BATMAN (1989) ★ ★ ★
Tim Burton's "Batman" is the film responsible for the last thirty years of ponderous superhero movies, a fact I should probably overlook, but I'm not sure I'm a big enough person. I could get into the many long stories about its tortured production (a budget that bloomed from $30 million to $48 million), its equally-tortured casting (50,000 complaint letters to Warner Bros. over Burton's choosing Michael Keaton to be Batman), and its being artistically overshadowed by the sequel ("Batman Returns" is simply a better film), but none of this would tell you what to expect if you've never seen it before. I want to break down in the plainest terms possible whether "Batman" is a good movie, or a great movie. Spoiler alert: it's not a great movie.
Burton has said that "Batman" was more of an event than a serious cinematic accomplishment, and he did not enjoy making it. He was under a lot of pressure to deliver a satisfying rendition of Gotham City and its inhabitants, and I think he succeeded on a technical level. "Batman" is a visually-stylized bonanza of epic scale, with a gloomy urban sprawl that feels like a revival of "Blade Runner," and which serves as the backdrop for various battle scenes involving an updated Batmobile and Batwing. Even Batman's suit was reinvented, with the traditional grays and blues of the comics replaced with pure black. To assuage the public's doubts about Keaton, W.B. cobbled together a hastily-compiled trailer in such hurried fashion that it wasn't even set to music, a marketing tactic that ended all the bitching. It gave Burton's unique vision a chance to reach audiences before the finished film hit theaters, which increased expectations and put even more pressure on the filmmakers. Despite the odds, they came through.
Audiences loved this movie, and it made enough cash to spur the studio into making a follow-up. In this regard, I find it to be a good introduction to Burton's Batman that was marred by a few issues. The movie lacks suspense because Jack Nicholson eats the screen as The Joker. Nicholson's character is the sole driver of the plot, which makes him the most important person in the story, yet his scenes are brief, and don't flow well with those involving Bruce Wayne and Vicky Vale. Sean Young was originally meant to play Vale, but a horseback riding accident took her out of the project, and she was replaced by Kim Basinger. A good choice, except that Basinger's Vale is a bit one-dimensional, and her affect is somewhat cold and stilted throughout the film. Keaton has enough reserve and polish as the reclusive billionaire, but his interest vanishes under the thick rubber cowl, and isn't replaced by anything meaningful. He's just a figure in a mask, and his colorful personality is given little chance to poke through. In a scene where Alfred (Michael Gough) lets Vale into the Batcave, the revelation of the hero' s identity should have been journalistic catnip to her. Yet she emits no emotional response, and the movie just chugs on. Weird.
All of this shows that "Batman" suffers from faulty character development. The script is a little too clunky, and the acting a little too strained, at least at times. Vicky Vale does a lot of screaming. Nicholson racks up the maniacal laughs. And Keaton has only a few moments of inspiration between takes as Batman. I enjoyed watching Wayne rationalize his way to almost confessing his identity to Vale, a scene that plays remarkably close to that of a gay man coming out to his girlfriend. I also enjoyed The Joker's art museum scene, with the brief tension of him crying "I'm melting, I'm melting" after Vale splashes him with water, followed by Batman rescuing her and the villain asking rhetorically, "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" They're among the most iconic moments in Batman film history. These great little touches aren't lost on me. I just wish they were attached to the larger body of a better screenplay.
"Batman" marked the end of a lighthearted and comical era for the character, and returned him to his darker 1940s origins. I found the weirdly retro-futuristic technology seen throughout the movie to be interesting, and the set designs are Pinewood Studio gold. The use of Hertfordshire's Knebworth House as Wayne Manor was terrific, and Danny Elfman's thunderous score is so finely-tuned and appropriately matched to the ominous proceedings that I can't watch any subsequent Batman film without thinking of it. There's a grit and solemnity to Burton's first superhero movie that makes it just dark and disturbing enough to dissuade young children from watching it, as Nicholson's portrayal of vengeful evil is accompanied by several nightmarish scenes. Despite my reservations about the script, the character development, and the editing (what's with all the short scenes of The Joker talking to himself?), the movie is memorable and fun to watch. When it comes to "Batman," I don't know if it's art, but I like it.
--- Bill Fontiane