I'll go ahead and put my thoughts about Returns here:
It's easily the best Batman movie and one of the best things Burton's made, as well as clearly being focused on Batman whether you like the way it does this or not. It has a very interesting structure, and I love the way the main theme of masks is cleverly woven from the first frame onward through the characters and all plot points (the public facade and the reality underneath). It's a very thematically padded and interesting film, as well as being a great modern era ode to German Expressionist filmmaking in its ability to communicate ideas visually.
As far as saying it's Burton and not Batman, that's utter rubbish. It's Burton's take on Batman, and that's no more or less valid than anybody else's as there is no definitive version of the character but only personal interpretation. If this was not the case, we would not have all these varying versions throughout the history of the character. I think Burton noted this himself when talking about adapting the material -- that comic book continuity was unsound and was constantly reinventing itself as far as the character. That seems to bother many purists (who, oddly, miss the point that the character has no single version to point to), but the freedom allowed Burton on this project is what makes it so special -- basically an artist given free reign, which I think should be applauded.
Like it or hate it, it's a rare commercial blockbuster that is clearly and deeply personal, and that seems to really rankle many -- i.e. it's not a typical, safe comic book movie as far as template but is instead something more artistic and bizarre therefore it's *beep* I truly think the film gets a bad rep just for being a Batman movie in various circles even though it's a superior work by Mr. Burton.
It's a great movie in my view and a great interpretation of Batman that in its runtime examines the character and makes definitive statements about him within its narrative outline, specifically in its final confrontations when considered with the rest of the film (both Batman/Penguin and Batman/Catwoman have personal duels at the end which give us payoff in regards to the psychology of the titular character). And as far as there not being enough Batman, he's in the film a lot after the first thirty five minutes or so which are clearly dedicated to building up the other characters with this being important to the structuring of the film inherently and to the examination of the Batman/Wayne character under that structure. After the first half hour, it's very Bats heavy in its content and intent.
I think depression, though not delved into, was a part of it, if not the psychosis, as shown through their choice of origins for the character and the impetus for his nightly work. Obviously it was not delved into much at all beyond cause and effect, but it's easy to read that into it even within that surface context. As far as definitive interpretation? There is none, even when just considering Kane/Finger's era, which about says it all.
For my tastes, I like the depressed, psychotic Batman Burton gave us and think it's a logical idea. Not definitive, but certainly as valid as any other. And Burton certainly did play up the original grim vigilante theme, right down to the killing, that Kane/Finger started with themselves -- on a purely aesthetic basis such as that (and considering the rather blank nature of the character in regards to psychology at this point, mood, overall action and look are about the only important things to translate from those earliest of stories which I think Burton did rather masterfully), it was more based on Batman's early beginnings than most other stuff when looking at its overall noir presentation as far as both mood and character.
The Kane/Finger Batman, in simplest terms, was a lone vigilante that was soon revealed to be driven by the death of his parents --all of this can be said for Burton's Batman as well, with the main difference being that he was most interested in the psychology behind the actions of the main character (including the killing that is notably present in the two versions) rather than just the actions themselves as far as point a to point b narrative resolution.
I think it's largely forgotten in many comic storylines that the underlying basis for Batman's nightly jaunts is psychological imbalance -- both as far as the depression and the heavily weird/illogical/psy cho way he chooses to deal with that, by dressing up as a bat of all things. If you portray this on film and want it to be taken seriously at all, I think the point has to be made that this is not a psychologically healthy character at all, otherwise you get camp. If you don't deal with the central idea being a character that acts out in the manner he does because of lacking mental health in much the same way as the villains he encounters -- it's obvious, but sometimes forgotten, that the basis of so many of these characters stems from their psychological traumas, and that Batman's the same when you contrast underlying motivations.
If Spider-Man's a soap, then Batman Returns is a psycho-drama.
I like the instability shown with Catwoman/Selina -- unlike Bruce she can't control her two personalities by the film's finale, as shown through the way the costume (the very thing she had used earlier to partially repair her psyche and keep the two personas separate) is falling apart throughout the film to the extent that Selina is coming through literally on a visual level. That's an awesome way to communicate the idea that she's unable to control the two sides of her personality, and Burton deomstrates this purely through visuals.
I also think it's important that Bruce rips off his mask (figurative or literal?) at the end, perfectly showing the dichotomy within him and backing up Penguin's earlier assertion, "You're just jealous because I'm a genuine freak, and you have to wear a mask." To which Batman replys "You might be right."
Actually, going on a bit of a tangent (nothing new for me), I love the idea of the difference between Penguin and Baman being that the former's psychosis stems from his physical disfigurement while the latter's freakish fetishes -- all the bat outfits and equipment, as well his nightly routine using this stuff -- stems from his psychosis. Opposites as far as cause and effect -- the Penguin is psychotic because he's a freak, while Wayne is a freak because he's psychotic. The Penguin is bitter because he can never truly be accepted by society, while Wayne wants nothing to do with normal society. I think this is a point made brilliantly within the context of the film.
Not only does Batman/Wayne truthfully state how close he is to Catwoman/Selina as far as the psycholgical split within them both, but the ending makes this point so perfectly by having having both of them take off their masks in at least the visual sense. I also like the underlying idea of Bruce finally finding a reason to grow up and move away from his fetish -- finding love as a reason to move beyond the never-ending mourning process of the loss in his childhood (ironically he finds this in a woman who might be argued as dead herself in some capacity within the film's ambiguous and horrific text on this matter post-Shreck) -- and the tragedy of this is made clear by Selina's rejection and/or inabality to do the same with her other side, leaving Wayne in my view even more fractured than he was before in the film's finale.
CFE
