Character Analysis of the Burton/Schumacher films...

[The Batman]

It seems like alot of people missed the character arcs for a few of these characters....especially Batman himself. Probably the biggest misconception about the four films was that Batman's character wasnt focused on properly....

Reading some posts on these boards, alot of posters have had excellent character studies for Batman and the other characters. Hopefully, they, and other posters can find their way to this thread and share their ideas on the characters in the batman series....

 

[Superwoman Prime]

One thing that Burton accomplished, whether unintentionally or deliberately, was making Batman an elusive hero. Many, many, many, many people point out that Batman'89 concentrated too heavily on the Joker, and that Batman Returns did the same with Catwoman and Penguin. This is quite true really.

What that did could be seen as beneficial. Instead of making the villains too elusive, the villains were analyzed closely. Joker's relationships in business and personal life led him to becoming a twisted maniac clown... Catwoman's suppressed sexuality broke out because of an incident that had her in the wrong place at the wrong time... Penguin was born a freak who wanted revenge on society.

In turn, what does this action do to the hero? Batman was made the elusive character. Instead of the films concentrating on the hero, they made him almost indistinguishable from darkness itself: difficult to grasp, understand, and frightens us exactly because we know so little about it.

And did Burton totally remove us from sympathizing with Bruce Wayne? Not at all. We are able, to a some extent, know where he is coming from when he puts on the suit and rides out into the night. But the fact remains that it wasn't overly done. You could watch Burton's Batman movies dozens of times, and try to wrap your mind around all the aspects of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Ultimately it's not possible.

And that's awesome.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[Gotham22]

the past movie focuse more on the villains than Batman.

 

[Rockbottom]

Well maybe B89 and BR did focus too much on the villians, more so in BR, but it has a huge impact when we do see him, it always makes me think "this is great" when Keaton kicks ass as Batman, I know most of this is because he was just great as Batman but some of it is thanks to the fact he wasnt exposed too much, so he didnt become saturated and we didnt lose intrest in him.

Batman Returns should of had more Batman to be honest ill admit that, but the scene were he beats the clown gang up in the street (before he meets Penguin on the alley) is amazing, the fight scenes are very well done, also its Batman stopping anarchy in the streets.

 

[cryptic name]

the reason there is so much focus on the villains in Returns is because each one is a dark mirror for an aspect of bruce wayne. penguin the orphan, who feels isolated and freakish, catwoman is the vengeful vigilante, and max shreck is the unscrupulous business man. each one represents a skewed versiono of what bruce is and what he could be without his innate goodness

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[TLH]

^You raise a lot of great questions at the end of your sentiment there. Ultimately, I think a third Burton film would have brought everything full circle. Obviously with trilogies certain things need to either be tied up, explained, or extinguished. I think a third Burton/Keaton Batman would've answered a lot of questions.

Yet in some crazy way I think an unfinished character circle is more interesting. Whenever I watch Batman and Batman Returns I'm always trying to dissect the narrative rather than just going through the motions of cinematic nostaglia.

Either way, Burton fleshed out the character with a minimal amount of screen time and his films are a roaring success because of it. Schumacher, well, let's just say I don't even acknowledge his films as existing.

 

[Cain]

^You raise a lot of great questions at the end of your sentiment there. Ultimately, I think a third Burton film would have brought everything full circle. Obviously with trilogies certain things need to either be tied up, explained, or extinguished. I think a third Burton/Keaton Batman would've answered a lot of questions.

I definitely agree which is why I'm glad we're finally getting a Batman trilogy with the same actor and director throughout all 3 films.

Schumacher, well, let's just say I don't even acknowledge his films as existing.

This I have to disagree with though. Whether it was deliberate or not Schumacher's Batman Forever managed to give a resolution to the arc that began in Burton's BATMAN. What sucked was that since Burton/Keaton didn't get one more shot it just didn't flow consistently but it was still there.

Bruce Wayne in 1989 was a tortured soul all his life he thinks "if I had not asked to go to the movies my parents would be here today." That's why he always visits crime alley and always keeps re-reading their case files. He's obsessed with their death and consumed by guilt in many ways he's still that 8 year old kid just very repressed and angry.

You could understand why he would completely flip when he finds out the person he feels is responsible for cursing his life, his parents murderer. At that point his obsession changes from his figuring out his parents' murderer to resolving their murders through the means of revenge. That's why he becomes a savage by the third act all his rage has been amplified by the fact of who Jack Napier really was.

By 1992 it is apparent that vengeance simply wasn't enough. He's still driven by guilt and if anything finding his parents killer just made him more barbaric and consumed by his demons. He still feels that there are hundreds of Jack Napier's out there. His mission is to stop crime at any costs even if he has to play dirty to make a point and get closer to achieving that goal. All he lives for is to guard Gotham City, he made a promise in 1989 that if the forces of evil rise again to call him through his signal. He hasn't forgotten that mission but he has just gotten more extreme in trying to accomplish it.

At this point why should he even show sympathy, these dark souls don't show sympathy to those they victimize. That is until he meets and falls in love with a victim turned criminal, Catwoman/Selina Kyle and sees that he may not be that different from the criminals he faces after all. He sees how Selina's thirst for revenge has driven her to a point of duality and obsession that she can't no longer turn away from. How she became so consumed by her demons that it has made her completely apathetic and wreckless. Catwoman is the real Selina as much as Batman is the real Bruce.

Because of her tragedy he sees a self reflection there that makes him conscious of how out of line his methods have gotten up to that point. How he has become so consumed by his guilt and the dark point that caused it that he has lost a grip on his humanity. That's when he starts rethinking things and tries to right wrongs by helping her along a path of redemption. Not just to redeem her but also to redeem himself.

This is why he's sending Shreck to jail instead of going more extreme, he doesn't care about ending his life as Batman thus the unmasking in front of Shreck because he feels he has found a true equal for himself and wants to give the both of them a chance at a normal life again. The problem is she rejects him, for all his trying he has failed. No matter how bad he wants to change things just are the way they are because they must be that way. Selina will always be Catwoman for the same he reason he must always be Batman, it's just who they truly are.

Not redeeming Selina in his eyes though and failing to bring closure and filll his emotional void is another element of guilt that will haunt him until he's cured by the end of Shumacher's first film. Now I won't get into Forever and how it resolved everything through Bruce and Dick's relationship as well as Bruce going to therapy but there are plenty of posters here who could do that.

 

[TLH]

^I understand what you're getting at with your final points, but in all honesty I never liked any of the Schumacher films so I don't even acknowledge that they exist. The first two batman films are the last two IMHO (not counting Batman Begins).

 

[Rockbottom]

I could see people ignoring B&R for a few reasons, 1 because its terrible with almost no redeeming factors and 2 because it has nothing to do with the past 3 story wise, but BF is a continuation no doubt.

 

[Cain]

^I understand what you're getting at with your final points, but in all honesty I never liked any of the Schumacher films so I don't even acknowledge that they exist. The first two batman films are the last two IMHO (not counting Batman Begins).

Oh that's totally understandable. Batman Forever has actually grown on me as the years have gone by I never really cared for it back in the day. But it was just to make the point that it isn't an unfinished character arc. Regardless of what one may think of Forever quality wise but I totally understand why people could hate that movie.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[raleagh]

Burton isn't interested in making sequels. That why Batman Returns was such a different film to Batman 89.
A third Burton Batman would probably have been very different to the first two, and probably not have continued any story arch (no matter what Burton says in recent interviews).

I think he was glad warners didn't want him to do a third, because he had done all he wanted with the character.

 

[Gotham22]

Burton isn't interested in making sequels. That why Batman Returns was such a different film to Batman 89.
A third Burton Batman would probably have been very different to the first two, and probably not have continued any story arch (no matter what Burton says in recent interviews).

I think he was glad warners didn't want him to do a third, because he had done all he wanted with the character.

yeah. BR wasnt exactlly a direct sequel to B89. It was a whole different movie, feel and everthing. His third Batman film would have been the same way.

 

[Penismightier]

I've been thinking of doing another piece similar to my Riddler essay. If you haven't read it, it's over at the Themes and Metaphors of Batman Forever thread. Response to that was generally positive, so I'm thinking of doing another one. What I'm unsure of is which character to analyze. Who would you like to see me write about next?

 

[Gotham22]

I could see people ignoring B&R for a few reasons, 1 because its terrible with almost no redeeming factors and 2 because it has nothing to do with the past 3 story wise, but BF is a continuation no doubt.

I disagree. Bruce was going to lose Alfred, A father figure whos always been there for him and he thinks he cant do this alone.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[returntovoid]

I definitely agree which is why I'm glad we're finally getting a Batman trilogy with the same actor and director throughout all 3 films.



This I have to disagree with though. Whether it was deliberate or not Schumacher's Batman Forever managed to give a resolution to the arc that began in Burton's BATMAN. What sucked was that since Burton/Keaton didn't get one more shot it just didn't flow consistently but it was still there.

Bruce Wayne in 1989 was a tortured soul all his life he thinks "if I had not asked to go to the movies my parents would be here today." That's why he always visits crime alley and always keeps re-reading their case files. He's obsessed with their death and consumed by guilt in many ways he's still that 8 year old kid just very repressed and angry.

You could understand why he would completely flip when he finds out the person he feels is responsible for cursing his life, his parents murderer. At that point his obsession changes from his figuring out his parents' murderer to resolving their murders through the means of revenge. That's why he becomes a savage by the third act all his rage has been amplified by the fact of who Jack Napier really was.

By 1992 it is apparent that vengeance simply wasn't enough. He's still driven by guilt and if anything finding his parents killer just made him more barbaric and consumed by his demons. He still feels that there are hundreds of Jack Napier's out there. His mission is to stop crime at any costs even if he has to play dirty to make a point and get closer to achieving that goal. All he lives for is to guard Gotham City, he made a promise in 1989 that if the forces of evil rise again to call him through his signal. He hasn't forgotten that mission but he has just gotten more extreme in trying to accomplish it.

At this point why should he even show sympathy, these dark souls don't show sympathy to those they victimize. That is until he meets and falls in love with a victim turned criminal, Catwoman/Selina Kyle and sees that he may not be that different from the criminals he faces after all. He sees how Selina's thirst for revenge has driven her to a point of duality and obsession that she can't no longer turn away from. How she became so consumed by her demons that it has made her completely apathetic and wreckless. Catwoman is the real Selina as much as Batman is the real Bruce.

Because of her tragedy he sees a self reflection there that makes him conscious of how out of line his methods have gotten up to that point. How he has become so consumed by his guilt and the dark point that caused it that he has lost a grip on his humanity. That's when he starts rethinking things and tries to right wrongs by helping her along a path of redemption. Not just to redeem her but also to redeem himself.

This is why he's sending Shreck to jail instead of going more extreme, he doesn't care about ending his life as Batman thus the unmasking in front of Shreck because he feels he has found a true equal for himself and wants to give the both of them a chance at a normal life again. The problem is she rejects him, for all his trying he has failed. No matter how bad he wants to change things just are the way they are because they must be that way. Selina will always be Catwoman for the same he reason he must always be Batman, it's just who they truly are.

Not redeeming Selina in his eyes though and failing to bring closure and filll his emotional void is another element of guilt that will haunt him until he's cured by the end of Shumacher's first film. Now I won't get into Forever and how it resolved everything through Bruce and Dick's relationship as well as Bruce going to therapy but there are plenty of posters here who could do that.

Brilliant analysis, Cain. The transition between the two Burton films is compelling.

 

[RustyCage]

^ Agreed! I have to say, there's a handful of excellent, thought provoking posts in this thread. I'm ashamed it took me 3 years to stumble over them!

I feel like I need to rewatch the Burton films now.

 

[Mister Meddle]

I think that's what makes the Burton-two great. No matter how many times you watch the same film, it is different every time. There's so much to Batman and Batman Returns, a lot of things aren't obvious and it takes time (years and even DECADES) to fully understand the film and characters. Every time you watch either film you discover something new that will change the way you view them. That's probably why I can watch them over and over without getting tired of either film.

 

[Visceral]

Burton's films are very sexual...both of them are. Burton shows all his charcters to be completely outside the society they comment on. Nihilistic supermen fighting each other without reason. As they all have disdain for the law which keeps the society intact.

Nolan's films are very existential showing what elements would create such a vigilante activist hero. The need for a paternal relationships and how fear affects the mind. How fixing the world without and spiritual catharsis leads to a meditation on power and its destructive effects.

Both are extremely deep. Nolan's films are better though. Ebert is right in saying that throughout Burton's films the audience is disconnected to the character. TDK takes the cake though with the differences between Dent and Batman creating a questions that allow for so many different points of view the cometary becomes endless.

Schumacher's films were fun when I was a child, but they were studio controlled and did not allow Schumacher to make films the way he usually does. Dark.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Did you ever watch the Burton-two or did you just read reviews?

I don't know what was so sexual about Batman (1989). I guess it's a bad thing to show a man and a woman fully clothed in bed together.

Since when did Ebert become the official spokesperson for the general audience? He can only speak for himself. If anything, there are more questions left for the audience in the Burton two because a lot of the stuff is hinted, sometimes in ways that's not obvious at all. In a way it makes you think and try to come up with your own answers. As for Nolan's films.... well, it would be silly to get into another Nolan is GAWD Burton iz da sux~! (or the other way around) war of words and I doubt anyone would be fascinated by it.

 

[El Payaso]

Ebert is right in saying that throughout Burton's films the audience is disconnected to the character.

Wow, not only can that guy read my mind but everybody else's.