Batman-Online.com

I couldn't help but post this blog entry from some pop culture website complaining about Tim Burton's Goth influence in Batman Returns, and how Batman was used as a supporting character and the villains get the spotlight.

Quote
These are the movies that are so strange, so deliriously out of whack that they stop even our hard-bitten writers in their tracks. These are the films that are weird beyond belief, the ones that stick with you whether you want them to or not. Spectrum Culture is pleased to present a new Film Feature: WTF?

How did Batman Returns even get made? Now, I understand that when a movie makes a ton of money – especially the first film to crack $100 million in movie history – a sequel is pretty much a foregone conclusion. But how did this sequel get made? The one where rocket-firing penguins and face-licking, S&M bondage supervillains live together in German expressionist harmony, in a film that inexplicably takes place during Christmas? Surely someone at Warner Bros. thought to go on set and say, okay, Tim Burton, remember you're making a Batman movie here, not Fritz Lang-themed fetish porn, but the reported Area 51-levels of security on set make me think that nobody was allowed to know what was happening with that movie.

Batman Returns is, of course, the sequel to 1989's Batman, which marked the first ever massive marketing campaign for a film that didn't exist. Fans bought tickets to movies just to see the trailer. The bat-symbol was ubiquitous. Prince recorded an entire album and named it Batman just for the occasion and it was pretty boss. Yet, when it came time for the big premiere, viewers were treated to long, uninterrupted takes of Jack Nicholson cackling and dancing intercut with unrelated footage of Mr. Mom star Michael Keaton boldly refusing to trim his afro. It was art, but it was also infuriating.

For some reason superhero movies are like that. The first one is always really sh*tty but somehow makes enough money to justify a really exciting sequel where the director will suddenly care about his job and deliver honest-to-goodness pop culture entertainment. Iron Man 2 had bigger fights and Altman-esque flourishes during the talking scenes. Spider-Man 2 had horror cheesiness and decidedly fewer advertisements endorsed by Macy Gray. Hellboy 2 had supernatural characters with eyeballs in funny places. X2: X-Men United had a budget. You'd think everyone would put their effort into making a halfway decent movie the first time, but everybody these days plans for trilogies. Everybody is, coincidentally, an idiot.

Because the director of the first Batman was Tim Burton, Batman Returns features all of his cinematic interests, namely daddy issues and gothic bullsh*t – and boy, does Batman Returns have that in spades. Granted, in terms of comics, a Batman movie is probably the best outlet for daddy issues and gothic bullsh*t, considering its protagonist, one millionaire Bruce Wayne, saw his parents murdered before his very eyes as a boy and grew up swearing vengeance on all crime – a vow he fulfills by dressing like a bat and scaring the sh*t out of criminals before punching them.

Here's the thing, though: Bruce Wayne is not the guy with daddy issues in this movie. No, Burton's avatar in this film is Oswald Cobblepot, better known to the masses as the stout, squawking umbrella-themed supervillain the Penguin. The film opens with Mr. and Mrs. Cobblepot (one of whom is Paul Reubens) tossing the deformed baby Oswald into the sewers of Gotham City, Moses style, after the monstrous little tyke eats the family cat. Which is problematic because Burton desperately wants us to feel bad for the Penguin but, flippers or not, that's obviously a sh*tty kid. The baby does not die in the sewers, but instead grows up into Danny DeVito, who acquires a circus-themed gang and exacts a plan to simultaneously run for Mayor, frame Batman for murder, kidnap and murder all the first-borns of Gotham's wealthy families and launch full-scale war on the city via penguins with rockets strapped to their backs.

Which brings us to the protagonist of the movie: Catwoman. Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) is the shy secretary of super-rich businessman Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) until she confronts him about his evil plan to build a power plant to steal the city's electricity, which is kind of boring when aquatic birds are being armed with explosives. Either way, Walken throws her out of a very tall building and, for some reason, a legion of stray cats resurrect her by licking her back to life. Emboldened by the trauma, she stitches together a leather catsuit and runs around Gotham City with a bullwhip, clawing rapists to death and blowing up Walken's department stores. Batman doesn't like this active heroism, so he throws her off a building even though he wants to have sex with her.

Let's count so far: two villains and one greyish antihero. Clearly, Burton could not be less interested in the Batman, so he's overcrowded the film with characters that are way more proactive than the guy whose name is in the title of the thing. After taking a long time to straight-up murder a good portion of the circus gang at the beginning – seriously, he puts a time bomb down a guy's pants – Batman and his alter ego don't do much aside from respectively romance Catwoman and Selina Kyle. Ultimately, his greatest task in Batman Return is to put the movie to an end when he realizes it's been going on for way, way, way too long. Batman mainstays like Alfred and Commissioner Gordon are there, too, but the movie doesn't care about them so I relegate them to the same paragraph as Batman because there's just not enough to say about him in this film.

For a movie where the Penguin drives a giant rubber duck with a plot based kind of loosely on a "Batman '66" episode, Batman Returns is surprisingly, um, adult. During their first fight, Catwoman – whom, I remind you, is essentially dressed in bondage gear – straddles Batman and licks his face. When the two costumed villains have their inevitable "we should team up to destroy the Batman" scene, Penguin's dialogue turns into varying puns on "pussy" shouted at varying decibels and later practically bites some guy's nose off. When Catwoman finally finishes off Max Shreck, she gives him a great big open-mouth kiss with a taser between their lips while gripping a huge electrical wire, turning Walken into a charred, electified corpse while she scampers off to star in a spin-off that never really happened. To put it all in perspective, I was seven years-old when I saw this movie and it probably ruined my psyche.

It's at the end of the film where Tim Burton shows where his misguided interests lie: fatally wounded and spewing blue blood from his mouth, the Penguin stumbles over to his arsenal (read: an umbrella holder) and grabs a trick umbrella only to find that it's themed after the mobiles that hang above babies' cribs. He falls face-first upon the floor, dead, when a sextet of pallbearer penguins solemnly carry his body into the water. Aw, let's all feel bad for the deformed supervillain and would-be child-killer. This isn't a Takashi Miike film, guys.

Tim Burton's next film, Ed Wood was his best, so maybe being crushed under weight of his own cinematic concerns was good for his art, considering he took a respite from directing gothic bullsh*t himself until Sleepy Hollow. What's weird is that, until Christopher Nolan, Burton's obviously disinterested take on Batman is considered one of the better representations even though the guy's hardly in his own movies. Conversely, Joel Schumacher, Burton's successor, made movies that were actually about Batman and everyone hates them. Life, as in Batman Returns, makes absolutely no f***ing sense.

Source: http://spectrumculture.com/2011/01/23/wtf-batman-returns/

Okay, I can accept that Burton's German Expressionism influences might be a turn off for some people, but I doubt this guy was paying attention when he said "Batman doesn't like this active heroism, so he throws her off a building even though he wants to have sex with her." Just because Max Schreck was corrupt doesn't mean it's okay to blow up a department store either. Nor did I see anywhere in his first encounter with Catwoman that Batman wanted to have sex with her, other than defending himself when she tried to seduce him in order to let his guard down.

And even though Batman does have limited screentime in BR, you can still say the villains reflected him in various ways in terms of being an orphan and adopting to a vengeful alter ego.

What does anybody else think?

"Sometimes it might be a diversion to read such rubbish. Most of the time it's a waste of time"

He doesn't say anything new (these "criticisms" have been around since Batman fansites existed on 56k connections), this text is as much Burton bashing as it is about Batman Returns, and the guy who wrote it has hipster bullsh*t written all over him.

I have to say that overview on Batman Returns is more rant than thoughtful retrospect. I don't find his screen time argument on Batman very strong because, as Laughing Fish pointed out, thematically all three of the main characters are tied together by their classifications as misfits in life. So a character study on Batman is perhaps more intimate here than it was in the '89 origin. In some films, Burton sometimes overreaches in seeking his personal therapy through his films. The outcast seems very autobiographical in Burton films and he has alluded to that in varying degrees when he talks about his films.

And one could argue that having so many characters with similar social and psychological challenges makes for an overbearing character study for a film in this genre. But while a popular complaint is that its too thematically dark, Burton's Gothic canvas filled with the surreal is honestly the balance that reminds us we're watching a fairy tale. To me that is the beauty of his films and why I prefer his Batman as the definitive version. It doesn't ask us to consider our reality so much as accept the reality his world creates. And I think that is the ideal settings for a character like Batman.

What the author of this review misses is that much of the dialogue is staging for the Catwoman character. Burton is illustrating her reluctance to accept her role in a man's world where stereotypes and demeaning intentions are the only choices a woman has. You see that in how Selina is talked to, the dumb blonde princess, and the Penguin's wild assumptions that Catwoman's alliance is for sexual relations.  Even when Bruce and Selina talk about careers, Selina is adamant about not being called a secretary, but backpedals when Bruce gives her that look. It's a well serviced social commentary, but it walks a fine line with consideration to its audience in getting there.

Batman Returns is an incredibly visual installment that really gives Burton free reign to take the staple characters into HIS world and craft a twisted fairy tale full of interesting metaphors and colorful social commentary that was honestly ahead of it's day. I think that has allot to do with why it's so beloved now, because new generations clearly see the social themes throughout this film and that Burton is not only crafting a entertaining story in this genre, but injecting worthwhile statements about social role playing and the need not to conform to short-sided stereotyping.

Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 20 Sep  2017, 11:33
I have to say that overview on Batman Returns is more rant than thoughtful retrospect.

Welcome to the internet. These days, trying to find a thoughtful discussion about anything from blogs like that is nearly impossible.

Wow, Burton didn't showcase Batman enough, that's such an original criticism.

*yawn*

Honestly that criticism misses the point so much that I scarcely know where to begin. Burton defined who Batman is B89. He showed Batman taking a darker turn in BR. The villains get a lot of screen time (A) because there are so many of them and (B) they inform part of the audience's insight into Batman himself.

That's the method Burton used. People can love it or they can hate it. But that's how he chose to handle the matter. I don't see why it should be a problem.

If you don't like what's going on with Batman in live action at any given moment, just wait a while. Something new is always just around the corner.

Quote from: the Disgruntled Blogger TLF is referring to on Sun,  4 Sep  2016, 04:12
Here's the thing, though: Bruce Wayne is not the guy with daddy issues in this movie. No, Burton's avatar in this film is Oswald Cobblepot, better known to the masses as the stout, squawking umbrella-themed supervillain the Penguin.

This disgruntled blogger does know Batman Returns is a sequel, right?

Burton depicted the Wayne murders once. Schumacher depicted the sequence once. Nolan depicted the sequence once. The DCEU has depicted the sequence once, and it'll likely stay that way. The audience knows Batman is a tortured loner aching from a traumatic incident. And you know what? Given there was zero need for Burton to go over this again, he gave a different perspective to the material in the SEQUEL.

"His parents...I hope he finds them."

Gee, I wonder why Bruce feels that way?

Do we need this spelled out in big bright, neon lights? No. We know what the guy is thinking. The Penguin is the parallel to Bruce Wayne. One used his trauma for good. The other ultimately used his trauma for evil. The Penguin may be the main character of the film, but it all comes back to Batman. To say Burton didn't care about Batman is incorrect. Batman is important, but so is his world.

I could only manage to skim this fool's ramblings, and even that felt like way too much. I would catch myself clenching teeth and have to skip a couple paragraphs. Rinse, repeat.

I can't really form a response (most of it has been covered anyways) except to say the guy just doesn't get it. If you get it, Returns is a masterpiece. If not, it's a f***ing mess. Here, we get it. I think we're all creative or artistic or just f***ed up enough to understand it.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  4 Sep  2016, 04:12
Okay, I can accept that Burton's German Expressionism influences might be a turn off for some people..

I can't. That look is perfect for Gotham IMO. I love seeing the architecture and set designs that are reminiscent of Fritz Lang's Metropolis. The look of Burton's Batman films were so inspired, stylish, and interesting.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Fri, 29 Sep  2017, 15:29

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  4 Sep  2016, 04:12
Okay, I can accept that Burton's German Expressionism influences might be a turn off for some people..

I can't. That look is perfect for Gotham IMO. I love seeing the architecture and set designs that are reminiscent of Fritz Lang's Metropolis. The look of Burton's Batman films were so inspired, stylish, and interesting.

I reckon people, whether they're aware about it or not, are rather disturbed by the look of Gotham City in BR. It does have this sombre aura about it that matches the creepy detail of the shadows of Penguin, Batman and Catwoman, and the overall dark, tragic tone of the film. It definitely feels nightmarish when you watch the baby Penguin being abandoned and floating in a pram as it heads towards the sewers, the Arctic World hideout and so on. Even the big cat logo sitting atop of Shreck's headquarters looks a little creepy.

One thing's for sure, the cities in Burton and Schumacher's films had character. That's something that's been missing in all Batman film adaptations since.

Batman Begins was also quite good in terms of atmosphere. It's from TDK when things started looking too... "real".

The Gotham scenes in JL showed some promise. Too bad.

Quote from: Azrael on Thu, 22 Mar  2018, 12:38
Batman Begins was also quite good in terms of atmosphere. It's from TDK when things started looking too... "real".

The Gotham scenes in JL showed some promise. Too bad.

I disagree. I thought Gotham City in BB was dull and severely lacked in atmosphere as well. The whole monorail architecture never did anything for me, and I was never a fan of the city having this sepia tone either.

Some people complained how the Gotham scenes in JL looked as if they were set in a sound stage ala Burton because it didn't clash with a realistic-looking city in BvS, but I don't care. If memory serves me right, the GCPD building had this twisted structure inside that looked just as twisted and chaotic as the city itself. It would be nice to see Gotham City that's a character of its own again.

No offense to any of you but I don't really grasp the discussion going on here. Gotham City in Nolan's movies is visually boring to me. The only shot of Gotham City I really like from his trilogy is in TDK when Batman is standing on that rooftop when the Joker announces where to find "Harvey" "Dent". And really, that's literally the atmosphere. It looks like a very balmy, humid night. The moisture in the air is so thick you can nearly cut it with your pocket knife. I love nights like that. It's rare to see them in movies but the come around sometimes.

That's it. That one shot is the only one of Gotham City that I really enjoy. And it's nothing to do with the Gotham Cityness of that shot.

Burton. All the way. Hell, even Schumacher had a more visually interesting Gotham City.

That's the thing my funky amigos. Atmosphere is king. Why do I rather like the Narrows in Baleman Begins A Very Short Career? Mainly because they serve a mean falafel. But apart from that, I like the rain and the ambience that provides. I also like how this place is a dirty slum which resembles California. You would need many buckets of hot soapy water to scrub this place clea....nah, screw it. You'd just call in the dozers and start again.

Nothing else in the Nolan trilogy evoked that same type of atmosphere for me. Where's Nolan's similar level of creativity such as Burton's camera zooming around to establish Artic World? NOWHERE, man.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 22 Mar  2018, 12:56

Quote from: Azrael on Thu, 22 Mar  2018, 12:38
Batman Begins was also quite good in terms of atmosphere. It's from TDK when things started looking too... "real".

The Gotham scenes in JL showed some promise. Too bad.

I disagree. I thought Gotham City in BB was dull and severely lacked in atmosphere as well. The whole monorail architecture never did anything for me, and I was never a fan of the city having this sepia tone either.

Some people complained how the Gotham scenes in JL looked as if they were set in a sound stage ala Burton because it didn't clash with a realistic-looking city in BvS, but I don't care. If memory serves me right, the GCPD building had this twisted structure inside that looked just as twisted and chaotic as the city itself. It would be nice to see Gotham City that's a character of its own again.

Sure, it doesn't compare design-wise to Furst's work, but The Narrows felt like a world of perpetual rain and fog, not Generic American City.

JL: The look of Gotham, or Batman smiling etc. is like blaming the cherry for a s#it cake. (No, I don't lack perspective, I don't think JL is as BAD as Catwoman or Steel, but it being a mediocre Avengers clone with ugly CG and obviously incomplete/rushed/half-cooked elements while it was supposed to be one of the best DC movies that would elevate the DCEU - this classifies as BAD. My hatred and vowing to never watch it ever again comes from desire for it to be good and succeed, high hopes and big disappointment).

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 00:12
No offense to any of you but I don't really grasp the discussion going on here. Gotham City in Nolan's movies is visually boring to me. The only shot of Gotham City I really like from his trilogy is in TDK when Batman is standing on that rooftop when the Joker announces where to find "Harvey" "Dent". And really, that's literally the atmosphere. It looks like a very balmy, humid night. The moisture in the air is so thick you can nearly cut it with your pocket knife. I love nights like that. It's rare to see them in movies but the come around sometimes.

That's it. That one shot is the only one of Gotham City that I really enjoy. And it's nothing to do with the Gotham Cityness of that shot.

Burton. All the way. Hell, even Schumacher had a more visually interesting Gotham City.

My point is that BB had promise. It was "grounded" compared to the previous films, especially the last one, but still looked like a Batman movie. Back in 2005 some of us thought "escalation" accompanied by the Joker card meant the gradual introduction of more stylized and comic book elements (while keeping it more "grounded" and "serious" compared to 1997). We know how this went.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 03:43
That's the thing my funky amigos. Atmosphere is king. Why do I rather like the Narrows in Baleman Begins A Very Short Career? Mainly because they serve a mean falafel. But apart from that, I like the rain and the ambience that provides. I also like how this place is a dirty slum which resembles California. You would need many buckets of hot soapy water to scrub this place clea....nah, screw it. You'd just call in the dozers and start again.

Nothing else in the Nolan trilogy evoked that same type of atmosphere for me. Where's Nolan's similar level of creativity such as Burton's camera zooming around to establish Artic World? NOWHERE, man.

Same page - for me Batman is more about atmosphere than being "real". It's not supposed to look real. Just enough "realism" and verisimilitude to make it relatable.

There is something about the opening shot of TDK, with the camera zooming in. Problem is it's a huge glass box in broad daylight, not an elaborate set, or at least a striking real world building, with interesting lighting. Just the type of ornament-free glass polygon architects of the modern era are so very fond of. Maybe this is how it should be ITRW, but it's boring to look at in a movie that is supposed to take place in Gotham.

Quote from: Azrael on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 06:46
JL: The look of Gotham, or Batman smiling etc. is like blaming the cherry for a s#it cake. (No, I don't lack perspective, I don't think JL is as BAD as Catwoman or Steel, but it being a mediocre Avengers clone with ugly CG and obviously incomplete/rushed/half-cooked elements while it was supposed to be one of the best DC movies that would elevate the DCEU - this classifies as BAD. My hatred and vowing to never watch it ever again comes from desire for it to be good and succeed, high hopes and big disappointment).

JL definitely could've/should've been better. Particularly when you consider its enormous budget, regardless of the highly dubious circumstances going on behind the scenes. It certainly doesn't help when there are strong suspicions that the film's original vision was compromised because of studio meddling, as time goes by. But honestly, I would still take that final theatrical cut as it is any day than some of the criminally overrated garbage in the DC catalogue we've been subjected to in recent years.

Quote from: Azrael on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 06:46My point is that BB had promise. It was "grounded" compared to the previous films, especially the last one, but still looked like a Batman movie. Back in 2005 some of us thought "escalation" accompanied by the Joker card meant the gradual introduction of more stylized and comic book elements (while keeping it more "grounded" and "serious" compared to 1997). We know how this went.

I remember people thinking that back in the old days. And while I certainly never predicted TDK or TDKRises, it didn't seem very likely for things to move in a more stylized direction with the ensuing sequels.

It is interesting to think about that though. Nolan had riffed so much on The Long Halloween in BB that it's interesting to consider what might've happened if he'd followed that same trajectory of showing Gotham City's underworld transition from pinstriped gangsters to garish supervillains. Not sure Nolan would've been the guy to show the transition but it's still kind of fun to think about.

Quote from: Azrael on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 06:46
Sure, it doesn't compare design-wise to Furst's work, but The Narrows felt like a world of perpetual rain and fog, not Generic American City.

100%

Quote from: Azrael on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 06:46
Same page - for me Batman is more about atmosphere than being "real". It's not supposed to look real. Just enough "realism" and verisimilitude to make it relatable.

A heightened form of reality suits Batman best. Something that reflects his personality, like a red or blue sky, snow, lightning, rain or a generally gloomy vibe. The Burton films and BTAS understood that, and I seriously believe they wouldn't be as good without it. That's why we love places like the Batcave. We are entering a fantasy world that looks so visually appealing and so unlike anything else we're used to in real life. Aspects of Gotham can appear in our everyday lives, but not to this extent, or all the time. Batman and his world are akin to a haunted mansion attraction. We can't help but be attracted to the mystery and the adrenaline of these places. The danger makes us feel alive.

Quote from: Azrael on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 06:46
Sure, it doesn't compare design-wise to Furst's work, but The Narrows felt like a world of perpetual rain and fog, not Generic American City.

I think the Batman Begins Gotham strikes a great balance between stylisation and realism. Compare the Wayne Enterprises boardroom in BB to the one in TDK and TDKR. In the latter two films it looks like a real featureless office, devoid of artistic embellishment.


In BB it has a distinctive curved wooden desk, art nouveau light fixtures, stylised latticework on the windows, and sculpted busts mounted on pedestals around the edge of the room. Notice how the mise-en-scène creates a distinctive colour palette that emphasises browns and beiges.


This is consistent throughout the film, both in the interiors and exteriors. Even when Nolan incorporates location footage from London and Chicago, Pfister's cinematography does a grand job of matching the lighting and colour tones with the studio scenes.


The overall effect is a Gotham that feels bigger and more densely populated than Burton's, but still retains many of the tonal qualities that distinguish it from an ordinary city. I also like the ruddy tint to the clouds in the film's final act. It always reminds me of the red sky from The New Batman Adventures.


The architecture and exterior set design emphasises rusty metal girders, claustrophobic spaces, strangulatory cables and abundant refuse. A hydraulic theme permeates the city in the form of rivers, pipes, rain and steam, while the moody low-key lighting lends Nolan's vistas a murky film noir ambience. It's Kowloon by way of Jean-Pierre Jeunet.


The BB Gotham is expressionistic in the truest sense of the term. Expressionism isn't just about being artsy or weird looking; it's about expressing internal meaning through external appearance. And that's precisely what the BB Gotham does. It's a wet, decaying, pustulant, overcrowded slum, half buried beneath mountains of rubbish and cluttered cables. The architectural and infrastructural decay reflects the moral and economic entropy that is eating away at the city's heart and soul.


To my mind, the BB Gotham represents the aesthetic middle ground between the B89 Gotham and the TDK incarnation. And while I don't like it nearly as much as Anton Furst's designs, I still consider it one of the better interpretations of Gotham in live action. It's certainly the portrayal that best reflects the visual character of Mazzucchelli's Gotham from Batman: Year One.

Great analysis, Silver! :)

I really do enjoy the look of the Narrows. It was moody, busy, trashy, and druggy. I wanted to see Batman spending more time in this atmosphere, but Nolan & co. practically retconned those elements from the sequels. Do they even mention the Narrows or the elevated trains in The Dark Knight? I can't remember, but their departure from the trilogy is jarring to me.

How did I miss this recent Silver Nemesis master class?

As his comparisons show, Begins actually started the trilogy off to a decent start in regards to Gotham. It managed to blend realism with something a little more atmospheric. The film had an 'earthy' tone with the brown hue, coupled with the raw version of the batcave. And when you think about it, nature in general played a big part in Begins. The blue flower compound. The blizzard outside Ras' Temple. The ice which Ducard and Bruce duel on. The rain in the Narrows. The fire which burns down Wayne Manor, and maybe a couple other examples I've missed.

Bottom line, TDK and TDKR have valid interpretations of Gotham, but I don't find them that interesting.

To quote Ray Fisher, I'd like to take a moment to forcefully retract every bit of this statement:

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 23 Mar  2018, 11:10
But honestly, I would still take that[Justice League] final theatrical cut as it is any day than some of the criminally overrated garbage in the DC catalogue we've been subjected to in recent years.

(https://i.giphy.com/media/4pMX5rJ4PYAEM/200.gif)