Superhero Media: Batman Begins

I've been looking forward to getting to the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy, as I feel it makes for one of the more fascinating studies of superhero cinema in recent years. That these Batman films are part of a completed cycle, are still considered major cultural touchstones, and are still held up as the pinnacle of genre all make for interesting discussion. First off, I know I'm not going to make any friends with this statement, but I'm not certain Batman Begins is truly a good Batman film. Is Batman Begins a good film? Yes, unequivocally. It is well-directed, competently acted, looks amazing and is passably written. I'll even go so far as to say that everything from the second act onward presents an interesting take on Batman and a Gotham city that truly feels "real". The transformation from Jonathan Crane into Scarecrow does not seem at all supernatural, but rather a decent into criminality and insanity brought about through his own hubris. Finally, it would be remiss to neglect Gary Oldman, probably the best version of Jim Gordon in live action ever; utterly human and compelling, the "man behind the superman" that makes Batman work in the narrative. 

All that said however, just who is Batman in this film and the ensuing franchise? A renegade ninja in a bat costume? I'm usually the first to point out the inherent silliness of superheroes, Batman especially, but doesn't the idea of the "grounded" and "realistic" take on Batman feel more than a little at odds with his training in a secret ninja academy in China, led by a British man? As good a sequence as the League of Shadows training is, it really jars with the tone of the rest of the film. I remember what it felt like watching this film when it first came out; it was exciting, engaging and unlike any superhero film before it. Batman Begins took one of the greatest superheroes of all time and made him accessible and enjoyable to the broader public in a way we'd never seen before. Although the Batman in Batman Begins wasn't precisely the character we, the fans, knew and loved, he seemed to poised to become that icon in subsequent films. As popular as the Nolan Trilogy is, I wonder if it isn't an intensely personal take for Nolan, rather than a true adaptation. Most of the major Nolan tropes are there to be had; a man fighting for a better world despite his own failings, spectacle as storytelling, a protagonist with a dark secret and shockingly few women. 

Yeah, did you ever notice that about Nolan's films? There never seems to be more than two named female characters and at least one of them is in a relationship with the male protagonist at some point. That's not a deal-breaker, plenty of brilliant films can't past the Bechdel test, but isn't one of the iconic things about Batman the huge cast? Rachel Dawes isn't a terrible character by any means, but why don't we see Barbra Gordon, Selina Kyle, Pamela Isley, Harleen Quinzel, Aunt Harriet, Leslie Thompkins, Vicki Vale or Talia Al'Ghul? Yes, some of them turn up in later films, but doesn't it seem just a little odd that none of them even cameo somewhere? Nolan presented a particular concept of Batman that excised a great deal of the world that exists around him in favour of a generic "decaying city". Although filmed in Chicago, the Nolan Trilogy doesn't "feel" like any particular city, even Gotham. There are none of the Art-Deco towers of Batman: The Animated Series, European Gothic of The Batman or even the psychedelic wonder of Batman and Robin. It's a bit of a shame that such a great film fails to deliver an iconic version of anything other than the protagonist, who certainly does not lack other iconic interpretations. As we get to the next films, there will be more to uncover and we'll drift further from a recognisable form of Batman.