“The Batman” (2022) - Why so serious?

Rest assured, Matt Reeves’ “The Batman” is a course correction, of sorts, from Zack Snyder’s take, but considerably different from Nolan’s. As it should be: the Batman contains multitudes. I don’t know that there’s any one definitive take on the character, though my personal preference tends to favor the darker aspects of the cowled crusader. What I usually use as a barometer is how Bruce Wayne is depicted.

After all, the general assumption is that the Bat is what Wayne becomes to fight crime. However, within that are sets of options for portrayal. He can be the suave, debonair playboy type who can act the rich ass at a drop of a hat (Bale). He can be the genuine nice guy who seems to be a bachelor for life and reeks of earnestness and bad puns (Adam West!) He can be the grizzled warrior who’s plainly too old for this shit (Affleck…who I really wish had been given a better run) A cypher of a human being who seems to be the alter ego of Batman rather than a fully formed individual (Keaton and now, before us, Robert Pattinson.) 

Within each of these characterizations is plenty of space for interpretation but I would argue that that last parenthetical remark could apply to each of them (maybe West aside). The Batman persona is all-consuming; by its very nature, it has to be for both story and the character to work. Considered this way, “Bruce Wayne” becomes very much a cover story for a very scary vigilante. 

Of course, we’re dealing with one of the great pulp fiction figures and we can pull back from the bat-abyss when we focus on the ethical imperatives that drive both Wayne and the Batman. Batman and by extension, Bruce Wayne, is an übermensch not so different from Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman in design. In execution, he’s a much richer proposition. Sorry, I really did not mean that to be a pun, but I’m letting it stand. Superman is very much Kal-El’s alter ego and I think, genuinely, so is Clark Kent; but in terms of a Nietzschean character? Batman/Bruce Wayne hews closer to the will to power. However, it comes at an intense psychological cost.

The point is that if Wayne’s submersion into the Bat persona is a pathology, it is also very much  an expression of a superiority conceit. Is the Batman Wayne’s most valuable weapon to fight corruption in Gotham City or is Wayne the Batman’s most valuable tool? In either case, each can be considered far above the rest of humanity and while one can say that at least, Wayne has his heart in the right place, the Batman is not so kind. The Batman sees a criminal behind every facade and were it not for his discipline to refrain from killing (although, apparently, anything short of that is fair game) and his desire to re-establish the rule of law and due process, I genuinely believe he would be simply Lamont Cranston aka The Shadow 2.0. Taking out criminals with a vengeance and leaving behind their carcasses would be the m.o. 

It is this very take on the character that we begin with in the latest iteration of “the world’s greatest detective.” Pattinson’s Wayne/Batman dichotomy is still in its larval stage; he’s still vulnerable and undeveloped, but he does have a will. And he does see himself very much as vengeance. Upon his first appearance, I was almost convinced that Reeves was going to follow Snyder and Burton in presenting us with a Batman that doesn’t particularly care about the lives of criminals; and I was happy to find that not the case.

I’ve said that ignoring Wayne’s restraint in taking lives is his defining characteristic and sets him apart from his pulp forebears. It’s also what makes him fascinating and why the Batman can be such a dick sometime; you get the sense that if he let emotion get the better of him, he would devolve into a simple maniac, a darker costumed “Peacemaker”, if you will…smarter and with a better vocabulary, but the mission statement would be similar. He wouldn’t care how many men, women, and children he killed to obtain justice. If you haven’t seen James Gunn’s “Peacemaker”, please stop what you’re doing (reading this) and go watch it. I’ll wait. 

You’re back! Cool! Yeah, “Peacemaker” is remarkable. I should probably do a write-up, but for now, let’s see…where were we? Right. Wayne’s defining characteristic. 

It’s what also often renders the characters ridiculous in the eyes of someone like Snyder, who can’t conceive of the Batman as being so restrained and this is why his reading of the character is mistaken. Removing that ethos renders the Batman figure less compelling and far more inhuman (still going for that ubermensch quality of superiority, at least, initially, but he has a sense of fairness and a staunch belief in the rule of law.) 

In some ways, Bruce Wayne is very much a traditional good guy. But again, what sets him apart is that if he is a vigilante, he is very much on the “right” side of the system and this adds another dimension to him politically. He’s not a Randian type; despite his privileged background, he gets it; he knows that people get a raw deal out of life, but what adds depth to this iteration is that he hasn’t made that real for himself yet.

The other versions of the figure take place when he’s established and has a surer command of his skill set (and more toys!) Here, we are very much faced with a young man who is extremely capable of doling out a beating, and believes in bringing to justice the corrupt administration of a cesspool of a city, is adept at detecting within a certain critical limit, but hasn’t quite put it together that beatdowns and terrorism don’t address the deeper causes for why corruption happens in the first place and it is this that distinguishes Reeves’ movie from its predecessors.

At just under three hours, “The Batman” takes its time in developing both its central character and an engaging plot in which some genuine detecting takes place. As much as the movie takes its time in the telling, it really does fly by and not because of a surfeit of action; both the character and the plot hold the attention. It’s not a perfect movie, but it is very, very good.

If that sounds like I’m delivering a back-handed compliment, I’m not. It’s as vital and holds the same position as Nolan’s first outing did. “Batman Begins” introduced to us a raging Bruce Wayne who grew quickly into Gotham’s savior in the space of one movie, convincingly but not without contrivance and some not unexpected silliness. “The Batman” really doesn’t have that much silliness in it, unless the extremely dour tone held throughout could be considered to be a bit much. That’s where I’m actually divided.

Reeves and his company strike a narrative in a minor key all the way through the film. It is a dark proposition and I haven’t seen a city this thoroughly wet since “Blade Runner.” But it’s not just that; there is a weight on every character’s shoulders, a pathology of damage or neglect wherever you turn, and a portentousness that borders on the fatiguing (how many times do you need to use Schubert’s “Ave Maria” as a motif to tell us that redemption is not found in vengeance, despite what the protagonist and his quarry would seem to have us believe?)

Additionally, the performances, while grounded and mostly strong throughout, are not always served well by the script. In too many scenes, the other characters are reacting too much to the main character. Sure, there are exceptions but even Colin Farrell’s Penguin and John Turturro’s Carmine Falcone only come to life sporadically (Turturro has terrific scene with Pattison as Wayne where Falcone tells Bruce about his father’s involvement with Falcone). Even Andy Serkis’s Alfred doesn’t quite seem to have his own agency except as a signpost in Bruce’s development. Perhaps this is as it should be; but for all that Reeves does give the characters space to breathe, the writing doesn’t really allow for much dimension or depth of those figures. 

On the other hand, Jeffrey Wright as Jim Gordon, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, and Paul Dano (the Riddler) have a good bit more to do and are fleshed out considerably more. Nevertheless, let’s be clear, the title of the movie isn’t “Jim Gordon” or “The Catwoman” or “The Riddler” and what we do begin to see is just how monomaniacal this Batman is, particularly juxtaposed with other characters who may care for him or about him, but about whom he’s too stoic to evince much in the way of response. In other words, he’s kind of a dick. 

So why stick with this guy for three hours? Because the movie is that compelling. You do want to see what the clues lead to, you do actually care about him and his quest, and frankly, you kind of hope that he’ll convince Selina to stick around. 

About Catwoman, this is a less morally ambiguous version. She’s not playing Bats or Bruce for anything, genuinely seems to care about him, and is very much going to split because she can’t take another moment in Gotham. Sure, you could say the same for Hathaway’s interpretation, but her motives were totally selfish; Kravitz’s motivations are rooted in a specific action that happened when she was a child. She doesn’t know Bats is Bruce but doesn’t seem to care, either; the guy with the cowl and cape is worthy mate material. 

I really like Kravitz’s run here. She’s not as iconic as Pfeiffer (who is?) nor as much fun as Hathaway (though “fun” isn’t exactly the tone they’re going for here) but she shares their sense of doing the right thing despite her instincts. And she is driven to take down the wealthy and corrupt; in many ways, she’s as much a vigilante as Bruce, and less the self-interested feline who comes back to help out because it’s the right thing to do (and, well, Batman…)

There’s a bit of defining dialog that’s a variation of Hathaway’s “you don’t owe this city anything” line in “The Dark Knight Rises” to the effect that this city will kill Batman. This is much of another new twist on old characters and it works. 

I don’t want to talk about the plot because aside from spoilers, this movie really is about the character and his development and as a character study, it doesn’t disappoint. One of the more glib remarks I keep stumbling reading is that Pattinson is playing an “emo” version of Bruce Wayne and I find that way too reductive. I get why; but it’s lazy, if convenient writing. 

Pattinson’s Wayne is hellbent on this mission of making a difference and fighting crime and we learn that two years into it, crime has actually gotten worse. Of course, by the end of the film he has made a difference and without going into detail, he does evolve. The strength of the script is in how much care it takes to round out its central character and the relationships he’s part of. 

Matt Reeves and Peter Craig bring considerable understanding of how to lend credence to the incredible (I should note that Reeves’ “Let Me In” struck me as almost as good as the film it was based on and there are no flies on his script - and direction - for “War of the Planet of the Apes”; Craig, while probably better known for the “Mockingjay” entries into the “Hunger Games” series, also wrote “The Town”, as good a script as any that came out that year). There is very much a groundedness in the proceedings and if I have quibbles about some of the characters and their interactions, I’m willing to overlook those for the work they put into the central character. 

Similarly, unlike a lot of critics, I found Dano’s Riddler to be more compelling than I expected. A number of reviews voiced disappointment about what a nothing the character turned out to be and that’s precisely the point. But Dano doesn’t render him completely unsympathetic; you do get why he did the despicable things he did and there is very much a rawness in his neediness. The Riddler as a vengeful social media organizer strikes frightful comparisons to the real life insurrectionists currently before us. In some ways, the Riddler is what would happen if Rorschach from The Watchmen decided to go full rogue and decided to take down everyone all at once, innocent bystanders be damned.

Which brings up one last reflection about the villain and how the filmmakers don’t shy away from rendering his plot so devastating; for once, the bad guy’s plan works! (Well, for the most part; again, I won’t spoil anything, but I was really impressed that the major plot wasn’t foiled by some eleventh hour deus ex machina.

Plus, it’s a gorgeous movie awash in deep reds, high contrasts and sets that are characters as much as the people. Wayne’s manor has moved to a Gotham skyscraper and the interior is as gothic as anything/everything in Burton’s “Batman”. It’s not lost on us when Bruce opens his father’s study that the frames in the windows are bat like patterns in the out of focus depth of field lensing. 

Greig Fraser’s (“Dune”,”Vice”, “Rogue One”…this guy knows what he’s doing!) cinematography is riveting. “I am the shadows…” BruceBats says early on and that’s never truer than when he emerges from pools of darkness. I was surprised to find out that this was shot on digital; maybe I was just superimposing a film grain on the screen!

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Michael Giacchino’s score. Admittedly, I may not need to hear “Ave Maria” again for a good while, but the music is splendid. It’s worth sitting through the end credits to hear a piano sonata that recounts the main themes. 

Altogether, this is an exciting new approach to a character that seems to have been made for myriad interpretations. My curiosity for the next entry is definitely piqued.