You Kinda Suck, Batman...

Long before I ever even thought of starting a blog, I wrote a response to a Nostalgia Critic video (that I won't link to because it's not that well-structured or written) that compared Tim Burton's '89 Batman with the then-recent release The Dark Knight. He favored the '89 film adaptation of the character, and I strongly begged to differ with that opinion. A key reason for my conclusion then and now is that I have never truly been susceptible to nostalgia. Or rather, I can separate my feelings of comfortable familiarity from the assessment of a work. You have to in order to truly see things for what they are...that's why I have a hard time with Batman '89. This movie is pretty awful.

Oh, don't play the victim here...

Throw every bit of rotten fruit you like. Doesn't change the shortcomings, folks. That's what I'm here to point to because there are quite a few shortcomings in this movie. It seems like many of them go unnoticed or get swept over because of the popularity and legacy of the movie that certainly precedes it. Make no mistake: Batman '89 is a fun and important film in the cultural landscape that helped redefine blockbuster film-making on nearly every conceivable level...But that doesn't make it a good movie. In fact, it's a poor representation of the characters in very fundamental ways (BOTH films from Burton were, really) and the plot of the film is ultimately generic and disconnected. I'm already gonna get flack for this, so I might as well start with the most obvious drawback that everyone gives a free pass...

The plot is just generic revenge bullshit that has NOTHING to do with character, or these characters in specific.

Let's get this outta the way: Am I gonna be one of those people taking umbrage with the idea of The Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents? You're damn right! Because he didn't, and that element of the story is pretty fuckin' lazy. There are plenty of people that will and HAVE complained about Christopher Nolan's approach to the Batman mythos because it conflicts with their cartoonish or less realistic idea of the character and the world he inhabits. That does not excuse the unimaginative revenge plot centered on the conceit that Batman's greatest nemesis is also coincidentally the same man that shot Tom and Martha. Say what you will about Nolan's trilogy, but he gave his Batman more depth right outta the gate by not taking this route.

This guy. All the difference in the world.

Think back to Bruce Wayne as a character in Batman '89. Tell me 5 things about him in the comments that don't begin and end with "He's eccentric" or "He's Batman." I'll wait. You won't have anything to add because there's nothing to pull from within the movie itself. Not only is his character not established or explored, he's hardly even in the movie. The audience spends more time with Jack Napier/The Joker, and Vicki Vale with a splash of Arliss than they do getting to know the titular character because the assumption is that we already know him. But here's the thing: Most people didn't at the time.

Let me be clear: Batman was certainly a cultural icon by the year 1989. However, in-depth knowledge of who he is and WHY he does what he does was far from public knowledge. What most people knew about Batman came from the Adam West show in the '60's, and that's all baseline info ("billionaire playboy by day, masked vigilante by night"...or rather other part of the day because the '60s show pretty much never had a shadow on set) that doesn't get anywhere near motivation. Lots of people were surprised just to see that Robin wasn't in the movie. Not that he was really missed...

It's the collar that really makes you look stupid.

Yet even without the bright red and yellow distraction, Batman's character got lost in the mix. When asked why he does this whole "dress-up and punch people with the aid of elaborate gadgets" deal (yeah, Batman sounds like a fucking moron without context...), his response in Batman '89 was "It's just something I have to do." Simple, direct, but a total fucking cop-out. Before you try to justify this, bear in mind that Vicki Vale didn't ask this question until the 3rd act of the film. No one did. So, there was literally no time left to truly examine his or any character in the movie. That's why we were handed such a non-answer. Laziness and poor time management. As an expert-level procrastinator, I know these things better than most. Laziness because making his vendetta with The Joker about revenge oversimplifies EVERYTHING, and gives Batman a motivation for this story at least even if there's nothing to go on before or beyond this point. Poor time management because the movie spent so much of its time focusing on everything BUT the titular character that when it came time to give him any depth they couldn't afford to spare a moment. Which leads me to another point...

Batman is treated like the least important and least interesting character related to Batman.

If there's one thing that Burton and Schumacher's Batman movies have in common, it's that they both see the main character as more of an obstacle to their colorful world of wackjobs. To a lesser degree Schumacher (Batman Forever was the first of those movies to actually pay any real attention to Bruce Wayne), but they both would rather spend more time with their entries from Batman's Rogues gallery than place focus on the guy that's still gonna be around in the next movie. Batman '89 set that precedent with its narrative focusing largely on the origin story of The Joker (who doesn't actually have a concrete origin and works better without one, but I digress). This is problematic for the reasons that I've already covered, but there's one additional factor. This creates an environment where Batman isn't a character as much as he is a plot device.

Stop having fun!

Batman exists solely to stop the villain of the week, but has no motivation for any action he takes other than the plot needing him to do _____ in order to keep moving. Meanwhile, his villains have to go to extremes in order to be perceived as villains because the movie has given us too much access to them. We begin to understand and identify with The Joker because we see what drives him more due to the amount of time we spend with him. It also hurts the film that he is presented for our entertainment. The soundtrack (provided by Prince, which is equally awesome and fucking weird and ill-fitting) even mostly gets a showcase through The Joker's antics. He's the Party Man, and Batman's just here to ruin it.

WHO'S GONNA CLEAN THIS SHIT UP!?!!?

If Batman were the focus of this movie titled Batman, we would understand his drive as something with more depth than a vendetta. Or rather, we would be able to see that vendetta with a better grasp of what it means to him. Particularly, we would leave this movie knowing that one of Batman's most defining traits is and has (almost) always been...

Batman does not kill!

I'm not trying to start a nerd debate, even though I know it probably will, but a major factor in Bruce Wayne starting the path to become Batman is the death of his parents. This is why his vow to never take a life (as flexible with that as he's been shown to be) makes so much sense. Murder changed his life. The effects have lingered, and they inform his actions. He has resolved to fight crime in an effort to protect and improve his city, and nothing could possibly be a greater offense to a guy that saw his parents shot and killed than the act of killing someone. So, what the fuck is this...?

That's Batman's leg wrapped around a random goon's neck moments before hurling him to his death. Things like this happen throughout Burton's entries in the Batman films. And this isn't 1930's Batman, so there's no excuse for this. The one thing established about Batman in this movie would dictate that this is still out of character. I'm not here to argue that it's not heroic. I'm saying it's not Batman in the truest sense. Stop making excuses. It's not.

Hopefully, you can see what issue this also points to...

Pacing gets fucked.

Not in the sense of the proceedings moving by too slowly, like a Michael Bay movie. More like the movie's focus and timing of events are misplaced...like a Michael Bay. See what I meant about informing the industry on the structure of Blockbuster film-making? Yeah, Batman '89 ushered in both good and REALLY bad practices. And one of the worst is what can best be described as scene overindulgence. That's the scene(s) in a movie that aren't really necessary, add nothing to the ongoing narrative, and/or only exist because someone hadn't put enough thought into it or too much into how great it would be. Either way, it doesn't belong and a perfect example is the scene in Vicki Vale's apartment. The entire scene exists only as an excuse to drop the "dance with the devil" line, but the whole set-up is misguided at best and embarrassingly dumb at the worst.

Lemme give you a quick reminder. The Joker shows up at Vicki's apartment (which, guys, don't do that...ladies are not big fans, and there are enough files on record that I can't discuss to prove it), but then Bruce Wayne pop by. They have words (including one of my favorite lines in the annals of absurdity), and Joker Jack drops a suspiciously uncharacteristic hint to his identity before shooting Bruce. Yeah, he's using a metal tray as protection (which only raises the ongoing question of "what if he shot you in the face?" but whatev). But there's already something incredibly dumb about these proceedings: Bruce Wayne is the wealthiest guy in a 50-mile radius at the least. I don't care how unhinged you are, you're not gonna be stupid enough to shoot a guy like that without fear of the repercussions. Too many people confuse crazy for stupid.

That's not even how that works! Wait...

But then that whole metal tray then just gives away a hint to Bruce Wayne's none-too-secret identity that leads to...

Unacceptable, Alfred. Un-fucking-acceptable. I'm done.

A lot of things about this movie are dynamic and memorable, but good art design (seriously, give Anton Furst HIS due) and a bombastic score are merely components to a good movie. They don't make the film. Otherwise, Prometheus wouldn't suck. We let ourselves get wrapped up in the memories surrounding a film so much at times that we miss key components of the work itself. Batman '89 isn't the masterpiece many of us remember it being. So, the honest thing to do is to stop saying "It's a good movie" and shift that to "I enjoyed it."

...or maybe I'm just trying to convince myself this movie sucks because Netflix is yanking it at the end of the month...

YOU JUST ADDED IT, YOU JERKS!!!

And you're replacing it with what...?

...