Batman Begins: The Thread

so walter I don't know what to make of any of your weird generalizations.

There was no fun to be found in Hero, it was just beating me over the head for seven hours with 'look how pretty this swooping figure is,' and 'this is supposed to be deep, I'm not like (insert kung fu director here) with his silly fun, meditate on it for a while 'k'?
Batman begins was plenty fun, I just found that it tried to straddle two or three impulses (series pilot, action film, drama) without focusing on one to my satisfaction.

as I said upthread, the late 50s-60s Batman comics are TOTALLY silly, flamboyant and ridiculous - and that is just as legitimate basis for film/TV interpretation as Batman:Year One. The 60s TV show is, in this respect, just as "true" to its roots as Batman Begins is.

And not to be a pedantic quibbler, but when Bale et all talk about "being true to Bob Kane's vision of Batman" they are talking out their asses (from a pedantic quibbler's POV), as not 10 adventures of Batman the lone vigilante of the night went by before THE SENSATION CHARACTER FIND OF 1940...turned the strip into lighthearted boys' adventure.

xpost, I think you are OTM, Jordan.

-- Huk-L (handsomishbo...), June 22nd, 2005.

the cartoon was way better.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Not even in reference to the comics (which I haven't read) but Batman as a larger cultural icon. I got the impression that a lot of the praise for BB was centered around the idea that "finally someone got it right."

That's right, you slept through the bits where Bale had his shirt off.

Given that up to now no one had successfully made a "serious" portrayal of Batman (ie, one rooted in Denny O'Neill and Frank Miller's interpretations) those people (among whom I count myself) are completely correct. This film did get the "serious" Batman mythos right, and no one else had ever even really attempted it.

Before "Batman Begins," my favorite Batman film was Shoemacher's "Forever," because it's sexy and fun. I have a fondness for the pop art camp of the 1966 series. Shoemacher essentially tried to remake "Forever" with "Batman and Robin" but the script tries to juggle too many characters and the action scenes are much sloppier; there was a rube goldberg efficiency to a lot of the choreographed action in "Forever." Good or bad, Schumacher's neon camp is clearer in what it's about than Burton's pointlessly plotted and tonally confused goth camp.

That being said, most of the dissapointed reactions to "Begins" seem to spring from an expectation for some camp element in the psychosexual thematic forms they've taken either in the 60s series, Burton's "Batman Returns," or as the primary fixation of the Schumacher versions. This seems to be the gist of Stephanie Zacharac's review in Salon even if she seems unaware of it in her lazy, quip-filled dismissal. The psychosexual is one element of the Batman mythos that draws people to it and keeps coming up again in the different incarnations. Given Christian Bale's recent statement of wanting more sexuality in the second film indicates that this might be a thematic focus which it couldn't be given room for in the 1st, because their was too much work to be done towards giving meaning back to the myth itself.

Despite having this camp hope and expectation for Batman films, "Begins" involved me in its story by bringing life back into the basic concepts of the origin, grounded in the minimally philosphical language of much of the dialogue. I enjoyed the conceptual artist-like wording Bruce Wayne utilizes when telling Alfred about his plans to become a "symbol" to remove himself from openess to corruption. With Nolan's naturalistic straight take, for the 1st time Gotham city becomes a landscape which is opened up for analogies to be drawn to our world and history. I somwhat grateful the filmmakers took the risk of boring people.

xxpost

OTM.

This was one of my favorite bits of dialogue in the movie, too. I also liked the rationale for dressing up like a bat.

I think most of the disappointed reactions are coming from people who were open to a serious Batman but who think BB failed to deliver.

http://www.screencaptures.net/b/brewer18.jpg

Yeah, every fight scene in BB was a complete and utter shambles. The film was overlong and laughably ponderous. It looked great though, so that's alright.

Also, I think maybe he said "our family" built the monorails, not neccesarily him personally.

x-post

They played the "Batman's a scientist" Simpsons clip from the monorail episode during the previews at the Alamo drafthouse. I could have kissed someone.

And hey, y'know what, the Adam West Batman is FUN. And also, when I was like 5, watching it for the first time (in reruns, I'm not 45 years old!), I had no idea it was supposed to be funny. At five, that stuff is pretty grim.

I admit that I couldn't stifle laughter when Neeson mentioned Constantinople as an aside.

He then decides out of the blue to become Batman, but instead of Alfred making him his costume and weapons, he hires Samuel L. Jackson to do it for him.

Batman himself doesn't have the stocky, square-jawed appearance that we all recognize, but is played by the thin guy from Memento.