Another curiosity: anyone here who disliked Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman

[Everyman]

Shreck isn't a homosexual.
the creator of Catwoman? yes. the manipulator of Penguin? yes. the true villian of the film? yes. homosexual? no. the only affections he has are for his empire and the fact that he's bred his son to take over that throne once he's gone. things are stated about his past dealings with women - "Women. Nothing surprises me, except your late mother."

not all heterosexual feelings are disgusting or confrontational. Bruce and Selina's relationship is actually fairly healthy and built upon understanding and sense that they are the other half of each other, it isn't until their dual identities are known that things start to go wrong.

I did not say he was, not concretely anyway, I said he could represent, metaphorically/symbolically, a homosexual person (I put the question mark in my first post about it because it is debatable, I do think anyway that there is some inuendo. Superman is not Christ, he can however represent him). As for the relationship between Selina and Bruce, while not disgusting, is certainly doomed and definitely confrontational. They end up understanding each other, they do not end up together in the end, Selina even rejects Bruce Wayne.

But this topic was about Catwoman's portrayal in the film. I wonder if you (or anybody) have any hypothesis where the character could have gone from Batman Returns.

 

[newwaveboy87]

Selina doesn't reject Bruce, Catwoman does.
by the end of the film Selina is no more, and Catwoman is the dominant personality in her mind.

 

[Everyman]

Selina doesn't reject Bruce, Catwoman does.
by the end of the film Selina is no more, and Catwoman is the dominant personality in her mind.

Doesn't change a thing to what I said: Selina/Bruce relationship is doomed.

 

[newwaveboy87]

The Selina/Bruce relationship did have hope, but it was Schrek would killed Selina at the end, and thus - killed their relationship. if Shcrek hadn't interfered, things might have turned out decent.

we'll never know.

and ANY relationship Bruce has with people outside of Alfred, Dick, and Gordon is most likely doomed to failure.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

she was the best...mmm mmm finger lickin good

 

[Everyman]

The Selina/Bruce relationship did have hope, but it was Schrek would killed Selina at the end, and thus - killed their relationship. if Shcrek hadn't interfered, things might have turned out decent.

we'll never know.

and ANY relationship Bruce has with people outside of Alfred, Dick, and Gordon is most likely doomed to failure.

I don 't think in the end Shrek's interference mattered that much, Selina/Catwoman was tempted to go with Bruce/Batman, but in the end rejected him: she said "I just wouldn't be able to live with myself" or something of the sort. She willingly rejected the offer.

As for Bruce Wayne's numerous failed relationship, it just proves my point: heterosexual relationships don't seem to work very well in the Batman world.

But back on topic: anybody thinks like me that, while Pfeiffer's Catwoman was great, her development and existence was limited to Burton's movie? Because of the very personnal and "exclusive" vision of the director, because of the tragic treatment of the character, because of the lack of continuity of Burton's Batman, etc. And this is in no way criticism. I love Peiffer's Catwoman, but as something exclusive to Batman Returns's universe.

 

[newwaveboy87]

what is your hang up on homosexuality?
even Bruce's friendships with men don't work out - Harvey Dent comes immediately to mind.

as for Selina/Catwoman, by that time they both knew each's secret dual identity and were going to go talk about, Penguin interferes, kidnaps Schrek, and takes him to his liar. Catwoman wants Schrek dead, not Selina - she's too meeky for that, by the end of it Selina's identity is dead, Catwoman is the new main personality. Schrek created Catwoman and killed Selina. it's shown from her origin onwards to be as such.

 

[Dr. Fate]

But back on topic: anybody thinks like me that, while Pfeiffer's Catwoman was great, her development and existence was limited to Burton's movie? Because of the very personnal and "exclusive" vision of the director, because of the tragic treatment of the character, because of the lack of continuity of Burton's Batman, etc. And this is in no way criticism. I love Peiffer's Catwoman, but as something exclusive to Batman Returns's universe.

That's why I started the thread.

 

[Everyman]

what is your hang up on homosexuality?
even Bruce's friendships with men don't work out - Harvey Dent comes immediately to mind.

as for Selina/Catwoman, by that time they both knew each's secret dual identity and were going to go talk about, Penguin interferes, kidnaps Schrek, and takes him to his liar. Catwoman wants Schrek dead, not Selina - she's too meeky for that, by the end of it Selina's identity is dead, Catwoman is the new main personality. Schrek created Catwoman and killed Selina. it's shown from her origin onwards to be as such.

Well, his male friendships sure work better than his love affairs! But in Batman Returns, there is some veiled erotic subtext, much more intelligent and subtle than the stupid Schumacher movies (where they are blatant, unsubtle and plain stupid). It isn't the main part of the movie, it is one element among many, but it is there. Or at least, it is debatable but legitimate to defend there is one. Batman Returns is partially inspired by Murnau's Nosferatu and other German Expressionists movies, movies often fileld with sexual subtext (it is certainly the case of Nosferatu). In Returns, as I said, the most openly heteroerotic character is the Penguin, who is in many different occasions libidinous to the point of being lecherous, and he is shown as being both sexually frustrated and sexually disgusting. Batman is heterosexual, but sexually frustrated: his life as a vigilante made him loose Vicky Vale and Catwoman ultimately rejects him. Max Shrek is a sexually inactive man, he is misogynistic and shows genuine affection only towards his son. Again, in this family cell, the woman is absent (because Mrs Shrek is dead of course). Concretely, in the first degree, Shrek is just a widower with a natural love for his son. Just like Batman is a vigilante forced to loose the women he loves for his cause. This is the first degree. Metaphorically, because of his chauvinism and because of the way heterosexuality is depicted in the whole movie, the picture is a bit different: the only love that exists in Batman Returns and somewhat survives (Shrek dies but does not have to witness his relationship crumble) is a older man/younger man Platonic relationship. This has slight homosexual tone, IMO. There is nothing wrong with it, by the way. You can find homosexual content in many works of fiction. I don't think it is the main element of Batman Returns, but I do think that the story makes sense as a picture of sexual frustration (Batman, Penguin and Catwoman are all, for some reason or another, sexually frustrated).

 

[newwaveboy87]

you're reading a slight homosexual tone into a father-son relationship? and elements of sexual frustration? dear, the main characters relationships deal in masochism. the picture's main point is in duality.
you're adding in homosexual subtext where there isn't much to be found. why are you so hung up on homosexuality?
you and the crackpot Freud would be great friends.

 

[Everyman]

you're reading a slight homosexual tone into a father-son relationship? and elements of sexual frustration? dear, the main characters relationships deal in masochism. the picture's main point is in duality.
you're adding in homosexual subtext where there isn't much to be found. why are you so hung up on homosexuality?
you and the crackpot Freud would be great friends.

All your ad hominem attacks aside, you probably read the first post where I mention a possible homosexual element in a movie that HAS sexual subtext (for God's sake, Catwoman's costume looks like a S&M one, something everybody noticed when it was released. And you mention yourself masochism). In this first post (and I know it is pointless to repeat it), I put the word homsexual in parenthesis, and I put a nice little question mark in it. It wasn't the main part of my analysis of BR, it isn't something I would even defend fiercely, it was just a hypothesis and should have been taken as such and I think I was very careful to stress the fact that this was just very hypothetical. So far, I have been answering your questions,you are the one coming back to it and being so obsessed by it (I could ask you why you are so hostile towards it). Yes, the picture deals with duality, but there are many ways to look at duality, and many ways to express duality. It is possible to see BR as a picture of sexual frustration, you don't need to be Freud to see this, just look at BR's influences by German Expressionism, and look at the characters's relationship, psychology, temper, etc. There is not just one way to interpret a work of fiction.

 

[newwaveboy87]

no, i get the workings of sexual frustration, what i don't get is where you're pulling out homosexual dubtext. in BF? definitely. B&R? duh! BR...not so much.

 

[Everyman]

no, i get the workings of sexual frustration, what i don't get is where you're pulling out homosexual dubtext. in BF? definitely. B&R? duh! BR...not so much.

As I aid, it was an hypothesis, based on the whole picture of BR. I could easily have said that Shrek is sexually impotent (or at least sexually inactive) and is the only person satisfied with it, while the other characters, all unambiguously heterosexual, are frustrated by their desire. And in BF and B&R, it was not even a subtext, it was pretty blatant, and pretty thick. In BR, you could say that Shrek's misogyny, combined with his love for his son (the only sign of affection he ever shows) and with the way heteroerotic behaviros are pictures in the movie, that there might be some kind of Platonic homosexual feelings. Not concretely but metaphorically. And again, that is just an hypothesis. And I am not coming back to it, it is egtting pretty tiredsome and it's off topic.

 

[newwaveboy87]

it's not even metaphorically.
their relationship is father-son, the nature of homosexuality is a romantic love for another person of the same-sex. i don't know about you, but i have no romantic love for members of my family.

i'm just saying, throwing around homosexuality, platonic or not, as the basis of the relationship between Schrek and his son is stretching logic and the very definitions of words.

 

[Everyman]

Was her origin something I liked? Nope, but it worked for the movie.

It was both the strenght and weakness of Batman Returns. It stands well as a movie independant from the source material, but does not work so well as part of a series. Catwoman in BR is a wonderful tragic figure, but she wouldn't work as a recurring character.

 

[newwaveboy87]

none of the characters in the movies could've returned as reoccuring characters besides the central figures of the mythos - Batman, Alfred, Robin, and Gordon. everyone else is expendable, yes, even in the new franchise.

 

[Everyman]

it's not even metaphorically.
their relationship is father-son, the nature of homosexuality is a romantic love for another person of the same-sex. i don't know about you, but i have no romantic love for members of my family.

i'm just saying, throwing around homosexuality, platonic or not, as the basis of the relationship between Schrek and his son is stretching logic and the very definitions of words.

As I said, it was an hypothesis. And Shrek was quite a male chauvinistic.

 

[newwaveboy87]

doesn't make him a homosexual. if anything, that makes him one of the most heterosexual characters in the entire film.

 

[Everyman]

none of the characters in the movies could've returned as reoccuring characters besides the central figures of the mythos - Batman, Alfred, Robin, and Gordon. everyone else is expendable, yes, even in the new franchise.

In the new franchise, Scarecrow can come back. Rha's Al Ghul can come back. In the old one, Joker couldn't, Penguin couldn't, Catwoman technically could, but I doubt her presence would have been as strong had she come back (or it would have been very difficult. That said, I always wondered what Burton had in mind for her, since he made her survive). The new franchise seems to be a real superhero serie, like many of the new superhero films now, with a good deal of recurring characters, including villains. The old Batman had films that worked more or less as independant units. This is not a criticism, but a recurring Catwoman would have been difficult to picture. In a way, this is the difference between medieval romance cycles and tragedy: with tragedy, you have a one deal offer, one story, then it's over, it's the end of history, of all possible narratives. In cycles, you can practically put more and more stories, plots, subplots, ad infinitum.

 

[newwaveboy87]

yes, they could come back, and i could apply the same to various characters in the X-Men movies too - Toad, Sabretooth, Nightcrawler, Deathstrike, and Senator Kelly ALL could've come back for the sequel(s), but they weren't needed. that's what i'm saying about the new franchise - they COULD come back, but the question is - are they needed for the story?

 

[Everyman]

doesn't make him a homosexual. if anything, that makes him one of the most heterosexual characters in the entire film.

So he is mysoginistic and sexually inactive and seems to have no interest in women (except maybe his late wife). And then he is unambiguously straight? I am not convinced. Maybe the Platonic love is a bit far fetched, his lack of interest in women is still troubling, in a movie that makes such a big case of sexual attraction/repulsion. But anyway, I am really tired of that off topic topic and I won't bother to answer it anymore.

 

[newwaveboy87]

no, his entire character is built up as power hunger. women, the city of Gotham, Bruce, Penguin, Selina - they're all pawns to him. things he tries to play with. just because we don't see it front and center doesn't mean it can't be infered within the way he conducts himself.

he wants power, he wants control, he back stabs, lies, cheats his way to try and get to the top - ultimately is he brought down by his two creations and Batman to a lesser extent.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I just didn't like how different she was from the comics, that was my only gripe.

 

[Everyman]

yes, they could come back, and i could apply the same to various characters in the X-Men movies too - Toad, Sabretooth, Nightcrawler, Deathstrike, and Senator Kelly ALL could've come back for the sequel(s), but they weren't needed. that's what i'm saying about the new franchise - they COULD come back, but the question is - are they needed for the story?

I am not saying that they are a necessity for the new franchise. I am saying that the enw franchise gives more possibility for recurring characters. It leaves the door open for Scarecrow, Rha's Al Ghul, Zsasz, etc. As a character, BR's Catwoman was great, a wonderful tragic antiheroin. But so closely associated with the Batman Returns universe that I doubt she could have come up as strong had she been used in a film of the old franchise. That said, thank God Schumacher didn't decide to use her in one of his pseudo-Batman movies!

 

[the_joker]

So he is mysoginistic and sexually inactive and seems to have no interest in women (except maybe his late wife). And then he is unambiguously straight? I am not convinced. Maybe the Platonic love is a bit far fetched, his lack of interest in women is still troubling, in a movie that makes such a big case of sexual attraction/repulsion. But anyway, I am really tired of that off topic topic and I won't bother to answer it anymore.

I agree with Everyman, that the Burton's films were full of mixed metaphors and characters representing other emotions/feelings etc. Burton is an excellent filmmaker who incorporates these things into his movies. Shreck could have well been a homosexual, only the creators truly knows that.