> > Burton invented a background for the Joker (Jack Napier the small time > gangster falls into vat of chemicals and emerges as disfigured, insane, and > somehow more powerful villain, the Joker.) which has no basis in any of the > comics
*The Killing Joke* (Alan Moore, Brian Bolland) tells the Joker's back-story, with his disfigurement and subsequent insanity taking shape in exactly this fashion. It's one of the great Batman comics, IMO, and also tells of the Oracle's origins (did you get the hint in *TDK*?). Besides the previously mentioned Vicki Vale, which character was reinvented? The Batman is a dark character. Wayne is broody when he's alone. The Joker is psycho with facepaint. So far, exactly as defined by the comics! The Dennis O'Neil/Frank Miller reboot of the Batman was actually a revival > of what the comic books were like in the 30s and 40s. Though even before > that, from the early 1970's, there was a clear progression to the grimmer, > darker Batman that we're all familar with today. O'Neil and Neal Adams > collaborated to create some of the best dark Batman stories, characters, and > themes in the 1970s and early 80s - from stories like 'The Secret of the > Waiting Graves', which came out in 1970, introducing Ra's Al Ghul, to visual > elements like the long flowing cape and thin pointy ears on the hood. Agreed. However, any 'darkness' would have been suppressed pre-Miller/O'Neill simply because that would have alienated the bulk of the audience. The 80s saw an emergence of adult-oriented comic-writing that allowed Miller to explore that side of Batman more thoroughly. It didn't hurt that some spectacular work (Moore's *Swamp Thing* and *Watchmen*, Miller's own *Daredevil*, Stan Lee's *X-Men*) started to fill bookstore shelves about the same time with some serious exploration of the humans behind the masks. I agree Burton's Batman was designed to be flat, so as to focus more on the > villain (the movie should have been called 'Tim Burton's Joker' rather than > 'Tim Burton's Batman'), but it's hard to see that any of the comic book > versions were (deliberately or inadvertently) 'flat'. Sure, there wasn't as > much 'darkness', but other than the 60's flirtation with outright camp - > which was influenced by the Adam West TV series - Batman, as the eponymous > hero of the verious titles published over the 'Golden Age' and 'Silver Age' > periods was always portrayed as a larger than life, iconic, essentially grim > character. He really wasn't anything like the Burton version of Batman. I tend to ignore Adam West as Batman. That was so flippant with the treatment that I simply return the favour (reluctantly, because West was crucial to keeping Batman alive). But the issue you raise is typical of any crossover from print to screen. A good example is *The English Patient*, where Minghella chose to take what was essentially a sub-plot and make it the highlight of the film. One ought to expect, by virtue of the character alone, that the Joker would always be the cynosure of any film adaptation. He's just far more interesting than Batman, no matter how he's played. The Batman is just a bloody boring character on screen. Vicki Vale, while a boring character, was actually pretty close to her comic > book avatar- both the original from the 1940s and the version who was around > in the 80s as a love interest for Bruce Wayne. I'm still waiting for some good women characters in the movies. Catwoman and Poison Ivy are easy. I'm looking for Leslie Thompkins, Vesper Fairchild, Renee Montoya (the one in *TDK* was pathetic), Sarah Essen. Chris Nolan uses pre-Frank Miller O'Neil characters as well - Ra's Al Ghul, > for example - but not necessarily in the same story lines. For instance, he > re-invented the Batman's origin too - while retaining the essence of the > characters from the O'Neil-Miller-90s comic book period. Well, only so far as to include Ra's Al-Ghul in the origin, and even so, there are indications in the comics that Batman trained with the Brotherhood for a spell before parting ways. I do agree that Rachel Dawes was pretty disappointing, and both Batman > Begins and The Dark Knight have flaws. However, they do succeed in one > critical aspect where Tim Burton's movies did not: portray Batman's story, > the story of the same conflicted hero from the comic books. In Batman > Begins, and The Dark Knight, he is the protagonist, and the one the audience > emapathises with. The supporting characters and antagonists serve their > roles in advancing the story. In Burton's films, the narrative is more > focused on and driven by the anatagonists - The Joker in the first movie, > and Catwoman and the Penguin in the second. Hence the time spent on their > respective origins and struggles in 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns'. Interesting - I felt that the Joker pretty much pwned the Batman in *The Dark Knight*, both visually and emotionally. But I agree with you - dispensing with the Joker's origins made the relationship with Batman far more taut. I do read the old comics. I'm one of the resident Silk-List comic book geeks > (paging Badri...!) My Batman collection in particular is extensive - > starting from reprints from the 1940s, a lot of the really cool 1970- 1985s > stories, and a huge pile from the mid-eighties on. So I'm in an informed > position when I paraphrase Richard Bentley to say, "Very pretty Mr.Burton, > but you must not call it Batman. Or the Joker." I didn't mean to colour you uninformed; maybe we're reading and seeing the same things, but interpreting them differently. Or just expecting them to be a certain way. > Given Nolan's focus on the less-obviously 'super' villains - we'll > probably see Riddler or Bane before we see Clayface. Catwoman is a real > possibility. Catwoman is good for the Batman in general. In all imaginable ways. :) -- Sumant Srivathsan sumants.blogspot.com
