
[We've been hoping to add screenwriter/playright Todd Alcott and his fascinating story analyses of some of our favorite cinematic tales to The Beat's lineup for sometime, and here's his first contribution, a look at Batman: The Movie from 1966. You'll more of his writings on cinema at his website]
by Todd Alcott
THE BEAT has graciously asked me to contribute pieces to her site. As THE BEAT is the best comics site on the internet, I could hardly say no.
At my blog, What Does the Protagonist Want?, I analyze screenplays — that’s my “beat.” No cinematic character has inspired a greater qualitative spectrum of screenplays than Batman. Starting with 1966’s TV-show spinoff Batman: The Movie and culminating in 2008’s The Dark Knight, Batman has been treated to screenplays ranging from campy to demented, from bizarre to brilliant, from really-quite-bad to quite-staggeringly-good. For THE BEAT, I’m going to analyze each screenplay’s approach to the character of Batman and his world and, hopefully, show the evolution of popular culture’s ever-shifting attitude toward what is, arguably, not only the most popular character not just in comics history but one of the most popular in American culture.
BATMAN (1966)
WHO IS BRUCE WAYNE?
Bruce Wayne is tall, handsome, wealthy and dumb as a post. He lives with his ward, Dick Grayson, who is shorter, not quite as good looking, and also dumb as a post. Wayne refers to himself as a “capitalist” to a woman he believes to be a Russian journalist, but as far as the narrative is concerned, Wayne is born rich. He’s a playboy, he does nothing with his life but bear the name of the Wayne Foundation. He’s a wealthy, carefree philanthropist. The screenplay never mentions the murder of Bruce’s parents when he was eight years old, never mentions any demons or psychological issues that might compel a man to dress up like a bat to go out and fight crime. Like a lot of things in Batman, Bruce Wayne dresses up like a bat to go out and fight crime because the plot demands it.
WHO IS BATMAN?
When giggling, costumed criminals show up, or famous booze magnates go missing, Bruce Wayne and his ward Dick Grayson put on their own costumes and become Batman and Robin. The strange thing about the Batman of Batman is that he’s just as dumb as Bruce Wayne, except somehow he’s also got a bat-cave full of gadgets that he has, somehow, invented. He has personally invented a device for almost every situation — shark repellent, retinal scanner, missile jammer. He’s clearly a technological genius, and yet he still falls prey to ruses that wouldn’t fool a five-year-old.
Batman, a masked vigilante, not only has the full, open support of the Gotham City Police Department, he’s respected — revered, even — by everyone in town. As he must, I suppose, since he runs around town in broad daylight, in his grey tights with their package-enhancing blue silk shorts over them, his yellow bat-sticker on his chest and his little bat-cowl with the graceful little “angry lines” painted on its brow. He needs a full flight crew out at the airport to prepare his Bat-copter, and doesn’t hesitate to leave his various Bat-vehicles parked on streets, docks, or outside foam-rubber conventions.
WHAT SORT OF PLACE IS GOTHAM CITY?
Gotham City, the narrator says, is a bustling metropolis, but you wouldn’t know it from the strange set of indicators presented in Batman. This Gotham City is a sunny place, strangely depopulated, sometimes obviously New York and sometimes obviously Los Angeles, and other times obviously a cheap set on the Fox lot. People in Gotham City are polite, respectful and only occasionally obstreperous or rude — and only then in the run-down area of the docks, where fat twin women gorge themselves even when faced with immediate death from a big round bomb, and alcoholics have to contend with Salvation Army bands.

WHO IS JIM GORDON?
Commissioner Gordon in Batman is, like Bruce Wayne, dumb as a post, as is his police chief O’Hara. Gullible, vacant and easily manipulated, his main duties as police commissioner involve calling Batman for help, worrying about Batman’s safety, acting as Batman’s press liaison (he’s introduced as a “fully deputized member of the Gotham Police Force,” which would come as a great surprise to the Commissioner Gordon of The Dark Knight), and acting as a general, genial authority figure — when the president calls to ask about Batman’s work, he calls Gordon, not the mayor.
WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT?
What does Bruce Wayne/Batman want? His stated intent is to rid Gotham City of costumed criminals, but it seems that he’s willing to put this goal on hold in order to pursue a love life. For an entire act of Batman, Bruce Wayne ignores his Bat-manly duties of crime-fighting in order to go on a date with Miss Kitka, the visiting Russian journalist. He falls deeply in love with Miss Kitka during a whirlwind, internationally-flavored date that involves gypsy violinists, a French chanteuse, a romantic cruise through Gotham Central Park, a cup of cocoa, and implied sex, back at Miss Kitka’s place. Alas, things do not go according to plan, and Bruce will soon have to face the bitter, bitter truth about Miss Kitka — she is not only not going to have sex with him, she is, in fact, the evil and ruthless Catwoman.
This Batman is the WASPiest crime-fighter in history. The opposite of the angry, suspicious fascist usually presented these days, this Batman goes through the entire movie on eggshells, terrified that he will disrupt or offend — he does not wish to impose upon the citizens of Gotham City. Although he’s happy to participate in a news conference, he is anxious in the face of adoration and, in spite of his garish design choices and outlandish costume, would rather nobody take notice of him.
Taking its cue from its title character, the movie Batman, similarly, does not wish to impose. It all but apologizes for itself with an opening title card, over-explaining itself as a comedy so as to prepare its audience for its narrative shagginess.

WHAT DO THE BAD GUYS WANT?
The bad guys of Batman, The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler and The Joker, want money. To get money, they have developed a plan to hold hostage the UN ambassadors to nine countries. Their plan is, of course, brilliant and foolproof. It goes like this:
Step 1: Kidnap one Commodore Schmidlapp, a British distiller and inventor. This is trickier than it sounds — Batman is always around, and you must be careful to get him out of the way first.
Luckily, getting Batman out of the way can be easily done: simply travel to a spot in the Atlantic, set up a buoy with a secret hologram projector inside, rig the hologram projector to project an image of Commodore Schmidlapp’s yacht, then call the Gotham City Police Department with a fake announcement regarding Commodore Schmidlapp’s abduction, and give them the coordinates of the holographic yacht. This will lure Batman out to this spot in the Atlantic, where he will attempt to board the holographic yacht, and then you can easily kill him with the trained attack-shark you have patrolling the waters, which you have rigged with explosives beforehand. While Batman is off getting killed by your trained exploding shark, you can easily dash off and kidnap the real Commodore Schmidlapp.
Step 2: Assuming Step 1 has gone off without a hitch (and there’s no reason to suspect that it won’t), the next part is a piece of cake. First, set up Commodore Schmidlapp in a room inside your secret headquarters on the docks in Gotham Harbor. It’s very important to make sure that Commodore Schmidlapp not realize he’s been kidnapped, so you must take great care to set up an elaborate pretense — it must appear to him that he is still on his yacht, waiting to come into harbor. This illusion must be maintained throughout his abduction. Then, it’s simply a matter of obtaining from Commodore Schmidlapp’s yacht his Total Dehydrator, which is his newest invention.
Step 3: Commodore Schmidlapp’s Total Dehydrator was created for use in the distilling process, but you’re going to use it for a much darker purpose — you are going to break into the United World Headquarters while the United World Security Council is having a meeting, and you and your team are going to tiptoe into that meeting and de-hydrate the ambassadors from nine prominent nations. Once they are dehydrated, you’re going to carefully sweep up their dehydrated particles into nine separate test-tubes and then demand a billion dollars from each one of the nations the ambassadors hail from.
Piece of cake!

NOW THEN: If, for some reason, Batman does not get killed by your exploding shark, you will have to postpone your dehydrating plan and institute a backup plan. Here’s a good one: have the female member of your team pretend to be a sexy Russian journalist, and have her pretend to fall in love with millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne. Once Wayne is in your clutches, kidnap him and take him back to your secret headquarters. This will lure Batman out of hiding to rescue Wayne, and you can then easily kill Batman with a carefully-rigged spring platform that will propel him out the window of your secret headquarters onto a trained exploding octopus you have waiting for him in the harbor. It’s very unlikely that this plan will fail, but if it does, you’ll just have to try to continue with your dehydrating/ransom plan and hope for the best.
THE WORLD’S GREATEST DETECTIVE:
Aside from his cave full of gadgets that can do anything, Batman executes one piece of brilliant detective work in Batman. When he is attacked by a decommissioned submarine, he calls up the Navy and asks them if they’ve recently sold any decommissioned submarines to anyone. The officer who answers the phone, who sees nothing unusual about taking a call from Batman, has the information at his fingertips and is happy to help out. He then goes back to his game of tiddly-winks.
Like The Dark Knight, the 1966 Batman is divided into four acts. I’m afraid the similarities end there. A goofy, colorful comedy, the polar opposite of The Dark Knight’s gritty, grounded realism, Batman is nevertheless worth analysis as a kind of pantomime of a superhero movie. You could complain that it doesn’t take its subject matter seriously, but then by the mid-60s Batman comics didn’t take themselves very seriously. They may have stopped short of camp, but they were miles from the character’s dark origins.
Act I involves the villains’ kidnapping of Commodore Schmidlapp and their inability to kill Batman, Act II sets into motion the Bruce Wayne kidnapping plot, Act III pretends that Act II didn’t happen and gets on with developing the dehydrating plot (including The Penguin disguising himself as Commodore Schmidlapp in order to gain access to the Batcave), and Act IV is the dehydrating plot enacted. Anyone who notices that each act is about the length of a half-hour TV episode is a greater detective than Batman.
NOTES:
What does everyone remember from Batman? The exploding shark, which happens in the first ten minutes. People tend to get sketchy about the rest of the movie after the first act break, since the plot puts itself on hold in order to piddle about with the Miss Kitka subplot, and a lot of people never even watch the rest of the movie. I sympathize, and yet the idea of a Batman story revolving around the kidnapping of Bruce Wayne is actually pretty brilliant and it’s too bad that it doesn’t fit into this narrative better. The last act, involving the actual plot to dehydrate the UW Security Council is actually pretty funny, and involves some incredible visuals, including Batman making a solemn speech about the importance of international relations while holding a limp garden hose.
The real-life UN, inspiration for the UW, looms large over the plot of Batman. The UN’s dream of an effective security council and a world made peaceful through open communication is parodied by its device of uniting four bickering villains to undo said communication. The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler and The Joker are shown to be at each others’ throats throughout the movie, and even acting against each others’ interest in the pursuit of their plot. To make the UN parallel more obvious, the script actually gives the villains’ organization a name, the United Underworld, with a very cold-war octopus as their logo. The Miss Kitka ruse, and her internationally-flavored date with Bruce Wayne, underline the why-can’t-we-all-get-along aspect of the message.
The plot of Batman is strange to say the least, and one of the strangest aspects of it is its stance on alcoholism. Batman openly disdains alcohol (he reluctantly admits that alcoholics are people, in spite of their degenerate habits) and Bruce Wayne drinks cocoa when trying to get Russian journalists into bed. The plot is set into motion by the kidnapping of a distiller, and Commodore Schmidlapp takes up gigantic chunks of the narrative, which the writer obviously feels is a hilarious joke in and of itself. Commodore Schmidlapp is presented as a bumbling idiot who happily wanders around the movie without the slightest idea what’s going on. The fact that all of this is presented in a sunny, goofball comedy says something about somebody involved in this production, although I’m not sure what.
The villains of Batman, like Batman himself, are the least threatening, least evil villains on record. They want to make off with nine billion dollars, but god forbid they should inconvenience anyone in the meantime. They go to great trouble to obtain Commodore Schmidlapp’s Total Dehydrator, then go to even greater trouble to make sure that Commodore Schmidlapp himself never cottons to the fact that he’s been kidnapped. If one’s goal is to obtain a man’s Total Dehydrator, which is being stored on said man’s yacht, the obvious course would be to board the yacht, kill everyone on board and take the Dehydrator. The Joker’s biggest scene in the movie is the one where he serves tea to Commodore Schmidlapp — think of that! The Joker, Batman’s greatest villain, the darkest, most storied, most comprehensively twisted character in all comics lore, here is reduced to serving tea to a kidnap victim. Worse still, he must take orders from The Penguin, rail ineffectively against giggling idiot The Riddler, and stand around fighting for screentime during the Catwoman sub-plot. (Cesar Romero refused to shave his mustache for the project, and one can hardly blame him: it remains clearly visible under his clown-white makeup.) If one is looking for a poor deployment of a multiple-villain plot, Batman sets the all-time record early.
What’s worse is that the movie doesn’t even stay true to the basic ingredients of the villains’ characters: Catwoman, who is normally a cat-burglar (hence her name), here becomes a master of disguise and pretends to be a Russian journalist. The Penguin, normally concerned with bird-related crimes, here pilots a penguin-painted submarine and also briefly becomes a master of disguise, none of which I remember from the comics or the TV show.
Now, I’m perfectly okay with The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler and The Joker getting together to dehydrate the UN, but I get confused when it’s revealed that their henchmen are a trio of pirates. Pirates? Why pirates? The Penguin buying a decommissioned submarine and re-fitting it so that it looks like a giant penguin, fine, all well and good — but why staff the submarine with pirates? And where does one find pirates — 16th-century pirates, at that — in 1966? What’s wrong with hiring a staff of, I don’t know, ex-Navy submarine crew members? Because there’s no indication that the Penguin’s submarine crew is made up of normal guys dressed as pirates — no, they are pirates. One would think that the Pirate Submarine Crew would justify a movie of their own, but Batman glides right over this tantalizing possibility.
Now then, Batman is, after all, a comedy. More than that, it’s not even really a movie. It was not meant to compete with, say, Torn Curtain. It’s merely product, a brand extension, designed to increase the value of a television show.
The tone veers from genial camp to bizarre, psychedelic comedy. Adam West, looking like the young Harrison Ford (or maybe Dennis Quaid) plays Batman with a keen edge of ironic seriousness. The Batman of Batman: The Movie is not one to brood in a cave between illegal bursts of vigilante activities; this Batman takes place entirely in broad daylight. Batman holds press conferences at police headquarters, trots down the street in crowded lunch-hour traffic and punches a shark while dangling from a ladder. Far from being the world’s greatest detective, this Batman is an easily-fooled dolt who blunders from clue to clue, solving crimes almost by accident. 
Text ©2010 Todd Alcott. All Rights reserved








“Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb!” Maybe that thought crossed the producers minds. I will admit, though, this movie is one of things that got me started down the long path of comics fandom.
Do you seriously not understand how camp humor works? Or have never in your life seen The Batman TV show from the 60s? You are a complete idiot and I don’t understand why The Beat asked you to do a guest post when you employ the blandest analytical style possible and completely miss the point of what you’re looking at.
Although I wouldn’t level the charge of “idiot” as vlucca does,I would say “misguided” or “sloppy.” I’d have to agree with vlucca’s assessment that the writer is missing the point of the film, and by extension, the series. The entire 1960’s “Batman” enterprise is indeed a project of camp humor, relating to a pure pop sensibility– making fun of the concept of heroism, the action movie genre, romance comics and films, the cult of celebrity, and various other fads and trends that were a part of the zeitgeist when the film/series was made. It is intentionally arch, over-the-top and yes, artificial. Very artificial, taking place in a make-believe world as comic books once did. This is one of the tenents of Pop Art– it celebrates and turns inside-out, the artificial trappings of cultural product. This so-called analysis could have used a bit more research on your part or, more importantly, having a sense of humor. First rule of thumb when analyzing art (whatever the medium)– consider the aims of the material in question, it’s very construction; why was it made the way it was. Context is everything. You cannot use a one size fits all critical method in which you treat “Batman: The Movie” as the same sort of text as “The Dark Knight.” In fact, most of this “analysis” practices the dreadful art of “reviewing.” That is, simply repeating, in list form, plot points, without providing much in the way of real insight. I look forward to a real essay that talks Pop Art, 60’s American Camp humor, and the general influence of American culture on this film and vice-versa.
“No cinematic character has inspired a greater qualitative spectrum of screenplays than Batman…”
I would suggest that Sherlock Holmes, Frankenstein’s monster, Count Dracula, etc, have “inspired a greater qualitative spectrum of screenplays” than Batman. And I’m sure there are many more such characters.
“No cinematic character has inspired a greater qualitative spectrum of screenplays than Batman…”
Santa Claus.
From Silent Night, Deadly Night to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians….
To say nothing of the Santa Claus cameo during the “batclimb” in one of the “Batman” television episodes. Just killing two birds with one stone, here.
Yes, I think I’ll have to side with the critics on this so-called “analysis”, which seems to have missed the mark entirely in favor of comparing a trademark of the 60s with its equivalent counterpart of 2008. Anybody with half of the brain power of the 60s Bruce Wayne could have cobbled together such random obvious remarks about this movie, which doesn’t go into any detail at all about the 40s Batman movie serials which had clearly informed the camp humor on display here.
“This Batman is the WASPiest crime-fighter in history.”
Explain this baffling remark?
As mentioned above, this isn’t so much analysis as it is a badly-written review of a film that the reviewer obviously doesn’t understand or appreciate. If this version of Batman isn’t your cup of tea, fine, but why waste everyone’s time providing the same lame “criticism” as has been done to death a thousand times before by writers who are far more clever?
If you really want to analyze this film, try looking at it in the context of Hollywood in the mid-1960s, where the influence of French New Wave film making was changing the way movies were made. Look at it as a transgressive narrative, much the way Bonnie and Clyde was a transgressive narrative, in that it subverted public perception as to what a superhero movie “should” be. Argue the influence of Andy Warhol and the Pop Art movement on the look and style of the film, or look at it as pure political satire, in a day and age when authority was being held up to question and ridicule. All of these provide fertile ground for analysis. Simply recapping the film’s plot and making snide comments contributes nothing, and makes you appear as shallow and uneducated.
Great to see Mr. Alcott here!
I thought the review was just as much camp as the material it was covering — and in that light, it was a fun read. :)
Haters: you yourself are a bit ignorant- go and read some of Alcott’s film analyses, especially those he’s done about the Coens, Spielberg, and Hitchcock, then come back here and call him names some more. I’ve been reading his stuff for some time now and find it first-rate.
As far as this film goes, the thing I remember most is the stir it caused among us first graders in its initial release in 1966- the drive-in in our small town was absolutely packed. We all watched the TV show and my friends all thought it was silly fun- which it was- but I (the only comics-reading kid in school, it seemed) was a bit embarrassed, because the Batman on the show wasn’t all that much like the Batman in the comics I was reading (even though, 40+ years later, I can see they weren’t that different after all).
Always a bad sign when someone brings out the “haters” moniker. Carefully criticizing a piece of film criticism is a perfectly valid approach to initiate a conversation. Calling said criticism as a bit of “hating” is ignorant in and of itself, and is a sure-fire bet to end a conversation. Atlast– the perils of the blogosphere. Additionally, a piece of film criticism needs to stand on it’s own– you need not read the backlog of writings by Anthony Lane, Pauline Kael or Jonathon Rosenbaum in order to “get” the critic. Film criticism is not like reading the collected works of a fiction writer– it needs to communicate directly to its audience a well-crafted set of rationalized positions regarding that film. Regardless of whether Mr. Alcott’s previous writings are “first-rate,” this, alas, is not. Additionally, this piece of writing qualifies as snarky, rather than campy. Camp is far more enjoyable.
Having read this “analysis,” it is easier to understand why so few interesting films ever get made any more. Has our modern understanding of the superhero become so cramped and reified that an intentional comedy has to delve into the murder of the protagonist’s parents to be enjoyable?
BTW, editors, it is a “playwright” who writes plays; “playright” is, I believe, what Adam West’s Batman would have urged all Gotham City’s good children to do.
Boy you guys are REALLY going to love later installments!
Ah, yes. The rubber shark. I remember seeing that film at the theater during its initial release. And while the camp version of the Batman TV show and film initially made this comic book purist cringe, it was irresistible in some bizarre, geek-show sort of way. Then again, I was just entering my teen years when the show first aired, so it’s not like I was all that discerning.
I think this analysis can be boiled down to one sentence in the piece;” It’s merely product, a brand extension, designed to increase the value of a television show.”
I understand that it’s difficult to not to look at a movie from the past without viewing it through the eyes of the present. I think it all needs to be put into to the context of the times. Comics were not graphic novels and there was a TV show that was set in a German POW camp during the Second World War, which featured bumbling Nazis and an often used escape tunnel for the main cast members to come and go as they please. It is such a surprise that they treated a comic book character as a piece of pop culture candy?
That said, god I loved the show as a kid.
Ah, well, then I stand corrected. So much for my attempt to sound “hip” and “with it” by using the dreaded word “haters”.
I am duly chastised. Well done, sir. I shall accept my smackdown and withdraw.
Yes, it’s obvious how little Alcott understands the material with this paragraph:
Luckily, getting Batman out of the way can be easily done: simply travel to a spot in the Atlantic, set up a buoy with a secret hologram projector inside, rig the hologram projector to project an image of Commodore Schmidlapp’s yacht, then call the Gotham City Police Department with a fake announcement regarding Commodore Schmidlapp’s abduction, and give them the coordinates of the holographic yacht. This will lure Batman out to this spot in the Atlantic, where he will attempt to board the holographic yacht, and then you can easily kill him with the trained attack-shark you have patrolling the waters, which you have rigged with explosives beforehand. While Batman is off getting killed by your trained exploding shark, you can easily dash off and kidnap the real Commodore Schmidlapp.
Wow. look. A plot recap. How original and insightful.
I’d fail my Junior and Senior level film students if they tried to hand this type of crap in as “analysis.”
Perhaps Mr. Alcott would be better served by calling his material “commentary.” The bar is set much lower in that regard.
When a comment in response to such an article, includes the phrase “…you are a complete idiot,…” then, by golly, that’s hatin’! Why Mr.Alcott would continue to post at this sight is beyond me. Some weird reactions, I’ll say.
And here I thought this was a rather amusing analysis, having a little fun at an openly silly series’ expense, to act as a comparison between several startlingly different versions of the Batman characters and concepts. Some of these (surprisingly venomous) reactions are just bizarre.
I’m looking forward to the next installment, personally.
Batman: The Movie is my favorite movie in the world.
“Sparrow with a machine gun.”
Grow a funny bone, guy. :^)
I agree that the analysis is a little incomplete considering the movie is more a product of its times–directed towards what the masses were buying then–than a product of art. Yet, I can see people are idealizing this movie and confusing silly with funny. I agree, and Todd Alcott mentioned too, this is more of a comedy, but even as a comedy it works better today than then, and only by accident. The humor there displayed is funnier for us today considering how silly it looks after 50 years of developing cinema. I am sure many who saw it in its time had a fun time and laughed a bit, but there were no laugh out loud moments. People saw scarecrow with a machine gun and didn’t start laughing hard, they saw it as a serious part of the movie because that was what they were used to, even if they know they couldn’t translate it to earl life. Maybe some did smirk, some, saw it as silly but fun, without much of a laugh, and yet others must have discarded it as silly and stopped watching (those who didnt conrtibute for the show being a great phenomenon).
And John, I can see you don’t like this style for an analysis, but this isn’t as much a movie analysis as it is a narrated deconstruction of a screenplay. What Alcott tries to do is to analyze the story and script so that those interested in screenwriting can see how the story came about or how the screenplay works. Thus we define the characters, what they want, how they show or go about “what they want” and how the movie is divided in acts with all these taken into account. This is a movie that doesn’t bring all these parts together very coherently, nor does it give us an example to go buy for a solid screenplay, even if it works for what people bought at the time and for remembering and enjoying different times and having some specific kind of fun you probably won’t have with films of today.
Todd, I think it will be interesting to read your “What do the Villains want” for the Dark Knight, with all the steps of the Joker’s plan. This is a more complex film and that part would be a lot harder, but yet has all these villain expectancies that are pretty silly or far-fetched, or so I think, as his plan always relies on certain things happenning in a specific way in a very complex chain of events, which is really too much to expect.
@Alex:
I really don’t see Alcott’s work as either analysis or as deconstruction; more as commentary as I said before. Proper analysis proceeds from a theoretical framework (be that cultural/historical analysis, gender analysis, semiotics, or whatever); this is nothing but plot synopsis with an attempt at clever/ironic commentary.
Now, if clever commentary was Alcott’s purpose in writing this article, then fine. As much as I think his commentary reveals a shallowness of both education and opinion, it’s his opinion and he’s entitled to it. To call it analysis, however, places it on a different level and opens it up to a whole bunch of additional criticism. Film analysis isn’t merely, “Look how stupid that is,” it’s an exploration of what makes a film tick, on a variety of levels. There’s not even an attempt at this in Alcott’s piece.
Again, anyone is free to comment on or criticize anything they want. Analysis, however, requires something more.
I think this review really overlooks the merits of the film. Some parts of this really hold up well, like when the four criminals, so easily identifiable, are skulking around with those little masks. The whole bomb sequence with Batman unwilling to cause harm to even a mother duck and her little ducklings, the always brilliant Frank Gorshin and Burgess Meredith also. I loved when Burgess Meredith remarked to Catwoman about his dehydrated henchman that “every one has a mother”.
This is where the entire critique of this film and the TV shows always fails: people insist it be judged on how similar is it to modern interpretations. And for all the claims how it strays from the source material, it is clear that this film and the TV series looked at the comics closely to make sure the costumes were exactly right. Cesar Romero looks a lot more like the Joker than Heath Ledger. And if anyone believes Danny DeVito looks more like the Penguin than Burgess Meredith, I would like to know what comics they were reading as a kid.
I guess it’s time to watch the dvd again…
And this time, I’ll be imagining Bale’s gruff Batvoice doing the dialog. Holy mood shift, Batman!
To jump on to one of the most entertaining Beat comment threads in quite some time, I’ll admit that Alcott won me over with his devastating sketch of the horror of an alcoholic lifestyle when confronted with the bane of its existence: a Salvation Army Band.
Aside to Rich Johnson: Don’t forget the friendly exchange that bumbling Nazi had with a certain crime fighter and his youthful ward during a postwar tour of Gotham City.
Mr. Alcott – I would be very much interested in reading your analysis into the 1940’s Batman serials.
Please, indulge us.
~
Coat
@John:
Your equation of “proceeds from a theoretical framework (be that cultural/historical analysis, gender analysis, semiotics, or whatever)” with “an exploration of what makes a film tick” probably begins to explain why my BS in Film & Television lead to a career in libraries rather than in Hollywood.
You guys don’t know how to laugh. :^(
The sixties movie and TV series was actually a relatively straight read of Batman Comics as they appeared in the fifties, with Batman mostly operating in broad daylight, and with similar support of equally dim witted authority figures. The Comics Code kept the violence within at similar levels.
It was actually refreshing to read a straight outside breakdown of the narrative as such, without the baggage of being an insider, a fan of the comics, in any phase of their existence.
Batman is so cool ya!!!
I’ve been enjoying Alcott’s analysises (analysi?) on his blog and I thought this one was fun. I really hope this inspires Hollywood to use the plot of BATMAN: THE MOVIE for the next gritty Dark Knight installment.
I thought this was a fun read, going to dust off my dvd :) don’t know why I kept laughing at calling Batman, Robin, and Gordon “dumb as a post”.
Todd Alcott’s essays on Death Proof and especially, especially A Serious Man are just the best, very best things– so I’m excited to read more. Thank you.
I’m confuse why so many of you are so confusing an analysis of style and an analysis of screenplay, though. The old Batman show might be of interest in format and style, in presentation– but this is very plainly labeled an analysis of the screenplay. Arguing that such a limited analysis misses something crucial about the work is a cute argument, I suppose — but he’s not really “hiding the ball” as to his methodology here.
Here’s the thing: comedic takes on earnest subject matter can be highly enjoyable, if there seems to be even a smidgen of thought behind them. I’m thinking of deconstruction comedies like Scream, Galaxy Quest (or Star Trek IV, for that matter), or, to hit a little closer to home, The Tick. Each of those took the conventions of its source material and mined it for laughs, while staying true enough to those conventions to actually be a pretty good example of the thing it’s sending up.
The common element of these is that there is some actual thought behind the stories; an understanding of the mechanics behind them, and what works and doesn’t work.
And then there’s camp. Camp shows no thought, no creativity, no intelligence. It just mimics the trappings of the thing it’s pretending to be, with no attention paid to why that thing may have been successful.
And that’s what the 1960s Batman is. You get a hack producer and a room full of hack writers, who took the time to figure out the trappings of Batman – Bruce Wayne, Commissioner Gordon, the villains, the gadgets – and put no thought into how to actually use them. Every episode is an exercise in creating ridiculous contrivances to move from one silly set piece to the next. “What would be funny? How about a shark? How do we get him out of that? I dunno…how about a Bat-Shark Repellant? Brilliant! Let’s go drink!” It’s nothing but a lazy game of connect-the-dots, and it’s no wonder the show flamed out after three seasons.
Am I saying a comedic take on Batman is wrong? No. All of you defending the show as “campy fun” should take a look at The Brave And The Bold, currently in its second season on Cartoon Network. You know the animated opening credits for the Adam West Batman? Now imagine those, expanded to a series. Each episode has an overblown title like “Mayhem Of The Music Meister!” (always with the exclamation point), and explores the sillier aspects of not only Batman, but the whole DC Comics universe.
And it’s fantastic.
After each episode, I come away quoting lines like “crime doesn’t take dinner breaks and neither do I,” or “the hammer of justice is unisex,” even as I admire, yes, the quality of the writing. You get shows that are funny as hell, but are also great examples of the style of silver-age superhero stories that the earlier series was supposedly based on. All of you defending that series as “campy” fun need to watch TBaTB and see how great it can be when the writers are full of affection for the source material, rather than gin.
Great to see your stuff here, Todd!
Glad to read Todd Alcott’s review of this old flick. I’ve certainly enjoyed his reviews of other films.
@John, I snickered at your barbs directed at Alcott. It makes you sound foolish and pompous.