Tue
Apr 26 2011 3:33pm
You Prefer Which Batman Again?

Michael Keaton as Batman

Now that the final casting for The Dark Knight Rises has been announced, I’m reminded again of a personal conundrum that bugs me every time I think about Batman. To wit: why do I still prefer the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton films to the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale ones?

Conventional wisdom (including my own) says that both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are much better overall films than either Batman or Batman Returns. The Dark Knight, especially, is actually about something beneath its action and melodrama, a depth you seldom find in superhero films. So why is it that when the ol’ “Bat-urge” hits me, I pop in one of the Tim Burton films?

It’s not like Keaton was my first Batman. I’m old enough to remember watching Adam West as a child, along with the Hanna-Barbera cartoon series that included crossovers with Scooby Doo. And my own critical faculties assure me that Christopher Nolan’s films set a new standard for superhero movies. But damn it, I just can’t buy into it emotionally the way I do with Burton and Keaton.

It finally boils down to an issue of basic conception. Nolan created a Batman that functions in a place very much like the real world. Burton, however, did the opposite: he created a world in which his Batman could exist.

Consider the actors involved. Christian Bale is in tremendous physical shape, shown exercising and training and learning the skills he’ll need to become Batman. There’s also no doubt why he does what he does, down to a reasonable explanation for why he chooses the bat as his talisman. His psychology, while compelling, is nonetheless comprehensible. He could be dropped into contemporary New York or Chicago and get along fine.

In contrast, Michael Keaton is rather wispy, slender, and relies on his gadgets and elements of surprise because he has to. He never gives any overt explanation for anything, even why he decides to dress as a bat. (His lone comment, “They’re great survivors,” really tells us nothing at all.) He can exist only in the carefully-arranged world of Gotham City; brought into the real world, he’d quickly be beaten senseless or carted away.

And to simplify it further, the Nolan/Bale Batman is determined, while the Burton/Keaton Batman is obsessed. Bale is a man who dresses like a bat because he wants to; Keaton needs to.

So I’ve decided my preference come down to that. I want my Dark Knight obsessed, not just determined.

And for that reason, for me, Batman is (and probably always will be) Michael Keaton.


Alex Bledsoe, author of the Eddie LaCrosse novels (The Sword-Edged Blonde, Burn Me Deadly, and Dark Jenny), the novels of the Memphis vampires (Blood Groove and The Girls with Games of Blood) and the first Tufa novel, the forthcoming The Hum and the Shiver.

34 comments
Ryan Britt
1. ryancbritt
Alex, I totally agree. I felt so alone when Batman Begins came out and not feeling like I ever needed to see it again. I feel like the melodrama of the Burton films really speaks to the sort of larger-than-life feelings I have about Batman.
Edward Brock
2. ebrock
On your side for sure. The Nolan Batman is cool, but Keaton was much more convincing.

That said, I think the best Batman representation is still the Batman Animated series (and it has my favorite Batmobile as well).

rob mcCathy
3. roblewmac
I don't see universal agreement that Darkkight was better than "Batman" was Heath leger SCARIER as Joker? Yes becuse we knew Jack Nicholson's Joker was just a man. Clever and tough but a man.
Joker in Darkkight is not just a man. He comes from nowhere he's never shown planing anything things just go his way becuse he's baddass
Rob Blake
4. Rob Blake
Keaton had the character of Batman down pat and his whole demeanor accurately depicted the character's tormented soul. Bale never came across that way and his Batman persona's voice sounds so forced while Keaton's was much more natural.
James Crowley
5. structuregeek
One of Tim Burton's talking points at the time was that he'd considered more traditional leading men, but that Keaton came across as actually crazy enough to put on a bat suit and fight crime. Love Nolan's Batman films, but Keaton was fantastic in Burton's.
Brent Longstaff
6. brentus
I also think that there is a difference between an enjoyable movie and a good one. Just between the two new ones, I enjoy watching Batman Begins more although I think The Dark Knight was better. So while I'd say the new ones are better, I can totally see some people preferring to watch the older ones for reasons like you described. And I agree with ebrock about the animated series; I went back and watched it recently and was surprised by its quality.
Ashe Armstrong
7. AsheSaoirse
@Ebrock: Batman: TAS STILL holds up well and STILL can give me
chills. Seriously amazing writing and animation coupled with not being
outright "kiddy." Bruce Timm had such an impact on the animation world (or at least the action cartoon world) with Batman and Kevin Conroy's portrayal of Bruce Wayne, complete with a fabulous dual voice, basically making them two characters is genius. And then, there's Mark Hamill as the Joker, David Warner as Ra's (both of whom utterly SPOILED me for the future, especially with regards to Ra's and Batman Begins) and the rest of the cast were absolutely phenomenal.

That being said, I'll return back to the live-action topic at hand.

@OP: Honestly, I can't watch Batman Begins anymore. Origin movies when you're a comic fan are BORING. And as much as I like Liam Neeson, I thought his being cast as Ra's was a bad idea. Witness the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xK4IixBTZA and tell me I'm wrong.

As for the Dark Knight. I love it. Well, that's not entirely accurate. I love the action, the cinemtography and Ledger's portrayal of the Joker. Ledger ruined the movie. I don't mean that in a knock towards his performance, as I just said, I love it, he did. Someone else around here in another Batman discussion basically said that he was TOO good in the movie and left everyone else in the dust.

Quite frankly, I wholeheartedly agree. Most of the scenes without him, I lose interest in. I hate how he's finally captured. I hate how things were handled with Two-Face. Bale really isn't a sympathetic Bruce, sadly and Michael Caine just plays Michael Caine. And that's fine. He's Michael Caine, he can do that. Now, the pacing of the movie is fairly tight. It clips along comfortably but after the first viewing, it feels sludgier when Joker's not on screen.

So, I can see why and even agree for the most part on the Burton-Batman stuff. Jack and Heath's Jokers are quite different but totally fantastic and I honestly wish the two would merge if the Joker's ever done live-action again because the whole angle of Jack's Joker being "Party Man" and Heath's being "I'm an agent of chaos" together equals the Joker en masse minus the campy, harmless prankster thief stuff.
Rob Blake
8. FranklinHarris
My problem with the Nolan films is that, rather than make Batman realistic in the way they aim to, they rather highlight how absurd the character is when dropped into a realistic setting. Nothing throws me out of the Nolan movies more than the scenes of Batman standing above a real skyline, whether it's Chicago (standing in for Gotham) or Hong Kong. Batman overlooking a real skyline looks absurd. It's some loon in a bat-festish costume, and he'd be more likely to make criminals laugh themselves to death than quake with fear.

Burton's Batman, while more absurd than Nolan's if taken by himself, makes perfect sense in the hyper-real, Gothic fantasy world Burton places him in. He makes total sense within his fictional context, so he never throws me out of the movie or makes me giggle unintensionally.

And that's why, even if Nolan's movies are in some sense the better movies, Burton's films are by far the better Batman movies.
Richard Fife
9. R.Fife
Yeah, soon as I get my TV-computer up and running, the kids are going to be getting a healthy dose of The Animated Series. They already watch The Brave and the Bold, and I'm thinking, "Just wait until I show you what a real Batman cartoon is."

That said, my kids also prefer the old Batman's to the new ones, and so do I. You hit the nail on the head Alex. Keaton came from nowhere in the Burton films the same way Heathe came from nowhere in the Nolan film. As to the why a bat, I do think there was (maybe in the second film) a brief comment from Keaton to the story of falling in the cave and seeing a single bat flying at him.
Rob Blake
10. mordicai
For me, it comes down to the Bruces. Keaton has a Bruce Wayne; Bale...doesn't.
Rob Blake
11. mirana
The Animated Series Batman is definitely the best Batman, for reasons listed above by other commenters, and more. However, if we're going by live-action then I'm going to go with Bale, sorry. I've watched the films and the Adam West show, and I just can't love the ridiculousness as much as I can when someone takes the ridiculousness that Batman is and makes it plausible. That's impressive and entertaining to me. Not to say that the others are not as enjoyable...but I don't own them.
Rob Blake
12. XMACHINA
Oh, just...Whatever.

Question: In the first of Burton’s Batman films, how did Batman solve the problem of the Joker poisoning Gotham's cosmetics and such?

Answer: Batman blew up the factory where the lethal chemical was being made. He set off a bomb in a factory full of lethal chemicals.

Later the same mass murderer invited the town to a parade where he promised "free money". People showed up. If Bin Laden invited people to Times Square with the promise of free iPads, it wouldn't take Admiral Akbar to figure out what that was.

And that’s just a couple of examples among many I could cite of how ridiculous Burton’s Batman films are. If I wanted I could mention The Penguin seizing remote control over the Batmobile by way of a device engineered in the sewers and designed by using the Batmobile's original schematic drawings which he had found in shredded condition and taped back together.

Apparently, some people prefer their Batman ridiculous. To each his own.
James Anderson
13. lostshangrila
Why does Keaton NEED to? It is clear in Batman begins why Bale's Wayne needs to dress up:

People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy, and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood. I can be ignored, I can be destroyed. But as a symbol … as a symbol, I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.



There is NO such reasoning in Burton's films. Your argument is that Keaton NEEDS to dress as Batman to survive. Why? Alfried has survived all these years within the same universe without dressing as a bat. Many other citizens of Gotham live day-to-day not dressed as bats. Why must Keaton?
Rob Blake
14. images10dream
@FranklinHarris: Make criminals laugh themselves to death? The Nolan movies do an excellent job of showing how Batman moves so quickly that criminals rarely have any time to comprehend what the hell just happened to them before they are knocked unconscious. Also, organizations througout history have used constumes to inspire fear. Notoriously, the KKK used this to great effect. In fact, this is a general theme of many Batman stories: the villains write him off as some loser in a costume until they are actually confronted by him and realize how damn scary it is. We all pretend that we aren't scared of the dark because we are adults now, but we still worry about monsters at night.

Maybe Keaton's Batman has some redeeming qualities, but the overall awefulness of Burton's Batman (nostalgia and the fact that it introduced the world to "dark" superheros aside) completely ruined it for me. Jack Nicholson mugs for the camera to the point of nausea, and that his ridiculous character actually presents a threat to Batman is utterly unbelievable.
rob mcCathy
15. roblewmac
I thought Batman Begins was the better Nolan movie. I did'nt like "Batman" being useless in a "Batman" film
Sharat Buddhavarapu
16. Sharat Buddhavarapu
The Nolan/Bale Batman toes the line with breaking his morals, he loses he love interest to the job, and wire taps every device in the city to track down and beat the Joker's plan to make Gotham mad. I think that's obsessed. Haven't seen the older ones, but I don't think the obsessed argument is at all valid.
Michael Grosberg
17. Michael_GR
I love both versios of Batman, Burton invented an amazing design aesthetic for his Batman that many films have resused later (the Crow, Dark City). I remember obsessively drawing batmobiles and batwings for a year after the movie came out.
I was against the idea of Nolan's "urban" Batman at first, I thought it would end up like the reimagined Catwoman. But Nolan won me over, his Batman just works. I think it's a feat to create this new image of Batman after Burton's iconic gothic depiction and make it stick.
And you know what? I even like the Adam West Batman. I think it was the Middleman of its era, I remember it being quite funny at times.
Dave Thompson
18. DKT
I love how many different good versions of Batman there are, honestly. I love TAS and the Burton movies and especially the Nolan films, but I love how this character can be interpreted so many different ways.

I watched Burton's Batman a couple months back and got a kick out of it. Still a lot of fun (and I agree: Keaton was pretty excellent).
James Goetsch
19. Jedikalos
I agree with you: I have always liked Keaton's Batman much better. And the Batmobile! Man, Keaton's batmobile was much better in my book. As FranklinHarris pointed out above, less realistic in a comic book seems to work better, and trying to make the batmobile realistic is just jarring to me. And the animated series, I agree, takes the Bat-Prize away from everybody.
Rob Blake
20. BMunro
Animated series for the win, indeed.

I like the Keaton movies. (The trouble with Nicholson Joker is that, well, for me it's more Nicholson than Joker). Heck, I liked Batman Returns, for all the cheese - who doesn't like a cyborg penguin army?
(I am also, alas, a big Danny Elfman fan, which adds to the appeal of the Keaton films for me).

I do find Tim Burton's goth-fantasy, stylized sensibility does sometimes get a bit over the top, but it's also amusing how the Nolan fans bring up the "realism" talking point. Folks, Batman is a cartoon character. No matter how trained or athletic or how big a bank account he has, a Lone Vigilante will inevitably sooner or later get shot or blown up or simply arrested in the "real world."

Batman at least must be immune to the law of averages: he cannot be "realistic" beyond a certain point. As it is, the current Nolan setting cannot really handle Batman interacting with any of the genuinely super-powered friends and enemies he deals with as part of regular DC comics continuity. And even in their more restricted setting, they have to cheat. I'll take Keaton Batman blowing up the chemical plant and raise you the Joker somehow sneaking aboard a load of high explosives aboard two ferries under the nose of the national guard.

The Joker is not scary merely because he "comes from nowhere": he's also scary because he's a cartoon character, shielded from consequence or probability. As @3 said, things just go his way because he's badass. (Let the lame rationalizations begin. :) )

@7, a Nicholson-Ledger Joker merger would indeed approach the Platonic ideal of the Joker for me (alas, it probably will never be achieved). One problem I did have with Leder's Joker was that he didn't seem to be having enough _fun_ ("why so serious?")
john mullen
21. johntheirishmongol
I can simplify the argument. Michael Keaten, although not pretty, is memorable. Half the time I cannot even remember what Christian Bale looks like.
Ashe Armstrong
22. AsheSaoirse
@BMunro: I mostly just chalked that up to being menacing. But again, Mark Hamill's joker has utterly spoiled me and the laugh still gives me chills.
Rob Blake
23. johnsr83
I love Batman he is one of my top three favorite comic book characters of all time. While I do enjoy almost every portrail of him in any medium, comic books, movies animated series, or live action series the keaton are my favorite with Batman Begins a close second. Most of this is because they are closer to how I see Batman as a character from all that I have read and seen him portaid. Also Ledger was great as a realistic Joker but I will always enjoy Nicholsons Joker more because he is the insane clown, Jokers best portrayals always where.
Michael Burke
24. Ludon
Keaton's Batman / Bruce Wayne is the best in live action for me. Batman, like Superman is a diversion from our real world.

Adam West's camp was a product of the 60s and I can be forgiving because of those times - Beverly Hillbellys, Green Acres, Gilligan's Island - need I say more?

Keaton's Batman / Wayne is like Arnold at his best - a character who existists comfortablly within his storyverse but would be completely out of place in our world. As some mentioned above, in our real world Batman would eventually have to be killed or caught. Arnold in his movies is able to take on whole armies without getting a scratch and no one (within his world) laughs at him for his silly comments. When we saw Arnold taken out of one of his worlds and brought into ours (Last Action Hero) he's not taken seriously and he's shot. In our world that wound would be fatal but when returned to his world it's just a flesh wound.

Michael Keaton gave me a Batman who is in the mold of Arnold. Bigger than life or different from life, he's a hero I can enjoy watching without having to stop and think "Now wait a minure. Why did he . . . " I don't have to know why he has to put on the costume and fight crime, I just know that he has to. Just like my not having to know how the clothes changed during the slide on the Bat-Pole in the Adam West series. It can happen in that world and that's part of the attraction of these stories.

Ledger's realistic Joker seemed out of place to me. A great performance but out of place. His Joker did not make me accept him as did Nicholson's Joker did by drawing the line at one painting - because he liked that one. Little things like that, and Keaton's "I'm Batman" comment breathed life into those characters for me.
Rob Blake
25. Tehanu
I remember hearing that Michael Keaton was going to play Batman and thinking the whole idea was ridiculous. Then he simply blew me and about 50 million other fans away and I had to admit (and still believe) that he was brilliant. Nobody can play obsession like Michael Keaton. I'm told Christian Bale was great in the boxing movie last year, the one he got the Oscar for -- I didn't see it -- but I've never seen any performance of his that I thought was even notable, let alone memorable.
Mani A
26. sn0wcrash
Keaton has the better Wayne, but Bale is the better Batman.

However, Kevin Conroy puts them both to shame by a considerable measure in Batman: TAS
Stanislav Zuzic
27. winterstark
@Tehanu :: No memorable performances from Bale? Have you seen American Psycho, The Prestige, or The Machinist?
Rob Blake
28. a1ay
When we saw Arnold taken out of one of his worlds and brought into ours (Last Action Hero) he's not taken seriously and he's shot.

Unjustly underrated, that film.
"Hello! I've just shot someone!... I did it on purpose! ...Hmmm."
Marcus W
29. toryx
I love both versions. They're very different films and they both satisfy me in totally different ways. When I want grim I go to Bale. When I want to laugh I go to Keaton. I can't really see them as particularly comparable because they satisfy completely different interests.

I can also totally understand why people would prefer to rewatch Tim Burton's Batman. That one's more of an escape and in many ways that makes it more entertaining. There are so many dark action films out there that make the world seem grim and gray. Batman is a much brighter action story and that's harder to find done well.
Rob Blake
30. Edgewalker
@13,

You are right. There is no reason shown why Keaton NEEDS to.
James Whitehead
31. KatoCrossesTheCourtyard
I have to say that I am with toryx in that I like both versions; although I do think The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins simply due to the origin story driving the plotline in the first one. I like Michael Caine as Alfred and I especially like Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox.

They did a nice job of giving us a 'real world' explanation as to how Wayne could actually afford all those 'wonderful toys.' Nicholson gave us the madly chaotic & capricious Joker; Ledger gave us the truly sociopathic side of the Joker. I think Ledger's was more frightening since we don't 'know' in the movie where he comes from whereas with Nicholson his Joker is tied into the Batman & we see his origin.

On a side note, I do love the animated series & did a double take when I saw the credits that Mark Hamill was the voice of the Joker. He, out of all of the many Jokers, seems to have captured the 'true' spitit of the Joker; always helps when you an unabashed fanboy like Hamill is. ;-) That & Kevin Conroy's Batman is fabulous.

I even liked the old Adam West Batman show. I was a kid when it was in reruns but I loved it nonetheless. Yes it was over the top but it did keep the Batman franchise going at a time when it had stagnated somewhat. It had great lines such as, "Riddle me this," terrible puzzles to solve, "What's the most dangerous creature in the forest? A squirrel with a machine gun," and Barbara Gordon as Batgirl. ;-)

Kato

@28a1ay, I agree. I liked Arnold's Last Action Hero quite a bit. Loved how he was willing to ridicule his entire acting career. ;-) "I'll be back. Ha! I bet you didn't know I was going to say that! Dude, you always say that. I do?"
Richard Fife
32. R.Fife
@13 and 30

Why does Keaton's Batman /NEED/ to dress up? Because he is mentally unbalanced and obsessed. He is fixated on bats (such as the seen when Vicki Vale wakes up and sees him sleeping upside down from a chin-up bar). Keaton's Bruce did not done the cape and cowl to strike fear into his enemies, he did it because he is a little bit crazy and perhaps, on some level, thinks he /is/ the batman.

It was, I think, an interesting twist that works. Not a Dark Hero because he is an anti hero, but a Dark Hero because there is a thin line that divides him from the villain, a criminally insane man called The Joker. Both are insane, it is just a matter of how they channel the insanity.
Bike Baykara
33. Amarie
My Batman always was the one in the animated series so much so that I really can not accept the wry Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. Although with Keaton I do not seem to get the same problem. Problem with Batman Begins is Bruce Wayne rather than Batmen for me. I really just see no else than Christian Bale when I watch both new movies even with all the back story and motivation I do not get Bruce Wayne from the movie at all. I keep waiting for Batman and only when he appears the character makes sense for me.
Although it is as I said still a bit of a physical thing for me too I mean both the Batman in the comics and the animated series is a rather substiantial man. He is tall and built with all the training he has it not just the armor.
Although I also have problems with Heath Ledger's Joker. I mean he works in the "realistic" world of Nolan's Gotham as a crazy criminal mastermind but I really don't know why you would call him Joker but not any other name. The sick M.O. of Joker is missing that basically defines him which I seem to miss very much.
Rob Blake
34. trench
@26 I agree That Bale had was a better Batman but Keaton was the better Bruce Wayne. I lways loved the scene when the Joker bursts into Viki Vale's house while Bruce is there. Keaton ust goes off with the crazy and even backs the Joker up a little.

Not many people play obsessive crazy like Keaton.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment