they're great survivors." And that's not necessarily a complaint or a criticism on my part because I like how Burton didn't explain too much about certain things and invited the audience to use their imaginations.

[The Laughing Fish]

I like the idea fine but I always assumed they went the "repressed memories" route in this movie as a way to justify why we didn't get a whole lot of background information on Bruce in the first two movies, especially the second. The "in universe" explanation is that Bruce didn't remember a whole lot of what happened after his parents were murdered. In the Burton movies the only thing Bruce has to say about "why bats" is because "they're great survivors." And that's not necessarily a complaint or a criticism on my part because I like how Burton didn't explain too much about certain things and invited the audience to use their imaginations.

Batman, whether people like to admit it or not, was psychologically disturbed throughout the Burton films, so you may justify these repressed memories as a continuation of his worsening mental health. Perhaps if you wanted to try and make more sense of it, Batman was further traumatised after facing and conquering the Joker because as he explained to Dick, revenge didn't put him at ease but only fueled his anger throughout BR. Put that together which the disappointment of losing Catwoman, the one woman he'd retire for, must have made him lose sight of what his mission was supposed to be about. I guess internalising all that anger and repressing it by not wanting to talk about had serious repercussions for his own mind.

In any case, once he overcame that mental obstacle and and guilt over his parents' tragedy, he moved on. But he chose to continue being Batman instead of needing to be, like he used to. And definitely became more virtuous and focused from there on in.

[Wayne49]

I think Forever benefits from having Burton there as producer because I felt the movie, while changing tone, still wanted to remain fairly close to the established story line and characterizations established by Burton and Keaton. I definitely felt some lineage between this and the first films. It wasn't like it tried to become a soft reboot. Plus there are some nods in places as well such as when Chase refers to Batman's association with Catwoman.

So revisiting the repressed memories plot point certainly gave continuity and additional development for the Wayne character. If I were only reading these as books and never saw the films to associates actors to characters, I would have felt it was a trilogy of books. So Forever certainly paid homage and felt some responsibility to keep certain character portrayals moving forward. All of that is pretty well abandoned in B&R.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think Forever benefits from having Burton there as producer because I felt the movie, while changing tone, still wanted to remain fairly close to the established story line and characterizations established by Burton and Keaton. I definitely felt some lineage between this and the first films. It wasn't like it tried to become a soft reboot. Plus there are some nods in places as well such as when Chase refers to Batman's association with Catwoman.

So revisiting the repressed memories plot point certainly gave continuity and additional development for the Wayne character. If I were only reading these as books and never saw the films to associates actors to characters, I would have felt it was a trilogy of books. So Forever certainly paid homage and felt some responsibility to keep certain character portrayals moving forward. All of that is pretty well abandoned in B&R.

The deleted scene with Bruce watching the news presenter chiding Batman to retire, and Alfred encouraging him to consider it while making a reference to avenging his parents deaths at the end of B89, definitely would've strengthened the continuity with the Burton films. As was Two-Face's reference of calling Batman a killer too.

One can say whatever they want about B&R, but I don't think there was any need to reference the Burton films. As I said before, by the end of BF, Bruce had overcome his angst and guilty decided to move on with his life choosing to be Batman, and stop making it into a burden. So I wouldn't necessarily say B&R abandoned the character portrayals.

[riddler]

I think Forever benefits from having Burton there as producer because I felt the movie, while changing tone, still wanted to remain fairly close to the established story line and characterizations established by Burton and Keaton. I definitely felt some lineage between this and the first films. It wasn't like it tried to become a soft reboot. Plus there are some nods in places as well such as when Chase refers to Batman's association with Catwoman.

So revisiting the repressed memories plot point certainly gave continuity and additional development for the Wayne character. If I were only reading these as books and never saw the films to associates actors to characters, I would have felt it was a trilogy of books. So Forever certainly paid homage and felt some responsibility to keep certain character portrayals moving forward. All of that is pretty well abandoned in B&R.

One can say whatever they want about B&R, but I don't think there was any need to reference the Burton films. As I said before, by the end of BF, Bruce had overcome his angst and guilty decided to move on with his life choosing to be Batman, and stop making it into a burden. So I wouldn't necessarily say B&R abandoned the character portrayals.

Definitely if you include the deleted scenes as part of BF it makes perfect sense why Bruce doesn't act tortured in B+R. I did see a promotional interview with George Clooney before the film was released (and before he started trashing it) and he cited that they were moving away from the self-pitying Bruce over his parents death because of the passage of time for the character and that he can't mope for his entire life.

[The Laughing Fish]

Definitely if you include the deleted scenes as part of BF it makes perfect sense why Bruce doesn't act tortured in B+R. I did see a promotional interview with George Clooney before the film was released (and before he started trashing it) and he cited that they were moving away from the self-pitying Bruce over his parents death because of the passage of time for the character and that he can't mope for his entire life.

Yes. Going forward, it naturally made sense for Batman to be free of guilt and become not necessarily 'happy', but more at peace with himself. That's the difference.

Of course, I bet a lot of people were turned off by this characterisation not only because they didn't like the final product, but Schumacher's promotion of the film gave them the impression he didn't understand the character. Which is perhaps why lots of people clinged onto the idea that Batman should always be dark.