Batman Returns: Scene by Scene

For starters, the scenes of no dialogue told you thing through images.

1. It was left open to interpretation whether Batman deliberately threw Jack Napier in the chemical vat

2. The scene where Vicki follows Bruce in the car and sees him leaving two roses in crime alley, that scene is more about images not any dialogue

There might be more but those are the two my brain can think of, for now.

This is true but it is far from a direct influence of GE. Silent American cinema did this in the 1910s, a full decade before Expressionism entered cinema. Before German Expressionism, Thomas Jefferson created the first silent Frankenstein film that did this exact thing.

Also, your first example is nutty. It wasn't left up to interpretation, Joker's glove slipped off him and he fell. Don't tell me your one of those people who think Batman noticed Napier was his killer and meant to drop him....apparently to then have amnesia until the last 30 minutes of the film where he miraculously remembered again. I definitely don't want that discussion, different topic here.
 
Last edited:
rather it is a new adventure with a slightly different feel. Far more akin to Temple of Doom.

I used to wonder how much time elaspsed between the Joker's death in B'89 and the beginning of BR. I figured it was at least a couple of years, he's made significant improvements to the Batcave- the signal beacon, better shield on the Batmobile, not sure about the fishtank cave switch:o-might have been there all along. His relationship w/ Commish Gordon seems more fluid, as the scene where he talks to Batman after the Red Triangle gang's first attack. Nobody seems surprised that Batman is there.

Clearly in he was still in the first months/year of the suit.
 
Very good points, especially about Gordon. In B'89, Gordon is iffy on Batman and has no clue about him. At the beginning of BR they talk and Gordon says "thanks again for saving the day Batman." You don't just get on with the cops immediately, I definitely think there was a few years between as well.

And like you said, every single design in the film is different except maybe the grappler. Even the batmobile was changed up. Wayne Manor is VERY different from the one in B'89(that also has to due with the fact that in B'89 they used a real castle while in BR it was only a miniature). The batcave was completely re designed. It always sort of scared me the way the cracks were and how the revolving batmobile plate was on like the edge of a large cave rock in BR lol. It is clearly on the ground of the floor in B'89. How in the world does Batman get to the cliff with the batmobile, or better yet how the heck does he get it to the streets?

cap461.jpg
 
Last edited:
If he didn't realize that about taking revenge against The Joker then why would he bother stopping Selina from doing so.

Because he was in love with her. He wanted her to go and live with him in Wayne Manor.

I don't think the word revenge is even mentioned in the whole movie.

Then there is this dialogue exchange from Batman Forever

That's Batman Forever. Entirely different movie. Although I much prefer Burton's movies, Forever explored and developed Batman more than Burton's movies ever did.

Sorry, there was a huge mistake in my post since I was sleepy when posting.

What I'm trying to say is that the body count is much less than B89 but the two kills in Returns are much more violent.

He blew up Axis Chemicals with a bunch of Joker's thugs in it. It's just as violent as bombing the strong man or setting someone on fire.

Did that devil-man die? Didn't look like it.

Can't say with 100% certainty. It's open for interpretation.
 
Actually if I remember correctly Tim Burton specifically points out in the commentary on Returns that when the bomb goes off after Batman beat the fat man into the hole you see confetti blast out of the hole, not a firey explosion.

But who knows what was in the bomb? Could have been enough power to kill him along with the confetti. I'm not big on batman as a killer but I must admit, I prefer to think he killed the fat man b/c it's one of my all time favorite scenes in a batmovie. Fat man think he's won, Batman smirks, fat man sees bomb on him "aw hell" Batman punches him into the gutter... BOOM:D

Always loved the devil scene too. He could have stopped dropped and rolled lol Funny this thread is close to 40 replies and the real scene to scene discussion has not even started yet.
 
My actual scene-by-scene commentary will start on Sunday, most likely.
 
So may cold delivery lines in the film from Keaton, Devito and of course Walken. One of my favs has always been. "Thought you were just going to scare her?" "I don't know, she looked pretty scared to me! :hehe:"
 
What? He only killed two people in Returns. The clown he set on fire with the Batmobile's turbine, and the strongman he strapped the bomb to. Who else did he kill after that?
Didn't he also kill the two guys that jumped on the hood of his car? He hit the brakes and it flung them into building that was on fire.
 
Didn't he also kill the two guys that jumped on the hood of his car? He hit the brakes and it flung them into building that was on fire.

The building wasn't on fire. Just some giant stuffed teddy bear.
 
Fire don't kill people people.

Neither those clowns or the devil-man died. They might have gotten some serious burnts maybe.
 
Yeah like i said, as long as they knew to stop, drop, and roll they'd be alive lol
 
Okay, it's 1992. You're a parent with a young child who wants to see Batman Returns - and maybe you do too. You've seen the trailers, you saw the first film, maybe you even saw Tim Burton's last film, Edward Scissorhands. Really, McDonald's aside (because of course such fast food joints are going to tie in with an expected blockbuster like this), you should be going in expecting something dark and uncompromising, right? Maybe you see the movie by yourself first, check if it's appropriate? To this day, I don't quite understand the Helen Lovejoy-esque reaction from The Concerned, because...what were they expecting? (A lightweight "comic book movie" because it's Batman, that's what.)
 
I love Batman Returns. The duality theme is explored brilliantly and Burton/Waters absolutely nail the Bat and Cat relationship. It also helps that Keaton and Pfeiffer had great sexual chemistry, no doubt the product of their earlier off-screen courtship.

Returns is more of a strange alternative character study than summer blockbuster. It's a movie focused on emotions and visual storytelling and is obviously influenced by silent films and German expressionism. Some of the facial expressions are absolutely heartbreaking while Elfman's score and the winter setting give it a dark fairytale vibe.

I adore the following brief scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLIThrMHEhk

Like much of the film, there's a real sense of solitude and melancholy.

Keep up the good work, Homer. Your Batman thread was really fascinating.
 
My actual scene-by-scene commentary will start on Sunday, most likely.

Or now. How's now?



Okay, everybody: In the duck!

1. The Cobblepot Child

(Running time: 0:00:00 – 0:02:20)

br_007.jpg


The Rundown
Mr. and Mrs. Cobblepot are horrified to find that their first-born child has been born hideously deformed. The couple quickly decide to dispose of the boy, and cruelly toss him into the sewers, to a future they probably would not have predicted.

The Review
Pee-wee and Simone were never like this.

There may as well be curtains rising as this scene opens, because this is the start of a much more theatrical, grandiose film. It’s apparent right away that this will be something much deeper than a superhero adventure story as the camera pushes in to Cobblepot Manor.

Cobblepot Manor itself is the first big Bo Welch set we see, and it so fits these characters, the cold, haughty aristocratic couple with their overly lavish mansion, which probably carries no emotional attachment for them, and which probably contains dozens of rooms they never use, if they've ever seen them at all. It's a more austere counter to Wayne Manor.

Paul Reubens and Diane Salinger deserve credit for performances that are brief, but perfectly rendered. There is no emotion on either of their faces when they look at each other and decide to abandon their newborn son, but then, when they actually do it, there is something there. Could it be remorse? It’s hard to imagine either of them plagued by shattering guilt for this, but they are not complete villains, they do have the capacity to feel some regret.

The Rest
The Cobblepots looking at the friendly couple and their "Merry Christmas!" with disdain is one of those elegant little character touches that speaks volumes.


2. Credits

cap017.jpg


(Running time: 0:
02:21 – 0:05:28)

The Rundown
The opening credits accompany baby Oswald’s journey through the Gotham sewers, ending as two penguins find him.

The Review
The opening title sequences are one of the great pleasures of Tim Burton’s films. I look forward to them; I was disappointed when Alice in Wonderland didn’t have opening credits. Danny Elfman sort of performs the function of tour guide here, his music escorting you through the dank, unfriendly underworld of the Gotham City sewers. This entire thing is a visual effects sequence, and a subtle one, it looks great. It is nearly 6 minutes before the first words of dialogue are spoken in Batman Returns, but you already know that you’re being taken on a bizarre, emotional, and very different kind of journey. That is impressive.
 
Last edited:
I always thought Mrs Cobblepot seemed a trifle upset when they do toss the baby carriage into the river. The father still seems devoid of emotion though.
 
Batman Returns is my favorite Batman film along with The Dark Knight, but for completely different reasons.

The film starts off in a winterized setting that continues throughout the entire movie. From the very first shot you know we're getting something different. Life is complete when Pee Wee Herman is given a role in a Batman film. I'm certain we have never been treated to the Penguin's parents in the comic books, but this film defies the comics in numerous ways while still staying true to the core of the characters(with the exception of Cobblepot). As for the opening, it must be heart wrenching to learn your new child is a mutated freak. The Cobblepots were so ashamed, throwing him into the river seemed the only likely option.

The background scene of the Cobblepots walking past the Gotham park onto the bridge is a beautiful matte painting, indeed. And onto the opening credits, they're so beautifully rendered. Elfman returned to the Batman'89 score but added in a zest of Edward Scissorhands whimsy to create a beautifully gothic melody.

I hope to follow along and give my thoughts as well on this one :up:
 
Batman Returns is my favorite Batman film along with The Dark Knight, but for completely different reasons.

Wow really? Something we have in common then :up:

Returns gets bashed too much.
 
Paul Reubens and Diane Salinger deserve credit for performances that are brief, but perfectly timed and rendered. There is no emotion on either of their faces when they look at each other and decide to abandon their newborn son, but then, when they actually do it, there is something there. Could it be remorse? It’s hard to imagine either of them plagued by shattering guilt for this, but they are not complete villains, they do have the capacity to feel some regret.

I always saw trepidation on their faces, there glances that meet when that cat got eaten lol...concern, fear, loathing, there's a lot there. As well when they hit the bridge there is the fear of being caught, not so sure about regret.

Blue bloods don't get there hands dirty, especially when it comes to disposing of a child to the river, I think they saw it as a means to an end. I mean why would Thomas Wayne wander down a dark alley w/ his wife and child, not their fault, but it's not lost on me that the rich don't exactly use the best judgement in 'real' world situations where the outside element isn't accounted for (the ball scene where all the parents of Gotham's rich are partying and the kids left w/ the nanny's). Didn't we have a brief shot of the delivery and a scream from Mrs. C. ?
 
Wow really? Something we have in common then :up:

Returns gets bashed too much.

Beautiful, incredible film. I find the weakest parts to be the tossed aside subplot, but the main characters were all so strongly devised. I'm ready to open up a can of whoop ass on anyone who says Selina was nothing like the comics(had to do it earlier today), as I said, only Penguin was drastically different thematically, but it was a change for the better. Comic book Penguin would never work as a main villain in a film. Burton made him a beautiful tragic Frankenstein-like monster. And then there is the design. Returns is absolutely timeless and one of my most favorite art directed films ever. It's like Dave McKean's Arkham Asylum meets Fritz Lang and Robert Weine.

May the comic book gods curse the day Burton decided to not use Scarecrow. His fear gas scenes would have really wet my whistle.
 
Last edited:
I am such a huge fan of this film and its predecessor that I hope you don't mind if I jump on your bandwagon and offer my 'counter-review' to your own excellent commentary on the film.

As someone who was simultaneously introduced to the world of Batman and Tim Burton via the latter's 1989 movie, I've always inextricably linked the two, so whilst I now appreciate Burton's first Batman film as the more faithful adaptation of the comic-books, I retain immense affection for Batman Returns for being the purest distillation of Burton's unique vision with the DC hero. Moreover, whilst the first film possesses a stronger, more streamlined screenplay akin to something that might have emerged from Hollywood's 1930/40s 'Golden Era', Batman Returns, for all its narrative shortcomings is arguably the richer, deeper story, occasionally unearthing genuine profundity in its seemingly lurid and fantastical story primarily through its distinct visuals, which as many posters have already pointed out, owes much to 1920/30s era German Expressionism.


1. The Cobblepot Child
(Running time: 0:00:00 – 0:02:20)

The film establishes its expressionist credentials from the off with a practically silent opening in which visual details, particularly Bo Welch's lavish and deliberately artificial seeming production design, and Bob Ringwood and Mary E. Vogt's extravagant yet elegant costumes, reveal as much about a given character as any line of dialogue might. It's also automatically clear that this is a practically fairytale vision of Gotham with closer parallels to the satirical, intentionally absurd world of Edward Scissorhands, than the more prosaic hyper-realism of Gotham circa 1989.​

The decision to focus the film's prologue on The Penguin's birth clues the audience into where Burton's dramatic interest (and even sympathies) lie. Whilst it may be making too fine a point to suggest that The Penguin is as much the film's protagonist as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the film makes no apologies for concerning itself with Batman, 'the outcast', and consequently, the various traits he shares with his fellow outsiders, The Penguin and Catwoman, as opposed to Batman, 'the hero'.​

Tucker and Esther Cobblepot are ostensibly part of Gotham's blue-blood elite and, for all their eccentricities, mainstream society, whilst their physically deformed new-born represents the 'outcast' who has apparently disturbed (and must therefore, be ejected from) their perfectly ordered, image-orientated lives. It's interesting to note that this origin story, bears as much as a passing resemblance to another of Batman's foes, 'Black Mask', whose aristocratic parents sought at various (albeit much less extreme) costs to 'keep up appearances' with respect to their own child's traumatic birth. It is even later suggested that like Black Mask's alter-ego, Roman Sinois, Oswald Cobblepot may have been a contemporary, and even prep school-mate of Bruce Wayne, "if his parents hadn't eighty-sixed him".​

It's also interesting to ponder Daniel Waters original draft for Batman Returns, in which the deliverer of that line, Max Shreck was initially conceived as The Penguin's elder brother (a far cry from the street-smart self-made man he eventually appeared to be). This may have been one coincidence too far, (contrived back-history associations between lead characters being a particular bug-bear amongst comic-book movie audiences); however, it would have further emphasised the parallels and differences between the film's central male villains, Max Shreck, the socially 'respected monster', and The Penguin, the ostracised 'bird-man' of the sewers.​

This of course also raises the issue of what might have happened to Oswald had he not been so cruelly discarded and permanently denied access to the Cobblepot's world of privilege. One of the signs of an important piece of art is how it divides its audience as to the various questions it raises, and few come bigger than the whole 'nature/nurture' argument. Some of the film's fans are unabashed in their sympathy for The Penguin, even going as far as to defend the misunderstood mutant after he has sought to kill almost half of Gotham's child population, as the fated product of a wretched childhood. In the film's 'making-of' book, Danny DeVito even suggested that his character may have grown-up to become 'another Einstein', had his parents displayed even an inkling of parental affection or responsibility. Other fans have recognised the ambiguity of the moment in which a barely toddler Oswald viciously reaches beyond his cage to grab and apparently throttle the family cat (a witty piece of foreshadowing for a certain avian/feline relationship later in the film), suggesting that Oswald may have been inherently evil, and that his parents' drastic actions, although entirely barbaric, were nevertheless, a response to their only child's inhuman behaviour, and not his bizarre physiognomy alone.​

Additional Comments:

- So that's what Pee-Wee and Simone's kids would have looked like had they hooked up. Maybe it was for the best she got together with the French guy...​

- I always like to speculate how and why Oswald Cobblepot became so deformed. Sure, there's a possibility of in-breeding bearing in mind how bizarre his parents looked, but I always like to think (and I know it's a stretch) that Oswald's deformities might have been linked to the toxic waste Max Shreck had been releasing into Gotham's environment. Shreck seems to be a good couple of decades older than either Bruce or Oswald (who are both implied to be about 33 years of age during the main chunk of the story), so it's feasible that Shreck may already have been involved in some form of highly polluting business venture prior to Oswalds birth...at least that's what I like to think.​

2. Credits
(Running time: 0:02:21 – 0:05:28)

There's not much more I can add to Homer's comments, but like him I particularly look forward to the patented Burton/Elfman-scored pre-credit sequence, and as with Sweeney Todd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Mars Attacks!, this sequence involves a literal journey, in this case through Gotham's seemingly cavernous sewage system.​

Although an extension of his exemplary work on the first film, Elfman's soundtrack is arguably even more superlative this time round. There is a particularly fraught and almost overbearingly tense quality to the initial score which reaches its crescendo as the 'Batman Returns' title unfurls itself across the screen, and several hundred bats flock out towards the audience (perhaps the infant trauma of their high-pitched squeaking contributed to the adult Oswald's later antagonism towards Batman). Taking the first film's 'Descent into Mystery' music cue as his template, Elfman imbues it with an even more lyrical, haunting choral quality that is appropriately chilling for the strange, otherworldly creature contained within the bizarre cot we follow throughout this sequence.​

Additional Comments:

- How good would those animated bats look flocking towards the screen if they were filmed in today's current vogue for 3D?​

- I realise that this is not the type of film to take too literally, but if anyone has any suggestions as to how baby Oswald was released from his cot, I'm all ears. However, I assume the penguins didn't suddenly adopt the manual dexterity required to release him.​
 
Hoooly crap! JohnnyGobbs, it is clearly you, not I, who should be hosting this thread. Terrific post there.
 
Last edited:
You'll notice there are also a number of other 'freak' circus people down in the sewers with Cobblepot along with the penguins. I'm guessing they are the ones who literally raised him, this is backed up more by the scene in which Bruce is looking over old newspaper articles in Gotham and one says something to the effect of "Circus freaks living in Gotham"...but the sewer penguins are who he felt most attached to.

Terrific view Johnny Gobbs, too bad the Bat got you before B'89 even started:oldrazz:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"