Batman Returns - The definitive Psycho-Drama

Rating: 10/10 (29 March 2005)

This is my review of Batman Returns that I recently posted on the board for the film: It's easily the best Batman movie and one of the best things Burton's made, as well as clearly being focused on Batman whether you like the way it does this or not. It has a very interesting structure, and I love the way the main theme of masks is cleverly woven from the first frame onward through the characters and all plot points (the public facade and the reality underneath). It's a very thematically padded and interesting film, as well as being a great modern era ode to German Expressionist film-making in its ability to communicate ideas visually.
As far as saying it's Burton and not Batman, that's utter rubbish. It's Burton's take on Batman, and that's no more or less valid than anybody else's as there is no definitive version of the character but only personal interpretation. If this was not the case, we would not have all these varying versions throughout the history of the character. I think Burton noted this himself when talking about adapting the material -- that comic book continuity was unsound and was constantly reinventing itself as far as the character. That seems to bother many purists (who, oddly, miss the point that the character has no single version to point to), but the freedom allowed Burton on this project is what makes it so special -- basically an artist given free reign, which I think should be applauded.
Like it or hate it, it's a rare commercial blockbuster that is clearly and deeply personal, and that seems to really rankle many -- i.e. it's not a typical, safe comic book movie as far as template but is instead something more artistic and bizarre therefore it's *beep* I truly think the film gets a bad rep just for being a Batman movie in various circles even though it's a superior work by Mr. Burton.
It's a great movie in my view and a great interpretation of Batman that in its runtime examines the character and makes definitive statements about him within its narrative outline, specifically in its final confrontations when considered with the rest of the film (both Batman/Penguin and Batman/Catwoman have personal duels at the end which give us payoff in regards to the psychology of the titular character). And as far as there not being enough Batman, he's in the film a lot after the first thirty five minutes or so which are clearly dedicated to building up the other characters with this being important to the structuring of the film inherently and to the examination of the Batman/Wayne character under that structure. After the first half hour, it's very Bats heavy in its content and intent.
I think depression, though not delved into, was a part of it, if not the psychosis, as shown through their choice of origins for the character and the impetus for his nightly work. Obviously it was not delved into much at all beyond cause and effect, but it's easy to read that into it even within that surface context. As far as definitive interpretation? There is none, even when just considering Kane/Finger's era, which about says it all.
For my tastes, I like the depressed, psychotic Batman Burton gave us and think it's a logical idea. Not definitive, but certainly as valid as any other. And Burton certainly did play up the original grim vigilante theme, right down to the killing, that Kane/Finger started with themselves -- on a purely aesthetic basis such as that (and considering the rather blank nature of the character in regards to psychology at this point, mood, overall action and look are about the only important things to translate from those earliest of stories which I think Burton did rather masterfully), it was more based on Batman's early beginnings than most other stuff when looking at its overall noir presentation as far as both mood and character.
The Kane/Finger Batman, in simplest terms, was a lone vigilante that was soon revealed to be driven by the death of his parents --all of this can be said for Burton's Batman as well, with the main difference being that he was most interested in the psychology behind the actions of the main character (including the killing that is notably present in the two versions) rather than just the actions themselves as far as point a to point b narrative resolution.
I think it's largely forgotten in many comic story lines that the underlying basis for Batman's nightly jaunts is psychological imbalance -- both as far as the depression and the heavily weird/illogical/psycho way he chooses to deal with that, by dressing up as a bat of all things. If you portray this on film and want it to be taken seriously at all, I think the point has to be made that this is not a psychologically healthy character at all, otherwise you get camp. If you don't deal with the central idea being a character that acts out in the manner he does because of lacking mental health in much the same way as the villains he encounters -- it's obvious, but sometimes forgotten, that the basis of so many of these characters stems from their psychological traumas, and that Batman's the same when you contrast underlying motivations.
If Spider-Man's a soap, then Batman's a psycho-drama.