It’s no secret to anyone who knows me that I’m an avid comic book fan, partial to DC and even more partial to Batman. He is one of the most celebrated characters in popular culture and fiction, and is my favorite superhero of all time. While I make it an obligation to keep up with comic book lore, my introduction to Batman came from the 1989 Tim Burton film and the Animated Series. From there, I was able to immerse myself into the source material. Now, the following discussion was sparked from a debate I had with other film club members at my college. It was a debate of credibility toward the Christopher Nolan Batman films, which I personally enjoy. I had heard similar arguments in the past, from the Nolan films being good films on their own but poor Batman films in the same regard, to the Burton films being superior, to all of the live-action adaptations being poor. These discussions stuck with me and I thought about it on a deeper sort of level afterwards. One of the points raised was the misinterpretation of the Batman mythos in the way it’s represented in the films.
The thing you have to know about American comic book characters like Batman and Superman is that they have been tackled by hundreds of writers, each one bringing credibility or faults, and putting in their own two cents on what they feel Batman is. The lore is not really a singular consciousness with a grounded and upheld canon, aside from a few things. Those few things are crucial, yes, but it’s more an unspoken agreement rather than a contract. What I learned many years ago is that Batman belongs to culture, and everyone has their own interpretation of what he should be, what his art style should be akin to, and how Gotham should look. I’ll be perfectly honest; I’ve never been a fan of the camp state the character had been stuck in throughout the Silver Age of Comics as well as the 60s TV series. Getting colloquial for a second, just for the record, Adam West is epic. Besides, while I personally don’t care for the show, that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate or respect it.
However, thanks to the efforts of Frank Miller (before he became a misogynist hack); Batman: The Dark Knight Returns chronicled a long-retired Batman returning to the fight in an even more dystopian and corrupt Gotham City. Stories like this coupled with the Tim Burton films helped push the idea of Batman being a more serious character to the public. The Burton films are inaccurate to the source material in many ways, most notably showing Batman kill thugs. However, in the defense of the Burton films, while not entirely true to the comics, they were aesthetically fantastic, and offered a well-deserved sense of gravitas for the character and legend on the big screen. Like numerous novels and other forms of literature in the past, people have to understand that film is a different medium, and therefore a different beast altogether, where changes have to be made. Did you expect Hollywood to get it right immediately out of the gate?
In the case of the Nolan films, he wanted to ground his adaptation to a greater degree of realism than had been done before, at least for live-action. The idea behind the Nolan trilogy (The Dark Knight Rises being a few months from release at the time of this review) is to make Batman seem like a palpable individual who could exist in our own world, which works from a dynamic standpoint as well as the idea behind Batman in the first place. The point of the character is that he has no superhuman traits; he has to rely on his physical and mental capabilities. Therefore, in a cinematic adaptation, it’s not only smart, but preferred by many a fan to go in this direction. Not only that, but Christopher Nolan is one of the greater filmmakers in the modern industry in both writing and directing respects. On top of that, David S. Goyer (an avid comic book fan) helped write the story with Nolan and his brother Jonathan, instilling elements from Batman: Year One, and other popular stories, Batman Begins was not only extremely faithful, but also fresh and unexpected considering the new take.
In the case of The Dark Knight, since the origin story is out of the way, the film then progresses with the exploits of the mob, The Joker, and a subplot with Harvey Dent A.K.A. Two-Face, taking inspiration from Batman: The Long Halloween which also made the mob a antagonizing force and harbinger for later catastrophes within the narrative. With The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is the next major antagonist. While he doesn’t seem to have the Venom steroid in this adaptation due to Nolan’s established universe, from what I can see there is a definite Knightfall storyline vibe, in which Bane systematically weakens and hinders Batman by causing an Arkham Asylum breakout and confronts Batman in the aftermath, catching him at his most vulnerable and breaking The Dark Knight himself. Fanaticism aside, my ultimate point is that despite this more lifelike representation of the material, it is the most accurate interpretation to date, and keeps a lot of the original spirit in spite of well, considerably minor changes made to fit the limitations of this particular version. Changes are no new thing.
Before anyone lynches me for not bringing it up, yes I do love the Animated Series to death. I love the entirety of the DC Animated Universe (minus Static Shock and The Zeta Project) in fact. However, while I feel that the show is the most faithful in the most raw and literal sense and Mark Hamill is my favorite Joker to date, it is still bound by the limitations of being a children’s television program. Do not misunderstand me, Batman: The Animated Series was very dark and mature for what it was and they found some very clever ways to get around things such as The Joker not being able to kill anyone. As it stands though, if you are to take anything from this, it is that Batman means something to anyone, but can easily mean something different to anyone else. He is only as good as those who stand to represent him, namely you and me, or maybe neither.
No comments:
Post a Comment