Den of Geek

Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman

Carley Tauchert


Our look back at the work of Tim Burton arrives at the film that launched the modern day blockbuster as we know it: Batman...

Published on Sep 17, 2009

"You made me. Remember? You dropped me into that vat of chemicals. That wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try." - The Joker

By the time 1989 rolled around Tim Burton was riding high on his successes with Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice, the latter of which would lead to him getting the green light to push ahead with a project he had been working on for some time previously. Little could Burton have imagined that his next film, and only his third studio directed picture, would become one of the most successful movies of the decade and re-launch the superhero movie for a new generation of cinema goers.

From the 60s to the early 80s the fate of superheroes seemed to lie in the land of over the top camp TV shows. Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk and Superman (being paraded around as Superboy) were all victims of this and none more so than Batman. Each week Adam West and Burt Ward took on their foes in bright Technicolor with a BOW, BAM, WHAM! as Batman and Robin, but by 1989 things had changed and Batman was due for a re-vamp. And Mr Burton was the man charged with doing it.

After witnessing his parents' brutal murder as a child, Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), multi-millionaire playboy and owner of Wayne Enterprises, decides to avenge their death by taking to the streets of his home city Gotham at night as Batman.

Gotham is in the middle of a war against criminals that it is not winning, with the city being controlled by Carl Grissom (Jack Palance) and even with the efforts of Police Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) and newly elected district attorney Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams), corruption throughout the system is rife. With this in mind, Gotham Globe journalists Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) and Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) decide to investigate the phantom bat that has been scaring the criminals of the city.

While attending a party at Wayne Manor that night, Vicki and Alexander meet Bruce who is automatically attracted to Vicki but is soon called away when there is a raid at Axis Chemicals, which is being lead by Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson). When the police come to arrest him, Jack realises he has been set up by Grissom due to his extra-curricular activates with his mistress.

As the bullets fly, Batman arrives, taking out Jack's men and in a face-to-face between the two, Jack shoots at Batman but the bullet ricochets off the bat suit and back at Jack. Injured, he falls over the platform he is standing on. Trying to save him, Batman grabs his hand but he loses grip and Jack falls into a vat of chemicals.

While everybody believes Jack is dead, he has survived and with his hair and skin discoloured he turns to a back-street surgeon, whose only choice is to give Jack a permanent, twisted grin, thus giving birth to the Joker.

With revenge on his mind, the Joker firstly takes on Grissom and then takes over his empire. As head of the biggest criminal gang in Gotham, he holds the city hostage by altering an array of personal hygiene products, which kills anybody who uses them by making them laugh to death.

Bruce tries to trace the Joker's location but has bigger things to worry about when the Joker takes an interest in Vicki, who since their meeting at his party have grown closer together.

It is revealed that the Joker was, in fact, the criminal that killed Bruce's parents and after destroying the chemical factory creating the deadly products, Batman goes solely after the Joker who is in the process of attempting to kill the occupants of Gotham by luring them out of their homes with the promise of free cash and then poisoning them with his lethal laughing gas.

Batman manages to come in time to foil his ultimate plan but the Joker takes off with Vicki and a climatic chase takes place up the spire of Gotham Cathedral. In a final showdown, the Joker falls to his death and the city can rest easy again, for a while at least.

Thankful for his help, Police Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent unveil the Bat-Signal, a call for help when the city needs it (which would be around three years later).

When news of an all action re-vamped Batman movie came to light, fans of the caped crusader were less than impressed with the casting of Michael Keaton in the lead (50,000 letters to Warner Bros unimpressed), but nothing could stop the machine that was Batman and with pre-release hype, it became the first movie to earn $100 million in its first ten days of release.

Taking a much darker tone than any previous superhero movie (just look at the stunning set designs), Batman wasn't afraid to make its lead less than perfect. Like his counterpart, the Joker, both men were hiding behind masks and their fate would be to face each other. This very dysfunctional relationship is the centre of the movie and everything else really revolves around it, and although various plot strands evolve from it, it all ties into the main story.

Although slightly criticised at the time for focusing too much on the Joker rather than the movie's lead namesake, it would be an impossible task for it to go any other way. The Joker is a big in-your-face character, as we have seen more recently in The Dark Knight. The thought and presence of him is enough to make you sit up in your seat and pay attention, and although Heath Ledger's performance may be the award winning one, Jack Nicholson does a great job in a role that defined him many years after. He also, to me, is a fitting embodiment of the time. I am hardly calling him a yuppie Joker but there is something just so 80s about him that, in many ways, he is an embodiment of the decade.

Michael Keaton plays the lead of Bruce Wayne/Batman admirably. Studying the character through The Dark Knight Returns comic series rather than any previous live action incarnations, Bruce is more of a tortured soul than anything else. He can feel his need to keep putting on the bat suit and trying to save the city, but the cost can also be seen: what real life can he really have with such a dark secret?

Both men are supported well by the surrounding cast, but you can't help but feel they are mostly pawns in the bigger game. Basinger does well as the love interest for Bruce and special mention to Robert Wuhl whose Alexander Knox brings some light-hearted moments when required.

Comic book fans are the hardest to please when it comes to adapting graphic novels and legendary characters to the screen and Batman was no exception. As mentioned above, they were highly against the casting of Michael Keaton but they were soon appeased once they saw his portrayal. That said, a few gripes were brought up, including the fact the Joker killed Bruce's parents, when, in fact, a character called Joe Chill was behind it, as well as the fact Alfred allowed Vicki into the Bat Cave, a travesty that would never have been allowed.

Burton's style again seeps through this movie and the gothic ambience of Gotham is wonderful. His pacing is great; there is never any moment that you wish would stop dragging until something else happens. Each scene melds and blends into each other in glorious comic book style. His interpretation of Bruce Wayne is just dark enough you don't feel depressed while watching and his use of special effects is limited, focusing more on make-up, costumes and props to tell the story, something I do sometimes wish more directors would do.

The success of Batman ensured that a sequel was quickly green lit, but first Burton would release a movie that would in many ways prove to be his calling card, a tale of a boy with scissors for hands, next time I'll be taking a visit to the magical Edward Scissorhands.

Batman Key Info:
Released: 23rd June 1989 (US) / 11TH August 1989 (UK)
Distributed By: Warner Bros. Pictures
Budget: $48,000,000
Box Office Gross: $411,350,000
Best DVD Edition: Batman Two Disc Special Edition

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By Nocturne 1 September 17, 2009 09:02:40 AM

Nicely written article :) I was never a fan of the movie's Joker while I enjoy Nicholson's work I never felt it was the Joker. Just Jack Nicholson in clown makeup. Anton Fursts Oscar winning set design is still stunning now though. The first pic of Batman in the article is from Returns BTW (the suit is different, more art deco)

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By Geekette 1 September 17, 2009 09:12:40 AM

Thanks for the pic tip, Nocturne. That was my doing. Carley supplied the right costume, but the pic was a bit dark. I've used it now regardless as it's correct. :c)

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By Nocturne 1 September 17, 2009 10:22:56 AM

It's a classic shot there :) Reminds me I must grab these on Blu-Ray now (stick them with all the other copies *lol*)

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By ERG1008 1 September 17, 2009 12:43:34 PM

No mention of Danny Elfman's brilliant score? Still think it's his best work

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By Nostromo71 1 September 17, 2009 03:26:21 PM

It's a good movie - but filled with awful flaws - the love element and Batman murdering people are two notable ones. I enjoyed it at the time as an 18 year old but the movie I WANTED didn't come along until Batman Begins!

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By RobGordon23 1 September 17, 2009 11:09:18 PM

I recently re-watched this myself, and I wish I hadn't. This isn't just because of The Dark Knight or Batman Begins, but it was awful...and not in the way like the cartoon Transformers/GI Joe is cheesy yet still awesome. I was actually embarrassed that I had once said I liked this movie. The scenery and cinematography are still quite good, but Nicholson and Keaton are painful to watch. Oh yeah, there's that whole Kim Basinger thing that's better left untouched. I should stop re-watching things from when I was younger to preserve my good memories of them and not face the harsh reality of having awful taste in my childhood.

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By micah.byrd 1 September 18, 2009 01:44:49 PM

For all of it's flaws it is a watershed moment in film. Think of it: no one thought that a comic book movie could make money after what happened with the Superman franchise (which was ruined by awful efforts instead of a bad franchise). Fact is there would have been no Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Hulk, blah, blah, blah without this movie. Tim Burtons Batman gave studios faith that people who don't like comics would show up to these films and they would make money, and that's all studios care about. They don't love the characters the way geeks do. If the film can be profitable it will get made, which we should thank Burton for. Even if he screwed with the mythology and gave "Smiling Jack" the latitude to do whatever he wanted with the Joker. And besides, anyone watching it for the first time gets a kick out of some of those lines ("This town needs an enema!").

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By narcomics 1 September 18, 2009 06:53:38 PM

This is by far, still the best BATMAN incarnation to date in my opinion. I really didn't get the same attachment to the newer films. There's a powerful seduction present in this film that marks it as a worthy classic of which Nolan films heavily were inspired by. (This is why I don't understand why people are STILL comparing movies that are 20 years apart in the first place.) For me, this movie has more imagination behind it thanks to Tim Burton's out of the box ideas, Anton Furst's great designing work, Bob Ringwood's awesome costume designs and Danny Elfman's unforgettable compositions. I love everything about this film. Jack Nicholson is still my favorite movie Joker and Keaton Batman is a walking icon. The face, the suit, the movements. It's such a great looking film with many great moments. While I enjoyed Begins and TDK, Tim Burton's BATMAN is still numero uno in my book. For kids today, its greatly understood that our spoiled generation has any room for respect for a film that was the obvious of greatness once (20 years ago). So I personally and sadly, do not expect to read positive feedback about this film in general today. It would seem like today's movies vs yesterdays, demonstrates a powerful stigma amongst modern movie goers, where if there isn't any blood, swearing, violence, realism or nudity, its not a good film at all. And that's a sad thing. I personally believe that people have a misconception of what they think is good vs bad. And that has a lot to do with our time today. As everything grows far more sarcastic, clever, cold, darker and "reality show" inspired, wonderful masterpieces like BATMAN, get dirt kicked in its eyes, unfairly. In my opinion, as much as I liked Batman Begins and TDK, I still feel that Tim Burton's BATMAN far more imaginative and ground breaking for being a 20 year old movie production. It's flaws, if any, gave more to it, rather than taken away. BATMAN is awesome. And I think I will always have that respect that sparked my batty fandom at the age of 11 years old. The merchandise for this film were GREAT!! :D Thanks for posting this article, Carley. Great read! ^_^ I blogged it on my BATMAN myspace page, so hopefully you'll have more readers visit. -Nar

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By cbrigden 1 September 18, 2009 08:23:44 PM

While I loved it as an eleven year-old in '89, time has not been kind. I always thought Nicholson's Joker was pretty lame, and the whole tone seemed pretty camp, especially when placed against the faux-darkness Burton is famed for. Keaton was great, but the role was pretty thin and too overshadowed by Nicholson. The designs were lovely, ace Batmobile, good music (the score, not the terrible Prince songs) but it just doesn't work for me. I agree it's probably not fair to compare it to the Nolan films, in the same way it's unfair to compare the silver age comics to the bronze age. It's a decent entertaining film, but I don't believe it's a good Bat-movie. As for the comparison with contemporary film and the need for "blood, swearing, violence, realism and nudity", you forget that in Burton's movies, Batman murdered about three guys, although in the first one he's a bit less gleefully psychotic than in RETURNS. But Nolan's movies - while being a product of today, as any contemporary film - are right out of Batman's history, whether it's Bill Finger or Dennis O'Neil or Frank Miller. The best representations of Batman in the comics - and the superior animated series - have always had him in a twisted alternate universe of film noir and German expressionism. Which I think is where he works best.

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By warl0ck 1 September 20, 2009 06:08:13 PM

I never cared for this film. While Keaton wasn't as bad as I thought he'd be, my Batman isn't a scrawny "hyper" man; I just never thought this guy was any threat to anyone, and Nicholson's Joker just ate up whole portions of scenery with his over the top performance. Agree with the other poster who said that Batman blithely killing people was a horrible mistinterpretation of the character. I also thought the love element was poorly done; it wasn't really even Basinger's fault it just didn't need to be here as it cluttered things up too much. And the mixup of Joe Chill and the Joker was blasphemy; why gut such an essential (and successful!) element of the original story? I'll take "Batman: Begins" over this ANY and EVERY time. Make mine Bale :)

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By narcomics 1 September 20, 2009 08:00:02 PM

See that's the sad thing. People keep comparing movies that are 20 years apart. One is a classic. The other isn't. Before the classic showed up, all you had was the campy 70s show. Burton brought it to "Serious", so to speak in the 80s. And for an 80s Batman, this film was great. The audience were captivated. And since then, cartoon shows, EVEN TODAY, took many elements from this film. Its never my place to tell anyone what they should think. I just wish people would show more respect for a movie they most likely were drooling over at one point. And not kick it to the curb just because it was made yesterday. What do you expect? Comparing it to a modern movie production that aimed to please "today's" generation? lol... I like Nolans films. But his films will never have the capacity to make me say ... "Tim Burton's Batman was AWFUL and I can't believe I liked it once upon a time." What a short span of memory there. lol. Bottom line is, this film made a major movement in the comics movie world and that alone deserves much respect and comparing it to modern tastes, is really not too inspiring to read. I think Keaton rocked it as Batman. If I dragged myself down to dare and compare him to Bale, Id say this. I remember Keaton. But sadly, I don't remember Bale. In other words, Keaton made an impression. Bale... totally the stale of which many "hardcore comic book fans" wanted. While Keaton was challenged for getting the role, no one worried much about Bale because Bale fit a better physical description for the Batman. Keaton surprised us. To me, that's just more inspiring. Now the Jack Nicholson thing... Oh brother. Come on now guys. Are you kidding me? It sounds more like fan boy hate to me. Really. He was brilliant. I laugh at the comment "Jack was just being Jack with make up on.". Uhm... Duh? What did you expect? It was the 80s. Jack was known and very well respected for most of his roles in film history kids! Burton approved Jack... no no.. the better portion of WORLD approved Jack Nicholson as the Joker back then because he had that "just jack" persona in him to pull it off. I think he was BRILLIANT as the Joker. I love the make up. The laugh. His face was both intimidating and iconic. He was just being himself under the make up. Like that's a bad thing? LOL. Hilarious. It's why he was as famous as he was gentlenerds. :) Now, it's obvious by the comments I'm reading here, no one cares for nostalgia, no cares for "great classics" and the fact that people are pitting this film with the comic book characters saying he didn't do this or that in the comics. I never cared to have taken that much notice to say Batman killed or never killed in the comic books. It was a motion picture that paved the way for your Batman Begins. There's also an obvious division with fans here. You have comic nerds who are purists. And you have those who don't care too much about comics (which in fact are never to hold a proper story arc, i know i work in them). As a film, I really respect it. The only Batman comics I respect, are the very first ones Bob Kane created and my favorite Frank Miller books. The rest, I could care less. Bob Kane isn't around anymore. Anything that claims they did a better Joker or Batman after him, needs a check up. Furthermore, Bob Kane loved what Burton did. That's the creator of Batman. I think many people try to make Batman their own. Like some public domain character. "My Batman doesn't kill" "My joker is more like Nolan's" etc. NO. If people want to talk about comics and compare them. Read the very first 3 issues by Bob Kane. Yes. They're very old. And that's my point. They're all great. You just have to know how to set bookends, per time period, to appreciate these greats.. Anyways, that's just my nerdy opinion. I don't expect to change minds nor want to. Batman was a great film. Huge fan of it. Everything about it is iconic. I still have the shirts, hats, memorabilia of this particular film and even a top notch replica of the film suit in my work space. I'd like to believe I have somewhat good judgment in films. :P Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are all great films in their own right. No doubt about it. Neither one of them are completely 100% cannon or true to a specific comic. I think that's obvious. But each one has enough elements to please bat fans all around the world. Have a great day guys!

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By narcomics 1 September 20, 2009 08:00:53 PM

Jesus, I said a mouthful! >_< Forgive me. Too bad it doesn't allow you to space between paragraphs.

Re: Looking back at Tim Burton's Batman
Posted By silenig 1 September 21, 2009 07:24:36 PM

The legacy of Batman when it comes to film adaptations of comics is a fact, and not something that depends on whether some ever people "cared" or not about the film. ---- It comes down to who the *f* cares if some people have to say this or that, Batman has earned its place in the history of comic books and comic book movies.
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Batman poster
Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement