How Great Directors Have Left Their Mark on Batman, Introduction

 

Over the years my readers know that I’ve never truly liked the majority of comic book films I’ve seen. There are many reasons for this, some of which are personal to me but there’s one that as a critic that has only recently occurred to me.

When Martin Scorsese stated that Marvel Cinematic Universe isn’t filmmaking he was excoriating by comic books fans. There are some who actually blame the decline of films since the last Avengers film on that which is ludicrous in many ways, not the least of which is I just can’t believe that there’s much overlap between the audiences of The Irishman and Ant-Man Quantumania.

The thing is Scorsese was right in what he considers the element of cinema and it’s not even something that dozens of other critics or indeed even fans of the movies haven’t said over the years. And it’s not the argument that these movies are formulaic: anyone who seen the last two films in Mad Max knows that there’s much to be seen in formula if its executed well. No the problem Scorsese has – and I doubt even the most sympathetic fan of comic book movies can argue – is that for every single movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they could just as easily have been directed by anyone for all the imprint they left on them.

Frankly no one should have been shocked that Chloe Zhao was not able to make any impression of the work she’d done in Nomadland on Shang-Chi. There was nothing of the man who’d directed so many Shakespearean masterpieces in Kenneth Branagh’s direction of Thor and none of the nuance he showed in Belfast. Ryan Coogler is a brilliant director and I don’t deny the significance of Black Panther but there was nothing of the subtlety of Fruitvale Station or the emotional intensity of Creed. And whatever imprint Joss Whedon made on The Avengers was solely because of the writing; when it came to directing I saw neither the subtlety in Much Ado About Nothing or the splashy fun of Cabin in the Woods.

And this has been true of comic book characters that are directly connected to the MCU, at least not yet. Sam Raimi’s three Spider-Man movies are all brilliant exercises in styles but they are tonal outliers compared to every other film he did before and since. Indeed, there’s an argument that in his low-budget movie Darkman (a film, in hindsight, that was nearly a quarter-century ahead of its time) is not only far more a Sam Raimi film than any of the Spiderman films but honestly a better superhero film in principle and execution. (It did inspire two straight to video sequels in the 1990s.) Marc Webb is a brilliant comic director and writer but was there anything of the person who gave us 500 Days of Summer in either Amazing Spider-Man film?

This happens less frequently in DC movies over the years. Richard Donner was able to leave his mark on the first two Superman films and even I can’t deny Zach Snyder does have a talent for this even if I don’t agree with his results. But for all the success of Wonder Woman if you didn’t know Patty Jenkins directed it, would you have known? I’ll grant you the majority of Jenkins’s work, aside from Monster has been in television but I’ve seen some of her work, particularly the undervalued limited series I Am The Night which in her two episode has more subtlety and flair than either of her movies for DC.  As for the other movies in the DC Universe, tell me seriously if I’d told you the same man who directed The Conjuring and Insidious also directed Aquaman and you didn’t already know that, would you have known? I didn’t until just now.

This is not, for the record, something that happens with other movies in other franchises. Denis Villeneuve left an imprint in Blade Runner:2049 which I did recognize while it was similar to Ridley Scott’s original. Scott has a different version for Alien then James Cameron did and both worked to a different extent and the most recent trilogy of Halloween films – especially the first – did allow for styles that I recognized of David Gordon Green that was both different from and similar to John Carpenter’s original. It’s even true for directors who take on completely different franchises and have worked in the MCU: Kenneth Branagh’s Hercule Poirot mysteries are Branagh films in a way Thor isn’t even though he directed them. Even the most recent James Bond films have allowed for some great directorial creativity -  Skyfall is considered one of the greatest Bond films ever made and that’s in large because Sam Mendes, who is a visionary director of the form was allowed free reign.

Only the comic book is so formulaic in not only its basic structure but what it can reliably tell in its plots that there is no room for any vision at all on the part of the director. This was, as I’ve said before, particularly true in the Marvel Cinematic Universe when the only real job of almost every film that wasn’t an Avengers movie, was to go in a set path with no real variation. Consequently the films might as well have been directed by anybody at all. And this has been the biggest problem with almost every single comic book franchise in history.

With one critical exception.

From the moment that Tim Burton unleashed the first Batman film on us thirty-five years ago directors have been able to do let their vision be freed on the big screen regardless of the formula of the comic book. It doesn’t make them all masterpieces by any means, quite a few of the films then and now have failed critically and financially.

But the difference between, say, the failure of Batman & Robin and Shazam: Fury of the Gods is radically different. Batman & Robin is no doubt the worst movie not just in the history of comic books (though I’m not convinced it’s as horrible as so many believe) but there’s imagination and fun in it. There’s a director who is devoted to a vision, however ludicrous or deeply flawed it may be, and is willing to let it fail on that merits. You can say many things about this film (and even the people who starred in it have). But it’s bad because it’s a horrible idea and badly executed. Fury of the Gods is a bad film because its unoriginal, formulaic and not even bothering to be that interesting. It’s dull, which is the worst thing you can call any film. Batman & Robin might no doubt fall into the so bad its almost good category, no one will say that of Eternals.

I think there are two reasons that, in my opinion, the Batman franchise has allowed filmmakers for more creativity in the majority of the films I’ve seen over the year. The first is probably how Batman, of course, isn’t a superhero the way other comic book characters are and that makes his problems different in the way that the rest of the characters in the world of comics, DC, Marvel or what have you. It may have strained credulity to many that Lois Lande never realized Clark Kent was Superman because he was wearing glasses, but each time he came back after mysteriously disappeared, he didn’t have a black eye or mysterious bruises to explain along with his absence.

Bruce Wayne is, as was actually said in one film, just a man in a cape. He has immense resources, great physical ability and though it’s rarely seen in the films so far, a great deductive mind. What he doesn’t have is the ability for bullets to bounce off his skin, magic bracelets or super-healing powers. If you cut him, he will bleed. The reason for the raspy voice and the mask is not just to disguise his identity but because it makes him seem inhuman when as we all know he isn’t.

There’s also the fact that while Batman has a rogue’s gallery of villains to face, they are all human. They may have the appearance of grotesqueries but they are costumed freaks the same way he is. Most comic books often argue the villains are variation on the heroes but considering that all of the villains are insane and Batman is fundamentally judged by the populace a different kind of threat, there is a presence of a morally gray area that you just don’t get in almost every other comic book. The best Batman films – like the best films overall – have us questioning how we see the world and there’s an ambiguity that we just can’t get with Captain America or Superman.

And that leads to the second reason for creativity that other franchises can’t or won’t allow: Batman is the darkest comic book franchise. I don’t mean in terms of lighting or camera work or even the nature of the villains: I mean that Batman, more than any other comic book character, is engaged in a war that everyone – save for himself -  knows is futile. The common enemy in every Batman film is an existential threat rather than a single man: crime. And well before Bob Kane even created the series our society knows that it is a war that can’t be won. The people around the Batman know this and its actually been said by numerous characters in individual movies. Usually Alfred is the one to say it but it’s been said by Selina Kyle and many of the villains themselves. Bruce Wayne is the only character in the movies who won’t admit it – and the best films not only show the personal cost to him but actually argue that he is himself is as crazy as the villains he chases because he won’t acknowledge it.

This can lead to the movies almost always being relentlessly grim but it also allows them to ask probing questions that few films, certainly not franchises of any kind, are inclined to ask. For that reason while several characters in comic books are increasingly archaic Batman has actually become more relevant as the years go by, not less. Almost every filmmaker who has helmed one or multiple Batman films is telling stories that are not merely about Batman against the villains he faced but about what it actually takes to wage these battles in the first place. The events of the 21^st century have, increasingly, been leading us to consider the questions that Batman has been facing indirectly for decades: how far are we willing to go to defeat our enemies? What is the point of morality when so many of the forces against us will not play by the same rules – or worse, use our own rules against us to their ends? Have we, in fact, been fighting the wrong kind of battles when it comes fighting crime in our cities? Batman, by even the most generous definition, is a vigilante who does his work outside the boundaries of the law, which means he predates the antihero theme that has dominated so much of the best of our popular culture in recent years. (There’s an argument that Joel Schumacher’s entries are the biggest failures not just because they don’t take Batman seriously but that they don’t take the battles he’s fighting seriously either.)

And over the years Batman himself has actually grown in the perception of filmmakers. In the first decade of films made about him Bruce Wayne was more or less secondary to the villains he fought and even Batman seemed like a ghost compared to them. As the 21^st century began, filmmakers like Christopher Nolan and Matt Reeves have done much to make Bruce Wayne as significant as Batman and try to explain why he does what he does – something he is often loathe to explore. Interestingly the film that may have gotten closest to understanding Bruce Wayne’s psychology was the Lego version which while it is both a family movie and a satire, has a far more accurate interpretation as to the real reason why Batman is so devoted to saving Gotham – and why he’s ignoring the way he could move on.

I’ve found something of value in every Batman movie which is not something I find in most films in a franchise. Much of it is cinematic but far more of it is creative and intellectually. And I truly believe that it has to be because of the work of the directors who have, for better and (occasionally) worse are allowing to leave an imprint on Gotham in a way that directors just can’t in nearly any other comic book franchise.

In this series I intend to look in detail at all of the films to date that have taken place in the Batman universe. This will include both of Todd Philips Joker films as well as The Lego Batman Movie. Because this will be a chronology of films this series will not include the numerous TV series that take place in this world, either animated or live-action. I will likely be looking at Batman: The Animated Series and Batman Beyond in my series on animated classics later on and there is a possibility that I will eventually include the recent HBO series The Penguin because it is directly tied to the Batman cinematic universe in a way that shows like Gotham aren’t.

My approach will be chronological but there will be certain limitations. Batman Vs. Superman will appear in the list but Justice League will not. And indeed the former will almost entirely be used to show not only Zack Snyder’s view of Batman is important but how his dealing with Superman shows how he views threats that are beyond the scope of what he is capable of. Similarly I don’t intend to look at any version of Harley Quinn (to my regret) but very well might look at Folie A Deux down the line because both Joker  films look at the world of Gotham and see Arthur Fleck’s struggle as a parallel of the one that Bruce Wayne faces – and perhaps more accurately shows how Wayne could have ended up in Arkham himself. Besides, there’s no better way to look an auteur than a musical version of Gotham.

Some of this, no doubt, has been covered before by writers on this very site. My version, as I mentioned, will look more at the role of the director and writer of the perception of Batman rather whether it is canon or even in terms of quality. Stephen King once had one of his characters say: “It is the tale, not he who tells it.” This is true for most franchise films. The Batman films are more likely standouts because more often then not, the latter is allowed to be true and we the viewer are the richer for it.