Batman Begins -- again

[The Lone Ranger]

I just watched Batman Begins again on dvd, and I must say that it remains my favorite “Batman” movie. Much better even than the “original” movie with Michael Keaton, if you ask me.


But, you know, there are several things I wish they’d done differently.

First of all, I know that “superhero” movies aren’t generally supposed to be thought-provoking, but must they be so formulaic? I really expected better from Batman Begins, for two reasons. First of all, unlike, say, Superman or Spider-Man, it’s more or less possible that someone like Batman could actually exist. That’s precisely why Batman is such an interesting character. What would drive a person to do what he does? Second, I was really hoping that Christopher Nolan – of all people – would understand that, and would focus on why Bruce Wayne made the choices he did, rather than just making yet another movie about a guy who wears a funny costume and beats up bad guys.


I’ve read that some people complained that the first half of the movie was “too slow,” because it focused on Bruce Wayne’s motivations and his training. But that’s just what I wanted to see. Movies about people beating people up are a dime a dozen: I wanted a really in-depth examination of what would drive Bruce Wayne to become Batman – and of the training that allowed him to do the things he does. In fact, if it’d been done well, I’d have been perfectly happy if they’d spent 2 hours doing just that, and the very last scene of the movie showed Bruce putting on the cape and cowl for the very first time and preparing to begin his one-man war on crime.


I really liked how they emphasized that Batman used psychological tactics against the bad guys just as much as he used brute force – if anything, I’d have liked to have seen that developed to an even greater extent. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good you are with your fists, sooner or later somebody’s going to take you down, if nothing else, because of a lucky strike. That’s one reason the comics has always presented Batman as using fear, intimidation, misdirection, and psychological tricks as his primary weapons, not his fists. I think that’s precisely what makes him such an interesting character. In the comics, Batman is so successful because he’s so smart, not because he’s a superb fighter (though he’s that too, of course). I wish they’d emphasized that more in the movie.


I think it’d have been neat if they’d spent most of the movie developing Bruce’s character – explaining why he was so determined to avenge his parents’ murders and how that implacable need for justice gave him the mental and physical fortitude to become the Batman. Once he’d become fully trained, then they could have spent a bit of time showing him taking on and defeating Carmine Falcone and his crime syndicate. The Scarecrow subplot was unnecessary, I think, and the Ras al-Ghul subplot was ridiculous. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t have introduced the characters of Scarecrow and Ras al-Ghul, but I’d have been happier if the movie-makers had treated them as they did the Joker – made it clear that Batman would be facing them as adversaries in the future.

In short, I wanted to see how Bruce Wayne learned to become Batman by first honing his skills on thugs like Falcone. That way, the movie could have had the requisite fight scenes and – if they were done properly – used those fights to illustrate Batman’s character, driven nature, and intelligence, while making it clear that he was soon to face much bigger challenges.


It’s not that I don’t care for the character of Scarecrow. In some ways, I think the movie handled him better than the comics generally do. The movie Scarecrow has real reasons for doing the things he does, whereas the comics Scarecrow has always seemed rather poorly-defined to me.


And I think Ras al-Ghul was kind of wasted in Batman Begins. Ras al-Ghul has long been my favorite Batman “villain,” in part because he’s such a complex character. This is a guy who truly believes he’s doing the right thing, and so he’s very-much a mirror reflecting Bruce Wayne’s obsessions. He and Batman are very much alike in many ways, and each of them knows this all too well. That’s precisely why they respect each other so much, even though they’re on opposite sides most of the time. Batman is the one person in the DC universe whom Ras al-Ghul looks upon as his intellectual equal and a truly worthy opponent. (He has occasionally run afoul of Superman, but he regards Superman as little more than a colorful buffoon and nowhere near smart-enough or ruthless-enough to be a serious challenge to him.) Indeed, it has been hinted in the comics from time to time that if it weren’t for Batman keeping him in check, Ras al-Ghul – supremely intelligent master strategist that he is – would quickly eliminate even such formidable opponents as Superman.



Which brings me to the major point. In the comics, Batman’s primary asset is – and always has been – his intellect. Sure, he’s a superb hand-to-hand combatant, but it’s his intelligence that makes him so successful. More to the point, Batman doesn’t just go out and beat criminals up – he’s a detective first and foremost, not a fighter. He spends far more of his time investigating crimes than beating up criminals.

It’s not a coincidence that Batman first appeared in a magazine called Detective Comics and is still it’s star. Batman is a detective. (Ras al-Ghul understands this perfectly well in the comics, and consistently refers to Batman simply as “The Detective” – and he means it as a sincere gesture of respect.)


So, the comics have always made it abundantly clear that Bruce Wayne has trained his intellect with the same degree of determination as he has trained his body. That’s precisely what makes Batman such an interesting character – without his intellect, he’s just a good street fighter with a scary costume and some nifty gadgets.


I really wish that Batman Begins had spent some time emphasizing Bruce Wayne’s rigorous mental training, and not just his physical training. Naturally, a movie about a guy learning to be a superb detective would probably be boring, but I do wish they’d spent at least some time emphasizing Bruce’s mental discipline and intellectual skills.



And why is it that practically every “superhero” movie features a “spunky” female who seems to have no self-preservation instincts whatsoever, and so must be rescued by the hero? Granted, Rachel Dawson was a much better-developed and more interesting character than Lois Lane or Vicky Vale, but that’s not saying a lot, unfortunately.

And why was it that, upon seeing Batman for the second time, she immediately asked his name? (The first time, she was apparently too shocked to think of doing so.) What’s the point of being a masked avenger if you go around telling your name to everyone who asks? What on Earth made her think he’d be willing to tell her who he was? Still, as incredible as it was that she’d have asked the question in the first place is that he actually told her! The “real” Batman wouldn’t have done that!


Don’t get me started on the idiotic concept of a microwave projector that could vaporize water in pipes – under several feet of concrete and dirt no less – while having no effect at all on human beings walking right in front of it.



Rumor has it that the next (or perhaps the third) “Batman” movie will be a “crossover” movie featuring a team-up between Brandon Routh as Superman and Christian Bale as Batman. If done properly, that could be quite interesting indeed.

Cheers,

Michael

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I wanted a really in-depth examination of what would drive Bruce Wayne to become Batman – and of the training that allowed him to do the things he does. In fact, if it’d been done well, I’d have been perfectly happy if they’d spent 2 hours doing just that, and the very last scene of the movie showed Bruce putting on the cape and cowl for the very first time

When you finally get into film directing, Michael, remind me not to invest in your movies! I'll definitely go to see them but I don't think Hollywood would be wrong to assume that such a movie would not be a box-office smash. Sadly.

[The Lone Ranger]

Heh. Yeah, sadly, I doubt any studio would want to make a 2-hour movie that seriously explores why someone would want to dress up as a bat and fight crime.

I think it'd be pretty neat to see such a movie, though. Do "superhero" movies have to be so utterly predictable?

Cheers,

Michael

[erimir]

Well, they made The Hulk, which was less predictable.

And well... you know what happened.

[Godless Dave]

I fell asleep halfway through and I have yet to watch it again. What initially pissed me off was that they chose to change the origins story from the Michael Keaton "Batman", where the mugger who shot Bruce Wayne's parents ended up being the Joker. On reflection, that was a pretty huge coincidence and I thought it was hackneyed at the time - in fact I think I remember considering it one of the two major flaws of that version of "Batman". But, even though it was released 17 years ago, I still think of it as the definitive film "Batman". I really liked it, despite the flaws and despite the fact that I normally don't like Tim Burton films. I still had some hope that they would make another film with Two-Face but have him played by Billy Dee Williams this time, as originally intended.

But I think I can get over that, since the new anonymous mugger makes more sense. And Ra's al Ghul* is by far my favorite Batman villain. So I'll give it another chance, and be sure not to watch it after being awake for 24 hours this time.

-----------------------
* But if you are a fan of Ra's al Ghul, do not, repeat do not buy or read "Trinity", in which Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman team up against Ghul. It sucks. It blows. It is one of the worst comics I have ever read. Even though the art is pretty good the story and dialogue are atrocious and the formerly complex Ghul is reduced to a caricature of an imitation of a cheap knock-off of Osama bin Laden.

[Godless Dave]

I didn't really have anything to say about "Batman Begins", I just wanted to bash on "Trinity". We now return you to the original thread topic...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I think it'd be pretty neat to see such a movie, though. Do "superhero" movies have to be so utterly predictable?

Apparently so.

They also have to feature big budget suspension-of-disbelief-straining action sequences that do nothing to advance the plot. Batman is a trained ninja, a master of stealth, skilled at fading away untraceably into the darkness. His methods include wearing black, striking quickly and retreating before his enemies have time to respond, and...er...driving a small tank on a destructive Dukes of Hazzard style stunt show over the rooftops of Gotham in full view of several Police helicopters.

Did I mention that scene really bothers me? Not only is it ridiculous to think that he could actually escape from his massed pursuers after exposing himself so plainly to them, but the blatant disregard for the large chunks of Gotham he tore up by smashing his Battank over and into them, and the danger into which he placed bystanders, is out of character for Batman.

Don't get me started on why Magneto apparently doesn't have to mutant power to rent a damned boat.

[Sock Puppet]

And why is it that practically every “superhero” movie features a “spunky” female who seems to have no self-preservation instincts whatsoever, and so must be rescued by the hero?

My guess is that it's because superheroes are the most archetypal figures possible (other than gods, perhaps), and saving the woman-in-distress is one of the primary themes of the warrior archetype. The "spunky" aspect comes from the rather simplistic notions filmmakers still have of what makes a "strong" woman. The lack of self-preservation instinct is probably a function of a film's time crunch: we've got to get this woman in danger so Super ___ can save her, and we've got 2 minutes of screen time to get her there. So she has to do something reckless and stupid.

[Stormlight]

Here's an interesting open letter to Hollywood from RazorFine:

Letter to Hollywood