Batman (1989)

How we see our heroes is, in a way, how we see ourselves.

In the good old days, there were strong, brave superheroes that wore brightly colored suits, smiled a lot, always fought fair and triumphed 99.99% of the time, winning the day for truth, justice and small children everywhere. For those of us who grew up on Superman, Captain America, The Flash, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, you got used to the idea of good always triumphing over evil - in primary colors, and usually with a moral about good hygiene thrown in, time allowing.

Batman always stood away from the bright lights of his peers, however. Here was a dark, tortured character who battled his inner demons almost as much as Gotham City's criminal element, if not more. Hiding in the shadows, he fought not for truth, justice, et cetera, but because he was spurred on to avenge the murder of his parents by muggers. This was light years removed from the adventures of The Son Of Krypton and The Princess Of The Amazons.

But then in 1978 Richard Donner directed Superman: The Movie which, in grandiose fashion, celebrated the positive virtues of superhero-dom with plenty of bright smiles, positive attitudes and, yes, lots of primary colors.

After its initial success, who would be the next big-budget success in the superhero world? It took some time (eleven years, in fact) but then came the answer. And oddly enough, without very many primary colors.

In 1989, Batman was released under Tim Burton's direction to detail the adventures of The Dark Knight (Michael Keaton) as he battles against the twisted Joker (Jack Nicholson) in-between bouts of dark moodiness in his palatial mansion and wooing photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).

Batman certainly had a lot going for it; for a year prior you couldn't bump into anyone who didn't know that the movie was coming to a theater near them. Burton's hiring was a triumph for quirky movie lovers everywhere, coming as he did from the success of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. And the brass ring: Jack Nicholson's Joker.

And in the end, it made a literal TON of money and begat a franchise for Warner Brothers Pictures that they are milking to this day.

BUT, this still isn't the definitive superhero movie.

Why, you may ask?

Tim Burton is, as I've said before, a talented director who was perfect to handle the light, odd touch in a movie that requires it (titles like Ed Wood, Big Fish and Mars Attacks! are good examples). But this is a multi-million dollar movie about an action hero. And while Burton brings the twisted, brooding style of the Dark Knight's graphic novels to the fore and visualizes Gotham City as a place where the sun never shines and the architecture is a clash of styles in black and gray, he just doesn't have the action sense that Donner has, nor the cartoonish sensibility of a Sam Raimi (Spider-Man) or even the color sensibilities of a Warren Beatty (Dick Tracy).

As far as the actors go, I've already mentioned Nicholson...and no wonder! Am I the only person in the world that's noticed that he makes the largest impression in the whole movie? As he usually does, Nicholson's turn as Jack Napier/The Joker is the whole show. Every second he's onscreen, he IS the character. Every hideous grin, every cutting one-liner, every evil leer. This is basically Jack doing his "crazy guy" act in white face, but he makes the role all his own and, for what it's worth, the screen comes alive when he's there.

If only the same could be said for the guy who's supposed to be the HERO! Pity poor Michael Keaton; he's a great actor and extremely funny in movies like Johnny Dangerously, Speechless and Burton's Beetlejuice. But he just isn't an action hero. Sure, Batman is a tragic character, but he's also supposed to be a tragic superhero. Keaton cuts a dashing figure in both tuxedo and cowl, but just doesn't do anything super-heroic. He appears nearly immobile in his rubber Bat Suit and, coincidentally, barely moves from the waist up while in it. So what fight scenes he has are so awkward they just look silly.

The others really make no more nor less difference. Kim Basinger's Vicki Vale is beautiful but not as individual as Margot Kidder's Lois Lane or Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Parker. Pat Hingle blusters and barks orders but is nowhere near his best as Commissioner Gordon. Michael Gough's Alfred the Butler is good but never has the chance to develop into much more than the "old British guy in a tuxedo". And then we have Robert Wuhl, Billy Dee Williams and Jack Palance thrown in at random intervals to just make people say, "Hey look! It's Robert Wuhl / Billy Dee Williams / Jack Palance!"

Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren wrote a script, I'll give them that. As far as being the best one for a movie dealing with Batman, who can say? Perhaps somewhere along the line the idea of Batman fighting The Joker not only for the fate of Gotham City but for the hand of Vicki Vale was a good idea. Then it was decided that the darkness of tone and Nicholson's antics should be the focus, secondary to any story consideration. Don't scoff; far greater successes were built on less of a foundation.

Having grown up reading comic books and watching my heroes do brave things and celebrate the good of human nature, I have to wonder if there's really a need for a hero that's a dysfunctional recluse who only comes out at night to avenge himself. Then I remember the popularity of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Punisher, The Crow and Darkman and find myself remembering the first line of this review.

In closing, even though Batman may be closer to the mythos of the Dark Knight than the TV legend of the Caped Crusader, did it feel that it had to be so faithful as to lose the very essence of what made him a hero to begin with? Apparently the makers of Batman thought so, but I certainly don't.

Then again, I'm not a studio suit, either.