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.