I started to write a long-winded and whiny review of The Dark Knight, which basically boils down to (a) I'm tired of "realism" being equated to inelegant design and knives being shoved into mouths like a bad prison blowjob routine, (b) women are people too, (c) Michael Caine and Gary Oldman were awesome and (d) fuck, hire a script editor already. But I can't get the energy together and the negativity just doesn't do it for me, so I'd rather talk about how I'd approach doing my own hypothetical Batman movie. Assume that the ghost of Bill Finger has risen from the dead to haunt AOL-Time-Warner and force them to give Batman a Creative Commons copyright as revenge for stripping his name off of Batman for such a long, long time, and prepare to get dirty in the nerdy:
1. If it's going to be a Joker story, I'm watching every single Marx Brothers movie ever made for research. I would do a Joker story as a Marx Brothers flick with knives, guns, bombs, rictus-inducing poison gas, and silk stockings.
2. I would choose a sexy, sleek Batmobile, a Batmobile that oozes charisma and elegance. None of this tank business, none of this stealing equipment off of G.I. Joe when they're off fighting Cobra. Tim Burton had the right idea with his car-as-gothic-phallus, sure, but I'm not Tim Burton. To whit:
3. One goddamn super-villain. Or, alternatively, seven or eight of them, but only one important one, the others being reduced to the status of punch-their-lights-out on the way to the main event. An average night in Gotham should involve multiple cases. I'd also go full bore and use all the ridiculous one-off deals. Have Batman kick the crap out of the Royal Flush Gang, or the Mad Hatter.
4. Three words: Credible Love Interest. In terms of narrative punch and strength of character, Catwoman kicks ass and you can pull in that punch-tights-as-sex angle. A Batman movie has to be horny, all the way through, but it has to feel guilty and icky and ashamed about it -- all desire has to be sublimated. If you want a Gothic Gotham, you have to remember the Gothic Horror Credo: Sex is Bad. If I wasn't going to go with Catwoman, if I wanted a civilian love affair, they'd have to be played by a credible actress who can bring a lot of power to the role. All the memorable leading ladies Batman's dated -- I'm thinking Silver St. Cloud, Jezebel Jet, Talia, et cetera, could go toe-to-toe with Batman, personality-wise.
5. Sidekicks. I don't given a shit that you think Robin's lame, you haven't got a grip on Robin. Robin's cool. Robin refuses to be inky. He's a daredevil. He's mad as hell. He's smart. He thinks he wants to be Batman when he grows up. Robin's presence also prevents "realism," which is for pansies. Even Frank Miller's old fart Bat-Dad in The Dark Knight Returns had a Robin, and a Robin that worked. I'd pick the third Robin, Tim Drake, who got to be Robin purely because he was the first person to deduce who Batman was purely on his own. And Batgirl's even cooler than Robin, and I'd have to include her simply to punch up the dynamic with Jim Gordon. Batman's in a lonely crusade on crime, but that just means he has to build a family. Also, his butler can beat up your butler.
6. Opera. Every fight scene needs to be a modern art piece, a dance number, a punch-drunk ballet sequence with all that sexual frustration running through it.
7. Batman/Bruce Wayne. Delineated by wardrobe choices and actual voice. None of this Chris Nolan hiring a robot to play Batman, plying him on booze and cigarettes. If you can't find an actor who can credibly adjust his voice to be deeper and darker sounding, send him away. Bruce Wayne should be just as much of a nutjob as his enemies, and he should be in the movie a lot. Batman should be three people: the Bat, billionaire idiot Bruce Wayne, and emotionally crippled private Bruce Wayne. Which is why he needs to build himself a family, because all that private Emo time with his parents being dead impedes his war on crime. It leads to self-indulgence.
8. Flashbacks and back story, as Treava pointed out. Sparingly, sure, but they serve an important function: Bruce Wayne is all origin. Batman is defined by that tragic origin, everything springs from it. Which is why he works against the Joker, and this something Nolan successfully didn't fuck up -- the Joker lies constantly, has no origin, too many origins, he works best when you don't know what his back story is and have to wonder constantly at how he became untethered. If you emphasize that Batman is tied up in his origins, petrified and tangled in them, then Joker is that much more terrifying, because he's free. He's utterly, utterly free.
Comments (4)
I like it, Mr. Rawluk!
What kind of colour scheme were you thinking? Because it's a dark movie, I'd be tempted to go with a nightmare-pastel job a la "Edward Scissorhands" to stir in some incongruity, but, I sadly don't know enough about Batman to decide if this would work ...
Posted by joy | August 11, 2008 11:22 PM
Posted on August 11, 2008 23:22
It could work, depending on your villain choice. They all have particular colour schemes. I'm sort of thinking heavy on the drippy dark colours, very oily, with splashes of circus madness (this would be the Robin influence). Batman's dark, but I really think he works best with some contrast -- not happy fun daytime, but drunk-evil day-glo.
Posted by ben | August 11, 2008 11:29 PM
Posted on August 11, 2008 23:29
The thing of it is that Nolan was doing something different. I agree that the new Batman doesn't deserve the hype. In some respects, it is the standard by which the rest of the super-hero movies should be based. If only because the rest of them have done so poorly. X-Men makes me want to cry. Spiderman has slipped into the same rut as the original Batman movies. (Marvel's to blame for Venom, apparently.)
I don't mind the "realism". I find that Nolan managed to place a costumed crusader in a otherwise ordinary city (at least for The Dark Knight) and he did it without jarring my suspension of disbelief.
I am not sure why comic movies continue to insist on multiple villains. I suspect that the writers keep writing as if it's their last opportunity to tell this f***ing great story so damn, which one to choose. They end up shooting themselves in the foot.... save this Batman series.
Both movies, you realize that it's not two separate villain stories on screen but a unified story. The Scarecrow is a device for Ra's Al Ghu and Two-Face is a masterpiece for the Joker.
I do find it somewhat disappointing that Two-Face isn't a movie unto himself. The length of The Dark Knight might have been better served as two movies. You'd think that Harry Potter would be proof enough that if you keep writing good stories (I'm not going to get into that debate) that you can use 7 movies to pace a story.
I think they could do Robin. I admit that I am a purist. Grayson is the Robin for me.
Although the one advantage that I've always come to appreciate about comics is how they re-invent themselves on a whim. I've come to accept and appreciate how the stories are malleable. (Although DC's multi-verse reasoning is a bit unnecessary). So, I would say that it's perfectly acceptable for them to use Tim Drake or perhaps blend Grayson and Drake's story.
As for Batgirl? I'm guessing they have to kill off Gordon's family before he can adopt Barbara.
Posted by Jeremy | August 13, 2008 9:36 AM
Posted on August 13, 2008 09:36
The design of the film is far from inelegant. You should see it in Imax. I agree about Bale's Batman voice, although you might be interested to know that his voice was digitally "enhanced" in the sound mix to achieve whatever it was they were going for.
Posted by Matta-Hari | August 20, 2008 5:54 PM
Posted on August 20, 2008 17:54