Bat to Basics: A review of “Batman Begins”

After the much-maligned “Batman and Robin” a masterpiece such as “Batman Begins” finally comes along and solidifies director Joel Schumacher’s great contribution to Batman’s filmic representations. It has also made me greatly appreciative of his film version of the comicbook icon.

I know the words “Joel Schumacher,” “film,” “great” and “Batman” are not usually found in the same sentence, or at least not together with expressions unsafe to use in polite conversation. However, we have to give credit where credit is due; Schumacher may have been responsible for the disaster of a movie so lit with candy colors and replete with outlandish costumes and personalities it could have been easily mistaken as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” at best, or a psychedelic softcore porn movie at worst, but perhaps Warner would still have continued milking the franchise with similar endeavors until it dies a slow, painful death, with no hope of resuscitation if he had not come along. Simply put, Schumacher’s take was so epic in its badness that it took the studio eleven long years before releasing a new movie, and a reboot at that.

As a film designed to wipe the slate clean, “Batman Begins” is an enthralling reinvigoration of the moribund film franchise. David Goyer and Christopher Nolan clothe Gotham City with the darkness that spawns the types of beings such as Batman, as well as his nemeses. Gone are the neon lights, the flashy fight scenes with goofy-looking characters, the colorful costumes; it’s all b(l)ack to basics, a perfect depiction of the Batman’s original milieu.

“Batman Begins” also explores an important facet of the Bat mythology (aside from the pivotal night Bruce Wayne “dies” with his parents in Crime Alley, thus giving birth to the Dark Knight) overlooked in previous interpretations: Bruce Wayne’s (Christian Bale) training to hone mind, body and spirit for his crusade to rid Gotham of criminality. For the first time on the silver screen, viewers got to see the rigorous preparations he had to undertake in his pursuit of justice, learning under the tutelage of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Together with Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine), Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), they play pivotal role in Bruce’s life as surrogate fathers who offer sagely advice (Ducard, Gordon and Alfred) and the means with which he can effectively fight the criminal elements (Gordon, Ducard and Fox) both within and without the law’s boundaries.

It is in this respect that the movie once again stands out from its predecessors. In “Begins,” Bruce may have strived to become “more than just a man,” an indestructible, elemental symbol to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful, but it is in this movie that he became more human. Nolan’s take on the mythos is so rooted in reality that his Batman seems the most plausible in recent memory. It is no wonder then that in Batman’s one man war on crime he would utilize materials originally designed for military purposes. As a matter of fact, his armor (Kevlar-based Nomex survivor suit) and his Batmobile (the Tumbler, an imposing Hummer-like vehicle with speed and maneuverability that rival the sleekest of race cars) are not only realistic or attainable; they seem to have come straight out of an episode of Discovery Channel’s “Future Weapons.” Nolan and company even reinvent three of the most recognizable features of Batman’s arsenal. His forearm spikes (called “scallops” in the movie) have defensive and offensive purposes. His cape (“memory fabric” that forms a rigid shape) does not assume the shape of bat wings by wind alone, but through currents of electricity from his gloves. And his utility belt, which in the comics is replete with pockets from which Batman magically pulls out all sorts of gadgets, is a metallic contraption (not to mention futuristic- and better-looking than the comicbook signature) on which his gadgets are magnetically attached.

It is said that a hero is only as good as his enemies. In Batman’s case, his villains indeed merit all of his preparations. Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy; uses a fear toxin to paralyze his victims), Ra’s al Ghul and Ducard (set on implementing justice, even at the cost of human life and social order) are reflections of Batman’s own desires and drive to accomplish these desires, sans his discipline and moral code. Their continued conflicts with Batman highlight the very thin line that separates his desires from their delusion, his mission from their madness, his pursuit of justice from their pursuit of vengeance.

Hard as it may to accept, but a masterpiece such as “Batman Begins” is not without some flaws no matter how negligible. For one, the fight scenes are to close (quarter) for comfort. Batman’s training in ninjutsu gets lost in a sea of black, courtesy of his tussles with the villains, especially the similarly-garbed-in-black, disposable henchmen of Ducard. I also find faulty the gross miscasting of Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Granted that Dawes may be considered an inessential addition to Batman lore and thus, expendable (she was created for this film), the casting crew could have done something more to get a seasoned actress who commands viewer respect. Holmes might have done her best (though I’m unsure of it), but she does not fit the role. Whenever she appeared on screen it’s as if she was ready to lock lips with the nearest young male co-star in sight, as “I Don’t Wanna Wait” wafts in the air. She should have stayed in Dawson’s Creek instead of relocating to Gotham.

Notwithstanding the previously mentioned, “Batman Begins” is indeed a masterpiece. Fans have every reason to rejoice and look forward to a sequel (the enormous task of rounding up the loosed Arkham Asylum inmates merits it, including the chilling last scene involving Gordon, Batman and a “certain playing card”), or sequels at that. This time around, I am quite sure that with Nolan and his crew onboard, everything would still turn out well if this movie is any indication. The Bat is indeed back. Gotham's lawless elements better pray the police get them before he does.

The movie starts off with a generically named couple, John and Jane Smith, talking to a marriage counselor. From there, the viewers get a glimpse of their lives as mercenaries working for opposing groups, mixing humdrum domesticity with blood pumping danger and deceit.

In a bar in Bogota, Colombia, a woman named Jane walks into a bar (no, this is not a joke) as an army of police officers accosts individuals without a companion. As she breezes through the security, she meets up with John, and the two of them claim that they are together, to avoid any further involvement with the law enforcers. After this meeting, they wed and lived a seemingly boring life as husband and wife, until the fateful day that they discovered that each of them were actually spies working for opposing groups.

After engaging scenes of Mr. and Mrs. Smith trying to blow one another into, well, smithereens, they both realize that they were actually assigned on a single target by their respective groups, with the aim that they would eliminate one another. What follows is a conventional action movie narrative device of cat and mouse game, with the Smiths trying to elude forces from their camps out for their blood, while trying to discuss their marital woes during and in between fighting for their lives. Their final salvo against a number of the forces sent against them inside an abandoned shop is a scene worth seeing and nitpicking.

Brad and Angelina’s seething chemistry onscreen (and reportedly off screen) is a visual pleasure to behold. My love, my own Mrs. Smith with whom I saw the movie, even commented that the scenes were enough for Jennifer Aniston, Pitt’s erstwhile wife, to really be jealous of the silver screen couple. Sadly, it is only through visual appeal that the movie makes up for what it lacks in plot.

The movie has quite a number of plot holes, as there are bullet holes in the swath of destruction they leave in their wake fighting one another and their opposing camps. For one, I really can’t fathom how they were able to survive after fighting the armies sent by their camps. Sure they were represented in the movie as two of the best agents in the field (John has a kill rate of around 50 or 60, while Jane has killed 312!), but I really can’t believe that they beat quite a number of enemies armed to the teeth, equipped with the latest technology in weapons and night vision, during a night time attack in an abandoned, darkened shop, with only a handful of guns and rifles, wearing shades at that! Also, the viewers are left with the conundrum of how they were able to escape with their lives from the wrath of their agencies. Did the opposing groups just let them go scot-free after the couple decimated their forces during the attack? Definitely, an unhealthy excessive suspension of disbelief is required.

The movie ends with the Smiths having ironed out their marital troubles, sitting yet again in front of their counselor. Good for them. The viewers could certainly occupy their places on the counselor’s couch, to help them figure out how to resolve the movie’s dangling plot…