BATMAN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: A triumph of visual imagery over story for the music video generation. Ironically, Keaton is better as Batman than Nicholson is as the Joker. The art design is superior but just about everything else is pedestrian. Better than the television series or the serials, not as good as the comic. Rating: 0.
"[The] mind craves [images], and, of late more than ever, the
keenest experimenters find twenty images better than one,
especially if contradictory; since the human mind has already
learned to deal in contradictions."
Henry Adams, 1907
Excuse the pretentiousness of starting a review with an 82-year-old quote, but Adams might very well be talking about BATMAN, whose images, often contradictory or of clashing styles, far overpower the flyweight story that binds them together. BATMAN is a triumph of visual imagery over story. While Jack Nicholson is the top-billed star, his character is paper-thin and just as flat. We are down here to the level of villains whose biggest crimes can be explained only by nastiness. Nicholson apparently was chosen not because he had a single responsive chord for the man behind the famous face, but because both are known for their smirking. Nicholson does not even look the part. His face is not thin and angular enough and his non- angular body is better suited to playing the Penguin. Of course, it is a pity that the original model for the Joker is well past the point where he could have played the part. Conrad Veidt, best known for playing Col. Strasser in CASABLANCA and Cesar in CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, played the title role in THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, a poor wretch whose face is twisted into a perpetual rictus grin. His nightmarish look was reportedly the real inspiration for the Joker so he looked the role. Nicholson can be a decent actor but he lacks range and in spite of all the fuss and expectation, Michael Keaton is much better cast as Batman than Nicholson is as the Joker. Keaton, first of all, looks the part of Batman. That is not all that surprising if you realize what you are seeing is two eyes, a perpetual frown, and a chin. Everything else is plastic shell. Any actor with a chin and reasonable musculature could have looked good in the Batman suit. Keaton's role was a little more demanding when he played the man behind the mask--he is not a character out of Dostoevsky, understand, but his role did require a little acting and while he was neither superior nor memorable, he was at least equal to the role. Surprisingly, Michael Gough played against type as a sympathetic Alfred the butler (sort of a Batman's batman!). At one point he does severely overstep what the original Alfred would have done, but that is a script fault, not Gough's failing.
The story, what there is of it, gives us an origin for the Joker, a touch of one for Batman, and one fiendish though not very coherent scheme by the Joker which is, f course, foiled by Batman. I will not say much about the Joker's scheme, but it involves chemical contamination. The Joker makes the part about chemical contamination quite public, but apparently Batman is the only person to do a chemical analysis of the contaminated products. (To judge how likely that is, the Berkeley ellness Letter reports, "The smoke from a single cigarette contains about 100 times more cyanide than did the two grapes from Chile that were impounded by government officials in March." Any idea how many chemical labs got involved in analysis after that tiny level of contamination was found? How likely do you find it that only Batman would do a complete chemical analysis of the Joker's product?) The plot also concerns what must be the world's tallest cathedral. At a minimum it looks to be at least fifty stories tall. That does not make for a believable story, but it is there for visual style more than credibility.
In the quote above, Adams talks about contradictory images, and that is precisely what BATMAN offers. There are wide mood swings from somber, dark, and brooding, to just exactly the sort of tongue-in-cheek campiness that the producers have long promised would *not* be in this film. Scenes of the Joker dancing Mardi Gras fashion to songs by Prince in front of cheering crowds are not classic Batman style by any means. And when Batman laments, "This is not exactly a normal world," this is not exactly a Batman sentiment. Also, one wonders how many worlds Batman has seen. Again and again the story stops--literally stops--in a time-out for a visual image. One of the most ridiculous of these has the Batplane break off a confrontation with the Joker so it can fly above the clouds and be seen outlined against the moon, looking like an aerial bat-symbol. If the script gives no explanation, the cheer of the audience does. Logic is less important than the visual image.
BATMAN is an art designer's film all the way. Gotham City is a highly stylized New York City with the art deco of the 1930s and the futuristic feel of Fritz Lang's (not Superman's) Metropolis. It is a collection of dark somber streets seen only at night or under overcast skies. This is a film without sunshine. To tie Gotham to the present, the mayor of the city was cast not for any acting ability, but because he looks like Ed Koch. In spite of the beautiful visual design for the city, the eye still rebels because of the matte paintings and building models that are just not convincing as being anything but mattes and models. That is not a serious fault in a film with a strong story, but when a film's strongest suit is its art design, it becomes very important to execute those designs flawlessly.
Finally, a word about the music. Danny Elfman has written a decent score, but choosing Prince to write the songs, apparently for the nihilism of his previous work, was as big a blunder as choosing Nicholson for his smirk. Director Tim Burton claims to be a fan of Batman comic books, but it seems to me they were better than his film. I have to give the film a neutral 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. I guess I did not expect better, but I had hoped for it nonetheless.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews