by The cinematic realm is flooded with superhero films, as they’ve become a new staple of the industry. A new Batman film though sparks a different kind of elation, especially in fans of the character. But with the industry, Batman has changed as well. It seems that DC Comics adapted to the hype. Batman is about the fans as it is about reality. He’s become a crowd pleaser. THE BATMAN is the epitome of this. It’s hugely successful, crowds and critics praise it. Herein lies a question: why?
Three hours of darkness seems like pushing it, especially when the atmosphere is dark but blank, a Gotham City bereft of anything that made Burton’s vision unique and Nolan’s interpretation relatable. The worst, it appears, that may happen to the unsuspecting citizen is to get beaten up at the train station on Halloween. All civil rights undercurrents aside, as they are much too superficial to be worthy of discussion, this is not what makes us relate to the fate of a plagued society. So what type of crusader is this Batman, stepping out of the shadows? This is hard to answer.
People feel like they know the Bat, so an extensive origins story is not a necessity. Yet we would’ve appreciate knowing what type of person Robert Pattinson’s Batman, also known as Bruce Wayne, really is. Not much is ever attempted in terms of explaining his motivation. Or making him human. His human relations feel like he clipped people from cardboard and set them up around himself. Unapproachable, his crusade is a tour de force of his own martyrdom, a not-too-heavy cross he’s bearing all by himself without direction or purpose.
Selina Kyle, Catwoman of sorts, is another riddle. There’s little reason in making her lose her love interest or whatever the young lady living with her really is, if we never know what’s lost. As she joins in the fight against Falcone and Riddler, and whatever else we cannot fathom, the question returns: why? The scriptwriters came up with some questionable ideas, none based on any comic books this writer is aware of, tying knots through human crisis and connections that are vague and never evoke any sympathy. Worse than that, how do Batman and Catwoman ever connect? Only by force from the director, we assume.
When that light hits the sky, it’s not just a call. It’s a warning.
The Batman
Honoring a success formula envisioned by Marvel and half-heartedly adapted by DC, there’s some over-long motorcycle riding that’s not half the fun it should’ve been , some fighting, if not-much and in no way genuine, less so in darkness occasionally illuminated by the nozzle fire of some pathetically useless con men. Not even the formula everyone was looking for in Marvel films is still undeniable when it comes to pleasing crowds. The film is bumbling, going nowhere, not only story-wise: characters are going nowhere, society is getting nowhere – clichés apparently do the trick already. Films like OLDBOY (2003) successfully tied plot, character development and action, not to say tragedy. But as a society and audience, we’ve shifted and drifted in the past twenty years.
So what about the Riddler? A man wearing an odd mask, trying to sound like something else when he’s talking and boring us, a crowd already pleased and – you heard right – 500 followers on social media hanging to his lips. His superpower is putting bombs in trucks, parking them next to dams protecting Gotham from climate change and ruthless consumers going to the movies, having popcorn and maybe drinking non-alcoholic beer as long as it’s organic and sustainable. His riddles are no riddles but a monumental lack of creativity. Why should we even bother with a man we never get to know? And why should we bother with politicians uttering catch phrases, never doing a thing? In addition, why should we bother with Alfred, not a father figure, friend and ally to Batman but a secretary reading his boss’s mail? The Penguine is by no means honorably mentioned but intentionally left out of the discussion.
THE BATMAN is a crowd pleaser for a society trained to look at stock photography, skip any text instead of reading it and beating to death values like civil rights, equality and freedom without even knowing history or what sacrifice is. In three hours, it’s passing through cardboard sets at a snail’s pace, never knowing what it wants other than profit. Or why it started rolling in the first place. At the same time, it’s an important film. It neglects history, reality, truth and progress, instead giving the people what they think they want. George Orwell anyone? 1984? No? Probably quoted with “perspicacity,” yes, but never read.
