Cracked DISEMBOWELS the narrative foundation of Batman Begins

I think even most fans of Batman Begins will admit that the climax is kind of (if not very) silly. A microwave powerful enough to boil infected water throughout the city? Uh, okay... And Katie Holmes didn't win too many plaudits, either.

But, as Cracked shows, the entire set-up to the movie is, well... kinda cracked:

Here's a modest suggestion from moi: move the parents' murder to Bruce's early 20s. Have him be a spoiled rich brat throughout his teens, developing his reputation for licentiousness which will prove convenient cover for later (instead of having Bruce suddenly become a wild party-boy who somehow failed to have attracted any notice during his seven years away). That way, when Bruce becomes Batman, his efforts would be fueled by the fact that his wounds are still fresh, making him a bit less totally insane than the movie protagonist whose nonsensical personal history plays out as described above. Also, his history as a carefree wild partier would lend an interesting layer to his playing at being being the same, in that he actually would enjoy being a cad, and have maybe risk jeopardizing the Batman project by indulging in too many cheap pleasures.

Anyway, this is but one reason why I find TDK to be so far superior to BB: for whatever reason, Bruce starts out fully formed as Batman, so we can just watch him do his thing without puzzling over why a billionaire would choose to get beat up in some remote prison because he tragically lost his parents over a decade before and apparently hasn't found anything other hobbies or friends since.

 

Some people take this stuff way too seriously. Just enjoy the darn movie, folks.

 

They did that in that craptastic Green Hornet.

Could work for Batman, but... it'll have to wait for the next series of Batman movies.

 

Oh come on. It's Batman. His parents were murdered when he was a kid, like it or not, that's the core of the character, and it's not likely to change. Yes, maybe Sherlock Holmes would be a better character if he were a woman living in Shanghai in the 18th Century, but if that's what we need to enjoy Sherlock Holmes, then we don't enjoy Sherlock Holmes, know what I mean?

 

And some of us are interested in the mechanics of telling a good story, and like to discuss whether or not a particular script tells one. Also, I didn't enjoy the movie, partly for the above reasons. Quoth The New Yorker's David Denby:

The screenplay sounds as if it were written after a course in self-realization taken on Santa Monica Boulevard, and the direction is both pompous and cheesy, with ridiculous plot developments and lots of whirling movement shot so close that we can’t really see anything. Gotham is no longer a malignant paradise of evil; it’s just dark.[LEFT]
[/LEFT]

 

You're right. Suggesting adjusting a biographical detail which this whole particular script (as opposed to nearly all non-origin Batman stories) is based upon is just the same as suggesting that one change a character's gender, nationality and time period.

 

Alright, I'm not dogmatic. Then let's just pretend I used "Luke Skywalker, arrogant rich kid" as an example.

 

Yeah, but you don't seem to enjoy much of anything. (Just playing! Don't get all defensive. )

For a second, there, I pictured Batman with Jedi powers.

 

We don't really know if Alfred had more conversations with Bruce regarding his parents' deaths, though. Perhaps his attitude came from years of trying to turn Bruce in a "positive" direction and failing, and then just accepting that Bruce should go in the direction he wants.

The late 80s storyline Blind Justice (by Sam Hamm, writer of the first Burton movie) had a pretty interesting deconstruction of Wayne's character, and tacked, not completely directly, the question of why he became a self-styled dark avenger while others have lived though even worse situations and came out with normal, productive lives. It gives an anlaysis of Batman that's not entirely flattering, and suggests that he took up this insane lifestyle simply because he was rich and spoiled enough to entertain it, and to wallow in his obsession without moving on.

That's just one take, of course.

 

The analysis fails to consider the obvious from a (supposedly) realistic point of view, i.e. that Bruce Wayne is insane. And I mean, clinically insane. He's young, disturbed (we see this before the murder of his parents), filthy rich, lacking any kind of father and mother figures, prone to obsession and costume dressing. His loss makes him focus his insanity into a super-heroic direction, but it's insanity nonetheless.

 

I got a sense from the movie that at some point while Bruce was gone, at some point he contacted Alfred and explained to him that he was not dead and so on. I think by the time he returned they had already talked some. As far as the rest, you don't have to be explained everything. I doubt its so simple as they making it out to be. I doubt Alfred only talked to Bruce about his parents' death. I think this is just an over analysis and when you watch a movie you should be able to assume certain things and infer certain things. I would assume that Alfred had counciled Bruce as much as possible and always had his best interest in mind. I lost my father when I was eight, I'm 31 and that shit still hurts sometimes. So, even with therapy and time, no matter how rich you are, you can still Cary a lot of pain and guilt. Look, do you really want to see Bruce get therapy and become a volunnteer at Arkum, so instead of beating the shit out of the Joker, he wants to talk about his childhood andfeed him soup? I wanna see Batman damit.

 

Since Bruce Wayne's parents being murdered was the driving force behind him becoming Batman right from nearly the beginning in Detective Comics #33 in 1939, and Alfred being the butler that raised him from childhood after the murder of his parents has been a fixture of the post-Crisis comics since the mid-80s, it seems rather silly to single out 'Batman Begins' for criticism on this for simply following the long established lore.

I don't see how it "disembowels" the narrative at all, much less enough to warrant all-caps . If they had changed such a significant and essential part of Batman's origin story fans would have been royally pissed. It was meant to be a humorous article taken lightly that criticizes one specific aspect of the film. Believe me, there are plenty of flaws to point out about 'Batman Begins' (and 'The Dark Knight') but this one doesn't make a whole lot of sense to base part of your dislike of the movie on.

Who the hell wants a well-adjusted Bruce Wayne anyway, using his dark grumble voice to talk about how he'll file a restraining order against the enemies of Gotham if they don't back off?

Plus, the Enterprise-E didn't have children on it, so by the laws of fandom I declare this article completely invalidated.

 

The fact that his parents' murder occurried before his eyes as a child, scarring him, and causing him to spend his adolescence and early adult life, has been a major, major, part of the character's backstory and motivation since the beginning.

Changing that is a little like saying it would be no big deal to have Superman live on Krypton until he's thirty.

As someone else touched upon, sometimes you should probably just concede that Batman isn't your cup of tea and move on to, for example, the Seth Rogan "Green Hornet" (give you just ripped off that movie for your brilliant and original idea, and all).

 

Give Morrison time. Give Morrison time.

 

I've never really understood that attitude myself, or liked how it's usually applied to only those films one happens to enjoy while others are fair game. Movie discussions would get rather boring if all we ever did was say we liked or disliked the film. If we like it, we usually point out why without a problem, so why can't we point out the reasons why when we dislike it?

As with anything, you can take it too far by elevating some minor piece of minutiae into a huge issue, or becoming one of those people who feels it's their duty to comment negatively in every single thread about the film or mock the fans for liking it. I happen to enjoy talking about the mistakes in a film and what I would have done differently, and can often separate those criticisms of the film from whether I can sit back, turn my brain off, and enjoy the ride.

For instance, in the other thread I have all kinds of criticisms of the narrative and logic of 'War of the Worlds,' but I still own it and watch it occasionally because it manages to provide some creepy imagery and action.

 

It is just a crazy little theory, but I like to think that Alfred actually wanted Bruce to become some sort of vigilante.

Keep in mind that Alfred was apparently British SAS(or something along those lines) and saw combat and corruption in various places around the world. He than became a butler to a fabulously wealthy American family, who he then saw gunned down. He than saw the city that we assumes he loves, fall into corruption and darkness. At the same time the company and fortune he is dutifully shepherding until Bruce comes of age is getting smeared with some of that same corruption.

He than apparently has no problem with Bruce disappearing for seven years, and again has no problems with Bruce becoming Batman. In The Dark Knight he even tells Bruce that Gotham needs Batman.

Everyone is so quick to say that Bruce is crazy, but perhaps he isn't entirely alone, perhaps his butler suffers from some PTSD himself and a hankering to take down some bad people.

 

The fact that the author of the article took Alfred's "You look very fashionable." literally kinda destroyed any credibility he had.


Of course Alfred wanted Bruce to change Gotham, just like he had seen his father change Gotham. That's one of the important points in the actual movie.

 

Everybody says that Bruce is "crazy", but is he any more crazy than say Wyatt Earp? In the comic book world of Gotham we see a currupt, lawless, wild west city. Gangs and the police are in bed together. Hell, Billy the Kid was deputized because Sheriff Brady was in bed with Mirphy-Dolan gang. The JoP deputized the Regulators in order to restore peace. Bruce has not been deputized, but Gordon condones Batman's vigilanteism. The point is, someone has to uphold the law in the midst of the lawlessness. That's what Earp did, he walked a thin line, but he had too. Batman is a modern day Wyatt Earp, not crazy.