The Legacy of the Bat: How Tim Burton's Batman defined superhero movies over the last 25 years.

Bernard O’Shea                                                                                                                  

25/06/14

                            

For young men growing up in rural Ireland in the late eighties and early nineties heroes came in the form of the Republic of Ireland Italia ’90 world cup team or Manchester United’s Eric Cantona and the swashbuckling Ryan Giggs. However this was never the case for me (I’m an Arsenal fan anyway). In my formative years there was only one hero for me to aspire to, and it was Batman.

I remember the Halloween of 1993 vividly. I was nine years old and it was the first time I felt motivated enough to put together a Halloween costume. That year it consisted of a grey sweat top, black track bottoms, my brother’s belt with an oversized cowboy buckle, copious amounts of black polythene bags and the centre piece was an ornate fridge magnet. This was no ordinary fridge magnet; it was the Anton Furst designed Batman symbol fridge magnet.

From as far back as I could remember this particular item had been in our house. I assume now that an older sibling had purchased it during the summer of ’89 when the marketing for the first Tim Burton film was in complete overdrive. That summer of 1989 heralded the release of Tim Burton’s first Batman film. The movie was also my introduction to the world of the caped crusader. I didn’t get to see it in ’89 as I was only 5, but I did watch it the following Christmas under the supervision of my older sisters. In that opening scene when Batman descends from the void with his cape fully extended, I became hooked. It filled my mind with wonder and awe and it sparked my enduring fascination with the ‘superhero,’ and ‘The Batman.’

This week marks the 25^th anniversary of the release of the Batman movie. It remains a landmark film and the blue print for all superhero films that followed. As a fan it made a significant impact on me. I feel to mark the anniversary of the film it is worth noting the impact the movie made on fans like me and the lessons it provided filmmakers tackling the superhero genre;

It placed emphasis on a good cast and director

“Wait ‘til they get a load of me.” –The Joker

One of the strengths of Batman ’89 was its off beat casting choices and the direction from Tim Burton. Burton’s background was in animation and he only had two movies under his belt by the time he came to direct Batman. He hadn’t quite achieved his trademark Burton-esque visuals but he was beginning to establish and dark and surreal style. Many questioned the young director’s ability to deliver the movie audiences wanted to see, but the cast and crew quickly learned he had a vision for the movie like no other director. It seems that the most successful superhero movies to emerge since Batman are built on the vision of young directors. Bryan Singer faced similar ridicule when he was chosen for X-Men, yet he was able to take a cast of relative unknowns and develop a very profitable franchise with its own landmark films. In respect of translating a comic book to the silver screen Burton noted, “I felt like a junior high psychology student. You have a movie based on a comic book but you are trying to give it more of a psychological base without going too far.  We went in with a firm idea of what we wanted to do but in terms of tone and movement we had a lot of discussions and trying things.”[1] One of the interesting things he did was to cast Michael Keaton whom he had previously worked with on Bettlejuice as Batman. Keaton was better known for his comedic roles in such films as Night Shift, Mr. Mom and Gung Ho. Almost every lantern jawed actor of the 80’s had been linked with the part including the likes of Arnie, Stallone, Kevin Costner, Pierce Brosnan and Mel Gibson. (Personally, for me out of all the rumours I would have liked to see what the movie would have been like if Ray Liotta had been cast as Batman/Bruce Wayne and Willem Dafoe had been cast as the Joker).

When Michael Keaton was selected it did raise some eyebrows, however therein lies the genius of Burton. He must have realised on some level that with an iconic character like Batman it wasn’t the actor that was going to draw the crowds, it was the character. People who grew up reading Detective Comics wanted a Batman that would match up to the one in their imagination. Keaton was able to tap into a very dark place to portray a brooding caped crusader. For many fans this remains the definitive portrayal of Batman/Bruce Wayne. It also inspired other filmmakers of superhero movies to make brave casting decisions and select actors who embodied the comic book characters they were portraying rather than anchor a movies appeal with a star name as studios would have traditionally done.

Keaton had certain qualities as an actor, physically he looked like an average guy, he had some striking features that would mark him out under the cowl yet at the same time he had the ability to portray psychologically damaged characters. Michael Keaton was the good guy in this movie but you knew this Batman could be as crazy as the bad guys he fought. The direction from Burton to Keaton about the Bruce Wayne part was, “to imagine him as a man with too much on his plate.”[2] He brings a degree of humanity to the dual role, scarred by the murder of his parents; he is socially awkward he cannot connect properly with people after that event so he becomes obsessive with revenge.

I remember watching Batman ’89 with my brother on one occasion, and while watching the opening rooftop scene with the muggers, my brothers reaction was “look at his eyes,” in reference to Keaton. In a claustrophobic costume Keaton seemed to convey so much of his performance through his eyes and snarl, without it becoming exaggerated like it did in the Bond franchise with Roger Moore’s eyebrow raises at every pun.

The movie cemented Michael Keaton's star and the trick would be reproduced years later with Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman in Batman Begins and X-Men respectively, when they portrayed more psychologically charged characters.

            Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker is now legendary. He dominates the screen with an over the top performance, delivering a conveyer belt of one-liners that serve to demonstrate that the man was either born to play the Joker or that he was living his life at the time as a maniacal clown. Film Critic Roger Ebert felt the Joker was the most important character in the film[3] and on more than one level this is true.

In later years it would be an issue that would see Michael Keaton depart the franchise but the top billing and higher salary offered to Jack Nicholson was necessary in order to secure the star power that would set the wheels in motion to get the movie made. Unfortunately, although good character actors are a staple of quality superhero movies nowadays, these type of actors don’t generally get movies made, or, at least they didn't in 1989. Blockbusters like Batman need star power to secure deals and make things happen, particularly when a project has languished in development for years. I used to feel that Nicholson’s performance was too exaggerated and that he did dominate the movie. His performance upstages Michael Keaton; a large amount of screen time is devoted to the Joker’s origin so much so the movie could have been titled, ‘Joker.’ However if it wasn’t for Nicholson’s inclusion I feel that we wouldn’t have seen the movie or had everything that followed Batman 1989.

            The supporting cast remains a mixed bag in Batman 1989. On one hand there are some great actors in fantastic roles, but largely they are all under utilised. Robert Wuhl as Alexander Knox is great comic relief and has enough one-liners to give Jack Nicholson a run for his money. However his characters original purpose as a love rival was altered as the production moved on so he remained comic relief. Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent was very interesting; however he never got to portray Two-Face. I often wonder if a studio executive some where along the line bottled the decision to bring him back because the Two Face character in the comics is Caucasian and they were scared of an African American actor playing the part. Who knows? But the issue hasn’t harmed the Nick Fury character in the Avengers franchise. I guess in some areas the studios weren’t brave enough at the time.

There are some other interesting casting choices; Michael Gough with his background in hammer horror being cast as Alfred (who better to find the socks of a creature of the night?), Jack Palance as Carl Grissom, Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon (even though the character is one dimensional and underused) and Tracey Walter as Bob the Goon. What I really liked about all the casting is that all the actors, including the extras and the joker gang are very distinctive (especially Laurence, the joker goon with the handlebar moustache and dog collar). The actors themselves look like they could step out of a comic book page. They brought a certain energy to the movie.

The only criticism I have of the casting is the role of Vicki Vale for Kim Basinger, although this isn’t a direct criticism of the actress. Basinger was a last minute replacement for Sean Young who had been injured in pre-production. The Vicki Vale character must have been intended to be the viewers guide through the world of Gotham, but she lacked chemistry with Keaton and her character was reduced to Batman’s girlfriend. As Basinger admits herself, “I didn’t have time to think, I was just walking on to set.”[4] In fairness, the problem with superhero movies at the time is that they provide little or no depth to the female characters. This only reflects the wider issue of strong roles for women in movies made by men for largely male audiences.

Despite some of the shortcomings with the use of the film’s cast it did lay down a template for future filmmakers. The key element was to allow the comic book characters to be the stars and the draw for the movie and to build everything else around that.

It’s important to pay attention to the original source material

“The translation from comic book to film has suffered the more it has gone away from source material.” –Frank Miller.

In retrospect, when you watch Batman ’89 back having experienced the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy, it’s hard to compare both and see the ’89 version as anything other than camp noir. It’s dark but not quite Nolan Dark. I also have developed some issues over the years with the overall plot and the use of certain characters in Batman ‘89. The special effects even seem dated; with the Batwing model crash being a far cry from the amazingly executed lorry flip in the ‘Dark Knight.’ However everything must be viewed in the context that the film was being developed. Before Tim Burton’s version most people’s experience of a live action Batman was Adam West’s camp 60’s depiction. The 60’s show was camp but it also reflected a trend in Batman comics since the 1950’s for camp stories set in outer space or surreal tales involving inter-dimensional imps. It wasn’t until the 1980’s when comic books began catering for more mature audiences and storytellers like Alan Moore and Frank Miller created, ‘The Killing Joke,’ and ‘The Dark Knight Returns.’ Both of these stories depict a darker version of the Batman and their impact are strongly felt in the Batman ’89 movie. ‘The Killing Joke,’ dealt specifically with the origin of the Joker his relationship with Batman, and the psychology of madness and vigilantism. You can pinpoint specific scenes that are inspired by panels from the graphic novel.  It’s said that Burton provided Michael Keaton with a copy of ‘The Dark Knight Returns for inspiration but many elements of that Graphic Novel can be seen in the movie. They include the characterisation of the Joker, the design of some of the Bat-Gadgets, in inclusion of the Corto Maltese, the Joker’s manipulation of the media, his chemical warfare, the poison balloon parade and the climatic showdown with the Joker. If you don’t have time to re-read Miller’s the Dark Knight Returns then why not watch the 2012 animated version and you’ll see the similarities.

In 1989 Batman proved that comic books were a serious art form and that in the right hands they could be operatic, dramatic, brooding and profitable in other mediums. It established a dynamic blueprint for future writers, directors and producers that can be seen in the Avengers franchise, the X-Men franchise and the Nolan ‘Dark Knight,’ trilogy.

You need to create a world for your hero to inhabit

“It was like hell burst through the pavement and grew.” –Anton Furst.

When I think of any live action superhero movie or series whether it be Batman ’66, Spiderman ’77, the Lou Ferrigno Incredible Hulk and even Christopher Reeves Superman. I always see them as being a bit ridiculous. Essentially with all these shows the heroes are primary coloured characters trapped in real world locations. It just doesn’t look right. What Tim Burton’s Batman got completely 100% right was that he realised that to do a Batman film properly you would have to create a world for him to inhabit. The real world was not Batman’s world so creating the perfect Gotham for him to inhabit was a prerequisite for the picture.

            Burton turned to production designer Anton Furst who at the time was most famous for creating Vietnam in a Birmingham gas works for Stanley Kubrick’s full metal jacket. Burton’s direction to Furst for Gotham was to imagine that hell had burst through the pavement and continued to grow. Furst incorporated gothic architecture and art deco designs into his vision for Gotham city. It creates an original setting for the movie and you can’t help make comparisons between Gotham and the futuristic LA of Ridley Scott’s Bladerunner. It was so important in helping the audience suspend their disbelief and believe a man could dress as a bat in a city like Gotham. Gotham City became almost a character within the film, so much so that the newly designed Gotham city was brought into the continuity of the comic books with the story arc ‘Destroyer.’ Furst production on the movie rendered stunning visuals that helped distinguish this version from any other previous incarnation of Batman. Christopher Nolan took this idea in a different direction by carefully selecting real world locations that he felt would create the perfect Gotham. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are both very different worlds and realities.

            What also mark’s out the world of Gotham as being unique in this version is the inhabitants. Some of the men and women dress and have hairstyles reminiscent of the 1940’s. Vicki Vale has a modern dress sense while the Joker Goons have a modernised style to their appearance. The design plays with your mind because you are never quite sure what year it is or why it looks the way it does. Therein lies the genius because the filmmakers have created a world to immerse yourself in. It is pure cinema.

            The production design also provided an iconic Batmobile and costume designer Bob Ringwood created a sleek new Batsuit. The Batsuit was so important for convincing audiences that Michael Keaton could be a superhero. In comparing Batman ’89 to Christopher Reeves Superman I always felt that although Reeves had physicality for the character he looked foolish. A man of his stature reduced to wearing tights. With Batman the sculpted suit and body armour showed he was a force to be reckoned with. The only thing I found strange about the Batsuit is that Batman gets shot at least twice during the course of the movie and both times it’s in the chest. What would have happened if he had been shot in the head? It's a moot point really.

            The legacy of such strong production values laid a marker down for future filmmakers. It would not be enough to transport superheroes into contemporary locations. They would require the world’s they originate in to travel with them to screen. It would be something that would be attempted without any real success for the decade that followed Batman ’89 but it was eventually capitalised on with X-Men and the Nolan trilogy.

Marketing, Marketing, Marketing

“When I saw the Batman cereal, I was like –Whoa.” – Tim Burton.

Part necessity and part design the marketing campaign for Batman in 1989 remains the benchmark for how summer blockbusters are sold to audiences. During the early production of the movie there was extreme backlash to the casting of comedic actor Michael Keaton in the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Over 50,000 angry fan letters were posted and even the Wall Street journal got in on the bat-bashing. Warner Brothers wanted to quickly dispel any fan fever so during the initial stages of filming the studio put together a music free teaser trailer to show the fans that they were taking a serious and dark approach to the movie. It drove the fans wild; people were even buying tickets to see Rain Man just to see the trailer, and then walking out. The approach seems far removed from the modern day where everything is leaked on the internet, even the movies themselves. However the theory is still sound, particularly when you take into account how Zack Synder most recently quelled fears over Ben Affleck’s casting as the latest ‘Dark Knight,’ with pictures of the costume and Batmobile drip fed to fans online.

            Stealth, cunning and mystery lay at the heart of the marketing campaign for the movie when it was released. Rather than go for jazzy tag lines like, “you’ll believe a man can fly,” the marketing people opted for a more subtle approach. The posters for the movie featured the iconic Bat-symbol redesigned by production designer Anton Furst. This abstract creation (upon first viewing some people thought it was gold teeth) proved to be a wonderful marketing tool, helping to sell over 30 million t-shirts. Peter Guber one of movies producers commented, “The marketing of Batman wasn’t driven by narrative, it was driven by emotional wonder.”[5] There is no cure for curiosity as the saying goes and in saying less the marketing probably did more to create anticipation for what the movie would deliver.

There was also a major merchandising campaign behind the movie with everything from toys, clothing, trading cards, mugs, boxes of cereal and just about anything that they could get a bat symbol on. Following critical acclaim on his album “Sign ‘O’ the Times,” Prince even provided the soundtrack for the movie (It was no coincidence that he was also a successful Warner Brothers asset at the time). The movie had gripped an audience before it even opened in cinemas.

About a month before the film’s release it dealt a coup de grace to all the other summer blockbuster contenders that year with a TV trailer released through all the major networks. Movies fight tooth and nail nowadays to secure promotional rights to show trailers during sporting events and shows with high audience figures. Back then it was a stroke of genius.

Much of the marketing strategy for the Batman ’89 has helped shape how studios sell their movies. It may have been built on over selling the visual appeal of the movie and some purists will say that is all the Batman ’89 film had but at the time there was nothing like this movie. Its influence is still felt every time a studio attempts to sell teenagers the next smash hit superhero franchise. The summer of ’89 belonged to Batman and the marketing executives behind it. 

What is the Legacy of Tim Burton’s Batman?

I never actually made it out trick or treating Halloween 1993. My sister had got her hands on some witch fingers and spooked me that much before we got to the end of our lane that I was too scared to go. I was only nine. Still I was pleased with my costume even though I resembled more of a white trash Batman than Burton’s caped crusader. That evening I went back to the safety of my Batman and Batman returns double header in our front room.

            I’m still amazed by Burton’s Batman. Some fans will go with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy as being the definitive version of Batman in the movies. However I feel the Nolan trilogy would not exist without Batman ’89. The film proved to studios that after the decline of the Superman franchise, a superhero could be big business again.

The franchise that spawned from the ’89 movie helped keep the character in the public consciousness for the decade that followed. During that time Burton’s Batman also helped Bruce W Timm debut Batman the Animated series in on television screens in 1992. Even though it’s a kid’s show it remains my favourite TV show of all time with its stylised art deco designs, sleek animation and high quality writing. It provided me with a bridge into the extended world of Batman following the movie. You can see the Burton influence on that series and it continues to intrigue me with its psychological portray of the, 'Dark Knight,' and his rogues gallery. If you are interested in finding out more then there is a fantastic podcast called 'The Arkham Sessions,' that psychoanalyses each episode of the animated series. It's truly inspired listening. You can follow the podcast on @Arkhamsessions on twitter and facebook and check out their podcast available on iTunes and youtube.

The movie also enabled other comic properties to be realised. It provided a formula and approach for other filmmakers. All the hype, style and energy that surround the plethora of superhero movies that are currently being released each summer can all be traced back to Burton’s Batman.

            For me personally as a fan I love Burton’s Batman. There are elements as a die hard fan that I dislike in the film, i.e. why they had the Joker murder Bruce Wayne’s parents. I reconcile myself in the knowledge that I wouldn’t have these issues if I had never watched the movie. The movie was my gateway into the world of Batman, after watching it I became obsessed with Batman, superheroes, movies and comic books. I grew up reading comics partly because of Tim Burton’s Batman. Those comics helped me understand issues in the real world, morality, ethics and values. I guess 25 years on from its release Batman ’89 means more to me than I had ever realised before.

---

[1] Tibbetts, John C. (1989) ‘Conversations in the Arts & Humanities; Batman 1989,’ www.youtube.com –Accessed 23.06.14

[2] Tibbetts, John C. (1989) ‘Conversations in the Arts & Humanities; Batman 1989,’ www.youtube.com –Accessed 23.06.14

[3] Roger Ebert (1989) Batman (1989) Review,  Rogerebert.com – Accessed 23.06.14

[4] Unknown (2005) ‘A Cinematic history of Batman,’ – Documentary, Warner Brothers, 2005.

[5] Rottenburg, Josh (2014) ‘How Tim Burton’s Batman changed the way summer blockbusters are sold,’ Yahoo Movies, 22^nd may 2014 - https://www.yahoo.com/movies/how-tim-burtons-batman-changed-the-way-summer-movies-86507447967.html -Accessed 22/06/14