The role of Batman/Bruce Wayne is one that many actors have striven for, but only a select few claimed the prize. While the role is coveted, it also feels like it might be cursed. With the exception of Christian Bale and George Clooney, any actor who has donned the famous Cape and Cowl of the Dark Knight, did so at the price of 1 career. But, that's not why we're here, is it? We've come to decide, once and for all, who portrayed our favorite Detective, and his Billionaire counterpart, the best.
I've been wanting to do this editorial for a bit, but haven't found the time. My previous editorial of who the "better" Joker (between Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson) was an absolute blast to do. I've been thinking about it since I first saw "The Dark Knight," but lacked the outlet to create it. This debate will be quite a bit different though. With the Joker debate, I found that a definitive winner can't be named. But, with the debate of who was the best Batman, or the best Bruce Wayne, a clear winner must be named. Bruce Wayne is Bruce Wayne, no matter who writes it. The same can be said for Batman.
Originally, the plan was to only include Michael Keaton and Christian Bale in the debate. That's not entirely fair though, is it? Two other actors have decently portrayed Bruce Wayne, while the former of those two also portrayed Batman with great respect. So, that's why I've decided to include both Val Kilmer and George Clooney, along with the two, commonly compared actors Michael Keaton and Christian Bale. Hold-on to your keyboards, boys and girls. This is going to be a bumpy ride...
We'll start with the first, and ascend from there. In a pool that included the likes of Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Pierce Brosnan, and even Bill Murray, Jon Peters' favorite choice, Michael Keaton, bested them all. This was a very questionable choice by Peters and Burton. Warner Bros wanted an established action star for the role. Even Bob Kane, Sam Hamm, and Michael Uslan felt this was an odd pick, and, thusly, objected to it. In matters like this, fans are the only ones that matter, and they were NOT happy with this choice. The masses feared, justly, that we were going to be receiving something akin to the 60's Camp-athon, due to Michael Keaton's previous films being comedy-based. But, as they typically do, Jon Peters and Tim Burton stuck to their guns. Critics were quickly silenced when Mr. Keaton first graced the scene as the Dark Knight. Gone was "Mr. Mom," and prevailing was "Batman." As Batman, Keaton's voice was properly changed to give him that dark and menacing tone needed to strike fear into the criminals of Gotham City. Although he is notoriously short, a combination of camera and wardrobe tricks were utilized to make Michael Keaton's Batman appear larger. The suit was exactly what you could want with a proper version of Batman. Sure, the suit is grey and blue (typically) in the comics, but the all black, with the black Bat-Emblem on a yellow background was beautiful and scary. I do feel that, while mainly brilliant, Keaton's Batman falls apart a bit, too. The fights were stiff, and you can visibly see the struggle with the suit during said action sequences. Burton seems to go with style over substance in most of his movies, so this isn't unusual. You would think they would find a better way to suit Batman, so that he isn't hindered during his crime fighting. But, it was a different time, and not as many materials, effects, and such, were not available. It is still something that should be considered, though.
While I truly feel that Michael Keaton was an excellent Batman, he falls short when it comes to Bruce Wayne. But, really only in one category: Appearance. Mr. Keaton, simply, does not look like Bruce Wayne. Wayne is supposed to be a very handsome playboy, which is something that Keaton can't pull off. Also, I think that his acting was a bit off. I always felt that Bruce Wayne should be the opposite of Batman. Where Batman shows indifference, and general lack of personality, Wayne should exude compassion and more "playboy" qualities. Keaton's Wayne seems to be, aside from voice (barely), Batman without the suit. I think that if we were to cast only Bruce Wayne out of the above choices, Pierce Brosnan would be the clear choice. Probably would have been a terrible Batman, though.
When Michael Keaton left the "Batman Franchise"
after Tim Burton was bumped as Director (even after an exquisite offer of $15,000,000 to return as Batman), we were given Jim Morrison himself, Val Kilmer, who accepted the role without knowledge of the Director, or even reading the script. Prior to his signing, Daniel Day-Lewis, Ralph Fiennes, William Baldwin, and Johnny Depp were all strongly considered to replace Keaton. The casting of Kilmer didn't only affect the continuity (Kilmer looked considerably younger than his predecessor), but his co-stars. Namely, Rene Russo, who was originally cast as Dr. Chase Meridian. When she appeared to old for Kilmer's Bruce, she was kicked to the curb for the younger, far prettier, Nicole Kidman. In my opinion, Kilmer was the best choice to replace Mr. Keaton. He played Batman perfectly (with the material given), using the same deep, threatening voice that Keaton utilized in the previous two films. The suit was basically the same during the first-half of the film, as it was for the last two installments. Changing only after the insane, revenge-monger that was Riddler went ape-sh*t in the Batcave, destroying it with his own Bat-Bombs. The suit we get to replace the original isn't bad. Honestly, I feel that it was a bit of a regression. This suit was a very simple design, which would make you think it was his first. Regardless, it was still a great suit. Again, the suit hinders the fighting a bit, but it has gotten considerably better by this time.
With Val Kilmer's performance of Bruce Wayne, we get the same performance he gave as Jim Morrison in Oliver Stone's "The Doors." I just don't think Kilmer is a great actor, and that most of the roles he got after "The Doors" were received solely because of that movie (which wasn't a bad performance, but it can't be forced upon other characters). As far as looks go, while blonde, looks exactly as I would expect Bruce Wayne to look. But, the same complaints I have for Keaton's Wayne performance fit nicely with Kilmer's.
After Val Kilmer departed, due to the feeling he had that Batman was being marginalized in favor of the villains (he is 100% correct, in my eyes), he was replaced by "Booker Brooks," George Clooney, in the "Face-Palm" inducing "Batman & Robin." The choice to cast Clooney came because the home-wrecker Joel Schumaker felt that Clooney would give a lighter interpretation of Batman, which is the angle they were shooting for at the time. Well, what can I say? As Batman, Clooney blew. His performance, like in most of his films, was very wooden. This was one of those cases where it really felt that the actor was there for an easy, high-paying, paycheck. In the real world, this is acceptable. In Hollywood, though, every actor should properly consider the strength that a bad performance carries. He didn't even bother changing his voice when he donned the famous Cape-and-Cowl. And, that's another thing. What happened to the Bat-Suit? It changed to, what looked like, the suit from the first three films, but before it was painted. I can let the simplicity of the design pass, but why the Bat-Nipples? Schumaker stated that it was meant to resemble ancient Greek statues. I guess I can see where he was going, but it just doesn't make sense why Bruce Wayne would feel it necessary to recreate a Bat-Suit once used, only to add nipples in lieu of finishing the paint-job ( realize this wasn't the fault of George Clooney, but it should still be stated). The suit seemed to be tailored, this time, to help with the fight scenes. But, it still seemed rather stiff. Honestly, for this paycheck, George Clooney was extremely luck that this didn't kill his career, like it did to Chris O'Donnell. The material was terrible, and Clooney did the best with what he had, but George Clooney is easily the worst Batman in existence.
When it comes to his turn as Bruce Wayne, the exact same can be stated as both of his predecessors. Although, Clooney's Wayne is literally just Batman without a mask. Although he is a handsome man, Bruce Wayne seemed to age rather fast. But, I guess having live in a city that is overrun with neon lights and cookie-cutter thugs will age anybody greatly. Clearly, George Clooney's inspiration was himself. Clooney's notorious arrogance and indifference was evident in this movie. It was as if Clooney's thought process was, "I'm George Clooney, and that's who the audience wants to see." It seems to me that he showed 0 respect for neither the character or the fans. I wasn't born with enough thumbs to express my displeasure with this portrayal, or the movie in general. Clooney was immediately signed to play Bruce again in the, fortunately, unreleased "Batman Triumphant." It would be 8 years before we would see Batman on the big-screen again.
Finally, after nearly a decade, we were treated
to "Batman Begins." Not only did this show a proper origin of Batman (film adaptation), but placed the character into a more realistic-feeling backdrop. The casting of the relatively unknown Christian Bale turned out to be a good one. I'm very happy that he was denied the part of Robin in "Batman Forever," because 1) it would probably destroy his career, and 2) we wouldn't have seen him as Batman. Beating out such actors as John Cusack, Henry Cavill, and Jake Gyllenhaal, it really makes you respect Christopher Nolan's genius, more than you already do. As Batman, he gave the character an intensity not yet seen in a Batman film. One such moment this can be clearly seen is when he pulls Flass to the top of a building upside down. When he's interrogating said Detective, Flass says something akin to, "I don't know anything else... I swear to God." This statement infuriated Batman, and you can physically see the anger rising through his body when he growls, "SWEAR TO ME!" And, lest we forget, Bale did a great job showing emotion, which is hard to do when your most of your face is enclosed. This can be seen, mainly, in "The Dark Knight" (like the climax when Joker is hanging upside down, you get the feeling that Batman is physically AND mentally worn out). Such an excellent performance, but it isn't without faults. The obvious one is his voice. In "Batman Begins," the voice isn't too bad. It seemed like he was struggling a bit to maintain that voice. In one scene, he reverts to his "Bruce Wayne" voice (I'm sure that was the intention, since he was attempting to let Rachael know who he was). The only difference being that it sounded really nasally, like he was talking with a set of goggles on. But, the majority of the complaints about his voice are due to "The Dark Knight." He really went overboard with it. It sounded like he gargled with gravel. I do think it is generally accepted that this is the best of all of the Bat-Suits. The fights do not seem nearly as stiff. Rather, they are quite fluent. And it only got better in "The Dark Knight."
As Thomas and Martha's son, Bale looks exactly how Wayne should look. This is not Bale's strongest performance, but still great. He pulls off the "Billionaire Playboy" better than any of his predecessors, as well as the compassionate nature that Bruce possesses. While I'm positive that Dick Grayson/Tim Drake won't be in the "Nolanverse," it could actually work because Christian Bale makes you believe that Bruce Wayne, while a loner, would help out a child if needed. Like I said, this is not Christian Bale's best performance (that title goes to "American Psycho" or "The Fighter"), but he is a more believable Bruce Wayne than any that came before him.
In Closing...
In the end, if I were to choose who played Batman the best, it would be a difficult choice. I'd have to say that Michael Keaton was probably the best, followed by Bale, and then Kilmer. As for Bruce Wayne on the other hand, that would have to go to Christian Bale, followed by Val Kilmer. The clear loser in all of this, though, would have to be the fans. Simply because we were forced to endure George Clooney's performance, and the movie he acted in.
So, there you have it. This has been a very fun editorial to write. I'm quite curious what you think. Leave your opinions in the usual place.
If you'd like to get to know me a bit more, or just want to read "Reflections" NOT pertaining to Comic Book Movies, please visit my Facebook Page...
...And, As Always...
...Take Care. And I'll See You in the Future...