Happy 25th Anniversary

[The Dark Knight]

I watched BR again for the 25th anniversary, the first time in a long time and folks....I've been wrong about this film.

It's even BETTER than I remembered it.

Forget action scenes, this movie has them and they're fine, but it doesn't NEED them. They're just a bonus because the characters are so engaging on their own.

A couple of scenes that really stand out for me:

Max pushing Selina out of the window.
Selina's transformation.
Bruce meeting Max about the power plant and bumping into Selina.
Bruce and Selina in front of the fireplace.
Bruce and Selina dancing at the ball.
"No...it's a LOT."
The entire finale with Selina, Max, Batman and Penguin's death.

I think Keaton's performance is so special in Returns. He has an emotional disconnection, or perhaps an inability to communicate himself coherently, I guess much like Tim Burton. Keaton asking the filmmakers to remove dialogue helped him greatly too. Seeing BR again really reaffirmed my love for it.

[Silver Nemesis]

25 years later and Fred Atkins still hasn't returned from his extended vacation...

I've just noticed a new 'fresh' Top Critic review has been added to Batman Returns' Rotten Tomatoes page this month. The score has now gone up to 81%, which is only 3% below Batman Begins' 84% score. BR has a Top Critic score of 68%, which is 3% higher than BB's 65% score. BB still retains higher average ratings, both with Top Critics and in general, but the closeness in overall scores nevertheless dispels the perception that reviewers rated Nolan's film in a totally different league to Burton's. In reality, critics regarded them as more or less even. Metacritic offers a similarly equitable assessment: Batman Returns has a 68% Metascore while Batman Begins is only 2% higher at 70%. BR also received more Academy Award nominations than BB and made more money in the US when adjusted for inflation. Anyone who uses these metrics to objectively illustrate BB's critical success must also acknowledge BR's triumphant reception.

Anyway, I'm late adding my regards to the anniversary thread, so I thought I'd highlight some of the film's more technical visual merits. One of Batman Returns' greatest strengths is arguably the cinematography by Stefan Czapsky. Others have mentioned the use of chiaroscuro lighting, but the lens work is equally deserving of praise. The wide-angle shots are carefully framed to showcase the breadth of Bo Welch's amazing production design. 

Admittedly this adds fuel to the criticism that the film's visuals occasionally eclipse its protagonists, but visuals this strong deserve to be highlighted. One of my favourite shots in the film is this one:

Here the DP has achieved an impression of deep focus using a split diotper (you can tell by the slight blurring down the centre of the frame). The result is that our eyes are simultaneously drawn to both sides of the screen; the filmmakers want us to observe Shreck's ascent up the staircase, as well as Cobblepot's reaction to his arrival.

An interesting shot to contrast this against would be the close-up of Bruce watching the news while Alfred decorates the Christmas tree. This shot is, in my opinion, inferior. Here the filmmakers rack focus from the foreground...

...to the background...

...and then back to the foreground.

The result is that we cannot see Alfred's face clearly when he first turns towards Bruce because the depth of field is shallow. If they'd used a split diopter, as in the other shot I highlighted, then they could have kept both Alfred and Bruce clearly visible at the same time. That way we would have seen Alfred's reaction in full. On the other hand, the blurring of the Christmas tree lights does create a pretty optical effect behind Bruce's head.

There are some interesting edits in the film too. There's the extreme close-up on the Penguin's mouth that uses his saliva to disguise a fade-to-black.

There's also some matched action editing in an earlier scene transition where we dissolve from a shot of Penguin spinning his 'pied piper' umbrella to a close-up of a rotating wheel on the Red Triangle Gang's train.

Getting back to the subject of cinematography, Batman Returns contains far more POV shots than Batman 89. This reflects the film's greater emphasis on character and the internal workings of the protagonists. A few examples of POV shots include Cobblepot spying on the tree lighting ceremony from the sewers:

Shreck watching the Red Triangle Gang pass around the Christmas stocking:

Shreck looking at Cobblepot as he enters his city hideout:

Cobblepot looking down on Batman as he ascends on his umbrella-copter:

Catwoman and Penguin gazing at each other through the birdcage:

Lighting is obviously another big factor. Shadows and silhouettes feature prominently throughout the film. We also see several instances of spotlighting, where our attention is directed to a character or object by a strong beam of light. The most obvious example of this is Bruce in his study:

Then there's Oswald's baby carriage floating through the sewers:

The Cobblepot headstone in the cemetery:

And Penguin rallying his troops:

Colour plays an import role too. The lighting is a big part of this, suffusing the environments with a cold wintery glow redolent of moonlight. But Czapsky also uses lens filters to lower the colour temperature in a way that emphasises icy blues and whites.

This contrasts starkly against the warmer colour temperature we see during the romantic scenes that take place indoors (yellows, reds and golds).

We're used to seeing digital colour correction in modern films, but back in 1992 you had to do it the old fashioned way with lenses and filters. To my eyes, the old fashioned techniques look better. And Batman Returns has some of the best cinematography I've seen in the entire CBM genre.

[GoNerdYourself]

I'm not terribly fond of how digital color correction is used these days. I have no qualms with doing color correction -- it's usually a necessity -- but there is a point where you go too far with it and this happens quite a lot on Hollywood films. See, the blue/green tint often makes a film seem to unnatural to me.   When I was studying film, someone once told me, "Never say 'we'll fix it in post. Fix it on set.'" That yields better results IMO. Batman Returns is a beautiful film. Fantastic use of lighting, color, saturation, and shadows.

[Paul (ral)]

Great breakdown of visuals SN!

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm not terribly fond of how digital color correction is used these days. I have no qualms with doing color correction -- it's usually a necessity -- but there is a point where you go too far with it and this happens quite a lot on Hollywood films. See, the blue/green tint often makes a film seem to unnatural to me.   When I was studying film, someone once told me, "Never say 'we'll fix it in post. Fix it on set.'" That yields better results IMO. Batman Returns is a beautiful film. Fantastic use of lighting, color, saturation, and shadows.

Agreed on all counts. The key word is 'necessity'; digital colour correction should be used to maintain visual consistency between shots. It shouldn't be used as a substitute for careful photography. I can understand smaller budgeted films using it that way if they lack the time, money and resources for proper cinematography. But for big studio films, there's really no excuse.

The orange and teal trend is a perfect example of how filmmakers have grown complacent when it comes to digital tinkering. As you say, many modern directors take a slapdash approach to filming in the assumption they can 'fix' it later on. This gives rise to visual errors that wouldn't have occurred if they'd taken more care during the shoot. A good example of this is the scene in Batman v Superman where Alfred is watching the report on the Capitol Hill explosion. During the close-up shots of Jeremy Irons' face you can clearly see the reflected spill from the green screen where the television sets were digitally inserted.

This should have been fixed in post production. But really, it should have been fixed when they were photographing the shot. When blocking the scene, Snyder could have told Irons to move further away from the green screen. Or better yet, the DP could simply have covered up the green area since the television screens weren't visible in the reverse angle shot to begin with. Alternatively they could have just used a real television to light Irons' face. These sort of errors in photography are surprisingly frequent amongst the current generation of directors, and I can't help thinking the industry's overdependence on digital filmmaking techniques is to blame.

Great breakdown of visuals SN!

Cheers, ral. Since each entry in the Batman series has its own unique look, it might be interesting to have individual threads breaking down the cinematic techniques used to achieve those looks.

[thecolorsblend]

I probably can't offer a better technical commentary on the visuals than SN just did.

But I can say the color palette isn't really "comic booky" as such. It's very cinematic. It plays to the strengths of cinema.

But the cinematography emphasizes the fairy tale tone that Burton was shooting for in every scene. It doesn't seem "ridiculous" to see Batman wandering around Gotham plaza at the beginning of BR. The reality Burton created supports Batman and his bizarre rogues gallery. This isn't a statement on the merits of fantastic filmmaking vs. realistic filmmaking. It's simply tipping the hat and giving credit where it's due.

The thing about BR that holds up really for me all these years later is the matte paintings. There's some minor CGI in the movie (the penguins diving into the water, for example) but most of the rest of the movie uses in-camera effects. The Gotham City skyscrapers are "real" inasmuch as they wheeled giant models out to fill up the frame in each camera shot.

Again, that's not a slight on CGI backdrops (which is how they'd be done today). Just acknowledging that Burton's affection for the fantastic and his keen attention to detail pays off in every single frame of this movie.

There are some weaknesses. The movie was shot all or mostly on a stage. And at certain points it definitely looks like it was shot on a stage. But what we gain from that is a mostly convincing immersion into a fantasy-based reality where real world notions of what's normal don't necessarily apply. Shooting in a controlled environment allows BR to rise above even its lofty predecessor in terms of production value.

Ultimately though, what I think I'll always cherish about BR is how Burton went far out of his way to be original. It would've been easy (and was indeed expected) that he'd make "Batman 2". But he didn't. He made another chapter. Had Burton stuck around, it's reasonable to assume the next movie would've been similarly detached from BR. The end result might've been three films... but not actually a "trilogy".

And in today's world, I put a premium on filmmakers who strive to avoid trilogies.

Kudos, Mr. Burton! Thanks for 25 years!

[The Dark Knight]

Top work Silver. Solid analysis.

There are some weaknesses. The movie was shot all or mostly on a stage. And at certain points it definitely looks like it was shot on a stage. But what we gain from that is a mostly convincing immersion into a fantasy-based reality where real world notions of what's normal don't necessarily apply.

Batman Returns is like a stage play in the economical way it handles its locations. Sure, we can argue the Whoville concept, which I think has real merit. But ultimately, I like how having a bunch of fixed locations we see on a regular basis (especially Gotham Square) creates a sense of familiarity. In the opening scene we see the Christmas tree which plays a big part later on with the Ice Princess. We also see the tent which Penguin later uses to frame Batman with the batarang. By confining the film to these same locations it also created a sense of claustrophobia.

[GoNerdYourself]

I've always thought the stage-looked fit Gotham City rather well.

[thecolorsblend]

Batman Returns is like a stage play in the economical way it handles its locations. Sure, we can argue the Whoville concept, which I think has real merit. But ultimately, I like how having a bunch of fixed locations we see on a regular basis (especially Gotham Square) creates a sense of familiarity. In the opening scene we see the Christmas tree which plays a big part later on with the Ice Princess. We also see the tent which Penguin later uses to frame Batman with the batarang. By confining the film to these same locations it also created a sense of claustrophobia.

Very true. There's a pretty big learning curve between the last frame of B89 and the start of BR. Burton was growing in his craft and becoming a better filmmaker with his own style. It's less apparent in stuff like Pee Wee and B89. But starting with Edward Scissorhands and definitely with BR, Burton began asserting a stronger sense of his own vision onto the material.

The end product is an off-beat, kind of neurotic, Hammer-tinged gothic nightmare.

People pick on BR sometimes. The plot is uneven, Cobblepot is saddled with more screen time than might really have been necessary, Batman began taking a back seat to the villains, etc.

But those quibbles miss the point. We know who Batman is. By and large, Burton gives us a flavor of the character and allows us to project a lot of our own interpretations onto the material. Therefore my views of BR can morph and change as my view of Batman himself evolves over time.

As you probably know, there was a time when I deeply lamented Burton's departure from the franchise. But these days I regard it as an overall positive thing. Nobody can credibly say Burton ever made a lackluster Batman film and stepping aside allowed other filmmakers to try their hand. I cherish their efforts too, though for different reasons.

Ultimately though, there's something singular and unique about BR. It took risks and chances that nobody demanded and those elements are what pay off the most for me now... 25 years later.

[Silver Nemesis]

Those are all good observations, colors. The enclosed nature of the set can be seen as either a weakness or a strength depending on your point of view. On the one hand, it doesn't look like a real city. The only scenes shot outdoors where those of the Batmobile and Selina's car driving between Gotham and Wayne Manor. The rest of the film was shot entirely within a studio. This is particularly noticeable during the daylight scenes. Batman Returns is the only Batman movie not to feature a single shot utilising natural daylight. If you compare the exterior scenes to those in Batman 89 you can see the striking difference in light quality.

But as The Dark Knight says, the artificiality of the environment lends the film a distinctive theatrical atmosphere. It's a Caligaristic psychodrama wrapped in an operatic Hammer Horror nightmare with some Felliniesque visuals and black comedy thrown in for good measure. There's literally no other CBM quite like it. The Batman 89 Gotham looks more realistic, and perhaps more like the Gotham from the comics. But the Batman Returns Gotham is just so haunting, Gothic and unique. It's like something out of a fantasy/horror film. Even if you don't like the other aspects of the movie, you can't fault it on its ambience.

The stagey look of the architecture also evokes the oppressive and claustrophobic cities portrayed in many classic German Expressionist films. A few examples include F W Murnau's The Last Laugh (1924).

Robert Wiene's The Hands of Orlac (1924):

And of course Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927).

None of those cities looked particularly real either, but that only enhanced their dreamlike atmospheres. However one major drawback to this approach is that the mixture of sets, matte shots and miniatures creates several errors in spatial continuity. The most extreme example of this is the changing position of the ledge overlooking Gotham Plaza. This is the ledge where Catwoman stabs Batman in the ribs.

The first time we look down from this ledge we can see the cathedral to the right of the frame, almost directly beneath Batman (also note Shreck's department store has magically reappeared in this shot, despite the fact Catwoman blew it to smithereens about a minute earlier).

A few seconds later, Batman punches Catwoman off the ledge. But she doesn't fall into Gotham Plaza, or indeed anywhere near the cathedral. Instead she lands in a completely different street.

This same ledge is visible in the background during the mistletoe scene later in the film. So the building Batman descends from using his glider is situated right next to the building with the ledge.

When Batman glides down from this rooftop, it is now much higher up than it was when Selina fell into the kitty litter earlier in the film. And the cathedral no longer appears to be situated underneath it.

Then, a couple of scenes later, Catwoman and Penguin talk on that same ledge following the death of the Ice Princess.

The ledge is now once again overlooking Gotham Plaza. But look where the cathedral is.

It's now on the left hand side of the frame, meaning the ledge has moved diagonally to the other side of the square. It's all rather confusing.

A couple of other spooky details struck me when I watched Batman Returns a few nights ago. One of them was sound, and in particular the use of wind. There are a number of scenes in the movie where you can faintly hear the wind sighing in the background. One example is the scene where Shreck pauses to catch his breath in an alleyway just before Penguin kidnaps him. Another is when Penguin reveals his true name to the reporters at the cemetery. And it's very noticeable in the model shot of Wayne Manor just before the scene of Bruce and Selina's date. This use of sound compliments the visuals by adding to the chilling wintery atmosphere.

Another spooky detail can be found in all the carved faces hidden throughout the set design. There are relief sculptures of faces lining Gotham Plaza.

Others can be seen on the sides of buildings.

There are also some smaller gargoylesque figures, like the one above the window of Selina's flat.

And the one above the fireplace at Wayne Manor.

Has anyone spotted any more of these?