Who Shot Thomas Wayne?

Who Shot Thomas Wayne?

Another Batman fan's thoughts on previous films.

Editorial Opinion
By Zuriel - Jan 21, 2012 05:01 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman

In anticipation of the upcoming Batman film, I have been watching other Batman movies repeatedly, as many of you probably have been as well. Doing so has allowed me to study the stories in greater detail and gain new appreciations for movies that I already loved. The Christopher Nolan versions are not the only ones out there, but they do have plots and subplots that are far more intricate than previous films based on comic book superheroes.

In some ways I have realized that Batman Begins is superior to its much revered sequel, The Dark Knight. It uses very clever movement in the story’s timeline; jumping from Bruce Wayne’s childhood, to his training in the League of Shadows, to the present where he struggles to reinvent himself as a “symbol.” However, I didn’t intend on this article to be about that, or to start an argument about which Batman film is the best. The topic I want to discuss has nothing to do with the Nolan incarnation of Batman at all.

As you are aware, there are many incarnations of Batman in cinema, and although a few of them work on screen, others fail miserably. None of them, however, depict the character accurately as seen in the pages of the comics. All screenwriters and directors have taken their liberties in an attempt to bring a much layered character to life, on the big screen, in a way that is visually believable. Few will argue that so far, the movies that have failed most terribly, although flawed in many ways, have been the ones that go too far from reality and strive to create a world around Bruce Wayne and Batman that is based more in fantasy.

For the purpose of maintaining a clear argument, I really only want to deal with the two versions of Batman that I feel have been the most successful: Tim Burton’s and Christopher Nolan’s. Although they are both based on the same comic book character, the two versions are slightly different. The two Gothams are vastly different environments; Burton’s being a mixture of noir and gothic landscape while Nolan’s is a more common American metropolis. Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger play the same villain, and both do so successfully, but the characters are very different. This summer we will probably also find that Anne Hathaway portrays a very different Selina Kyle than Michelle Phfeiffer did previously.

The character that differs the most, in my opinion, is the character of Bruce Wayne. Christian Bale portrays a public face of Bruce that is a facade; a billionaire playboy that cares more about social standing, fast European cars and model escorts. He chooses to put himself out there in the media and the public eye as a person too ridiculous to ever be accused of being the darker and more complex individual that jumps across rooftops at night fighting crime. Michael Keaton’s Bruce is the opposite, however, dealing with his duel identity in a completely different way. Keaton’s Wayne is a recluse. When Vicky Vale and Alex Knox visit Wayne Manor for a charity function, they don’t even know what he looks like, and they’re supposed to be the most informed individuals in the city: reporters.

Both portrayals of Batman are about a rich man whose parents were murdered in an alley, and after years of preparation, have chosen to use their resources to fund an experimental vigilantism. Both Batmen hope to prevent what happened to them as children from ever happening again, but Bale’s character is more centrally focused on fighting injustice. His opportunity for revenge was taken from him when a mob assailant assassinates the murderer of his parents, and through the eyes of a close friend Rachel Dawes, he becomes disgusted with his desire for vengeance and runs away to find a different path to deal with his past and fight criminals. We never get to see this time period in Keaton’s version. We don’t know the extent of his training, although it seems he has had much less, and so we can’t be sure at the start of the film if he ever faced a similar situation or not, or if he even knows who murdered his parents at all.

Now you’ll exclaim, “But wait, The Joker killed his parents!” This is where I finally get to the topic I really wanted to cover. I wanted to discuss the issue of Jack Napier, The Joker, murdering Thomas and Martha Wayne in the 1989 Tim Burton film. After watching the movie over and over again, it has been my favorite movie since I was a kid; I have pulled the story apart and come to a very unusual conclusion. At least, I have never heard anyone else say what I am about to claim. It may not have been the screen writers or the director’s intention, but it seems to me that Jack Napier may NOT have killed Bruce Wayne’s parents at all. Let me explain.

First I have to reveal my evidence to support the idea that in Burton’s Batman Bruce Wayne does not really know who killed his parents. My evidence is as follows: Bruce has Alfred pull the file on his parent’s death, a file he has undoubtedly poured over in obsession countless times, after seeing the Joker on television. Why would he do this if he knows Jack Napier is at fault? You might say he did this because he is trying to determine the identity of the Joker but can you really believe Bruce doesn’t realize its Napier already? When Vicky Vale reads over the newspaper clippings she says nothing about Jack Napier killing Wayne’s parents. Neither Bruce or Alfred or any other characters ever say, during the film, “Jack Napier murdered Thomas and Martha Wayne.” Also, for the duration of the film Jack Napier is a free man, clearly not imprisoned for the double homicide he supposedly committed so unless he got off for a lack of evidence it might be safe to say that the authorities do not suspect him in the murder either. Did young Bruce’s witness of the crime not lead the police to suspect Napier either based on physical description or hearing the gun man’s name called out? “Come on Jack, let’s go!”

So we are left with the scene in the film where Bruce Wayne sits alone in his Batcave, staring at a frozen image on screen of the Joker, with the file of his parents’ murder on the desk in front of him, recalling the night of his parents demise. We are also left with two opposing views of what this scene is exactly depicting. The most common conception is the most obvious, and reasonably so, that as Bruce remembers that night he recalls a man shooting his parents dead while wearing the same insidious grin which is frozen on the screen before him. He realizes that Jack Napier is still alive, that he is the Joker, and that he is directly responsible for the murder of his parents.

My take on the story, now that I am in adulthood, is much different. What if Bruce really isn’t sure who murdered his parents? What if the gun man was never found and so the foggy recollection of a young boy, blurred by years of aging and the trauma of the event, has left the face of this demon in constant flux? What we have then is a very insightful look into the psyche of a man who deals with his tragedy by going out at night and beating Gotham’s criminals senseless. He drums up the courage to do this by being driven on an ongoing quest to find the person or persons responsible in a sea of thieves and murderers.

Then a real madman comes along; one that cannot be dealt with in the usual manor. He sits at the head of the city’s largest criminal organization and is thus untouchable. He has begun killing in mass quantities, apparently indiscriminately, and now calls Batman out into a confrontation he will probably lose. He is planning a parade where he will insight mass hysteria by showering the crowds with money and then most likely commit mass murder.

To stop a mad man of this magnitude, Bruce freezes his sadistic grin on screen and forces himself to re-imagine the night of his parents’ murder. Then we see the actual event for the first time in the film, and I have to point out that we are only seeing it as Bruce recalls the event through his own point of view, so the accuracy is arguable. It is here that I now wonder if maybe he puts the face of Jack on the blank face of the assailant in an effort to connect the monster he faces in the present with the demon that lurks in his past and insistently tortures him. After convincing himself that Napier might be the one responsible he now has the strength to confront him in a possibly suicidal attempt to stop him. When he finally faces him in the end, face to face, he accuses him of murdering his parents, and the Joker having killed dozens or more victims, admits his guilt without knowing or caring who is accusing him.

Maybe this is how Keaton’s Batman, who is poorly trained in hand to hand combat, whose stature is smaller than we would expect of the character, and who relies on gadgets and fear to fight more threatening opponents, finds the strength to go out night after night. Maybe he has done this before; imaging that every larger than life villain he encounters is responsible for his parents’ murder so that he has the courage to face them and his inner demons.

Seeing the movie under this interpretation allows me to appreciate it in a new light, even if as I said before, it was not the attempt of the creators. It’s certainly something to think about the next time you watch it.

BATMAN & ROBIN YEAR ONE #1 Recap And Review - Off To A Great Start
Related:

BATMAN & ROBIN YEAR ONE #1 Recap And Review - Off To A Great Start

BATMAN: DARK PATTERNS #1 Recap And Review - Masterfully Executed Body Horror
Recommended For You:

BATMAN: DARK PATTERNS #1 Recap And Review - Masterfully Executed Body Horror

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

golden123
golden123 - 1/21/2012, 6:38 PM
I'll give you an "A" for effort, but I disagree. At the begining, there isn't any indication that we are seeing the murder through Bruce's eyes, and since the killer and Jack Napier look so much alike (Jack Nicholson) and are both Gotham City criminals, I would say they are the same person. Nice read though.

P.S. Out of curiosity what makes you think that "Keaton Batman" is less trained than "Bale Batman"?
Viltrumite
Viltrumite - 1/21/2012, 7:38 PM
@golden123
Keaton's Batman wasn't in fantastic physical condition, and the fighting abilities he displayed where limited and relatively sloppy. You could argue that this is primarily due to the restrictive nature of Keaton's bat suit, but he clearly doesn't posses the fighting prowess of Bale's Batman, or the Batman featured in the comics.
BarnaclePete
BarnaclePete - 1/21/2012, 8:40 PM
In the Burton Batman Joker killed his parents. This is pretty clear in the movie. Unlike in begins, the murderer was never caught so Jack Napier probably isn't mentioned in the file. Making Joker the killer was something that Burton added to the script. Though it was not needed, it was put in the movie to add an extra dynamic to Batman and Jokers relationship. Your just overlooking his trying to find something that isn't there.
LoudNoises
LoudNoises - 1/21/2012, 10:08 PM
Yeah, unfortunately the credits do confirm that the shooter was Jack Napier. But even without going to the credits, during Batman and Jokers final confrontation in the bell tower I'm pretty certain Batman says " you killed my parents" to which Joker responds "I was just a young kid back then".
Supes17
Supes17 - 1/22/2012, 6:33 AM
JOE CHILL
Supes17
Supes17 - 1/22/2012, 6:34 AM
Young Jack Napier in Burton's Batman...
MAXPOWER85
MAXPOWER85 - 1/22/2012, 7:22 AM
.Who killed the waynes? Joe chill. Although i love burtons film (a few lil nit picks here and there) the one thing that crippled it for me was the reveal that joker killed the parents.it added no weight to the story.
Supes17
Supes17 - 1/22/2012, 10:26 AM
I thought it was a lazy attempt at making Batman and Joker's fight more personal.
It was good enough by having Batman creating the Joker. They kinda went overboard with Jack Napier killing the Waynes
ThunderCougarFalconBird
ThunderCougarFalconBird - 1/22/2012, 10:48 AM
One HUGE flaw in your argument which I'm surprised no one has picked up on, and it is this:

"Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

Thomas Wayne's killer said this to Bruce as he was about to shoot. Then Joker says it to Batman in the bell tower. It clearly surprises Batman as he stops and asks "what did you say?" to which Joker says its just something he says before killing people. It is this moment that Bruce first realises they are the same person.

So why the Batcave scene? Like you said, Joker is like nothing Batman had faced. Maybe he believed he could be going to his death and so wanted to take a moment to look over his parents file one last time and think about the event that drove him to do this in the first place.

Nicely written article but in Burton's Batman it's clear that Joker killed Thomas Wayne and Bruce didn't know until the end.
MaddMonkk
MaddMonkk - 1/22/2012, 11:21 AM
Maybe Bruce didn't want Jack napier to be caught by the police. Maybe he felt he needed to catch the killer himself out of guilt or something. I know if my parents were killed I wouldnt want the cops to get the killer first. I'd want some alone time with him first.
Zuriel
Zuriel - 1/22/2012, 2:19 PM
@ RonVitiate

I think you have the first valid counter argument. As Bruce Wayne recalls his parents being murdered he does hear the man say "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" However, two people saying the same phrase would hardly get you convicted in court. Also, I have to say again we are still only seeing the event as Wayne remembers it.

@ yossarian

If he remembers it being a young Jack Napier then obviously the actor in the scene is playing a young Jack Napier.

The whole point of my article was to stimulate conversation about it, so it was a success! I do realize, once again, that the screen writers and Burton may not have intended it to be seen this way.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 1/22/2012, 2:37 PM
burton's movies effed up batman, because burton never read a comic book in his life, he admitted it, he thinks they are dumb and silly, if he had, he would have known who killed thomas and martha, and he would have known batman's 1 rule
relentless1
relentless1 - 1/22/2012, 2:38 PM
perfect point, just before he gets shot at vickis, he has a moment of recogniton in his face when joke says that line "ever dance with the devil by the plae moonlight" its at that moment that he realizes that jack/joker killed his paretns. BTW he knew that jack/joker was the same man well before that point as he calls him jack in vickis apartment.
Darren94
Darren94 - 1/22/2012, 2:56 PM
I aggree with Ron Vitiate on the "Ever dance with the devil on the pale of moon light" line, which young Napier and the Joker both clearly say.
cadairjr05
cadairjr05 - 1/22/2012, 4:31 PM
@Zuriel----WRONG

It's OBVIOUS that they wanted the Joker to be the killer lol. You wasted your time with this. Can't even give you an A for effort lol.

Tim Burton specifically said it was his idea to make Joker the killer.

If you don't believe they intended to make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents, then go back and check special behind the scene footage and commentary from Tim Burton.

Both Burton and Nolan wanted to draw a connection between Batman and Joker. Burton wanted Joker to be the killer of his parents. Nolan wanted them both be the front runners of "freaks" that hated the system and were out to prove it ineffective, but they did it in two different ways that clashed. Hence--"the unstoppable force that meets the immovable object."




WruceBane
WruceBane - 1/22/2012, 4:35 PM
this is a really interesting, more literary and more subversive interpretation of Bruce Wayne in the Burton films. while it seems obvious that the traditional interpretation was the intent of the filmmaker, this more creative interpretation adds some real depth and an alternative insight into Bruce Wayne, and his motives for not just fighting the Joker, but fighting crime and villainy in general.

i really like it. well done.
WruceBane
WruceBane - 1/22/2012, 4:39 PM
that is to say, like a lot of literary criticism, and some philosophy of art, the intent of the artist is secondary to the artifact itself. and while i think the traditional interpretation is more obvious or "correct", that isn't to say the film doesn't also contains the room for this alternate interpretation.
Zuriel
Zuriel - 1/23/2012, 11:15 AM
@ WruceBane

You hit the nail on the head.

Thank you everyone for reading and commenting!
headlopper
headlopper - 1/23/2012, 2:38 PM
@WruceBane- Are you Tim Burton?
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 1/27/2012, 9:57 AM
Actually, Bruce first realized Joker killed his parents when he's brooding in the Batcave. He's stairing at the freeze frame video of Joker and then it goes to the flashback of his parents being killed. Thats thefirst time he puts it together.
View Recorder