[I ran across a DVD of the movie Batman Begins recently and was reminded of how representative it is of much of today’s movie culture. So, for your enlightement and delectation, the following is reprinted from my review for Crux.]
What Batman Begins says most powerfully is how bad the earlier films in the series were—and how crippled by stylistic cliches today’s Hollywood action films have become.
The best way to experience Batman is still to read the original DC comic books from years ago and watch the TV cartoon series. This one ain’t bad, but they’re the real thing.
I remember that the various filmmakers involved in Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Whatever, and Batman Yadaa Yadda Yadda were uninamous in pointing out how much more serious their films were than the 1960s TV series, as if seriousness precisely equalled intelligence, and as if being more serious than the Batman TV series were some sort of accomplishment. I could do that while telling knock-knock jokes in a tutu.
As hard as they may have tried to capture the essence of Bob Kane’s comic book series (well, that’s what they said they were trying to do), the Batman films were frequently silly and usually not very interesting. The first one, Batman, was endurable, although I think Jack Nicholson was incredibly boring as the Joker. OK, he’s angry, we get it. Now can you try to do something interesting? At least the TV show was fun, and the actors playing the villains were first-rate and managed to find the right tone for their performances. Excellent performers such as Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, Frank Gorshin, Julie Newmar, Anne Baxter, Reginald Denny, and the like all seemed to be having as much fun as the viewer (and not more!). The movie series, by contrast, was like some kind of career graveyard. Remember Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face? Alicia Silverman as Batgirl? Is it any wonder their careers went into the dumper after those stinkers? Heck, even Michelle Pfeiffer has pretty much disappeared, and I thought she did an excellent job as Catwoman.
Batman Begins is much better than that. Christian Bale is actually a decent Batman, although the affected, Dirty Harry-style growl he uses when in costume is, well, rather embarrassing for him after a while. But he’s good, overall. The supporting cast is largely excellent, with Gary Oldman giving a standout performance as Sgt. Gordon (who will eventually become Commissioner Gordon, we presume.) Katie Holmes misfires in a poorly conceived role as an assistant district attorney, but Cillian Murphy is terrific as Dr. Crane/the Scarecrow, Rutger Hauer is splendid as Bruce Wayne’s manipulative business partner, and Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, and Liam Neeson lend their formidable presences in other important supporting roles. The acting is one of the real pleasures of this film, and Bale holds his own within this powerhouse cast.
In addition, Batman Begins actually has some consistent themes that are worked out in a surprisingly comprehensible way—such as the ways the theme of fear and human reactions to it comes up in different situations throughout the film. Well done, that. And it really does present the issues of vigilantism, justice, personal responsibility, and the role of government in a rather thoughtful manner.
That, however, is also one of the problems with the film. It is awfully slow, with more expository dialogue than a documentary on how to caulk bathtubs. Do really really need to see another version of how Batman obtains all his Bat-weapons and Bat-whatnot? (Hint, the answer starts with an n and ends with an o. Multiple explanation points are optional.) Do we really need to waste a lot of time watching Bale and Freeman reprise the Q-James Bond relationship? (That has become extremely wearisome in the Bond films, for goodness sake.) It’s like showing us long, boring scenes from the early years of Hercule Poirot. OK, he can solve crimes, we get it. Gee, just let us see the dang Bat-things in action and we’ll figure out that he must have got them somewhere. Who but an obsessive geek weirdo gives a darn where he got them from, anyway? Save that for the novelization.
And what’s up with those early sequences in Asia, stolen from the film version of The Shadow and done a heck of a lot better there? It’s all way much more than we need to know. We already understand the situation, people! He’s a vigilante but he’s conflicted about it. We can puzzle that out without watching him fight multiple Asian prison guards simultaneously or climb an unnamed mountain to get to some ancient hideaway for global vigilantes. We don’t need to know about that, so just skip it. Now can we just get on with the Batarang-throwing?
OK, I understand it’s Batman Begins and you feel obligated to show his beginnings, which is acceptable as a premise even though we’ve seen his beginnings some 55 times before, but that doesn’t mean it has to Batman Begins with a Whole Bunch of Boring Dialogue and Puzzling Fight Scenes Shot in Close-Ups So That You Can’t Tell Who the Heck Is Doing What or Why. That’s another pet peeve for me: the fancy-schmancy tendency of Hollywood directors to cut the fight scenes up into close-up shots lasting approximately three tenths of a second apiece, quite obviously to disguise the fact that the actors couldn’t fight their way out of a preschool birthday party. Man, make them learn the moves and then step back and let us see them fight it out a little.
Hong Kong directors use brief shots, too, but at least they know how to make the fight comprehensible by pulling the camera away from the protagonist’s elbow or bad guy’s ribs once in a while. In Hollywood films, the only way you know who’s winning a fight is by how far we are into the movie: the good guy typically loses early and wins late. And in the climactic fight, he has to look like he’s losing until the bad guy does something really dirty and then the good guy gets all morally outraged and wins really quickly.
Maybe if you’d let us actually see the fight, we wouldn’t have time to think about how hokey the whole situation is. Just an idea, which I give you for free.
And by the way, a note to Hollywood’s fine stable of directors and cinematographers: dark, muddy cinematography does not equal depth of insight. It equals dark, muddy cinematography, and that is absolutely all. You can see everything perfectly clearly in a David Lean film or an Anthony Mann epic or a John Ford drama, yet there is never any sense that the director is stupid and just doesn’t know how to make us have to squint to figure out which character is the protagonist, which is the antagonist, which the leading lady, and which is actually a lamp emanating a dull, brackish nimbus. Actually allowing the viewer to see what’s happening could even be thought to be an advantage, or at least common courtesy.
So, could you people buy some lights? I know, I know, that will mean that your actors will actually have to act, as the audience will be able to see their stupid, bovine facial expressions all too easily, but what you’ll lose in employability of bad actors you might well gain in the ability to express the occasional insight into the human condition. At least, that’s what Lean, Mann, Ford, and the like managed to do. Tom Cruise and John Travolta have enough money and can afford to be tossed aside for people who can actually act a little. Besides, they can always do some reality TV.
Nevertheless, even though Batman Begins was photographed through a jar of Smucker’s Plum Preserves, includes the most boring love interest character of all the films in the series, steals ideas and scenes from countless other movies, and is more unreal than the average Wagner opera, it’s a fairly thoughtful film with some real conflicts, tough moral choices for the characters, important themes and ideas, and good performances. Those things make it wor
th seeing. But it certainly would have been much better if it had avoided the silly stylistic cliches that blemish most of today’s Hollywood action films.
YES, it has more characters that are actually from the comics than any other BATMAN movie. YES, Joe Chill killed Bruce Wayne’s parents; and YES I agree. This movie is totally overrated. Usually the reasons I hear who argue that this movie is the best have superficial reasons such as “Oh, Bale’s cowl was great, he didn’t have to turn to move his head.” Or “Wow, Bale looks like Bruce Wayne.” B.F.D. then of course there’s the always ludicrous, “Well, you just don’t like it because you’re not a BATMAN fan.” To all of you who say that to me I say, “F@#k you.” If you ever saw how many comic books, especially BATMAN you wouldn’t be so quick to contradict me. So because I’m not a FRANK MILLER BATMAN fan I don’t know anything about BATMAN? Well, unlike you BATMAN BEGINS fanatics I prefer a BATMAN as he should be “a self made man”, not as some DIRTY HARRY, DARTH VADER, SAM KINISON (coming off all quiet one minute and screaming at the top of your lungs the next), SHANNON DOHERTY (acting like some superficial, pugilist) AZRAEL (it’s the suit and gadgets that make me a hero) wannabe.
In TIM BURTON’S masterpiece, the opening is so much more compelling and it opens at night. In BATMAN BEGINS…AND BEGINS…AND BEGINS…AND BEGINS. it’s the first BATMAN movie I saw that opens during the day.
The BATMAN I know is as I said a “self made man”, a “self made man” doesn’t get everything he needs to fight crime conveniently handed to him. Plus, it’s kind of contradicting in itself that THOMAS WAYNE who set out to fight crime and violence has MILITARY APPLICATIONS.
I can think of a thousand reasons to hate this movie, literally. Where as BATMAN BEGINS fanatics can’t even think of a reason as to why they love it, they just say they do. I want to know what it was they loved so much about the movie. Was it the incessant talking? The choppy editing in the most compelling scenes? Such as when Bruce’s parents die, and when BATMAN finally springs into action and we never see a second of those fantastic fighting skills that Bruce Wayne has “trained” for? Was it the ridiculous BAT-TANK chase scene which for some reason is “killing” cops (Way to preserve law & Order by the Bats) and they’re making stupid jokes? Was it the guys in the Water Tower acting like f@#king idiots stating the obvious (if anything in this movie could vaguely be construed as “acting”)? Was it Rachel Dawes driving up to a bunch of homeless people telling us what we already know? What is this THE F#%KING WONDER YEARS? I’m not stupid, I don’t need an explanation of what’s already in front of my face. What I want to know is the most obvious “If Rachel has a car, why does she take the train? So Batman can save her?”, “What decade is this? When did they start having stun guns, sports cars, cell phones and color TV 7yrs after the GREAT DEPRESSION?”. Another questions even BATMAN BEGINS fans ask is “If you have a device that sucks the water out of things, wouldn’t that kill people anyway?” Of course they give some arcane explanation from that weaslly little guy about how the device microwaves an enemies water supply, but isn’t water, water? Or for that matter “If you have a device that sucks the water out of things, why bother dumping toxins into it?”,
I’m sure all the characters are equally interesting, in fact I know from the comics, but Nolan and Goyer are so busy filling Bale’s ego that you don’t have a chance to appreciate them. If this is a movie for BATMAN fans, then why do we need a 1hr. explanation as to the how and why of BRUCE WAYNE becoming BATMAN. People complained that “Oh, the villains got too much screen time.”, of course these so called BATMAN BEGINS fans seem to be missing the point. As Burton explained “Batman works better when he’s in the shadows, he’s dark, mysterious and reclusive, so he’s not gonna be eating up screen time and dancing around the Batcave.” I for one don’t want to see BATMAN sinking into brooding self pity for 1hr. if you are still p.o.ed about what happened to your parents 20 years ago and want somebody to listen to your problems tell a shrink; not a crime boss; not an audience; not your Zsa Zsa Gabor of a girlfriend; a shrink. Another thing that bugs me, is the whole scene from when Bruce comes back from “Princeton” to the part where he throws the gun in the river. Not only because of the obvious eat more screen time, so Bruce Wayne can selfishly see the guy who killed his parents get his. But it takes away from the whole idea that he is “obsessed”, he would’ve started becoming BATMAN rather than coming back all, “Oh woe is me, I have a big house, lots of money, killer good looks and a million dollar company. There’s nothing to live for. Hey Rachel, I’m damaged goods, want to make out in my parent’s bed.”
I can go on and on. I definitely wanted to express my opinions on how undermined I thought Ra’s Al Ghul/Henri Ducard whoever the f@#k Liam Neeson was supposed to be and my favorite villain SCARECROW was reduced to a petty thug who throws a potato sack over his head, jumps out and screams “Boo!” (Ooh, that would scare the s@#t out of me, if I were still in training pants. I guess they didn’t have money for a silk stocking in their 135 billion dollar budget). Anyway, I’m tired and unlike all the actors in BATMAN BEGINS I’m not getting paid to billions of dollars to talk…and talk…and talk…and talk. So good Knight, or in the case of BATMAN BEGINS, good-bye.
I agree with you about the extreme closeups of fighting sequences that get confusing. I felt the first Batman with Michael Keaton had very well filmed fight scenes and was very groundbreaking. Batman Begins borrows heavily on decisions that Tim Burton made in the first film. The other batman movies are horrible. I did think Jack Nicolsen did great as the Joker.
I feel the batman series always needs to focus on who he is and why he is the way he is. Any time they deviate from focusing on the complex person that is batman, I feel they are losing much of what is compelling in the whole story. I enjoyed the thought provoking dialogue and especially enjoyed the scenes between “Ducard” and Batman. I’ve heard alot of negative things about the girl in Batman begins. I actually found her less annoying then Kim Bassinger screaming at everything in the first film.