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
- 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.
- That said, DC cinematic villains stopped being good circa 2012. Note I said 2 Nolan films.
- Although, Batman: The Brave & The Bold does exist.
- Like how Indiana Jones was unnecessary in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
