Batman (1989)

Batman (1989)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Jack Palance, Billy Dee Williams, Michael Gough

Well, as I write this review, I’m right in the middle of Summer 2016 and I’ve decided to focus my attention as a movie buff on mind blowing Summer Blockbusters. You know, big budget, loud movies released in Summer time. Inevitably, my mind went to Tim Burton’s Batman (1989), one of the biggest Summer Blockbusters ever; period. Now every time I think about Tim Burton’s two Bat films, Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992) I go into this mental struggle as to which one is the better of the two. I ultimately end up using the argument that parents use to refer to their children “I love them both for different reasons”. A lot of kids growing up nowadays don’t realize the kind of phenomenon that the release of Burton’s Batman (1989) meant to the world. I mean this movie quite literally took over the world! “Bat fever” took over the nation, the bat insignia was on everything from t-shirts to sneakers and Prince’s monster hit “Batdance” played nonstop over the airwaves! There was video games, comic books, costumes, anything and everything based on the movie. I mean, I remember people getting hair cuts that resembled the bat insignia! It was crazy, but of course, it all came as a result of Tim Burton’s fantastic movie, which I must say still retains that sense of spectacle even by today’s standards.

The story revolves around Jack Napier, a gangster who is transformed into a freak when Batman throws him into a vat of toxic chemicals. The chemicals turn Napier’s skin white and leave a permanent smile on his face. From then on, he calls himself “The Joker”, to him life is now one big bad joke. He wants to take over Gotham by making a mockery of them first; he wants to kill Gothamites with a chemical that kills them from a laughing fit and leaves their corpses with a big fat grin on their face. What thrusts this films villain is his hatred of society, to him society is a joke meant to be laughed at and squashed like a cockroach. He uses society’s greed against them, criticizing a society that revolves around the love for money. To him their lives are “failed and useless” and they have to be relived of them. Moving the story forward is the classic good guy mirrors the bad guy motif, one created the other and vice versa. It’s the classic “freak vs. freak” storyline culminating on top of a gothic church, with a duke out between the two freaks. In the balance is the life of Vicky Vale, Bruce Wayne’s love interest and the life of all Gothamites.

At the center of this film’s success is director Tim Burton. Having directed two back to back box office winners: Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985) and Beetlejuice (1986) he was chosen to direct the new Batman film; which had been under development at Warner. Two comedies like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure and Bettlejuice don’t exactly scream “dark gothic comic book film!”, but we need to remember that Burton was gothic and dark from the very beginning when he was making short films like Vincent (1982) and Frankenweenie (1984). So in many ways, he was the perfect choice for taking on the rigors of directing a film that takes place in the ultra gothic Gotham City. Actually, Burton embraced that Gothic element of the comic books better than any director before or after him. Nobody has gone as gothic as he did, which is what sets his bat films apart from all others. Yet, on hindsight, and considering what the producers wanted to achieve with this movie, I think they chose him precisely because of the comedy. You see, the producers of this here film wanted to make a Bat film that was closer in tone to the television show, so I’m thinking that when they hired Burton, they thought they’d get this guy who’d make a campy film, a la the television show. What they got instead was the soon to be master of goth.

Having Burton as a director actually saved the film from campiness hell because producers were always pushing for the campy sense of humor from the television show because they thought that’s what people remembered about Batman, they thought that this is what people would want and would expect from a Batman movie. Yet for his take on Batman, Burton went for the darkness seen in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, a graphic novel that has gone on to influence almost every single Batman film to date. Hell, we even see images from Miller’s seminal graphic novel in Zack Snyder’s Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)! With his graphic novel, Miller stepped away from the campy vibe of the show and what DC had done with the character up to then to present us with a dark, aged, pissed off Batman. Burton latched on to that rather than the campiness and audiences loved it. Gotham City streets looked shadowy and dangerous, not colorful.

But producers didn’t give up on the campy television show vibe. The finally found a director who gave them exactly what they wanted with Joel Schumacher, who made the franchise killing Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997). The death of that first run of Bat films proved that Burton had made the right choice in stepping way from the campiness. Without Burton’s creative force behind the films, they became exactly what the producers wanted: silly children’s films. We have to remember producers are more interested in marketing capabilities of a film, the deals, the toys, the cartoon shows, the action figures, which is probably why a lot of companies where upset at Burton’s film, they felt it was too adult to create merchandising for kids; though most companies later gave in due to the films gargantuan success.

After the films success, it was Bat everything! And it’s true, when we look at Burton’s Bat films, there’s something very adult about these movies, the themes, the dialog. In Batman, Bruce Wayne and Vicky Vale have sex, Jack Napier was screwing Grissom’s girl, there’s tons of double entendre, more so on Batman Returns (1992) .Yes my friends, this Batman film was a strange bird, though it seemed tailor made for kids, Burton gave it an adult twist. Sure Batman has its origins in comic books, which for the longest time were associated as something strictly for children, but to everyone’s surprise Burton’s film was dark, “adult” and sexual. What makes it a strange bird is that it didn’t lose that fun comic book vibe either. We still had the bat mobile, the bat jet and the utility belts! Usually films that defy their target audience end up as huge failures (The Monster Squad for example), but Batman walked that fine line and came out winning in the end.

The film has a violent edge to it, its heroes and villains were not squeaky clean, in fact, they were on the edge of insanity! For example, The Joker electrocutes someone to the point where he becomes a charred skeleton. Characters aren’t afraid to kill and be insane, I mean, villains like Nicholson’s The Joker are rarely seen in films these days, today studios prefer to be extremely politically correct, which is just a bore when it comes to a big bad villain. Back in the 80’s villains were over the top, sometimes taking over a film as was the case with Batman. It’s Nicholson who steals the show, who gives the stand out performance. Nicholson said on many occasions that this was his favorite character, and one can clearly see he is having a blast playing the clown prince of crime. It’s so refreshing to go back and see these films, villains feel more intense, more evil. Even Batman was a little more intense than expected, he actually tells The Joker that he wants to kill him; something that goes against what Batman is all about in the comics. Batman doesn’t kill villains, he brings them to justice, he sends them to Arkham Asylum. He doesn't end up killing The Joker, but you could hear it in his voice that that was his intended to do and he would've done it, had the Joker not done it himself.

Actually, many comic book fans were enraged with this film, starting with the choice to cast Michael Keaton as Batman. I have to admit, like most, at first I agreed. How the hell was Beetlejuice going to play Batman? The two didn’t go together in my mind. But then I saw the film and boom, Keaton is Batman, there was no doubt about it. Now, most people agree that Keaton’s take is the best. I screened both of these films (I screen movies at a local dive bar) and to my surprise, a lot of people came to see both of them. At a certain point in the night one guy said “that’s the real Batman!” We can’t forget Danny Elfman’s amazing music, which is just harrowing. It honestly is a huge part of this films success. We can’t leave out the art direction which is so gothic, so grimy! By the way, the art direction won the film an academy award! Who would’ve thought it right? A comic book movie winning an Oscar!

Since then, comic book films have come a long way. Today we get a comic book film every few months, but back then? A good comic book film was a rare thing! And we have two great films to thank for this, Richard Donner’s Superman (1978) and Tim Burton’s Batman (1989). Both of these films were two giant steps for comic book films! They showed that comic book movies, when done right, had huge money making potential. People embraced them. Between these two important comic book films, it was Batman (1989) that elevated things to another level, it was simply put an incredibly lucrative hit, the biggest comic book movie of its time, an incredible success all across the world. The phenomenon took a life of its own, but we need to remember that the phenomenon came as a result of an amazing movie, which remains, in the eyes of this comic book fan, a timeless film worth revisiting  time and time again.  

Rating:  5 out of 5

Contempt (1963)

Title: Contempt (1963)

Director: Jean Luc Godard

Cast: Brigitte Bardot, Michel Picolli, Jack Palance, Fritz Lang

Review:

My first experience with a Godard film was a film called Week End (1967) and I’ll tell you right now it wasn’t the easiest movie to watch. For me, Week End was a very difficult film to follow, but I watched it all the way through because it was Godard, and he’s one of the greats. Truth be told Week End wasn’t exactly what I’d call an enjoyable experience, I mean I appreciated the films artistic sensibilities, but it just wasn’t for me, I wasn’t aware of it at the time, but there was a reason for Week End's unorthodox nature, it was part of the French New Wave of which Godard was a part of, and the French New Wave was all about breaking the rules of traditional filmmaking. I did know one thing though, I wanted to see more Godard! I knew there were other films in his repertoire that simply had to be watched, Breathless (1960) being one of them and Contempt being the other. Contempt is considered to be Godards most linear film, thought still attempting to play with the rules of filmmaking, how was it? 

Bardot (left) and Godard analyze a scene

   

Contempt was part of the ‘New Wave’ of French Cinema that emerged during the 50’s and 60’s. These were a bunch of new filmmakers who were influenced by Italian Neorealism; The Italian Neorealism from the 30’s and 40’s was a filmmaking movement which produced films made in real locations with natural lighting and real people, not classically trained actors, but real people acting out a role. One of the best examples of Italian Neorealism I can think of is The Bicycle Thieves (1948), a film shot in the streets of Italy, with real people. It tells the story of a working class hero and his son trying to survive in the middle of harsh economic times; a film that will no doubt pull your heart strings. So Godard comes from the New Wave of French filmmakers who were influenced by this Italian Neorealism and the classic Hollywood films of the 30’s and 40’s. What this New Wave of French filmmaking attempted to do was break with the rules of traditional filmmaking; they wanted to set new standards in filmmaking. This meant they broke with the traditional way of telling a story, the linear form, the three act structure. For filmmakers of this new wave, films had to be symbolic, non-linear, playing around with and changing as many film techniques as they could. It was as if cinema was stretching its muscles. For example, in Contempt the films credits are spoken, not shown on the screen! Little details like these let us know that these ‘New Wave’ filmmakers where really shooting for something different in cinema.

Contempt is a film that can be seen in two ways, on the one hand the film can be seen as an exploration of the nature of cinema, and on the other as a film about a deteriorating relationship. First, let’s analyze the cinematic themes explored in Contempt. As I watched this film, I couldn’t help and think that this was Godard’s answer to Fellini’s 8 ½ (1963) which strangely enough was being made around the same time as Contempt was. I did a little research and discovered that Fellini’s film was released a few months before this one, so I’m not entirely off when I say that what we had here were two masterful filmmakers tackling the same subject matter at the same time. Both films centered around filmmaking, in fact once you start seeing Contempt you know it’s about film because it starts with a camera, filming an actress as she walks down the road. The camera they are filming the actress suddenly turns to us, and looks at us with its giant Cycloptic eye, an image that quickly suggests “this movie is about film!” So right from the get go, Godard exposes this films metafictional nature. Same as with Fellini’s 8 ½, in Contempt a film is being produced, the filmmakers are attempting to adapt Homer’s The Odyssey. The problem comes when the producer isn’t happy with the film that the director is making, a common problem in Hollywood. The director of the film is none other than real life director Fritz Lang, who by the way plays himself in the film. Again, this is another attempt at breaking the rules of filmmaking; we have a real life personality intruding in the fiction of the film.

The Beauty of Bardot

Going further into analyzing the nature of filmmaking we meet Jack Palance who plays the character of Jeremy Prokosch, the producer behind the film they are attempting to make. This is the most villainous character I’ve ever seen Palance play, he is so acid, so full of himself, so self centered. It is quite obvious from the first moment we meet him that he is an imposing and intimidating figure who only cares about what he wants. He sees himself as a God, in fact, this is the sole reason why he wants to make The Odyssey because as he puts it he understands the gods and knows exactly how they feel. Was this character Godard’s way of personifying the typical Hollywood producer? Was this they way he saw them? By the way, Contempt was the first and only Godard film to be produced by American producers, so I guess that could say a thing or two about how he felt about them. The producers behind Contempt are the ones responsible for all the nudity in the film, they needed a selling point in a film they cared nothing for, in fact, the producers of Contempt actually hated the film! So Godard had to go back and shoot the opening sequences of Camille (Bardot) and Paul (Piccoli) talking naked on the bed. By the way, this might have been a scene which Godard was forced to film, but I have to give the guy credit for doing it in such a beautiful and artful way. Of course, Bardot’s blinding beauty adds a lot to this picture as well. She was such a bomb shell during her days! Wowzers! She shot straight to my ‘favorite bombshells ever’ list.

The difference between Fellini’s 8 ½ and Contempt is that while Fellini’s film tells it’s story from the point of view of a films director, Contempt tells it from the point of view of the films writer. In Contempt we meet Paul Javal, a writer of cheap crime novels. Prokosch, the egotistical producer calls upon Paul writing skills so that he re-works the script for the film. Prokosch feels cheated by the film that Lang has shot; so he hurls the film can across the theater like a Roman discus thrower, unhappy with the final results. In a desperate move he asks Paul to rewrite the script, according to him he wants to infuse the film with poetry and spectacle. Paul accepts, but only because he needs the money, not because he really wants to write it, which speaks volumes about how a lot of films get made. Paul accepts because he wants to finish paying for his little apartment, so he and his wife can be happy.

Which brings me to the other situation this film explores; the couple that is crumbling apart. The film starts with both of them promising undying love to each other, but one event starts setting them apart. The film goes into this extended sequence in which we follow the couple into their apartment, doing their every day chores, bathing, cooking, undressing, dressing, as they talk about what it is that is bringing them apart. Why is Camille suddenly so upset? Does she no longer love Paul? Why does she suddenly hold nothing but Contempt for him? This part of the film I found so very interesting because the dialog simply rings true. I’ve personally been through conversations exactly like the one that I saw on this film, so it was amazing to see Godard painting such real life situations on the screen, so truthfully, so vividly. It is said that this film was a love letter to Godard’s wife, which is kind of funny because 8 ½ can also be seen in the same way! Ultimately, and the heart of the film is Paul trying to find out why Camille has fallen out of love for him. It’s that kind of situation where a woman knows exactly why she no longer loves you, but she simply won’t tell you, many of us have been there haven’t we? The film portrays both sides of the tale, the male side and the female side, which is something that Godard loved to explore, both sides of the tale. He never really takes sides I think; to me the film simply shows us the mistakes they both make so we can see where they both failed.  

In the end, I loved this film not only because it explores the nature of filmmaking and relationships, but also because it is such a beautiful film to look at. Godard plays around with the colors a lot, and on top of that, the film was shot in such beautiful locations! Capri, Italy, Rome…the film has a breathtaking look to it, which kind of clashes with all the negative drama going around the characters. Contempt is definitely a must watch, a classic film you shouldn’t pass up, highest possible recommendation my friends, highest possible recommendation.

Rating: 5 out of 5