I didn't care for conventional superhero comics as a child, nor most of their films, but Batman was an exception.
I doubt I'd actually seen Tim Burton's goth-noir reboot when I made my parents buy a Batcave, 'mobile, 'wing and various action figures for my fourth birthday, but I came to appreciate it belatedly as an adult. I eventually got around to reading a couple of the esteemed graphic novels from that era too, which turned out to be some of the best works in the medium. Why don't I enjoy myself more often?
Frank Miller, Batman: The Dark Knight (a.k.a. The Dark Knight Returns)
1986 / Ecomics / 200 pages / USA*****
Like many people, this gritty repilot–finale almost half a century on is the earliest Batman I've read, so I don't know if Miller was the first to shine a Bat Signal on the unhealthy psychology of the character and his rotten domain, but it would take some topping. This solo album may have been safely quarantined to a separate continuity to avoid upsetting the regulars, but the well was irrevocably poisoned. A vicariously exciting event for mainstream 80s comics and a masterpiece of the form.
Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli, Batman: Year One
1987 (collected 1988) / Ecomics / 98 pages / USA****
Having impressed with his apocalyptic finale, Miller's permitted to corrupt the proper continuity with a grim-80s retcon of Batman's beginning, mercifully skipping over the boring bildungsroman to get straight to the action. A super-serious treatment of costumed children's characters risks self-parodying as much as the 60s Batman in its own way, but the parallel focus on Jim Gordon fighting corruption keeps things respectably mature.
Alan Moore and Brian Bolland, Batman: The Killing Joke
1988 / Ecomic / 48 pages / UK*****
I first approached this as an Alan Moore fan rather than a Batfan, and found it a bit pedestrian and reigned-in compared to his more independent projects, mainly enjoying seeing the influence on the Burton film. Still, coming from the golden era of the world's best writer, it's basically flawless, even if publishers have tried to ruin that in the years since by putting out a bland decoloured version that ruins the atmosphere, presumably concerned about medicated Gen Z kids having seizures if they see something colourful.
Jim Starlin and Berni Wrightson, Batman: The Cult
1988 (collected 1991) / Ecomics / 208 pages / USA***
I normally read comics for the writer, not the artist, but Berni Wrightson doing a dark Batman appealed. His ghoulish art brings out the horror of nightmares, hallucinations and sewer catacombs, but it'd be better in black and white than with garish paint splashed over it. As a sideline miniseries, it's desperate to be as edgy as The Dark Knight, but ends up more as a flaccid PSA. Cults are bad, kids.
Jim Starlin and Jim Aparo, Batman: A Death in the Family
1988-89 (collected 1989) / Ecomics / 144 pages / USA**
Only notable for the phone-in gimmick that saw bloodthirsty 80s comic fans vote to kill off a short-serving Robin, the bigger shock for me was the mediocrity of the writing and art after being spoiled by timeless prestige titles. Explicitly a sequel to The Killing Joke, it looks like it belongs decades earlier. And after being taken on a world tour of terrorism, famine and mass-murder, the death of one angsty teen I was barely acquainted with just didn't feel like a big deal.
Brian Augustyn and Mike Mignola, Gotham by Gaslight
**
There isn't that much distance between Batman's debut and whatever the American equivalent of the Victorian period's called, but this preincarnation treatment was bound to happen sooner or later. It inevitably pits the steampunk crusader against Saucy Jack, but restrains itself from indulging in too many historical cameos. Only because there are barely enough pages to even make a worthwhile mystery.
Grant Morrison and Dave McKean, Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth
***
Even when he's paired with the best writers, Dave McKean always steals the show. His macabre abstractions are the main motivation to struggle through this ornamental ordeal, which has doubtless fucked up a few young Batfans over the years when purchased by non-discerning parents. I'll have to recuperate by reading something fun, like a Batman comic.
Constance V. Hatch and Walter Howarth, Batman: Funhouse of Fear
*****
I may not have had any Batman comics as a kid, but I did have this Ladybird book (+ tape) that I read over and over, and can now enjoy again thanks to YouTube curators. The Killing Joke Junior, it doesn't get as introspective about the Batman-Joker co-dependence, being more preoccupied with booby traps, but for its target audience it's a perfect Batman story in its own way.
Mark Cotta Vaz, Tales of the Dark Knight: Batman's First Fifty Years
1989 / Ebook / 210 pages / USA***
An insightful illustrated history of the Caped Crusader (as he's less coolly known), this equipped me with all the context I needed on the brand's influences and evolution as far as I'm interested in that. Since it's fandom writing, our historian can't help letting his own real-ale prejudices shine through regarding proper Batman, because some eras are just too silly to be objective about.
Bonus Bat Thoughts:
Batfilms
What I reckoned about the Batman films five years ago, getting in there before I had to sit through any new ones. Apparently the Nolan films are the best, but they didn't prove all that memorable. I didn't actually sit all the way through Batman & Robin.
Batman (1943) & Batman and Robin (1949) **
I won't pretend I made it all of the way through both of these 15-part serials. I only dipped in and out enough to get a flavour of these early, influential, laughably propagandist takes on the caped crusader.
Lacking the budget of a major motion picture, these serials look very cheap, to the extent that no attempt is made to realise the Batmobile (they just drive a regular black car), gadgets are sorely lacking and even Batman's mask doesn't fit right. Coming just four years after the character's Detective Comics debut though, this is otherwise surprisingly true to form as Batman and Robin climb in and out of windows punching criminals and getting away with putting the minimum of effort into their disguises and double lives.
The major difference comes in the duo working on behalf of the U.S. Government, and the jingoistic overtones as Batman works to foil the 'Jap' villain. While the 60s series is unfairly criticised for being ridiculous, as if it didn't know what it was doing (what it was doing was basically parodying this), this is the original dodgy Batman - cheap, tacky and racist, but still undeniably a little exciting. Strangely, this actually comes closer to the simplistic idea of Batman I had in my head as a child, despite being raised in the Tim Burton era.
"In this very hour, when the Axis criminals are spreading their evil over the world, even within our own land, Batman and Robin stand ready to fight them to the death" - Narrator
Batman (1966) ***
I didn't grow up with this era of Batman, but most of my colourful toys seemed to stem from it. I saw a few episodes as a kid, and even today, long having known that it was intended as a parody, there's still that part of me that cringes at the idea of the stupid show that 'ruined Batman,' even if that blame really lay with the Comics Code Authority.
This 1966 film is my main source of knowledge for the show it span off from, home to legendary scenes such as Batman trying to get rid of a bomb and that exploding shark, and it's a lot of fun to watch. Any doubts that the show didn't know it was ridiculous will be put to rest within the first 10 minutes, by which time we've already experienced said shark, the Instant Costume Change lever, the unnecessarily labelled Bat Ladder, the full spectrum of Oceanic Repellent Bay Sprays and the ludicrous leaps of logic leading our heroes to the identity of the villains.
The daft comedy is there for the parents, as this is still wholly a kid's film, more so than most of the later Batmans (Batmen?) with the possible exception of the loathed Schumacher era that I have yet to put myself through. Looking forward to those. Why do I do this to myself?
There's no time wasted on origin stories here, as the heroes and villains are already established. It's pretty redundant having both the Joker and the Riddler in the same scenes, but the lot of them put in commendably energetic performances, if not exactly screen gold. They all have the potential to be bettered easily. As for Batman and Robin themselves, Burt Ward is decent enough in the sidekick role, but it's easy to see why Adam West's subsequent career has mainly been in comedy.
Now I've seen more vintage TV I can appreciate a lot of the common 60s tropes, especially the rockabilly riffs and blaring fanfares of the soundtrack. It's entertaining, it's funny, but it's still the stupid Batman.
"Holy heart failure!" - Robin
Batman (1989) ****
This was one of the most important films of my early, pre-or-just-starting-school childhood, along with Ghostbusters II, but like that other film I only actually saw it a couple of times before revisiting it in a nostalgic DVD shopping spree 15 years later.
If I've got the chronology right, Batman was the first obsession of my greedy, corporate child self, who demanded all the related toys for Christmas or a birthday that year. Tim Burton's Batman world is dark, creepy and sinister but still very toyable, as my Batcave, various Batmobiles and Batwing could attest. Though to be honest, I think the film might have been a bit scary for me as a four-year-old, I preferred the more colourful Batman of my Ladybird books.
As an adult, I'm able to appreciate this film on more than just a nostalgic level, though that gloss certainly helps. It's one of those films like Blade Runner and Conan the Barbarian that might secretly be terrible but look and sound so great that it's a pleasure just to watch it play out, with Danny Elfman's definitive Batman score (whoever did the music in the Nolan films, it didn't stay with me) and the dingy, Metropolis-style gothic Gotham. There's even a climactic battle in a cathedral bell tower for god's sake.
As far as being a Batman film, I'm incapable of sympathising with the apparent disdain of Michael Keaton's casting at the time, as he basically is Batman to me, however static, and his Bruce Wayne is a convincing out-of-touch eccentric. Jack Nicholson receives star billing and a massive paycheck as the Joker, a performance that may have been bettered (the jury's out) but is still a hell of a lot of fun. There are many reasons parents might not want their kids to watch this, from all the shooting, acid baths and mutilations to the vandalism, and the fact that the villain is a lot more fun than the hero is another to add to the pile.
It's not played completely straight, and with a recurring Prince soundtrack and some Bruce Wayne bumbling it isn't excessively 'grim 80s,' benefiting from the touch of Tim Burton at the height of his creative powers. I might not be able to escape the burden of nostalgia in claiming this to be my favourite Batman movie, but I'll go into The Dark Knight with an open mind. I don't really know what to expect from the sequel...
"Where does he get those wonderful toys?" - The Joker
Batman Returns ***
This is probably equally as good as its predecessor, but for me it lacks a lot of the charm and all of the nostalgia. I did see this one as a kid - on video rental thanks to the appropriately child-unfriendly 15 certificate - but it didn't make much of an impression. I remember being creeped out by Catwoman's origin but didn't remember anything else, so I might not even have made it all the way through or maybe my parents did the responsible thing and stopped the tape. Unlikely, since they had no problem with me sitting through Alien 3 around the same time - I guess since the Ninja Turtles arrived, I just wasn't so interested in Batman any more.
As an adult, I appreciate the greater freedom Tim Burton was clearly given with making this sequel, which is absolutely a Tim Burton film. They even make it a dark Christmas story just for the sake of it. I've no doubts I'd always prefer a dingy, nasty Batman film to a colourful, child-friendly one, but that might not necessarily have been the best way to go. Did they have to make it quite so bloody dark?
Danny DeVito reliably throws himself into the role of the repulsive Penguin, which would otherwise basically be an imitation of the Joker, but I found myself wanting less of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman, whose sudden ability to resurrect and do backflips just because she gets licked by some cats didn't make sense to me as an eight-year-old and still doesn't now. Christopher Walken just looks bored in his redundant role and Batman doesn't actually do an awful lot either, with most victories being achieved through microphone hacking.
What I mainly enjoyed is how nuts it gets towards the end, with the Penguin unveiling his overly villainous plan and then falling back on the apocalyptic Plan B involving an army of penguins with rocket launchers. This feels like the sort of the film you'd read about getting shot down in the planning stages and getting replaced with something bland and sanitised. You wish you'd had the chance to see it, but understand that it was never a realistic expectation. Sometimes those things get through.
"Just the pussy I've been lookin' for!" - The Penguin
Batman Forever **
I was 10 years old in 1995. The perfect age for this film, but I guess I just didn't care. I remember seeing the poster all over the place, and people doing impressions of the Riddler in the school playground (the same people who liked to do impressions of Ace Ventura and Harry Enfield's Dime bar adverts, you know those people), but I remained untempted. Batman was for kids; I was into Sonic now!
This film is squarely for kids, which is jarring and disappointing after the gothic darkness of the previous two. It's the first in the series I haven't really enjoyed at all - the daft 1966 film has more charm, and at least doesn't outstay its welcome - even though from a commercial standpoint it made complete sense to tone down the violence and general grimness and make something that kids could actually enjoy. That was the right move, but they could have done better than this.
I don't mind the colourful Gotham, the commercial soundtrack or even the nippled costumes. I didn't enjoy any of the stuff with Robin, but it made perfect sense to feature the character and it at least gave Batman something different to do. I really, really didn't like the bad guys, with Jim Carrey basically being Jim Carrey in an excessively tight costume and Tommy Lee Jones somehow being even worse as Two-Face.
Val Kilmer is the least memorable Batman thus far, coming off at too smooth and cocky for my liking, though as we're now seeing the Caped Crusader a number of years into his career as a public institution, that's understandable. The romance plot is an unfortunate staple of the films that won't be shaken off, and true to form this is the worst yet.
"I could write a hell of a paper on a grown man who dresses like a flying rodent" - Chase Meridian
Batman & Robin *
That was about as bad as I'd been led to expect, though not a huge drop in quality after Batman Forever. What it mainly lacks compared to the previous film is any type of actual story between the cartoon fights, with only the miniature sub-plot of Alfred's deterioration having any warmth to it.
This is just a cartoon now, but it's way too long even to enjoy on those terms. It's not even so bad it's good, unless you still find Schwarzenegger inherently hilarious. George Clooney manages to be even more forgettable than Val Kilmer in the lead role, and none of the actors take their performances seriously. It's probably the only way they got through this. Oh dear.
"Tonight, hell freezes over" - Mr Freeze
Batman Begins ****
When I saw this at the cinema in 2005 I wasn't a fan of the extended origin story, especially as I'd only recently rekindled my relationship with the 1989 film I was going to stubbornly consider the definitive take. Taken as the first part of a trilogy, I have a lot more time for Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer's impressive feat of making the absurd premise credible.
I do miss the gothic design and atmosphere of Tim Burton's Gotham, but this is a refreshingly realistic take on the corrupt metropolis (oh hang on, that's the other one), and I always appreciate an emphasis on practical effects and models. It might take itself overly seriously in places, like convincing us that Batman's equipment is a legacy from his father's utopian monorail project, but the psychological angle is better done this time around.
I'll always have a soft spot for Michael Keaton's static rubber Batman, but Christian Bale is the better actor, there's no point arguing about that. Even better are the mature masters he's surrounded with, with Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman adding some real class. I still couldn't care less about the shoehorned romance plot, I'm not watching Spider-Man.
It's too long and not as 'fun' as I'd expect a superhero movie to be, but that's probably just what was needed after the embarrassments of the Schumacher films, which were themselves a reaction to the overly dark tone of Burton's ones. They don't seem to be able to do half-measures any more.
"A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification" - Henri Ducard
The Dark Knight ****
Fine, the kids win. This is the best Batman film and Heath Ledger's unkempt freak is better than Jack Nicholson's phoned-in wisecracker, even without the tragic gloss. By skipping the origin and offering a multiple choice background like Alan Moore did, the character feels like a force of nature who brings absolute bloody chaos in his wake, and it's morbidly captivating.
The length feels more appropriate this time, considering there's an entire arc about the downfall of Harvey Dent that's easy to forget about with all the Joker hype, and it's not even worth making the comparison with Tommy Lee Jones' embarrassing Two-Face in Batman Forever. Batman sort of gets overshadowed too, but he still gets plenty to do and even goes international.
This will presumably go down in history as the Empire Strikes Back of Batman films, and it makes some good points, even if they're a bit cloying. It descends to some very nasty depths, but with the comparatively uplifting finale you don't leave feeling depressed. Then you remember about Heath Ledger.
"This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" - The Joker
The Dark Knight Rises ****
As I lived on the planet Earth in 2012, I'd been exposed to enough images of Tom Hardy's Bane even before I thought I'd be interested in the prospect of watching another Batman film, but I didn't expect his voice to sound like that. I had to pause his first scene to check I wasn't watching some type of amusing prank copy, but after a while it grew on me.
Since I've started out original by discussing the Bane voice, I'll continue to be tediously conservative in proclaiming this not as good as the previous film, but still a strong entry in the franchise. I was pleasantly surprised actually, having somewhere acquired the notion that it wasn't up to much - the city-wide devastation is a bit gratuitous (no, I haven't seen Man of Steel), Catwoman is understated to the point of basically not mattering, and they were never going to top the Joker, but at least we were spared the Nolan brothers' struggle to make the Riddler or the Penguin credible.
This quasi-realistic take on Batman was a resounding success, so there's no reason for anyone to go down that route again in the near future. I still have a softer spot for Burton's gothic take on the franchise, just because I can't help when I was born, and I wouldn't welcome a return of failed 90s camp, but I'll try to be optimistic about the next inevitable reformatting of the Dark Knight.
"Now's not the time for fear. That comes later" - Bane
