Michael Keaton Batman???

Post Reply New Topic

love or hate

Michael Keaton's performance was one of the strengths of that very very flawed movie. I actually like his performance better than Christian Bale's. Mostly because of Bale's ridiculous Crazy Steve voice, but there was something quite enjoyable about Keaton's performance.

Can't blame Keaton for all the things that were wrong with that movie (and its sequel). That goes to Jon Peters and Tim Burton. Neither of whom reads comics. Which shows. Especially in how the Joker was handled (and killed off, which is of course a big no-no if you know anything about the character) and how he replaced random thug Joe Chill as killer of the Wayne parents, which of course ruins Batman's arc by making it about revenge, when it should be about justice and a general need to make Gotham better, rather than being about hunting down the guy who killed his parents in order to get closure, which shouldn't ever be what Batman is about. Batman's very core is that he knows he'll never get closure, and he knows he shouldn't even be seeking closure, and so he doesn't. He seeks something bigger. That's why he forces himself to become more than a man. To deal with the bigger picture. Bigger than his own loss. Even though Batman has been heard saying "I am vengeance, I am the night, I am Batman," he shouldn't be about vengeance. He should be the very symbol of justice over retaliation.
This was handled perfectly in Batman Begins, when Bruce was faced with the opportunity to take vengeance against Joe Chill, but chose not to shoot him, as he realized that Joe Chill, being a random thug, isn't the disease, just a symptom. This was then part of the process which lead to Bruce deciding to become a bat, to fight the disease on a larger scale.
Replace Joe Chill with the Joker, and you've got a situation where the killer isn't random, insignificant and a symptom, but a gleefully psychotic serial killer; disease. Thus the entire philosophy of Batman crumbles, and is replaced with one of revenge. In that set up, when Joker dies, Batman would have to retire, as his mission would be accomplished. And yet there was the sequel. Which felt kind of unmotivated. Because Batman at this point was hollow. He had nothing to fight for.
In my opinion, if you wanna do a Batman story about revenge, use Dick Grayson. They kind of tried to do it in Batman Forever, except it was buried in a terrible mess of a movie, but the setup of Robin seeking revenge for the murder of his parents and Batman trying to teach him that it's not worth it, is a perfectly good idea. Potential for excellent contrast, conflict and character development. Especially if Dick Grayson is very young (12-14) and goes on a violent vigilante spree before getting stopped by Batman, who then tries to teach him a lesson (as he simultaneously maneuvers himself into a position as legal guardian).
Instead using Batman to tell the revenge story as Burton did, when there is such a vast pool of story concepts to draw from... not a good idea.

But Michael Keaton's performance? Pretty good.

He was a good Batman, a better Bruce Wayne.

Besides what Vince said, another flaw of the Michael Keaton Batman was that he killed criminals. The real Batman of the comics does not kill criminals, because if he did he would be taking the law into his hands, rather than leaving it to a neutral and objective third party such as the police and the courts to uphold justice. By killing criminals he crosses the line from "guy that dresses up in a batsuit and helps the police capture criminals from time to time" to "unstoppable vigilante who decides who is guilty or innocence, who deserves to be imprisoned or let free, who deserves to live or die, without the permission of law enforcement or the legal system". The reason we don't allow individuals the power to met out justice on their own, and only allow law enforcement and the legal system do so, is because individuals are biased and prone to acting out of emotion rather than reason, and Batman,while he may be a superhero, is still a human being who acts out of emotion and can be prejudiced and biased, and Batman is aware of this. Batman knows that he is breaking the law just by apprehending criminals, Batman knows he is breaking the law simply by existing, so no matter how tempting it would be to murder a sick human beings like the Joker and Black Mask or mobsters like Two-Face,the Penguin, and Rupert Thorne, he will never cross that law because will change him from a vigilante to a fascist.

I loved Michael Keaton's Batman- for the time. But I think cinematic perceptions of superheroes have since moved on, and now Christian Bale sets the standard for the Batman movies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think you guys are being a bit too extreme.

For me Batman is compelling because there is a part of him that wants revenge, but there's another, more rational, moral part that knows revenge would dishonor his parents and consume him...

That conflict is illustrated in Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne desperately wants to kill Joe Chill, but he cannot bear the thought of betraying his parent's legacy. He would have killed Joe Chill if Rachael Dawes hadn't reminded him of this...

It's like Joker observes in The Killing Joke--they're both the products of "a bad day." Both characters are unhinged and driven mad by tragedy. The only thing that separates the two is that single thread of restraint.