Is Batman Returns still the darkest movie of the entire franchise?

[The Laughing Fish]

I'd say so. But keep in mind that I'm not arguing that darker is "better" or the movie is good because it's "dark". I'm only going by the proof of what we see on screen:

• Sexual deviance - The Penguin is a pervert who makes tasteless remarks towards women e.g. "I'd like to fill up her hole", "Just the pussy I've been looking for".  Catwoman uses seduction as a tactic for distraction i.e. engaging in foreplay with Batman to find a chink in his armor. And her costume is obviously inspired by bondage.
• Violence - Unlike the neutered PG-13 of mainstream films made in this era, BR doesn't shy away from the awfulness of the violence e.g. Catwoman slashing a bloodied rapist in the face, the Penguin violently bites the yuppie in the nose as blood gushes out, the Ice Princess is seen falling to her death without the camera looking away, Batman finding Schreck's burnt corpse and a dying Penguin is bleeding to death after he fell in the pool of acid.
• Subtext - The thought of the Penguin wanting to kidnap innocent infants and have them murdered is just too depraved to imagine. Batman takes a more pragmatic approach to crime-fighting as he offs villains to keep the streets safe, even smiling wickedly as he outsmarts a violent strongman with dynamite. Catwoman arguably suffers from a mental disorder as she becomes increasingly deranged as the film progresses; due to her being victimised by her adversaries.

[Catwoman]

Well they didn't remake any of the others so I'm going to say yes, it's STILL the darkest lol.

It's definitely the deepest, with all the layers of the characters and the different plot points. It's not so much that it confuses you, it's just enough to keep you constantly entertained. Something is always happening. The others are more shallow, that doesn't mean they ARE shallow, just more shallow than Returns.

You forgot Catwoman getting shot four times. She's the only main villain (though I don't see her as really a villain) to get shot in any of the movies (I know Bob and some of the other goons and Grissom all got shot and so did Two Face's pilot but I mean main characters) so that sort of makes Returns' violence unique too.

As for the sexual deviance part, I don't need to get in trouble so I'll just smile and wink and go on my merry little way.

[The Laughing Fish]

You forgot Catwoman getting shot four times. She's the only main villain (though I don't see her as really a villain) to get shot in any of the movies (I know Bob and some of the other goons and Grissom all got shot and so did Two Face's pilot but I mean main characters) so that sort of makes Returns' violence unique too.

Good observation there. I've honestly never noticed that before.

I should mention that one thing that intrigues me about the scene where Bruce and Selina get intimate with each other at Wayne Manor is that Bruce makes a self-deprecating comparison with Ted Bundy - one of the most notorious serial killers of all time. Which is kind of odd since this movie takes place in a rather timeless setting. I have to admit: I can emphasize how some parents at the time felt uneasy that a Batman movie takes place in the same world that consisted a sick psychopath like Bundy.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this odd blog excerpt that caught my eye.

Source: https://reelclub.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/bats-the-new-black-batman-returns-and-film-noir/

As a superhero, Batman defeats the hero-less staple of film noir.  In traditional film noir there is no hero; instead, there is a flawed antihero, the protagonist, who carries the narrative and emulates the typical themes of depression, imperfection, corruption, isolation, and alienation.  However, doesn't that sound a great deal like Burton's Batman in Batman Returns, minus the corruption?

In this film version, Batman is not portrayed as a superhero; he is not even an average hero.  At best, Burton's 1992 Batman is the antihero who barely saves anyone, does not defeat the villains of the narrative (Penguin and Catwoman), lives in isolation, is alienated from society, and ends up alone, all contributing to the theme of depression running rather steadily throughout the film.  The only person Batman saves in Batman Returns is Selina, at the beginning, when one of the circus crew grabs her.  But, where is he when Shreck "kills" her?  Also, Batman failed to save the Ice Princess from the Penguin or Shreck from Catwoman.  Moreover, Batman himself does not actually save the first-born children of Gotham from Penguin; it is Alfred who stops the rocket-packing penguins.  And, in the film's conclusion, Penguin dies, basically, at his own hand when he falls into the toxic sludge lagoon he created.

In addition, Batman is also seen as physically flawed during an early exchange with Catwoman.  In one of their first encounters, Catwoman runs her hand over Batman's chest, trying to feel the man behind the suit.  Batman allows this, and when she finds the thinnest part of his suit she jabs her metal claw into it, stabbing Batman.  This is not the type of wound one might expect a superhero to receive, lending more evidence as to why Batman is not actually a superhero in Batman Returns; he is clearly more a mortal antihero.

Didn't save anyone? Didn't Batman not scare off the Red Triangle Gang before they could do further damage to Gotham Plaza on two occassions? And I always thought that Batman and Alfred interrupting the kamikaze penguins' coordinates was a collaborative effort. And whoever wrote this article seemed to forget that Batman did rescue the the first born children. He confronted Organ Grinder, remember? But one thing I'll agree with is this: Batman in this film is indeed an antihero, with flaws you can't deny. And I'm perfectly okay with that.

But I'll be fair, this blogger makes a great observation here about Bruce's psyche and society's relationship with Batman.

Even his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, lives in complete isolation.  All the money in the world, but he lives shut-up in a gothic style mansion, with only his butler, spending most of his time in the dark, cold cave beneath the estate.  Although he risks his life for the citizens of Gotham, no citizen of the city knows of his sacrifice.  And, frankly, the citizens don't seem to care.  In this film, Gotham's residents never ask who Batman is or why he became a vigilante for their society; the residents only care that he show up when they flash their spotlight signal.  Burton makes this fact more obvious in Batman Returns, suggesting, perhaps, Bruce understands this fact about Gotham and it may be why his static characterization is so melancholy in Batman Returns.  Bruce faces the fact when Penguin frames Batman for the Ice Princess' murder (a classic noir move, false suspicion of a crime).  The people of Gotham believe Batman could be a merciless killer, even though they should know better.  This is not the Batman of yesteryear's comic books.  Burton's 1992 Batman is not trusted and society turns against him despite all the sacrifices he makes for them, this furthering the cynical tone of the film.

[Wayne49]

Another great discussion Laughing Fish and I agree with allot of your points. In many ways I think Batman Returns is a product of it's day. But...like Batman & Robin... it's also a film you'll never see made in quite that way again. You have to remember back in 1992 the superhero franchise of theatrical blockbusters was still more exception than rule as it is today. I think the rules for engagement were not fully flushed out yet regarding what these films could and couldn't do because the industry was still trying to figure who the chief target audience was. Of course kids were players in this because if Warner Bros. didn't have toys to sell, none of these films would get made. But in the case of Batman, you had generations of fans to consider and so I believe the collective minds of the day were painting on a broader canvas of sensibilities than what they do now. 

These days, superhero films are packaged and canned in a very deliberate and measured effort to maximize profits on all fronts. In short, today the industry knows their audience better with the explosion of blockbuster films in this genre. Batman Returns and Batman & Robin were learning curves for the industry. Both are polar opposite in terms of treatment and story, but both push the envelope with extremes in their desired treatment. As much as you most likely will never see another light hearted interpretation that showcases a cartoon environment with flashes of the human anatomy, you'll probably also never get another installment where the villain desires to kill innocent babies while spewing sexual vulgarities coupled with graphic excretions.

[The Laughing Fish]

Thanks Wayne49.

I think superhero films nowadays tend to tread a little carefully when it comes to graphic content, but sometimes you still see moments of shock value that pop for a split second e.g. a HYDRA goon getting ripped apart by a helicopter tailspin in Captain America: The First Avenger, Loki murdering SHIELD agents with daggers and ruthlessly shoving a device into a museum curator's eye in The Avengers, and one of Zod's henchmen tearing apart a jet fighter pilot in Man of Steel. Besides, Avengers and MOS both had stories where humanity was facing annihilation.

But I understand why some people felt that Burton was pushing the envelope a little too far with the wicked tone and gory imagery. As an official sponsor of BR, McDonald's thought they couldn't capitalize on the film's success because of the violence:

Burton revealed that a significant part of it was that McDonald's was unhappy about how dark and gross Batman Returns was at moments - specifically Danny DeVito's portrayal of Oswald Cobblepott a.k.a. Penguin. It turns out that people don't want to sit down for a nice juicy hamburger after spending two hours looking at a sewer-dwelling villain with a black mouth. Said the director,

"I think I upset McDonald's. [They asked] 'What's that black stuff coming out of the Penguin's mouth. We can't sell Happy Meals with that!'".

To be 100%, it's not hard to see the situation from McDonald's perspective, as Penguin's visage (as seen above) doesn't exactly make me crave a burger.At the same time, it does really suck that the fast food corporation had so much sway at Warner Bros. that they were able to convince the studio to go in a whole new different direction for Batman Forever.

What's rather comical about the situation, though, is that McDonald's really sits on one side of a tonal argument that really has been going on for years. As Tim Burton points out in the interview, there are many that say Batman Returns is too dark for a superhero movie, but in equal measure there are fans who note that it certainly is a bit more upbeat and cheerful than it's predecessor - after all, it is set at Christmas! Burton told the site,

"It was a weird reaction to Batman Returns, because half the people thought it was lighter than the first one and half the people thought it was darker. I think the studio just thought it was too weird — they wanted to go with something more child- or family- friendly. In other words, they didn't want me to do another one."

Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Batman-Returns-Pissed-Off-McDonald-68794.html

[Edd Grayson]

Define "dark movie" .

[johnnygobbs]

It bemuses me when people state that Batman Returns is 'too dark' because the Penguin tries to drown the city's first-born sons.

Firstly, he fails!

Secondly, I guess the Old Testament of the Bible/the Exodus story is 'too dark' because a plague affects all of Egypt's first-born children.

And what about other kids' films/fairy tales (and remember, Batman Returns is partly a fairy tale)?  Pinocchio for instance ends with a bunch of kids being turned into mules, and we don't ever see them change back.  Apart from Pinocchio, the kids are likely to end up as work mules and die that way.

What about the books of Roald Dahl?  In The Witches, the children get permanently turned into mice (in the 1990 they are admittedly transformed back), and other children are kidnapped and can only be seen by their families via pictures that capture them getting older.  And in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory various naughty children are tortured and in some cases, disfigured.  In the 1970s movie adaptation we don't even get a scene reassuring us that none of the children were in fact killed (as if the permanent disfigurement and trauma of their experience wasn't enough).

So, is Batman Returns really that dark?  One might even argue that it's less dark than TDK, since Batman is at least seen to effectively 'win' by the climax, even if he does lose Selina, and he isn't still being hunted by the police for murder, or gone into semi-permanent solitary hiding.

[Dagenspear]

So, is Batman Returns really that dark?  One might even argue that it's less dark than TDK, since Batman is at least seen to effectively 'win' by the climax, even if he does lose Selina, and he isn't still being hunted by the police for murder, or gone into semi-permanent solitary hiding.

I'm sorry, but there's going to losses. But what makes TDK not as dark is that it ends on a heroic high note, where despite the loss, Bruce doesn't let that break his desire for heroism. He takes on the heat because he believes it's right. And not to mention all those people choosing to do the right thing on the boats. That's pretty uplifting to me.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!

[johnnygobbs]

And not to mention all those people choosing to do the right thing on the boats. That's pretty uplifting to me.

It is uplifting, but remember that the Joker than refers to the 'Ace in the hole' who happens to be Harvey, the 'white knight' who turns to the dark side and whose crimes the 'dark knight' must take the wrap for.

Anyway, my point wasn't to say that TDK is a particularly dark film, but only that I don't think that Batman Returns is as dark as everyone says it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone says it is.