It has been almost two weeks since I watched The Batman in theatres. While I would love to say that I am an objective reviewer I am afraid that isn’t the case with Bob Kane’s billionaire playboy philanthropist: while others were playing cops and robbers, my friends and I were fighting over who should be Batman for that day. When I had a hard time getting into reading, I remember my parents buying me the Batman: Knightfall comic and I spent the next several weeks reading it… a couple dozen times. While I have always been exposed to good film, few things made as much of an impression as The Dark Knight. So, needless to say, I have grown up with a shadow: one with pointy ears and a long history. A history that, I feel, is captured in Matt Reeves’ Batman: a film that somehow distils the extensive pantheon of Batman lore into what can only be described as a love-letter to the character. This film stays true to the essence of the characters while also managing to push them to new heights. This can be accredited to a certain vampire-turned-bat who delivers what can only be described as a masterclass performance. While it may be unfair to compare this film to its predecessor, I feel that it is the most apt way to convey the strengths (as well as weaknesses) of this movie.
I think the most appropriate place to begin is with the titular character, which of course comes the age-old question, who is the titular character? The Batman or Bruce Wayne? The fact that we make this distinction between them speaks volumes for how the character has been handled in the past. The most important relationship in any interpretation of Batman is the one between these two aspects of the whole.The two are normally only seen as opposites of the same coin. Now, while this two-faced approach might be applicable at some points, I feel as if it fails to fully acknowledge what makes Batman so great. These are not two characters at opposite ends of a spectrum but rather a singular person whose personality is navigating a spectrum. The Batman, unlike The Dark Knight, portrays a deeply scarred young man who is clearly suffering, and the continued use of Nirvana’s “Come as you are” only serves to reinforce those feelings and that atmosphere. This is not a knock to Christian Bale’s portrayal, but I do feel that Pattinson highlights the suffering psyche of Wayne in a way that deepens the reasons for Batman’s existence. Where The Dark Knight turns Batman into a symbol for Gotham, The Batman first creates a symbol for Wayne to believe in before it attempts to shape a symbol for a city. Pattinson highlights the fact that Wayne is wrestling with the concept of Batman and is, in some instances, losing. The movie alludes to the fact that we are dealing with a character that is not yet “Batman” but rather a being that is consumed by a singular aspect of Batman’s values: Vengeance with a capital V. Bale’s interpretation feels more stable — there are two distinct personalities, and it then wrestles with the concept of which one is the mask. This seems appropriate considering Bale’s part in American Psycho, wherein he explored a similar dichotomy. In my opinion, the Batman that must struggle with the concept of what he stands for is the one that is more engaging and at the end of the day more relatable.
I do realize that people may not watch the movie for these reasons, so let’s tackle some of the other aspects of the Bat. While there were initial concerns about Pattinson, I can assure you that his interpretation, while not as imposing as Bale’s, certainly still manages to instil fear. Pattinson’s performance cannot be described as scarecrow-like, as the cape provides him with an organic movement. The costume itself, while less focused on believability than Nolan’s, feels grounded and appropriate to the world it is in (thought there is unfortunately an absence of bat nipples and tights). The action sequences in this film have taken a page out of the popular Arkham games and the way in which they are shot are reminiscent of films like Old Boy and The Raid. While those are hefty comparisons to make, please know that I do not make them lightly, as this is a film that feels more grounded: as much as Batman is a hero, he still takes a beating. This, I believe, makes for a more compelling watch, as we see him overcome great odds by being both smarter and more relentless. Fight scenes are not only cool, but they tell a story and aren’t merely there to serve the action-movie equivalent of the “jump-scare” — there are no cheap thrills in The Batman.
The film further emphasizes this point through its masterful use of colour. The poster already hints at the significance of red to the character and, while it certainly makes for some beautiful shots, it also serves a deeper purpose: it helps reinforce the difficulty Wayne has with vengeance, as he is often “split” between the red light and darkness. This might seem very on-the-nose, but I view it as a subtle and creative use of chiaroscuro. The film further plays around with the time of day and, while Batman is “the night”, he is also seen at daybreak, and this quite literally places him in a new light. Batman is no longer a creature of the night and Wayne of the day: the line becomes blurred. Furthermore, the use of flashes and fire (all practical) is perhaps the most impressive, as the natural light (especially in the dark) serves as a moment-to-moment “flash” of both brutality and meaning. The film’s denouement is a masterclass in using light as symbol and, while I do not want to spoil anything, I do want to highlight that Batman gains some level of agency and “control” over the red and “wields” it as a beacon, rather than a weapon.
Gotham has gone through so many iterations and perversions: people either use it as the vehicle for their themes or don’t acknowledge it for the microcosm that it is. The most appropriate portrayal of the city is one that straddles this line between the city as a character and the city as a symbol. This film, I feel, gets that right. It furthermore pays homage to the Gothams that graced the screen before it and draws from Burton as well as the underrated Gotham television show. There is a gothic element to the film but that does not override the grime and crime. Nothing in the city is glorified or luxurious: even Wayne’s base of operations is cold and uninviting. Set design and costuming were masterfully handled and I would be ashamed if I didn’t mention the outstanding performance from Collin Farrell as Penguin. He is almost unrecognisable in the role and that is due to both his own physical transformation and the costume design.
I would be remiss if I didn’t address the enigma in the room: What do you get if you cross David Fincher with superheroes? Well, you get Paul Dano’s very disturbing Riddler. In this case, I feel it would not be fair to compare his performance to Heath Ledger’s Joker — not only because it is considered one of the greatest performances of all time — but it is also marred in nostalgia for many an audience member. Dano, however, delivers a stunning performance filled with bone-chilling cackles and twisted riddles. He manages to straddle the line between unhinged and subtle. He has an air to him that makes him unforgettable and easily the best adaptation of the Riddler we have seen on the screen. Dano’s performance aside, the Riddler acts as the perfect antagonist for Batman. He highlights aspects of Wayne that not even he was ready to face and, ironically, the Riddler helps Batman in his journey towards being a fuller bat-self no longer ruled by vengeance.
I know we can’t all jump muscle cars through fire, but this film isn’t just a “cool new Batman movie”: it is social commentary. Batman is, was and will always be, political. Batman isn’t vengeance, at the end of the day, he is justice — he is community and, if we do not support one another, justice and community will fail and life will become a riddle. Batman became a modern myth and one which is meant to inspire us to make a change: we can’t beat up the baddies, but we can make a change. We can take the crime head-on with education. Instead of seeking vengeance, we can seek understanding and move beyond a culture that needs Batman. The fact that this myth persists in our modern pantheon is an atrocity and a reason we should move to fix the world to which we belong — whether it is a Bale or a Pattinson, the fact remains that we are longing for a saviour when, in reality, we are meant to be our own Batman. This movie hints at this theme and, by the end of its three-hour runtime, it shows that vengeance alone isn’t enough to make a difference. In its own way, it highlights what The Dark Knight did also: that for there to be a better future one needs a balance between “Batman” and “Bruce Wayne”, not just for the sake of themes but also for pacing.
Batman is meant to symbolise us and our actions and what we do to rid our society of its problems on a personal level. Every generation has a batman and I feel each one reflects our own feelings towards injustice and suffering. While we might be “global-Gothamites”, we do still live in a world where there is hope. The sun rises and vengeance is perhaps not the way forward. Yet, we are our own bat-people, and it falls to us to wrestle with our own emotions and understanding of the world. This film serves as a mirror and a means of self-reflection. No, it’s not the tight package of The Dark Knight, but we are no longer the same audience, and it is important for a contemporary and relevant Batman to step into the light, or, rather, to step into the dark. Batman is a modern myth and the fact that a story as old as this one can still be told in a fresh and relevant way speaks volumes of those involved in the process. If you haven’t seen it, I would highly encourage you to immerse yourself in the film, if only for Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz’s performances.
Comments