A new Dark Knight rises. The Batman brings a whole new Bat-hero to our screens, along with a new Catwoman, and different takes on familiar Bat-villains and allies. Louis, Doris, and Madeleine discuss the characters and the style of the film, and whether they think this film has the potential to be a series.
The Batman
Matt Reeves (director and writer), Greig Fraser (cinematographer), William Hoy and Tyler Nelson (editors), Peter Craig (writer)
Robert Pattinson, Zoë Kravitz, Jeffrey Wright, Paul Dano, Colin Farrell (cast)
Warner Bros. Pictures
March 4, 2022
We have a new Batman! What did you think of Robert Pattinson’s take on the Dark Knight and Bruce Wayne?
Louis: I was unsure about Robert Pattinson taking on the role but his Batman was a revelation. This is a Batman who knows the mask wears him, not the other way around, but he’s still hopeful for a better Gotham than he grew up with. I did get strong Christian Bale vibes from him though, especially the voice, but I don’t mind that.
I adored the suit. It’s utilitarian and functional and every time there was a close-up, I found something new on it.
Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne doesn’t get much of the limelight here – I thought it was interesting that the film avoided yet another billionaire playboy version. The film does focus almost exclusively on Batman, not Bruce Wayne, so that gave the hero room to grow.
Doris: As a socially-awkward recluse, he’s a throwback to the Michael Keaton Bruce Wayne, which is a plus point in my book. Too bad he wasn’t given as much material as Keaton.
Madeleine: I didn’t expect to like this take on Batman/Bruce Wayne as much as I did. I mean, I didn’t expect to like the whole movie as much as I did but I was pleasantly surprised. Having this sort of “unpolished” Year Two Batman is so refreshing to see with an on-screen Batman. He’s not a confident Justice Leaguer or even really a superhero yet, he’s just some guy trying his hardest and you can feel that. People have said that Pattinson was too un-emotive, but everything felt as clear as day to me. He didn’t play Batman or Bruce as some stoic brick, but as shy and awkward and you can see how his past has affected him in every micro-expression, every movement, in every being of his body. He’s reclusive, he’s afraid, and he’s still a child, still in that alleyway. I just absolutely loved the depth of character that didn’t have to be spelled out for the audience.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a live-action Catwoman on-screen. What were your thoughts on Zoë Kravitz as Selina Kyle in The Batman?
Louis: I’ve always loved Catwoman (way back from Julie Newmar’s version) so I was very excited to see her again in live-action. I thought Zoë Kravitz was a great choice – she’s got the physicality and allure of Selina down pat.
But the film doesn’t do Kravitz or Selina justice. I was surprised (and a little miffed) at how little screentime she ended up getting. Selina’s also a bit of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl here. We get to know more about her, but Selina’s existence in The Batman is almost solely to serve Batman’s story (even when she’s trying to fight for herself). There’s just the barest allusion to Selina’s queerness, which was frustrating because I didn’t see the chemistry between Cat and Bat in this film. I can understand why Batman falls for her, but what does Catwoman see in him?
Doris: I think the film missed a trick. Selina should’ve been the audience-identification character like Vicki Vale was in the Burton Batman. Instead, that role was split between Selina and Jim Gordon – and let’s face it, Jim Gordon was always one of the least interesting characters in the Bat-mythos.
Madeleine: I loved Zoë Kravitz as Catwoman. Similar to Pattinson, she brought a new dimension to an on-screen Catwoman that wasn’t quite spelled out for the audience, but if you read into it was amazing. The themes of class and race were interesting, albeit at times a bit too on the nose but maybe that’s just because I was so focused on them. Obviously, it would have been nice to have some sort of clear nod to her bisexuality, but I think Kravitz (who is bisexual herself) did the best she could to relay those emotions. She also did a good job of fleshing out Selina Kyle and making sure that she wasn’t just sex appeal, but her own character to almost act as a narrative foil for Batman.
The Batman villains have been known to outshine the hero. Did The Batman do the villains justice?
Louis: I’m a Riddler fan so I was interested to see what Paul Dano did with the character. Dano was good but this character didn’t feel like the Riddler at all. I’ve always felt like the Riddler is the kind of guy who doesn’t like getting his hands dirty. I think The Batman should have gone with someone like Victor Zsasz for this character.
Doris: It stands out from the other Batman films in that it eschews the most colourful villains for the suited-gangster section of the rogues’ gallery. Even the Riddler was used as an analogue to the Zodiac killer (right down to his “what if the KKK hired Gary Larson to design their outfits” fashion sense) rather than a costumed supervillain. As a matter of personal taste, I would’ve preferred more over-the-top villains, just as I would’ve preferred an old-school Alfred over Andy Serkis’ Earth One version; but I think the film’s approach worked fine. Plus, there’s always novelty value in seeing a “serious” take on an obviously silly character like the Riddler.
Madeleine: I don’t think that the villains really outshined Batman, but that all the characters helped to reinforce and develop each other’s stories, especially the clear Riddler/Batman parallels. It felt like they were all given their rightful space to both serve their narrative purpose and set up their origins. Usually, I have a gripe with major comic-to-screen character changes but this Riddler made total sense in this modern-day universe, along with many of the other changes made to fit a present-day setting.
Despite being yet another gritty reboot of the DC superhero, The Batman has a very unique tone. What did you think of the cinematography and pacing of the film?
Louis: The cinematography is gorgeous and extremely Gothic. The settings took me by surprise but it worked. But I struggled with the pacing at times. There were scenes where characters looked like they were moving in slow motion as if directed to. It didn’t feel natural, more like a stylistic directorial quirk. But at other times, the dialogue would speed up to match the agitated tone of the character. As beautiful as the film was, the pacing didn’t always work for me.
Doris: Like so many films today, The Batman had a lot of teal and orange in it. One of the climactic scenes was set in a dark building illuminated only by bouts of gunfire; it was like watching a teal and orange firework display, which was very pretty. I feel a bit cheated, though, because the posters marketed it as a black and red film, not a teal and orange film, and I was disappointed that we didn’t get the full Virtual Boy experience. I also feel bad for the Riddler, who turned up for the teal and orange party wearing an unflattering shade of green, like some kind of dork.
Madeleine: Absolutely loved it. I keep seeing the word “gritty” being used for this film but I think it’s an easy descriptive cop-out for a tone and atmosphere that is so much more. In my mind, I associate “gritty” with a somewhat emotionless, tough, and uninventive bleakness. But the vivid cinematography was anything but that. I still think about the scene in the climax of the film where Batman lights the flare because it’s so visually captivating. The score and sound design are also so euphoric. Nirvana’s “Something In The Way” mixed with the orchestral arrangements is infectious, and the way “Ave Maria” was weaved throughout the score is a narrative wonder. And of course, the modern, pop-culture idea of Batman is inevitably going to be somewhat “dark and gritty,” but this film proved that that doesn’t have to be without feeling.
I also found no problem with the pacing and length simply because I was so engrossed in the atmosphere and world of the film. I think everyone is so used to the attention-grabbing nature of superhero films (mostly with the MCU), in addition to everyone’s attention span just generally being shorter from the internet, screens etc., so it feels like the movie should end earlier than it does, but narratively it works out well and doesn’t waste any part of the three hours.
Was there anything you would change about The Batman? Why?
Louis: I’d remove that last act entirely. I was enjoying the film (despite the lack of Catwoman) until then. But that final 20 minutes didn’t make sense and it made the film overlong for no reason.
Also, the film score was so intrusive. I could never understand what it was trying to signify to the audience.
Doris: One of my main beefs was how it handled Bruce’s character arc. We see him learn that it’s not enough to just beat up bad people, he also needs to help good people; that’s become one of the stock plots for Batman films (we saw variations of it in Batman vs Superman and The Lego Batman Movie) but the execution here seems forced and heavy-handed. The Riddler happens to use the same phrase Bruce does, and that’s the cue for an operatic moment of Batman leading bystanders to safety – it feels like it’s there only because formula demands it, not because the writers were committed to pulling it off. It would’ve been better to leave him as an angsty, aggressive force of nature all the way through. Either that or handle his change of heart the way David S. Goyer would’ve handled it: have somebody give Bruce an elaborate analogy summarised in a punchy one-liner that everyone on the Internet starts quoting. I’d have accepted that.
Madeleine: I would have removed the scene with the Unnamed Arkham Inmate (you know who it is) because I don’t think it 100% needed to be there. But maybe I’m just fearful that the character will appear in a future installment because I’m tired of him being The Only Batman villain. I also would have explored the corrupt GCPD a bit more because I think the film took a relatively pro-cop stance, which the film’s underlying message of “everything is corrupt and I need to stop it” seemed to go against. I’m sure I could have more gripes with the film, but ultimately I think it was the best Batman film that it could be at this moment in time.
What’s your overall impression of The Batman? Is there room for a sequel?
Louis: I left the theatre liking the fact we had a new Batman. I loved Catwoman but there needed to be more of her. The villain should have been someone else, in my opinion, but he worked nonetheless. The pacing should have been better, especially that unnecessary last act, which brought the whole experience down for me.
Doris: I’d be up for a Zoë Kravitz Catwoman spin-off.
Madeleine: Refreshingly grounded in reality without compromising on its comic book quirks, characters that had dimension and a narrative to develop them, and a visual and aural atmosphere that I could easily sink into made The Batman a surprising delight for me. It felt more like a movie than a superhero movie, which was incredibly refreshing amidst the landscape of ever-increasing superhero flicks. I wish every superhero movie had such radiant passion and care behind it as this one felt like it did. It would be cool to see where this changed Batman/Bruce goes from here in a sequel, but I also think that this film can stand on its own. In fact, I worry that if a sequel was forced to happen for commercial purposes, the story would suffer greatly.
Most importantly, does this Batman fuck?
Louis: Oh no. This guy definitely does not. He should be so lucky.
Doris: Judging by the scene of him watching Selina undress through her window, no.
Madeleine: I think fanboys like to think he does, but no. He can barely make eye contact with most people. And did you see how Alfred reacted when he saw that Bruce was talking to a woman?
