Matt Reeves recently came out in an interview and spoke about how The Batman is a film he
fought to have creative control over.
One that nearly drove him away from the project but one
that ultimately led him right back into that director's chair, once he got given the green
light to make his auteur vision.
And when we apply this to the next film in my Road to The
Batman series, 1995's Batman Forever, there's a weird relation.
Warner Bros wanted something more in line with what could sell the character of Batman
as a family-friendly product, yet at the same time, Batman Forever also contains
a lot of what Joel Schumacher wanted for the character and was proud of.
It's unapologetically comic booky, yet drenched in neon all at
the same time, and like its tone and design, it reflects a film that has some really iconic
factors, yet also some of the worser aspects of Batman's theatrical history.
And these only got worse with Batman And Robin.
Still, it's interesting to talk about what made Batman Forever so great yet bad all at
the same time and it acts as a good leading off point into
Nolan's trilogy, a director that like Reeves, had full creative control.
This video essay continues my Road to The Batman series, where I of course create content
on the previous adaptations, Matt Reeves's filmography and
topical videos surrounding his upcoming 2022 film.
During the build-up, I will also be covering any news and information surrounding the
director's latest project.
But if you want to keep up to date on any of my content surrounding The Batman, then
don't forget to support this video by giving it a like rating,
subscribing to the channel and turning on your notifications.
Also, feel free to check me out on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram at cortex videos,
which is all linked in the description below.
But without further ado, let's dive into my video essay on Batman Forever, and why I think
it includes some of the best and worst of the caped crusader on film.
So Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever had a weird beginning during its production.
After Tim Burton's 1992 sequel Batman Returns, the director began working on the third film
of his take on Batman.
But controversially, Warner Bros quickly wanted to change direction, insisting that a more
family-friendly take come to the big screen, one that was a focus group esque
creative and aesthetic direction, which understandably annoyed Burton.
He left the project and handpicked Joel Schumacher to take his place and resultingly, Michael
Keaton also left the franchise out of frustration.
And of course recently with Zack Snyder, we've seen a relatable situation take place with
the director's vision being mismanaged leading to 2017's version
of Justice League.
So the studio has their history of wanting things done their way to maximise potential
at the box office, but it's clear that this doesn't always work.
And while Joel Schumacher did somewhat stay more in
line with what the studio wanted, he also gave us some unforgettable moments, mixed
with his creative style and flair, ones that make us
continuously come back to this question of creative control.
On one hand, it can be better and I personally prefer when a filmmaker is allowed to execute
their vision regardless of the outcome.
And then it can also result in films like Wonder Woman 1984, where Patty Jenkins was
given the control over a lot of that film.
She's a fantastic director, but where it failed, lied with the script, which is what the studio
put her in charge of on the sequel too.
So it's a complicated affair but one that has to be thought about more deeply in regards
to who is in control of what, and also... will this
give us the best results for the vision that the auteur set out to achieve?
But again, despite all of these early troubles on the production of Batman Forever, the film
25 years later, is a complete joy ride.
It's wild theme park entertainment that isn't afraid to have all the humour, while at the
same time, it's also not scared to get into the permanent darkness within the duality
of every character.
It's both timeless because of it being a reflection of its time, yet experimental
in every sense of its futuristic structure.
And yes, there are still a number of reasons why it does fall short in comparison to
some of the other entries.
A lot of time is wasted setting up The Riddler and Two-Face, with Batman getting pushed to
the side.
With Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy making
Batman an interesting character who deserved to be in the spotlight, Batman Forever certainly
looks poor in relation as it makes its protagonist seem less prominent.
And then there's the Bat-Nipples, the sometimes excessive use
of the neon and black lights, which I don't mind in certain moments, and of course the
over-the-top mannerisms of most of the supporting cast.
But while it certainly isn't the best movie about Gotham City's dark knight, it's certainly
not the worst.
It's a breather from the darker tone we had with Tim Burton's previous
film and something that still took elements from that, combining them with the antics
of the '60s television series, and topping it off with the 90s.
It was a part of the pulp of those times, fun, visually pleasing, and it had
cartoonish villains that work well for this particular style.
Yes, they still weren't fantastic or anything, but they fit that approach.
And mainly, this was an iteration that had captured
the imagination of the young Batman fan, one that was blown away by the colourful Gotham
city and characters that occupy it.
As you expect, this isn't my kind of preferred Batman
film, but I can still understand why some would like it and why it worked when ticking
those boxes.
It really is a film that can work differently for everyone, regardless of being
more studio pushed than that of Burton.
And coming back to my mention of the cartoonish villains on show, it's key that we discuss
Jim Carrey's take on the iconic Riddler.
Now while the character takes a bad turn towards the
final act of the movie, I must admit, I quite like what we saw leading up to that point,
which includes the introduction of Edward Nygma.
The film gives us a version of the character that had already been around and tried in
his life, before now working as a dissatisfied employee of Wayne Enterprises, who has an
unhealthy obsession with Bruce Wayne.
We watch him transform from the awkward scientist to the
murderous villain throughout the first act, observing a broken man slowly turning to madness
and eventually wearing the iconic green suit with question marks.
And of course, we get the infusion of riddles that the villain uses to toy with his obsession,
and this results in quite the unique psychological element within a
tentpole summer blockbuster.
I find Carrey's performance quite classic, and if anything, it makes me even more excited
for what we seem to be getting with Paul Dano's take on the
character.
Matt Reeves is trying to redefine him, taking what we know and the iconic elements expressed
in other adaptations and bringing it to the screen in a way that is inspired by
the Zodiac killer and fits the detective-esque film.
I guess we'll see how it turns out, but hopefully, it will become another famous take on this
classic Batman villain.
And coming to another character on display, say what you
will about Nicole Kidman's Dr Meridian, but the techniques she uses during her therapy
sessions with Bruce Wayne give us an exploration of
Batman's psyche like we hadn't seen before.
We get a series of flashbacks, dreams, or conversations, that give us a bigger picture
surrounding his fears and motivations.
From losing his parents at a young age to examining Bruce's
fear of bats, something that was then of course seen in Batman Begins a decade later.
And Riddler also uses his fears as a weapon against him, another idea that was utilised
in Nolan's film.
Yes, they were executed better and had the right tone attached to them, but it's cool
to see these integral elements further back and give reason to why Batman Forever
isn't as silly as everyone makes it out to be.
And by that, I mean silly in a bad way.
It knows what it is, yet still encapsulates some of
the darker and important themes routed within the character and those around him.
And coming to the end of this essay, I think one of the main things that stand out to me
as being a better element in midst of all the bad things, is actually the aspect that
I've briefly touched on throughout this video.
And that is the vibe and style of this film, captured through its production workers.
Cinematographer Stephen Goldblatt uses tilts and moves
his camera with a certain flair, stamping his style across the film in ways we simply
don't see in most superhero films today.
And production designer Barbara Ling gives every point
of Gotham City the moody atmosphere and neon art it deserves.
Maybe too much neon at points, but still, every frame acts as a painting for the most
part.
And composer Elliot Goldenthal gives us the added touch of aggression and
jazzy trills.
From top to bottom there's a complete sense of doing what they want from a creative standpoint,
something that brings into question the idea that this film was fully
pushed by the studio.
It clearly wasn't all Warner Bros direction, as there's a sense of freedom and desire to
be silly across the board.
The result we get is a filmmaker injecting their aesthetic personality into a film that
was just going to be a studio-focussed piece.
It's a merging of light and shadow, and the areas
of psychological commentary add to all of the characters.
Batman Forever gives us all the camp but also all the sincerity.
Whether that's good is up to you, but for me, I think this
results in a worthwhile Batman film bringing us something quite unusual yet appropriate
all at the same time.
Yes, there are many things I don't love about it from a scriptwriting point
of view or even through the over-the-top wacky approach it presents, but I can't deny it's
fun, nostalgic looking back and again, has its moments of intensity.
But that was my video discussing Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever and the things that in my opinion
give us the best and worst of Batman on the big screen.
While a handful of greatness might not make up for a lot of the missteps,
it was yet another example of how Batman can be taken in numerous directions, especially
when it comes to storytelling, filmmaking and tone.
The character has lasted throughout history because of the ability of multiple directors
putting their unique stamp on the character and Gotham, and that makes it incredibly fresh
every time a new version is brought to life.
Apart from when it's done terribly of course.
And speaking of terrible, that's where Batman and Robin comes into the conversation.
It's all subjective and I know there's a few people
who like certain aspects from that film, but to me, it's the one that I personally don't
enjoy rewatching.
I won't be doing a video on the second Schumacher film because I think the
elements in that film were just handled much better in Batman Forever and there would be
less to add to the conversation when it comes to
this particular series.
But you may like the film, so let me know down below in the comments section what you
think towards the sequel, and primarily, what your thoughts are towards
Batman Forever.
My next video in this Road to The Batman series continues with a video essay on Christopher
Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy.
I will be following this with a video on Zack Snyder's take
on Batman alongside essays on Matt Reeves filmography as a buildup to his film this
March.
This will all be released over the next few weeks along with much more content on the
2022 movie very soon.
To stay up to date with all of this content, then subscribe to the channel and turn on
your notifications.
Also if you enjoyed this video remember to leave a like
rating and follow me on social media via the links in the description.
But anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed it, I've been Cortex and as always make some noise.