The Return of ‘Batman Returns’

Much like it was on the tenth anniversary of The Dark Knight, it’s also the 25th anniversary of Batman Returns! Give or take a year that is. It’s a movie I’ve definitely seen enough to know by heart, but not one that I really have ever given great thought to, at least enough to analyze in-depth in an article or essay. It’s just kind of always been about Tim Burton’s gothic wankery, to my mind. But I found a really cool analysis on that made me look at it from another angle. I don’t think Tim gave it one iota of this level of thought, and mainly just made choices out of instinct or from the hip based on whatever felt right to him at the time; but nonetheless, check it out here, then come back for my thoughts!

For those who don’t want to click:
I could dwell on many aspects this movie – the epic music, the splendid gothic/brutalist aesthetic of Gotham (a character in itself), the attention to details, the perfect cast, etc – but I would like to share a few thoughts about one of the themes underlying the movie, that I found particularly well treated. Tim Burton proposes a personal interpretation of the comic book characters of Bruce, Selina and Oswald, in order to address a common denominator between them: they are all acting like disoriented children entrapped in grown-up bodies.

Roger Ebert gave a mixed but interesting review of the movie. His point was that Tim Burton’s vision did not fit into Batman’s material. While he makes compelling points, I share Tim Burton’s opposite view. According to him, the acceptable answer to the question “Why do grown-ups dress like freaks and fight each other at night?” is “Because they are dysfunctional adults shattered by destructive childhoods”.

Penguin
Roger Ebert felt pity towards the Penguin. But I assume this is precisely how Tim Burton intended us to feel about him. Penguin is not really scary, apart from his look. He is tragic and pathetic (likewise his death). He is an abandoned kid in a deformed body, traumatized by the fact that his parents cast him away because of his physical traits.

Oswald never connected emotionally or physically with anyone while he grew up in the sewers, without any love or educational benchmarks. He never reached any sort of maturity (his weapons are funny umbrellas, he rides a giant bath duck, he has a toy car to control the Batmobile, he commands rocket launcher penguins…). He thus grew up to be a violent, capricious, impulsive and sexually awkward adult. He seems exclusively driven by the search of the comfort of feeling loved and accepted. This is the promise to him made by Max Shreck (the embodiment of adulthood, controlling, deceitful, cynical) in order to manipulate him. As Penguins says it, “It’s not about power. It’s about reaching out to people, touching people, groping them”. Penguin craves for the attention and affection that he lacked (which he also mixes weirdly with his adult sexual impulses).

When Penguin eventually fails to keep up with the political narrative conceived by Max Shreck (for nobody was genuinely interested in understanding him or in connecting with him; the public only wanted a feel good story about a goofy freak), his only response is radical, impulsive and immature: he reactivates his initial plan, which is to make adults suffer because, in his experience, they are all hopeless jerks and awful parents (interestingly, Max initially gained Penguin’s respect when he was willing to sacrifice himself for his son).

I like how Penguin eventually and unavoidably gives up his quest to fit in the adult world (with a nice twisted nod to Elephant Man “I am not a human being, I am an animal”) because he has been damaged to a point of no return and because the adult world is unable/unwilling to heal his wounds.

Catwoman
We don’t know much about Selina’s childhood, but there are hints of abuses, notably visual hints, e.g. when she paints her dollhouse’s bedroom in black. We know this: her mother is invasive; her first act as Catwoman is against a rapist and she blames the assaulted woman for being consenting, as if she was expressing her own guilt for having been a victim of men. Selina also appears sexually inhibited, until she starts putting on the mask and unleashing her sensuality. She has no clear plans aside from fighting patriarchy. She views all men as macho abusers: the machos in chief being Shreck (for the real world) and Batman (for the underground, fantasy world).

But in the meantime, Selina seems lost and conflicted throughout the movie. Because of her childhood, she seems unable to genuinely express herself and to open sincerely to other people. She has to put on the mask to feel accomplished and empowered. But she also realizes that her conduct leads to a dead-end (she eventually decides to just shoot Max Shreck in plain sight). She is a fascinating character and Michelle Pfeiffer is spectacular in this role. Fragile, powerful, emotional, sensual, she nailed the complexity of the character.

And as much as everyone complained about Schumacher putting nipples on the batsuit, Catwoman’s strong S&M overtones are an appeal to Bruce Wayne’s ultimate fantasy. He wants rough cosplay. He wants a psycho girlfriend with leather and as many scars as he has. Batman Returns is Burton taking a look at the Batman, asking “What does this psycho want” and then giving it to him. It’s a far-fetched Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein story, but it’s so very far fetched, you have to admire it.

Batman
Tim Burton’s Bruce never really grew up since he witnessed the slaughter of his parents: he is a kid with simple answers. There are the goodies and the baddies. Everything can be solved with a bat-punch in the mouth. Besides, he finds it fun to fight the baddies, using his bat-gadgets, like a kid playing with his toys. He does not fight with rage: he burns alive and blows up guys with a smirk on his face, as if there were no consequences. I like how Tim Burton gives many hints of Bruce’s childish attitude. For instance, he always takes the slide to the batcave, whereas Alfred, the adult, takes the stairs. Bruce also remains naïve like a child when he buys Shreck’s narrative about Oswald, although he does not trust Max as a businessman.

By showing Batman’s immaturity and his psycho side, Tim Burton addresses the legitimate issue that Bruce could have done much more for crime fighting with all his money, network and influence, but he chose to suit up with a Zorro cape and kick ass during the night. However, throughout the story, Batman’s violence has little to no positive impact on events: at the end of the day, he is just giving way to his primitive thirst for violence and legitimizing it by being on the good side of the fence. Ironically, Bruce eventually defeats Shreck’s plan without violence and without his mask on: he only uses a disk and hacks public speakers.

Conclusion
I view the ballroom scene (with Super Freak by Rick James as a musical background) as the key to Tim Burton’s point. Bruce and Selina are unable to fit in. Selina asks for how long they will have to wear their masks. But it is obvious she is not talking only about the cat or the bat masks. She is talking about their social masks. For how long will they have to pretend to be okay, to act like they know what they are doing and like they found their place in the adult world. This is why Bruce and Selina connected so immediately when they met. Keeping in mind that this inability is the result of their childhood traumas, the scene is heartbreaking.

Penguin, Catwoman and Batman are not villains and heroes. They are broken kids, shaken by nightmarish childhoods, who turned into dysfunctional adults escaping in a fantasy world, unable to cope with their traumas. As the Penguin says, “it is all a bad dream”. The period during which the action takes place, Christmas, a kid and family-friendly holiday, makes their suffering even more acute and allows the events to unfold.

What does Batman Returns say about us? The fact that we are engaged in this story is telling. Not unlike the characters, the inner child in ourselves likes to fantasize about the violent comic book world, because it is simple and fair: bad guys die; good guys triumph. The reality we face when we open the news is actually much tougher, and much more complicated and disconcerting.
Batman Returns may not be the best comic book adaptation or even the best Batman movie (although it is my favorite). But thematically, it is one of the most powerful superhero movies, up there with Nolan’s TDK and Raimi’s Spiderman 2.

I have to admit; I’ve never really thought about it in quite that way, but now that he’s said it, I think that was indeed what Burton was sort of going for, and more to the point, perhaps the CORRECT way Batman should be treated. Too often, writers get this notion that Batman has to be the baddest badass who ever lived, but then take it too far, by having it extend to the character of Bruce Wayne, and miswrite him. I’m thinking along the lines of Kevin Smith positing that Bruce is this master of sexual conquest (Kevin is hung up on sex though); and writers like Tom King making him too much of an indulgent rich twit, an interpretation I hate. See his most recent run on the title, where in “The War of Jokes and Riddles,” he has Brucie force Alfred to cook a 14-course dinner for Riddler and Joker, and then offers one of them $1 billion dollars for… reasons? Personally, I hate that crap, and it seems kind of overly influenced by King’s own privileged lifestyle (I like King well enough, but every other sentence is “Back when I worked for the CIA…”). Wouldn’t a 14-course dinner make your stomach explode?

I just don’t see Bruce being someone who indulges so much in the comforts his luxury affords. He puts his money to use in his war on crime, but I don’t buy that he pampers himself with excess beyond just keeping up appearances. If he lives only the high life, how we would he be able to stand going on stake-outs in alleyways and jumping into the sewer? This also applies to his sexual endeavors; though I wouldn’t go so far as to say he would be an inexperienced virgin, I think he would take a more childish viewpoint to sex. He sublimates these urges and channels them into his quest for justice. Becoming sexually experienced would not further his naive goals to eliminate all crime, so he wouldn’t bother with it.

More to the point, writers often want to have their cake and eat it too; they want the character of BRUCE to be too cool for school, but they’re also the first to spout off that tired line, “Batman is the real face; Bruce is the mask!” I think it’s somewhere in between. It falls apart when they want him to be somewhat psychologically healthy, while simultaneously having Wayne be purely a disguise for him and act like a complete buffoon, a la Christian Bale’s portrayal. To me, either go all in with him being nuts- as many do!- or treat him as more of a well-adjusted guy. Like in the Animated Series or the Bronze Age titles, where he sort of just considers being Batman a night job to supplement his daytime job at Wayne Enterprises, and “Bruce” is a pretty no-nonsense dude who uses his resources to help the city, like with the Wayne Foundation. In other words, he helps Gotham with both his identities instead of merely marking time with one of them.

When they go too far in the direction of having the Bruce Wayne identity be merely a prop he uses to distract people, it makes no sense that he would, as Wayne, lead a decadent lifestyle. I don’t know, it’s a personal irk, but I see writers do this a LOT. Have him wear that ugly brown suit with the mustard yellow shirt, he doesn’t care about the latest fashions, his war on crime leaves no room for material indulgence! And I don’t buy for a second that he’d do this as an elaborate plan to “throw people off the scent.” Yeah, right. It calls MORE attention to him, already an international celebrity, if he acts like a loopy headcase. If you somehow notice that both Batman and Bruce have identical lantern jaws, you aren’t going to give up on that notion just because Wayne acts like a pompous jackass. This isn’t Dan Slott’s Spider-Man!

But in Batman Returns– I totally can buy their interpretation. In hindsight, yeah, Michael Keaton’s Bruce using the super-happy-fun slide into the bat cave was a bit wacky, but totally in tune for someone who was in an arrested state of childhood. This would explain the splurging for oversized toys, such as his batmobile and batplane, etc. Going even further, it’s sort of the only way I can kind of make sense of Bruce’s outsized behavior- playing it completely straight, such as King does, makes it look even more absurd and Bruce even less mentally well. It’s sort of like Michael Jackson never growing up, which Burton seems to also have a fascination with, as seen in Willy’s wonky behavior in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I think more people should take their cues from this interpretation and portray Bruce as the damaged, lost child that he probably is. Making him “cool” and as well-adjusted as, say Thomas Crown, never makes any sense, because let’s face it, a man who plays dress-up and has a cave full of trophies isn’t the most well-adjusted in the first place. In pointing this aspect out, it makes Bruce’s actions a bit more acceptable, and not just rich nitwit a step ahead of the rest of us because he’s rich. By making him more, dare I say pitiable, we make him more humanized and thus relatable. As a child doing this, it’s understandable; as an adult, it’s kind of pathetic, and we can’t see him as anything other than a completely broken and sad man, which Keaton portrayed better than anyone.

As for the villains, I totally prefer Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman to whatever nonsense they’ve had going in the comics for the last few years. I like how she’s damaged and downright psychotic (as opposed to the anti-hero they always try to make her), but a feminist who tries to own her sexuality and womanhood. This may be a very controversial statement, but I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in the Batman comics since about 2001 or so, which is, they’ve try to completely remove any hint of sexuality from Catwoman, when she has typically been portrayed as the epitome of the sexual character in the genre. I’m talking about Ed Brubaker’s run, where they gave her that hideous full body goggle suit and the short butch haircut, and she was never, ever “sexy.” Now, hear me out. What I took from this was that fake male feminists, such as Ed or Greg Rucka, seemed to really lean into this interpretation as if they were trying to “reclaim” Catwoman for female fans. But the thing is, you can be sexy without being exploitative at the same time; these are not mutually exclusive concepts. I always felt these interpretations of Catwoman were the male writers trying to earn brownie points by essentially removing all hint of Selina’s sensuality. And I think this is the complete wrong approach, if not a bit ignorant.

I’m reminded of the work of Gillian Flynn, and how every time she has a book come out, she faces criticism from people who are outraged that her female characters are not perfect Mary Sues who can do no wrong, a la Rey from Star Wars. And I find that viewpoint offensive, honestly. How “dare” she have a female character with flaws and foibles? It’s just reductive thinking. Gillian’s protagonists are usually strong-willed, but they’re also sometimes possessing of traits that make them less than perfect role models. But to me, that makes them more interesting and three-dimensional, and I become invested in the stories and relate to the characters so much more than I do to Catwoman in her mind-numbing exploits of the last decade plus. I like the interpretation of Selina in Batman Returns just about more than any other for reasons that have nothing to do with any prurient aspects, and I don’t see the BDSM fetish outfit or whatever as a mark against her; women can be kick-ass feminist role models without being completely sexless beings, the way the Batman writers would prefer! She reclaims her own sexuality without needing Ed Brubaker to do it for her by covering her up, puritan style.

And rounding out the merry trio is The Penguin. I think what was really fascinating, and I’m almost positive Burton himself said this, was that they tried to really make you feel sorry for Oswald and pity him by the end of the movie, while also making him completely irredeemable and disgusting. It’s easy to feel for a character when he’s humanized to the degree of one of Sam Raimi’s mildly silly Spider-Man villains, but to feel pity for him when he’s completely devoid of any goodness whatsoever? That’s harder! As someone said in the comments section above, he dies without ever really being “fixed” or redeemed in any way. I do feel sorry for Oswald because at the end of the day, he was never given any human love or compassion, and thus did not know how to behave or sublimate his bad urges. Although he was beyond even just a little evil, as he was implied to have abducted and eaten small children, you do get the sense that maybe he would have turned out differently if he was given any chance at all in life, instead of just being flushed down the toilet like a giant turd when he himself was a baby. I mean, he didn’t need to be such a perverted weirdo, but again, he was never taught right from wrong.

Something that never occurred to me until (I believe) an interview with Danny DeVito at the last anniversary revealed as such, but apparently, Oswald did not live in the sewers his entire life; according to Danny, Oswald indeed lived above ground in the traveling circus where he was known as a fellow “freak,” and in fact tracked down his parents years earlier than the movie implied. He no doubt murdered and ate them, but still. Danny was even given a painting drawn by Tim Burton to help him understand the character, which had a little deformed boy under the big top, and a caption that read: “My name is Jimmy; but everyone calls me the Hideous Penguin Boy.” Though Oswald did indeed want to slip his flipper into many a defenseless woman against her will, he was still a human being, and deserving of some level of compassion. So yeah, I felt bad when he died at the end, completely unloved and unmourned, and the little penguin pallbearers send him back into the icy depths from whence he came. In the words of Max Shreck, perhaps if his parents hadn’t 86’d him, he and Brucie mighta been bunkies in prep school! There was only a fine line between Batman and the villains, in other words.

Which brings us to the last point; besides the fact that the film’s theme is “the masks thwarted humans wear to hide their pain,” I have often, often heard the analogy made that the villains in BR are really facets of Batman’s own personality; his dual natures at war with each other, manifested in these grotesque creatures. Meaning everyone is someone he fears to be at heart: Penguin is the abandoned child; Catwoman is the lawless vigilante; even Shreck is the ruthless rich  businessman. Interestingly, he’s never really able to reconcile these conflicting sides of himself, and so he ends the movie alone, driving aimlessly with Alfred in the snow. I’d say, yeah, this interpretation is spot on, but it’s not exactly novel, and it’s something they did in every single movie. Putting aside Nicholson’s Joker, in Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, the villains fulfill much the same roles as halves of his psyche.

In Forever, Riddler hates Bruce Wayne, and Two-Face hates Batman, as he struggles with the ultimate question (“Who am I?”) and his two opposing identities. Kind of on-the-nose, but it fits. The script links up to Returns, because in this installment, Wayne actually does try to reconcile the disparate parts of himself to become whole. That’s why the love interest, Dr. Chase Meridian, is a psychiatrist, and why the title is what it is. He decides at the end to not see being Batman as a curse, but more of a choice. When he does that, he’s free, and can be Batman forever. Thus, he can begin to heal. Bruce starts to let people in, and by accepting Chase’s love and taking on Dick as Robin, he’s learning to let go of the past and become a more complete individual with agency and personhood. He defeats Riddler and Two Face by accepting himself and his duality where they are unable to, and slowly starts on the road back.

This carries over into Batman & Robin, where Bruce is worried he’s closing himself off to emotion in the wake of Alfred dying; that’s personified in the villain being Mr. Freeze, a villain “dead” to emotion. Batman has to find the ability to open up and trust people (Robin and Batgirl), in order to reach Freeze and ask him for the cure to Alfred’s disease at the film’s end. He has to be the bigger man and not be the “cold” one, so to speak, by accepting help and showing humanity. It really is kind of a shame the movie wasn’t better, because that’s a thrilling conflict: a man who has closed himself off to emotion, versus a man who literally can feel no emotion. I think, Arnold’s oblivious interpretation aside, that the point was that Freeze was not devoid of any human feeling, but rather, chose to claim he was dead to emotions to handle his pain. His heart was not frozen solid; he was a man who felt TOO MUCH, and had to be a glacial, unforgiving block of ice in order to keep his sanity. Gee, who does that remind us of? When Batman reaches out to Freeze, there is a thawing and an understanding between the two men, as Bruce has reached the real person underneath Freeze’s armor who is still “buried beneath the snow,” and perhaps found his own true self again as well.

If taken in that regard, the original four Batman movies, from Batman 1989 to Batman & Robin, really are in the same continuity, and form a pretty cohesive character arc for one, singular character. In Batman he’s pretty much completely alone, and when he kills the Joker at the end, Bruce has avenged his parents, but at what cost? In Returns, he’s even more isolated and adrift than before, disconnected from humanity and losing his soul to his self-created monster, seemingly murdering random goons with abandon. He tries to connect with Selina, but when he can’t save her, faces the abyss absolutely. Well, there was pretty much only one direction he could go after that, and that was to try to heal himself and find psychological balance, so this can explain away the lighter, more sunny tone of the Schumacher movies. This lightening is evident in the change in actors as well, no matter how much Keaton would’ve enhanced the films by portraying the character in all four installments.

By the time Batman & Robin rolls around, goofy day-glo neon sets aside, Bruce is upbeat, more humorous, positively grinning as George Clooney, which we can only take as evidence that he’s a lot more stable. I understand I’m probably reading into more than there actually is in these films, but look at the undeniable plot elements that support this theory. Contrasted with how he started out with no one, he now has Robin and Batgirl in his life. In believing in the goodness of justice over vengeance, Bruce not only finds common ground with Freeze to save Alfred; he is able to build a new surrogate family for himself. Where he was once the ultimate loner, the abandoned child in Returns, he’s now a well-rounded and happy person, who has formed a new family. Combined with being Batman as a choice that positively enlivens him and brings him joy, Bruce has emerged from the darkness and is no longer controlled by fate but a master of his own destiny, and thus his story is complete. It’s a really beautiful character arc, if one chooses to view it that way. I get that we want him to be eternally dark and tormented, but in the context of these four films, it’s a realistic hero’s journey and a satisfying conclusion.

Now, I don’t think for a second the filmmakers exactly planned it like that, but still, there’s enough evidence in the story to support the notion that that’s what they were going for. I think there was perhaps room for one more movie where he’s tested for a final time by facing his greatest fears- and what better villain to personify this, than the Scarecrow? But that’s a debate for another day. Suffice it to say, when they finally used ol’ Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins, I thought it was a bit of a misstep, as the particular theme Crane embodies (conquering your fear) is one you would use for the end of a story arc, not the first chapter. But, the villains always seem to be used as literal manifestations of some problem Batman himself is dealing with no matter what movie they’re in, so there’s definitely always a lot of thought put into it.

Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now; I’d love to coalesce my ideas into concrete thoughts even more, but I think I’ve bored you long enough with my waxing about this one aspect of the original Batman flicks, let alone dissecting the entire saga! I have indeed thought more about The Dark Knight too, and have a different interpretation of it upon reflection a decade later that I never considered before, but I’ll touch on that at a later date. This coming week, be here for Part 3 of Greatest Covers of All Time. We’re in the home stretch!