A question perhaps that it would seem has an obvious answer. The financial figures alone (Tim Burton's Batman grossed $411 worldwide with Batman Begins bringing in $371 million) would seem to indicate that the general public approve of the 'new' direction taken by modern filmmakers to adapt Batman from Adam West's goofy, bumbling Batman into ultimately, Christian Bale's brooding, intense ex-ninja. Indeed, it seems surprising enough that the argument exists at all, considering the fact that Adam West's Batman waned from public popularity nearly 40 years ago but, like a cockroach flushed down the toilet...the argument for the superiority of West's/Kilmer's/Clooney's campy Batman climbs right back up the bowl just to spite you.
Unlike many issues in today's culture, this is one subject I am entirely of one mind about. For the most part. When confronted with the question of which type of Batman is "better"...I can only say I'm entitled to my opinion that Michael Keaton and Christian Bale portrayed a more interesting Batman. If you enjoy the 1966 tongue-in-cheek campiness of West's Batman, more power to you; I can't say I'm any more right than you are. But when you look at each portrayal of Batman through the lens of character depth, story arc, relationships (with partners, lovers, and villains) and personal growth I believe it is obvious that certain actors performed more admirably than others.
Michael Keaton prepared for his role in the 1989 film by studying Frank Miller's dark comic "The Dark Knight Returns" and director Tim Burton felt that Keaton brought the right kind of edgy performance needed to lift the character out of the 1966 campy atmosphere most people associated with Batman at that time. Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman struggles with several personal issues throughout the film. Most prominently, Wayne struggles with his parents' death (a central theme in the modern Batman films), his devotion to his "job" as a crime fighter, and how to have a normal relationship with Kim Basinger's character Vicki Vale. Keaton portrayed Batman/Bruce Wayne as a mysterious, complicated man, deeply layered and struggling over how to deal with his parents' death and eventually, the realization that Jack Napier was the one who murdered them. The trauma of witnessing the death of such close loved ones was essential in Wayne's decision to fight crime, and he guarded the secret of his past just as fiercely as the secret of his identity. The audience is given a character to relate to in Vicki Vale, who is just as curious about why Bruce is so secretive and why the Joker is such a threat to Batman personally.
Christian Bale's Batman was drawn primarily from several different comic books, namely "Batman: Year One," "Batman: The Man Who Falls," "Batman: The Long Halloween," and "Batman: Dark Victory." Director Christopher Nolan expressed his desire to make Batman Begins with a similar feel to it as Richard Donner's 1978 Superman, with a focus on character growth and identity. This film in particular depicts different stages and faces in the life of Bruce Wayne - starting with a vengeful, angry, but wayward young man; a vigilante with no real focus for his mission against criminals. His Bruce Wayne also deals with issues surrounding his parents' death, particularly with guilt that he did nothing to stop it. At one point in young Bruce Wayne's life, he was so disillusioned that he felt the administration of "justice" meant murdering the man who killed his parents. Bale's Bruce Wayne changes and matures, learns to control his anger, to funnel his devotion to true justice. By the end of the film, Bruce Wayne has a mission, not to beat up small time crooks or to repay criminals "an eye for an eye," but to defend the innocent and work with the help of others to stop corruption in a deteriorating city.
The depth of these characters, is why I prefer the darker incarnations of the Batman character. But it would not be fair to analyze the serious Batmans and leave out the campy Batmans. *sigh*....*deep breath*
Adam West's Batman was born out of ABC's desire to launch a straightforward juvenile adventure TV show. West was chosen for a screen test after one of the producers saw him as James Bond-like character "Captain Q" in a Nestle Quik commercial. Adam West forever would be type-cast as the campy Batman, and had trouble finding serious acting work for years following the cancellation of the show. But as far as the character itself is concerned, Batman is straightforward. The show is not designed to have layered character depth, but instead to poke fun at the genre and offer a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek parody of superhero comics. But in it's defense, one doesn't watch the 1966 Batman for character development. Turn off your brain, and let the ZOKS!, KAPOWS! and KERSHPLOTS! fly.
Val Kilmer's Batman was on the unlucky end of the bargain in my opinion. The shift of directors from Batman Returns' Tim Burton to Batman Forever's Joel Shumacher was a difficult situation to say the least, and the changing of lead actors in the middle of the series was a recipe for controversy. Strictly as a Batman character, I felt Kilmer did a respectable job; he just didn't add anything new or take the character anywhere different. His villains (Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey as Two-Face and The Riddler) performed admirably, despite Tommy Lee Jones's somewhat butchering of Two-Face's comic book split personality. I believe the real problem with Batman Forever was the decision to make it a messy blend of campy foolishness and mature issues. Ultimately it rode the fence on the issue, ending up with splinters in its a**.
Batman & Robin sucked on all accounts.
To return to the original issue, each person is entitled to their opinion on whether or not the serious Batman or the campy Batman is the more enjoyable to watch. It depends on what you want to see, your opinion of what the true Batman character should be, and how much you want to use your brain. At least we have more than one flavor of Batman to choose from right?
No comments:
Post a Comment