Batman

Here it is: the Batmovie. Probably more hyped than any other picture, it had what the trade people call "wannasee." That is, everybody seemed to wanna see it. (And, judging from the receipts, everybody did.) Well, I was no exception. (Probably no revelation if you remember the wooden sign on the wall of the garage on which is inscribed the deathless message "Roger loves Batman.") (OK, so I do.) Actually, I ended up seeing the picture twice, and curiously enough, I liked it better the second time around. It is a long movie, overlong, I think (though this feeling was stronger the first time out). And it is a heavy picture, meaning everything in it is blocky, stolid, immovable (I’m talking about the physical feel of it). Nothing is sleek and airy, with the possible exception of Kim Basinger. Even the Dark Knight’s costume is heavy-looking, almost unwieldy. All the machinery is laden with primitive looking bolts and screws, almost a devolution from contemporary high-tech styling, with its smooth, contourless linearity. And, I hasten to add, from the point of view of production design, it is beautiful.

Truly astonishing, the world of Gotham City they have created here, ominous, foreboding, immense, high-tech in a dysfunctional sort of way. Even the Wayne mansion is a Gothic monstrosity which, in a different picture, would have been the setting for a bunch of dreadful murders. And the Batmobile; well, it’s already been described as a “Corvette on steroids.” (Maybe viewed during an acid trip also.) The design is cohesive; everything fits, and the overall effect is that of a scarily hypermodern society as conceived by a fifties designer. For this exact reason the picture can’t be placed so easily into any time frame. Fifties style clothes and cars clash with the Starwarian Bat-toys. Art deco architecture slams right up against post-Orwellian industrial revolution jumble. It’s superbly realized, this design, on a par with the LA of the future in “Blade Runner” (a modern classic of design). Everything else (well, almost) takes its cue from this heavy look.

Yes, the Bat legend is amplified and deepened here. The picture does focus on the Dark Side, the sinister side, of our hero, rooted in tragedy and revenge. If memory serves, Wayne adopted the bat motif for the express purpose of scaring the hell out of bad guys, a notion well illustrated by the film’s opening sequence (maybe the best and most consistent in the picture) in which the hero is more than just a cartoon figure; he terrorizes the crooks. In this scene he also delivers the best line, a simple “I’m Batman,” but delivered with such crisp precision that it sums everything up. We love it, but within the context of the picture, especially from the crooks’ point of view, utter insanity.

In the title role, Michael Keaton (whose casting raised hackles among Batmaniacs when announced) is wonderful, a real inspiration. In his Bat-duds he looks ten times larger, and he moves with a jerky, almost machine-like stiffness. He is quite unearthly. Well counterpointed by his Bruce Wayne, with an air of modest self-deprecation. Nicholson, who has become the world’s greatest character actor, is typically exceptional as the Joker, but the part itself is curiously overwritten. Do we really need an orgy of defacement in a museum to demonstrate that the white-skinned guy with the green hair and the rictus smile and the penchant for murder and mutilation has a peculiar sense of humor? No. Joker does have most of the best lines (I laughed aloud) and Nicholson delivers them with characteristic elan. It also annoyed me that he kept putting makeup on over his ghoulish visage, despite his oft-stated glee at people’s horrified reaction to him. Why would he do that?

Finally, there is the problem of the plot. Specifically, what was the Joker’s actual criminal plan, aside from just killing a lot of people? Granted, he is insane, but there has to be a rationale for his actions. Even in the old series, the Joker had some madcap scheme for enriching himself and gaining power. Decimating a city hardly seems a good way to get rich, and the Joker's Macy's Thanksgiving Parade hardly seems like the cataclysmic Gotterdammerung we would have expected from this megalomaniac. But I guess they needed another scene (like the museum) where they could use some of Prince's custom-made songs, so as to increase soundtrack album sales (God I'm cynical). One good thing about the Joker is the way his origin is depicted--Napier is (was) an interesting character, and we see how the Joker came about (in both a physical and psychological sense--Napier was already insane--this much is made clear, only now he is worse). Too bad we can't say the same for the Caped Crusader; really, he's given short shrift here, aside from some lame story about his parents being murdered (is that how it's described in the comics???) and we really get no insight into the adopting of the bat motif (aside from Wayne's comment that bats are "survivors"). And Vicki Vale likes bats? Oh yeah? Why? What's the big affinity? The point is that some of the picture seems implausible, which may seem at first like saying that some of the Three Stooges seems silly, but first and foremost a movie must be true to itself and never betray its ground rules. For the most part, director Tim Burton abides by that principle in this stolid picture, but occasionally he lets things get away from him, and that crashed the party for me a bit. Still and all, with the great sets, photography, and performance by the two principals, this is definitely worth a wannasee... especially if you're a Batfan. Oh, by the way, there will be a Batman II. Surprised?