Handbook on how to fight crime?
Hmm, yeah ... maybe. And I appreciate that analysis.
BUT...
Films should ultimately be about PSYCHOLOGY. About people. About places. About BEING. Anything else is just window dressing. And, to my mind, Burton accomplished that psychological exploration FAR MORE succesfully than Nolan.
It really is the PERSONAL touch that puts Burton's films ahead, especially his first, where everything was finely tuned and in balance. B * T * N. Who am I talking about? Burton ... or ... Batman? Notice that they share similar letters (beginning and ending on the same letters) and the same amount of letters? Do you think that it's entirely coincidental? Granted, Batman had already been around a long time, but think for a second. What did Burton do with The Joker? He added "Napier" as his human surname, bringing his initials perfectly in line with the guy that played him. And Nicholson himself -- known as a JOKER! As fantastical as "Batman" is on the surface, there's a pretty intricate psychological study underneath. Batman *is* Burton, and vice versa. But just who -- or what -- is Batman (and hence, who or what is Burton?)? The film never comes up with an answer, but it frequently poses the question. It's an exploration of identity -- sexual, social and otherwise.
Batman and The Joker are both outsiders, but whereas one is loud and outgoing, "stealing" the girl away with jokes / mayhem, Batman is the neurotic introvert, able to attract the opposite sex, but never able to fully consumate or keep a relationship going. Yes, Bruce sleeps with Vicki, but LOOK what she wakes up to! Bruce is just ... different. Like Burton. Bruce hanging upside down is an excellent gag; as Burton is defined by his Asperger's, Bruce *is* defined by the qualities of being "bat". It's this very eccentricity that separates both men from mainstream society, but also compels them to do the things they do. Burton uses his Asperger's to tell stories, while Bruce uses his "Bat"-sperger's to fight crime. They're both imprisoned and liberated by who they are. And they're both deeply analytical, guilt-ridden people; perhaps guilty over nothing more than the fact that they possess consciences. Because there's only two things that life lives for: self-preservation and ... well, that's it. Self-preservation. But the other "thing" it lives for, or lives through, is reproduction. Hence sex. So, in "Batman", we see these conflicts between logic and reason and lust and primalism. The Joker is a fully uninhibited being, and as much as Bruce might hate him, he at least partially hates him because he envies him, and that in turn makes him hate a part of himself. Complex? Yes. The Joker is a crazy extrapolation of that school jock -- the one who's always quick with a gag, the one that always gets the girls, effectively "stealing" them away from the quieter guy. And Batman is that quieter guy. He's the lone outsider with a latent ability to attract females (through wealth / slightly strange looks etc.), but he can never make good on that sexual power. He's burdened. He's ... Burtoned. That's also why The Joker dominates the picture; jocks always do.
Perhaps you just need to be a person like Burton to understand, but I am, and understand I do. Seen this way, "Batman" is what I think it was designed to be: hysterically sad. It's the twinned faces of theatre -- comedy and tragedy -- rolled into one. It is a tragic comedy and a comedic tragedy. Nolan's take just isn't that sophisticated. Everything focuses on Batman The Avenger, Batman The Symbol, Batman The Valiant, but nothing really focuses on Batman The Man, or Batman The "Man Bat". Nolan's take is tepid, like distilled water. The bacteria, the dirt, the grime -- the sex -- just isn't there. (As a more literal reinforcement of that point, consider this dialogue from The Joker: "Never rub another man's rhubarb!" -- There is nothing this suggestive ANYWHERE in BB.). Perhaps Nolan's take does more faithfully follow the letter of the comics, but I think Burton's take more closely follows the spirit of them, paradoxically by going his own way and doing something personal, something unconventional, something ambiguous, something artful. And art cannot be literal. As Stanley Kubrick said: "How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.' This would shackle the viewer to reality." And that's exactly what Nolan did: he shackled the viewer to reality. But Burton did not. I think "Batman" may be his magnum opus. To me, it is far and away the superior motion picture, and possibly the greatest comic adaptation of all time.
