For nearly half a century, the caped crusader has been entertaining comic book fans and movie lovers on the big screen. The new installment of Gotham’s masked vigilante is no exception. It’s a long movie (three hours) that takes inspiration from various sources, including films. Matt Reeves’ ‘The Batman’, released earlier this month, is exactly what one would get if Christopher Nolan and David Fincher decided to make the DC Universe. The Robert Pattinson-starrer is dark, gritty, broken, and real.
The base of the story remains the same, that of a young Bruce Wayne experiencing a traumatic episode and then becoming Batman. The way it’s portrayed by Christian Bale (in Nolan’s trilogy) and Pattinson is quite different. Pattinson’s version of Wayne is layered, more than the Lasagnes made by the corrupt Italian origin mobsters in Gotham.
There is no origin story here. Right from the get-go, you know he is Batman. You don’t see the backstory about the night where his parents were murdered. The film is focused more on the present.
Batman, in the latest film, is a person who has been grounded, coping, and learning every night as he ventures out instilling fear in the minds of hooligans, thieves, and organized crime. He hides in shadows and beats the pulp out of criminals. He is scared and scarred and thinks twice before trusting anyone. Probably, the only person who he seems to trust apart from Alfred is Jim Gordon, leveraging as one of the law enforcement allies and solving crimes together, which isn't the case in previous iterations of the Batman.
Bale’s version had more clarity. Even in ‘Batman Begins’ (2005), nothing seems crude. Whatever Batman does looks like a finished product. Both the Batmen have always wanted to become the symbol of hope. While Pattinson uses brute force and downright fear mongering tactics to convey his message across, Bale had a more sophisticated approach.
Bale’s Batman was the billionaire playboy in all true sense with gadgets and weapons cleaner and polished. In Reeves' version, everything is raw. The gadgets seemed handmade and not from a vendor in China who shared a mass export. Even the bat symbol is just a piece of scrap metal made into a makeshift beacon.
This comparison applies to the city of Gotham as well. This new instalment is more about Gotham than Batman himself. Because like the great Aristotle says, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Batman exists because of Gotham and the characters in it.
This version of Gotham is dark, and for some weird reason, always rainy and a cesspool of corruption. There is a clear divide in power between the wealthy and the poor. People vandalise the city as though it's a blank canvas to spray paint on.
The noir style definitely compliments this world. Cinematographer Greig Fraser’s obsession with playing with dark minimal lighting and silhouettes adds a lot of meat to the visuals. As mentioned earlier, the inspiration from Fincher and ‘Star Wars’ is quite evident.
Nolan’s Gotham can be any city in the world as the treatment is realistic. You swap Mumbai with New York as the principal location, and you’d not know the difference. The corruption resembles every city’s problem. This can be seen in both ‘Batman Begins’ and ‘The Dark Knight’ (2008), when Nolan used economic overtones to drive the larger despair in Gotham. Reeves juxtaposes this by referencing the internet subculture spawning political violence. Nolan’s reminders are more subtle while Reeves makes it uncomfortable with recent and relatable events.
It’s not fair to pit one franchise over the other. It’s like comparing apples and oranges, which funnily is something that the bats love. Nolan’s version is complete. The evolution is done. He is the symbol of hope for people aiming to reinvent the franchise. Reeves’ franchise has just started. The next installment definitely seems exciting with new characters coming in. The franchise is definitely set up well but only time will tell.
(The author is a Bengaluru-based senior graphic designer and a short film maker).