Superb article on Batman Returns

[Kevin Roegele]

That doesn't necessarily mean that he put that much thought into it so as to make sure practically every scene was symbolic of something that was happening in the characters' psyches.

That's exactly what Burton did do. Batman Returns is heavily influenced by German expressionism, films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Nosferatu, where, as you say, every scene, every shot is symbolic of the character's psyche.

Did Burton spend two years working on the script? Because that's really what we're talking about here.

We're talking about the whole movie, script, performances, art direction, mise-en-scene, subtext, etc.

 

[JLBats]

What are your main concerns with Batman Returns? I'm really not trying to be flippant here, I'm genuinely curious.

Mostly, my issues with Burton lie in the fact that he occasionally fails to reign in his more... shall we say, self-indulgent tendencies?

I maintain that Burton's films are considered so rich with texture and symbolism because they are generally non-commital regarding overarching themes.

I really don't think Burton does what he does to make symbols. I think he's in it to make stylish images. There is an extremely fine line between the two, one that Burton narrowly skirts.

Now, I have no problem with a barrage of stylish images. I'm perfectly willing to soak in style and atmosphere for two hours. Burton does an absolutely INCREDIBLE job creating those images. However, where I think he fails is in the art of telling the story. Sometimes, I think Burton is willing to sacrifice any actual forward momentum WITHIN a plot to put in an image.

When Burton reigns in these tendencies, like I think he managed to do for the first act of Batman and most of Ed Wood, he's a brilliant filmmaker. When he doesn't, I'd really rather be looking at still photos from his film than watching it. Burton is technically gifted, but he could learn a few storytelling techniques from some of the great straightforward directors, such as Billy Wilder or Robert Wise. I'm not saying he should become homogenized and straightforward. I just think he could temper his self-indulgences a little bit.

Another thing Burton could learn from Robert Wise and Billy Wilder is how to serve the material and fit your style to IT, not the other way around. I think Burton connects in two ways with the villians of Batman, and those ways are 1) As societal outcasts, even when the character doesn't demand a social outcast position, and 2) as bizarre creatures who lend themselves well to bizarre images.

As a result, there's a tendency in the Burton films to focus on the villians, and give them full narrative control of the story. Now, you've no doubt heard this complaint over and over again. Here's where I differ from the rest:

I wouldn't mind if Burton had just made a straightforward Batman villian movie, with Batman solely as a spectre who pops in and out of the storyline.

I don't feel we got that.

I feel what we got was Burton playing the politician, trying to play with his wonderfully weird toys while still pleasing the core Batman audience by giving him storylines. Burton tries to live in both worlds. I feel he therefore fails in both. There is a great narrative confusion at the center of the Burton films, and none of the characters really get to spread their wings as storylines. Instead, we get stuck with a few, half-fleshed out arcs. It's not nearly as satisfying as it could be, if Burton chose a side and stuck to it.

To sum up... Burton is an intelligent, savvy director who dies under the weight of his own self-indulgence. When he reigns in that indulgence, he occasionally reaches peaks of brilliance.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

I had read this article awhile ago but had forgotten about it. Thanks for bringing it back up. Returns was awesome.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Mostly, my issues with Burton lie in the fact that he occasionally fails to reign in his more... shall we say, self-indulgent tendencies?

I maintain that Burton's films are considered so rich with texture and symbolism because they are generally non-commital regarding overarching themes.

I really don't think Burton does what he does to make symbols. I think he's in it to make stylish images. There is an extremely fine line between the two, one that Burton narrowly skirts.

Now, I have no problem with a barrage of stylish images. I'm perfectly willing to soak in style and atmosphere for two hours. Burton does an absolutely INCREDIBLE job creating those images. However, where I think he fails is in the art of telling the story. Sometimes, I think Burton is willing to sacrifice any actual forward momentum WITHIN a plot to put in an image.

When Burton reigns in these tendencies, like I think he managed to do for the first act of Batman and most of Ed Wood, he's a brilliant filmmaker. When he doesn't, I'd really rather be looking at still photos from his film than watching it. Burton is technically gifted, but he could learn a few storytelling techniques from some of the great straightforward directors, such as Billy Wilder or Robert Wise. I'm not saying he should become homogenized and straightforward. I just think he could temper his self-indulgences a little bit.

Another thing Burton could learn from Robert Wise and Billy Wilder is how to serve the material and fit your style to IT, not the other way around. I think Burton connects in two ways with the villians of Batman, and those ways are 1) As societal outcasts, even when the character doesn't demand a social outcast position, and 2) as bizarre creatures who lend themselves well to bizarre images.

As a result, there's a tendency in the Burton films to focus on the villians, and give them full narrative control of the story. Now, you've no doubt heard this complaint over and over again. Here's where I differ from the rest:

I wouldn't mind if Burton had just made a straightforward Batman villian movie, with Batman solely as a spectre who pops in and out of the storyline.

I don't feel we got that.

I feel what we got was Burton playing the politician, trying to play with his wonderfully weird toys while still pleasing the core Batman audience by giving him storylines. Burton tries to live in both worlds. I feel he therefore fails in both. There is a great narrative confusion at the center of the Burton films, and none of the characters really get to spread their wings as storylines. Instead, we get stuck with a few, half-fleshed out arcs. It's not nearly as satisfying as it could be, if Burton chose a side and stuck to it.

To sum up... Burton is an intelligent, savvy director who dies under the weight of his own self-indulgence. When he reigns in that indulgence, he occasionally reaches peaks of brilliance.

Cool. You put that very poetically.

 

[El Payaso]

I think Burton connects in two ways with the villians of Batman, and those ways are 1) As societal outcasts, even when the character doesn't demand a social outcast position, and 2) as bizarre creatures who lend themselves well to bizarre images.

Penguin was a societal outcast in comics bothered since childhood because of his physical appearance, Scarecrow, Killer Croc too. Killer Croc had the problem of his monster-like look also. It's not like Burton made this thing up with bat-villains since societal outcasts and deformed villiains has been patrt of Batman since forever. The Joker was created by Bob Kane on the basis of The Man who Laughs who had the deformed smile.

Maybe he went too far merging Penguin and Killer Croc, but hey, directors merge characters; Joker-Joe Chill, Ducard-Ra's, etc. I just fail to see when you can call that self-indulgence and when not. And therefore "to serve the material and fit your style to IT" is not a very clear statement but quite tendentious. Specially when there are so many good directors that fit the material to their styles like Hitchcock.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Didn't read the article because Batman Returns is a useless movie in my opinion.

 

[El Payaso]

If you watch movies the way you read it's understandable.

 

[JLBats]

Penguin was a societal outcast in comics bothered since childhood because of his physical appearance, Scarecrow, Killer Croc too. Killer Croc had the problem of his monster-like look also. It's not like Burton made this thing up with bat-villains since societal outcasts and deformed villiains has been patrt of Batman since forever. The Joker was created by Bob Kane on the basis of The Man who Laughs who had the deformed smile.

Maybe he went too far merging Penguin and Killer Croc, but hey, directors merge characters; Joker-Joe Chill, Ducard-Ra's, etc. I just fail to see when you can call that self-indulgence and when not. And therefore "to serve the material and fit your style to IT" is not a very clear statement but quite tendentious. Specially when there are so many good directors that fit the material to their styles like Hitchcock.

Well, again, my main problem is not that he alters the villians. I try to divorce the Burton movies from the comics, although I'll admit the difference does bother me sometimes.

Ultimately, I think the difference between Burton and Hitchcock, and the thing that ultimately makes me think of Burton as self-indulgent, is that Hitchcock's self-indulgences and neurotic quirks generally work ALONG SIDE the narrative.

Again, I'm not saying making the material your own is necessarily a bad thing. I just think that Burton would benefit from some more straightforward storytelling styles, ones that I think Hitchcock has already mastered.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of my point of view. Frankly, if people like these movies, that's fine, and that's great. I'm merely trying to put into words why the movies DON'T work for me.

Whether or not that argument is sufficient or at all worthy of being typed will be up to the individual.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Well, again, my main problem is not that he alters the villians. I try to divorce the Burton movies from the comics, although I'll admit the difference does bother me sometimes.

Here's the thing; the comics change the comics. The Penguin, the Joker, all the villains (and all comicbook characters) have changed since their origin, and will always do so. Where is it written that the movies have no right to change the characters? Sure, they should maintain the core of the character - but come on, with the Penguin, what is his character? Not the details - waddling crimeboss - but the character. What exactly is the Penguin's character? He's posh, he's short-tempered, he's intelligent. Old fashioned. That's the core of the Penguin as far as I've ever seen. Burton is faithful to all that, and he created a proper character for the Penguin to work onscreen. Yeah, Burton added loads to the Penguin, but he didn't take anything.

My point is, you may not like Burton's version of the Penguin, but it's a valid version. As valid as any other.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

I always enjoyed a article that broke down a favorite movie of mine to analyze it. I knew Batman Returns was deep, but I never looked at it from the author's point of view.

Burton did a very fine job with both films and it is only a shame he couldn't continue the series.

 

[The Kid]

wow this movie's deep, I guess.

 

[JLBats]

Here's the thing; the comics change the comics. The Penguin, the Joker, all the villains (and all comicbook characters) have changed since their origin, and will always do so. Where is it written that the movies have no right to change the characters? Sure, they should maintain the core of the character - but come on, with the Penguin, what is his character? Not the details - waddling crimeboss - but the character. What exactly is the Penguin's character? He's posh, he's short-tempered, he's intelligent. Old fashioned. That's the core of the Penguin as far as I've ever seen. Burton is faithful to all that, and he created a proper character for the Penguin to work onscreen. Yeah, Burton added loads to the Penguin, but he didn't take anything.

My point is, you may not like Burton's version of the Penguin, but it's a valid version. As valid as any other.

Dude, the point of what I said was that I'm NOT ragging on Burton for changing the Penguin. It's, to me, the last thing I would possibly complain about. It wasn't something I favoured, but it isn't something that I have any particular objection to.

 

[mister Lennon]

I totally agree with you, jlk bats. You argumentes are very reasonable. For me, that theory about the villains being different aspects of the same batman is water. One thing is what Burton wanted to do and another very different thing is what the people see or want to see in the movie and burton's work. I think that the conclusion is very easy, go and ask burton what he tried to make in the film. I suspect that he wouldnt anwser that theory.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I totally agree with you, jlk bats. You argumentes are very reasonable. For me, that theory about the villains being different aspects of the same batman is water. One thing is what Burton wanted to do and another very different thing is what the people see or want to see in the movie and burton's work. I think that the conclusion is very easy, go and ask burton what he tried to make in the film. I suspect that he wouldnt anwser that theory.

Look up what subtext means and where it comes from. Artists don't have full control or awareness of what they create.

 

[mister Lennon]

Lets see, that interpretation of the movie is only a personal interpretation for you and for another people. For me and for another people, burton didnt want to create a film with the villains being different aspects for batman himself. For me, he tried do develope the villains in his own and bizzarre world, a world with batman as a second fiddle.

All are interpretations, personal interpretations.

 

[Merkel]

This movie gets so many things right and yet, so many things wrong.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Lets see, that interpretation of the movie is only a personal interpretation for you and for another people. For me and for another people, burton didnt want to create a film with the villains being different aspects for batman himself. For me, he tried do develope the villains in his own and bizzarre world, a world with batman as a second fiddle.

All are interpretations, personal interpretations.

You didn't look up subtext, did you?

 

[El Payaso]

^ Don't be cruel.

 

[mister Lennon]

You didn't look up subtext, did you?

Clearly, the things that you see in that subtext and the things that i see in that subtext arent the same.

And ,oh, surprise suprise, payasito again. Are you still alive? What sad.

 

[El Payaso]

Lennon. Still trying to ignore me and failing at it? How much fun you bring back at me!