Opinion Piece: My Opinions Of The Batman. Again.

Right, I said I'd do some effing opinion pieces, didn't I? Well, I struggled a bit, given my new business demanding a lot of my time, and disqualifying some 90% of my ideas on grounds of potential bias. But sometimes, you get that spark of inspiration, and the need to do something else with your brain. So, here's a ramble about why I think Batman really needs to take a back-seat in Warner Bros attempt to make a cinematic universe, and will hopefully finally express my mixed feelings on the character.

Image Copyright Warner Brothers etc.

The thing about Batman at this point is that he's undemanding in terms of SFX, and you've got a bounty of material to draw on. He's easy. While Bats does fight alien ghosts of a Tuesday, he's basically on the level of James Bond. He's a gadget guy, prefers not to be shot, doesn't use guns because of his origins, and most of his foes are of that nature. He's a rich dude whom trains his mind and body like a champion. Depicting him in live action is only as difficult as you want it to be, whereas characters with actual Super Powers, especially the weird looking ones, only really became possible with CG(1). Narratively, he's also easy to get behind, being the archetypical grim and gritty superhero. Even before Frank Miller and Alan Moore took a swing at him, Batman was a guy whose parents were murdered in front of him as a child, and overcame unimaginable loss to start a quest to end crime, but decides not to take human life for fearing of becoming what he hates. He's just enough of an everyman to be easily empathised with, flexible with tone, and the psychological aspects are endlessly fascinating. Furthermore, the character has arguably the best selection of colourful villains, many being evil counterparts or reflections of Batman's personality. Its the best possible material to adapt. It resulted in arguably the greatest cartoon series of the 90's. The most memorable TV series of the 60's. Some spectacular video games. And two genre defining films by Chrisopher Nolan. If you've ever been anywhere near the Superhero genre, you know this, I do not have to explain further. This foundation is so strong that people say Ben Affleck is the best bit of Batman V Superman, despite the myriad flaws and troubling characterisation associated with that film.

Like the guns and vehicular homicide, but more on that shortly.

Batman however has some problems, ones which mark the DC universe and the expectations of viewers. The simple truth is that not all characters are Batman. Especially the grimdark version Frank Miller codified, and a large subset of comics fans tend to hold in high regard. Not every superhero works the same way, or operates in the same context, but yet WB and many others treat the character as the gold standard of the genre when it comes to live action adaptations. This is kinda daft. you get a homogenisation of the genre, where a bunch of wannabees end up imitating the wrong things. See the comic book industry in the 90's, or what happened to anime after Neon Genesis Evangelion came out.

Its for this reason why Arrow isn't called Green Arrow. Why Man of Steel was essentially Superman Begins, via Zack Synder. Why Bats V Supes took its inspiration from the Dark Knight Returns. And why we have a TV series that's basically about Batman before he was famous, even though there's no obvious narrative there, and it presents all the problems of a prequel. This is also why, I think, the Marvel films get stick for their lighter tone and lack of memorable villains. Yes, the latter complaint is reasonable(2), but the first bit isn't. Marvel has shown another way of doing things, where antagonists are obstacles to be defeated, not more important than the lead characters. There is an ingrained mindset that these things should be serious, one that is slowly breaking down, but not fast enough to avoid hobbling the new DC film series out of the gate. Warner Bros in recent years has only really managed to produce Batman films, or films that fit into a similar Venn Diagram. They haven't been able to do Superheroes that don't fit that template, and even then, the Batman movies are patchy. They've basically got it into their heads that the dark and gritty is the only way to go, something a lot of fans encouraged, its difficult for them to change tracks now(3). It will be interesting to see how Suicide Squad works out, with the rumours of comedic re-shoots and increasingly technicolour advertising. But, then again, Bats is in that too.

I thought there was a “no jokes" policy.

Then there's the whole “unfortunate implications” business. Going by recent films alone, it would be easy to view Batman as a mentally unbalanced billionaire whom uses his money to beat up the under-privileged, as opposed to spending on Police and Social Programs. A violent power fantasy bordering on Fascistic, excused by a childhood tragedy. The character's origins as detective whom eschews guns on principle, gets lost in translation. This is what happens when you repeatedly invoke “darkness” and “realism” on a character whom dresses like a rodent to fight a murder clown. You can only push it so far before the whole edifice comes crashing down. Yes, this is a train of thought that utterly defeats the point of the guy, and can be contradicted by citing specific comics and scenes, but its an argument that can be made(4). The Dark Knight, for example, is probably still in my top 5 Superhero films, but you do find a certain Right Wing circa Dubya Bush feel to events. This is a film where the hero flies into another country, does an “Extraordinary Rendition”, beats up a guy in a Police interrogation, and hacks every phone in Gotham in an attempt to find a single person, although he does step back from that. This looks more dirty than heroic, if you are of that mind. You can say I'm reading too much into it, and maybe. But then again, the Ben Affleck version is even worse, a multiple murderer whom brands criminals, humanity and reason apparently absent. He's just a lump of brutality, deciding to eliminate Superman for reasons that can only be described as hypocritical. And don't forget, the 1989 Batman was pretty killy too.

Pretty deliberate attempt at murder there.

What I'm trying to say here is we don't need another Batman film. At least not without a pretty comprehensive reworking. The realism angle has been drained dry, and the direction Synder took was unpleasant. And while I will always enjoy The Animated Series, the best thing for the character and for DC, is just put him in the background for a while.

Footnotes

1. Yes, Superman did a good job in 1978ish, but that was at the upper limit of practicality and money at the time. Note how long it was between that film and Spider-Man.
2. That said, DC cinematic villains stopped being good circa 2012. Note I said 2 Nolan films.
3. Although, Batman: The Brave & The Bold does exist.
4. Like how Indiana Jones was unnecessary in Raiders of the Lost Ark.