This is very true. Even the Joker of BTAS has a ton of the Jack Nicholson Joker in him (particularly when you see the bits from '89 with the Joker's "commercials"). Rare example of taking something and successfully translating into another medium for a separate demographic. The scope of that success on that tightrope is hard to overstate.
Hello Jordan! Three things! 1. I was just taking a break from marking, and this was a really nice surprise! Welcome back! 2. Your Greek mythology card game looks incredible! Thank you for putting so much effort into it. You're making it really difficult for me to resist the Demigod: Panomachea Deluxe Box. 3. Love when you cover one of my favourite comic books or movies. This was a real treat. If you ever create a video about anything related to Swamp Thing, I'll be over the moon. That being said, your natural passion for your own interests is infectious, and I look forward to whatever you cover next. Cheers!
Incredibly kind comments all around. Thank you so much for that. I should definitely do a video about Bernie Wrightson, and that would cover Swamp Thing in part. Incredible artist.
Thx so much for the time you put into this video.This is also my favorite Batman etc.Saw it 3 times on the same day it was released.Saw the 30th anniversary that was special.Ive watched it @ least 200 times.Looking fwd to your videos ☮️☮️
Batman 89 has aged like fine wine, compared to the more recent Batman films and actors. I think its because of the art style which makes it timeless in a way.
7:23, and that is a HUGE lesson to impart on anyone serious about creativity, art or art history. Nice little mic drop in the midst of the essay, but its truly worthy of its own unpacking.
Great analysis buddy! My fav Batman too.. Bugged my mother for ages to take me to see it. One day, she showed up at school, took me out early and we went to see the very last session of Batman. Unforgettable. Love you Mum, miss you every day. (and that blu ray color grading is horrible lol)
I cant believe this 🤯! I agree and have thought (not to such an extent,) about everything you said, and agree. This is one of the best video essays ive seen in awhile. Im glad i found your channel because the rest of your videos are the type of stuff i was looking for!
Great video, thanks for making it! When the Batman Logo popped up everywhere 1989, I wasn't so familiar with the Logo and I always seen it negative and asked myself what on earth this mouth with 6 shiny teeth should represent, and it took me a whole while to realize later it's Batman and I should look at the black form :D
I really enjoy this video and the use of the Greco-Roman "super" or perfect human as inspiration. I also find it entertaining that the use of human anatomy was noticed in creating the Batmobile, however, the story behind that might be a little beyond what RUclips censors want to mention but still gets me every time I read/hear Burton talking about how he wanted to articulate how it should look. I also love the texture of this suit, and until it was pointed out in your video, I don't think I could have specifically stated why this one is so much better than any that have followed, but I do think you hit that correctly, and I'm unsure anyone in other costume departments have had the want/direction to have a similar look despite how much it fits his character (and other superheroes). This definitely gets a subscribe. Looking forward to new videos from you soon.
Brilliant observations. You made me think about it again. Thank you for that gift. When I walked out of the theater in 1989, after seeing Batman for the first time, all I could think was, it was flawed, and weird, and didn't always work as a movie, but it did have the best designs and environment for it's hero (and villains) I have ever seen, and I wanted to see more movies in this place. But, as we all know, we did not get that. Instead we got variations and reflections until this set of ideas was gone. Such is the act of genius, and when people who don't get it, try to replicate it for profit. I had the great fortune to meet Anton Furst in Atlanta one month before he won the Oscar for his design work on this film, and I told him that he would win the Oscar. There was no doubt in my mind. He did too. I cheered. Then, sometime later, he died tragically. He was drunk or high at the Oscars. He was not quite right at the symposium where I met him, where he shared his work with an audience. I knew then, that he was overwhelmed from the attention he'd gotten from his work on this movie That and other things in his life, killed him. But, thanks to observant and caring people like yourself, his brilliant work, and the others that worked on this amazing movie, will not be forgotten. Thank you for this. It was wonderful!
Batman 89 is the first movie I ever saw in theaters at the age of three. I love Batman. I had to have Batman everything as a kid. Batman pj's, Batman flashlight, Batman birthday cake, batman Halloween costume. Keaton will always be my definitive Batman.
I liked the video. Absolutely agree on the costume, glad to hear someone talk about it! Batman has never seemed more creature-like than in Batman 89. The only thing that comes close is the fear-hallucination scene in Begins when Scarecrow sees Batman as a literal demon. For me at the very least Batman is Tim Burton's magnum opus. It's wild in retrospect to see how he and his team bridged the gap between OG gothic Batman from the comics and the only modern screen Batman we'd had at the time, the Pop Art 60s show (which.... am I gross for wishing for an update of that concept? 😂). But that alone is just a stroke of genius.
@@jholtillusYes! I feel like he struck upon the realization you could bridge the gap with the German Expressionism / film noir styles he loved so much. Which makes sense as how Batman came out of that era in the first place. Makes me want to go back with a more critical visual eye and see what little design ideas those 40s serial films employed if any 🤔 (sorry, I'm chatty today)
Great video! I always talk about how this movie's gadgets feel so believable, as opposted to Nolan's. People always call those movies "realistic", but I can never buy that what looks like a handgun contains yards of cable. But in this movie, when he shoots the grapnel gun, you can see exactly how it works and that, coupled with what you said about the consistency of the aesthetics, and I never for once doubt that it works the way it does.
I’ve never heard nor read anyone describe with such eloquent sophistication, what art is. It’s not that it’s doctrine (Chesterton shares the same views), but rather that it gives weight to the joy of the experience. I share the reasons why Batman is your favorite character, but there are a myriad other reasons for me. One of the greater ones is the way comic book writers have evolved into telling it from Batman’s thoughts and mind. Though not unique, his higher purpose seems authentic and yet insurmountable without it being futile. The way it is universal, even though he’s wrongly perceived and misunderstood. But the best part of Batman to me is the mystery of his identity , and this could be a whole subject matter in itself. Whether this was planned or not, but the ubiquitous gargoyles in Batman has got to be the most brilliant piece of symbolism. I wonder what your view is in the evolution of Batman in the comic books v movies/tv. There’s at least 3 more episodes dedicated to Batman hehe. As always, your videos are gold.
Joel Schumacher went on and on and on about Greek statues when developing his sequels. That was his entire design aesthetic. So many print articles about this exist already.
I got carried away and ended up writing an essay below, so I apologize in advance. Just wanted to say at the top that I love the video. Your work remains stellar, and thank you for sharing your insight. Also, thanks for nearly making me spit a mouthful of almonds all over my monitor with Master Samwise's potato bit. I giggled for five solid minutes at that. I wish more modern "creatives" could get that point about the human body as an artistic ideal. I spend more time than I should being salty over the state of entertainment today and its insistence on homogenizing characters to the most inoffensive of low standards. Most people would agree, I think. The establishment counters with a straw-man accusation of, "Oh, you just want to see half-naked women with unrealistic proportions everywhere." Sure, some people do want that. But I think we all simply crave human beauty ideals. There's a reason it has resonated throughout history, even if the particulars of those standards have shifted somewhat over the ages. I want characters who inspire me to greatness, who tug at my heart on a primal level, who make me marvel at the divinity of human potential both in visual aesthetics and the genius of artists who are able to raise the bar by depicting figures that surpass reality's limitations. Batman is a perfect example of how this can be implemented without being gratuitous or overtly sexualized. 99% of him is covered in dense rubber, for crying out loud. But he's still an obvious masculine ideal, both in form and action. Indeed, his heroism serves to combat the deliberate choice to fashion himself into a demon. There's such depth to the character, which you covered wonderfully. But imagine a modern take on the Bat: he's (excuse me, "they" are) pudgy, gender-ambiguous, bitter, cynical, mean-spirited, and disdainful of all things normal. I can't see this character fighting crime and being a symbol of hope. I can't fathom "them" being at odds with the Joker. Unless the Joker were recast as a classically-attractive man who embodied tradition and normalcy. In my opinion, the genius of Batman is that he isn't normal. He doesn't fit in. He has every excuse to become one of those spiteful mutants who rail against the norm and drowns in self pity. But he doesn't. He knows he isn't one of the normies, but he fights for them all the same. Because he understands the value and importance of that normal world, even if he can never be a part of it. Instead of using his influence to bend the world to his will and force them to accept him, he chooses to stand apart, using his unique perspective and position as a bulwark against the tide of his fellow weirdos. He has more in common with the villains -- with the demons -- but he chooses to be a hero. His aesthetic perfectly mirrors his soul. The Joker, on the other hand, is the opposite. The most colorful presence in the film. A veritable rainbow of flamboyant fun. He presents himself to the people as a ray of sunshine in their dismal lives, while Batman hides in the shadows. But the Joker despises the world around him and won't rest until he sees it all burn. He and Batman are both demons of Gotham's creation, but their perspectives and paths couldn't be more different. It's a beautiful contrast in every way, and that's why it's a classic. But there's one contrast that doesn't fly so well these days, and that's the visual. Batman (and Bruce Wayne) is a masculine ideal -- handsome, athletic, competent, and skilled. Even with his demon visage, he looks like a sculpted statue. He's attractive. The Joker is hideous. Modern critics might say this is an outdated trope, where you can tell who's good or bad based on how attractive they are. But there's a reason this has always worked so well. It's because we all value the ideal, even if it's subconscious and our bitterness makes us want to destroy it. Just like the Joker. The brilliance of Batman is that even his attractiveness is twisted and broken in some ways. It has demonic aspects. By all rights, he should be a villain, where that beauty and form is deceptive. After all, everything else about the Bruce Wayne persona is. So we're presented with a series of inversions in the Bat character that make him endlessly complex and interesting. But I don't believe any of it would work without the classic beauty standards as a base. Audiences get their first impressions of characters based on what they see, after all. After that, competent storytellers can weave a tapestry that either supports or subverts this foundation as the characters are developed. That foundational impression is a critical baseline, even if we wish it weren't so. I don't believe these characters would work if they were given the modern treatment. I did not intend to ramble for this long, so I'll cut it off here. If you read all of this, thanks again for the video and for inspiring all this thought in at least one individual.
I read the essay! And I think you're right. What inspires you about Batman, and how you perceive him, mirrors my own perception. And in a fascinating way, I understood it long before I could say it. Batman just inspired me when I was a kid. And now that I CAN articulate it, it's not in contrast to that childlike perception, it's just an exposition of what already existed which I appreciate all the more. That's the power of an idealistic character.
@@jholtillus That's a great way to put it. Iconic characters have something for everyone, children to seasoned scholars. Every level builds upon the previous. At some point, the character becomes downright archetypal.
I like this video a lot,cause its not so much materials about arstyle of film,no artbooks or deep documentary film.I was searching it?and finaly got it!
The two Burton films will always be my favorite Batman films because of how much they understand that Batman is a PULP character. Burton embraces that not just visually, but with the storytelling as well. Miss me with the "comic accuracy" AKA "the worst and most boring way to talk about superhero movies" debate. I'm here for the whole schmear. And Batman 89 and Returns are indeed, the whole schmear.
I am actually watching the video as I type this. The version of Batman you are cutting two seems blue/green shifted, and a bit blown out, the colours are not the same as the theatrical release. Is it the 4k version? They also for some reason or other changed the sound effects of the guns, especially in the Axis Chemical shoot out. All thr interiors matches the exteriors in feel, closterfobic, Wayne Manors room all seem small, the press office, the mayors office, all except Vicky Veils which is bright and open. There is an great video on the making of BTAS and they called the look of Gotham as Dark Deco
Lots of people have mentioned the color shift. This is from a completely separate 35mm film scan I acquired a good while ago though. Probably just different because of that. But for heaven's sake people have raked me over the coals for it.
What an astute observation. To ask your students how people would see Batman over a hundred years ago, because in yester yeats the Jester may be mistaken for the hero & Batman may have been seen as the terrorist. 🤔
Speaking of symbolism, why not mention that the inside of the cathedral looks deserted. The fog, the broken seats and the lack of faith. It also represents the lack of faith in the people living in Gotham
Three things drove me, well, batty about this movie's artistic choices. First, after a marketing tsunami centered around the classic yellow-and black Batman logo (you know the one), the actual logo on Batman's actual chest was DIFFERENT. THAT bat had two extra pointy bits at the bottom, I suppose to represent the bat's feet. Anyway it was irritatingly, distractingly different. If the studio feared it lacked the legal rights to show the classic logo on film, why have the opening title scene consist of slowly traversing a carved-in-stone version of the classic logo?
Second, as is overwhelmingly established by generations of comics and comic-derived products, Batman's eyes are supposed to be blank white, with no visible iris or pupil - a supernaturally scary and cool look. And yet 1989, like every other live-action depiction of Batman going back to the TV show and the serials, and all the following movies, neglects this essential part of his look, instead showing his eyes. With his eyes, it always just looks like a guy in a Batman outfit, kind of silly. With blank white eyes, you instantly have BATMAN.
Third, they cast Michael Keaton. Yes, he took the role seriously and his acting was decent. 1989 fan unease about casting a comic actor proved misguided. But the LOOK is wrong; and in comic book movies the look is crucial. Christopher Reeve didn't just nail the acting for Clark Kent & Superman, he LOOKED the part, PERFECTLY. Keaton does not. He's already balding, he lacks "leading man" good looks, and worst of all he lacks the clear sharp jawline. He's got pudgy, jowly baby fat that looks ridiculous.
Good insights, thank you. I can't help when listening to you speak, not think that this is a you of the future - and there is a shared elephant theme. ruclips.net/video/Z1tKWCj6jMM/видео.htmlfeature=shared (go to 1:30 mark).
100% sure the you're the first person to describe Bob the Goon as a stallion. I'm picturing girls with Tracey Walter Tiger Beat photos on their wall. The movie is so dense with style, not a common thing anymore. Reality is boring, take me somewhere for 2 hours. I think Denny O'Neil described it as something like Batman is good dressed in evil and the Joker is evil disguised as good. That's a contributor to their arch rivalry appeal.
Batman '89 is by far my favorite Batman film too. That movie IS Batman.
Without Batman 1989 we wouldn't have Batman: The Animated Series so the film is great in my eyes.
This is very true. Even the Joker of BTAS has a ton of the Jack Nicholson Joker in him (particularly when you see the bits from '89 with the Joker's "commercials"). Rare example of taking something and successfully translating into another medium for a separate demographic. The scope of that success on that tightrope is hard to overstate.
yes exactly, it took the gothic concept of the films and ran with it
@@purefoldnz3070 Tim Burton definitely gave us the best looking Gotham in live action.
@@jholtillus Batman: The Animated Series definitely has Tim Burton vibes that's why I love it. That show is a masterpiece.
@@callmejacob3234 and Anton Furst, they sure did.
Hello Jordan! Three things!
1. I was just taking a break from marking, and this was a really nice surprise! Welcome back!
2. Your Greek mythology card game looks incredible! Thank you for putting so much effort into it. You're making it really difficult for me to resist the Demigod: Panomachea Deluxe Box.
3. Love when you cover one of my favourite comic books or movies. This was a real treat. If you ever create a video about anything related to Swamp Thing, I'll be over the moon. That being said, your natural passion for your own interests is infectious, and I look forward to whatever you cover next. Cheers!
Incredibly kind comments all around. Thank you so much for that. I should definitely do a video about Bernie Wrightson, and that would cover Swamp Thing in part. Incredible artist.
criminally underviewed
I'm criminally inconsistent on uploading and so I'm relieved it's done more than 500 views
Thx so much for the time you put into this video.This is also my favorite Batman etc.Saw it 3 times on the same day it was released.Saw the 30th anniversary that was special.Ive watched it @ least 200 times.Looking fwd to your videos ☮️☮️
Batman 89 has aged like fine wine, compared to the more recent Batman films and actors. I think its because of the art style which makes it timeless in a way.
A lot of my childhood movies disappoint on rewatch but this one does not
I get so genuinely excited when one of your videos pops up on my notifications. Thank you!
I appreciate that, and thanks for watching!
7:23, and that is a HUGE lesson to impart on anyone serious about creativity, art or art history. Nice little mic drop in the midst of the essay, but its truly worthy of its own unpacking.
It's true. Probably needs its own video with ample examples given.
The potato thing just made me laugh.
It makes us laugh until it makes us cry.
This was more than a commentary on 89 art style. Well done & thank you
I’m really looking forward to finishing this later after work.
When I see one of your new videos pop up I get real excited!
You're generous! Thank you for watching!
Great analysis buddy! My fav Batman too.. Bugged my mother for ages to take me to see it. One day, she showed up at school, took me out early and we went to see the very last session of Batman.
Unforgettable.
Love you Mum, miss you every day.
(and that blu ray color grading is horrible lol)
I cant believe this 🤯! I agree and have thought (not to such an extent,) about everything you said, and agree. This is one of the best video essays ive seen in awhile. Im glad i found your channel because the rest of your videos are the type of stuff i was looking for!
Happy to have you! Thank you!
Great video, thanks for making it! When the Batman Logo popped up everywhere 1989, I wasn't so familiar with the Logo and I always seen it negative and asked myself what on earth this mouth with 6 shiny teeth should represent, and it took me a whole while to realize later it's Batman and I should look at the black form :D
I never thought about that at all, but you're right
I really enjoy this video and the use of the Greco-Roman "super" or perfect human as inspiration. I also find it entertaining that the use of human anatomy was noticed in creating the Batmobile, however, the story behind that might be a little beyond what RUclips censors want to mention but still gets me every time I read/hear Burton talking about how he wanted to articulate how it should look.
I also love the texture of this suit, and until it was pointed out in your video, I don't think I could have specifically stated why this one is so much better than any that have followed, but I do think you hit that correctly, and I'm unsure anyone in other costume departments have had the want/direction to have a similar look despite how much it fits his character (and other superheroes).
This definitely gets a subscribe. Looking forward to new videos from you soon.
Glad to have you! Thank you for tuning in and for the subscribe
Batman (89) is my favorite movie of all time.
Brilliant observations. You made me think about it again. Thank you for that gift. When I walked out of the theater in 1989, after seeing Batman for the first time, all I could think was, it was flawed, and weird, and didn't always work as a movie, but it did have the best designs and environment for it's hero (and villains) I have ever seen, and I wanted to see more movies in this place. But, as we all know, we did not get that. Instead we got variations and reflections until this set of ideas was gone. Such is the act of genius, and when people who don't get it, try to replicate it for profit. I had the great fortune to meet Anton Furst in Atlanta one month before he won the Oscar for his design work on this film, and I told him that he would win the Oscar. There was no doubt in my mind. He did too. I cheered. Then, sometime later, he died tragically. He was drunk or high at the Oscars. He was not quite right at the symposium where I met him, where he shared his work with an audience. I knew then, that he was overwhelmed from the attention he'd gotten from his work on this movie That and other things in his life, killed him. But, thanks to observant and caring people like yourself, his brilliant work, and the others that worked on this amazing movie, will not be forgotten. Thank you for this. It was wonderful!
Batman 89 is the first movie I ever saw in theaters at the age of three. I love Batman. I had to have Batman everything as a kid. Batman pj's, Batman flashlight, Batman birthday cake, batman Halloween costume. Keaton will always be my definitive Batman.
I had Keaton Batman PJs. What a cultural force that franchise was.
Mr Holt ...I'm glad to see You! You did Your research thats for sure...
Glad to be back! Thank you for returning!
Thanks for making this. Love Batman 1989. Just subscribed.
Glad to have you! Thank you!
Bob is indeed a stallion!
I had this classic action figure: toywiz.com/batman-1989-movie-bob-action-figure-the-jokers-goon/
I liked the video.
Absolutely agree on the costume, glad to hear someone talk about it! Batman has never seemed more creature-like than in Batman 89. The only thing that comes close is the fear-hallucination scene in Begins when Scarecrow sees Batman as a literal demon.
For me at the very least Batman is Tim Burton's magnum opus. It's wild in retrospect to see how he and his team bridged the gap between OG gothic Batman from the comics and the only modern screen Batman we'd had at the time, the Pop Art 60s show (which.... am I gross for wishing for an update of that concept? 😂). But that alone is just a stroke of genius.
It's true. It's a tonal blend that's very hard to strike.
@@jholtillusYes! I feel like he struck upon the realization you could bridge the gap with the German Expressionism / film noir styles he loved so much. Which makes sense as how Batman came out of that era in the first place. Makes me want to go back with a more critical visual eye and see what little design ideas those 40s serial films employed if any 🤔 (sorry, I'm chatty today)
Definitely crazy!
AGREE
Great video! I always talk about how this movie's gadgets feel so believable, as opposted to Nolan's. People always call those movies "realistic", but I can never buy that what looks like a handgun contains yards of cable. But in this movie, when he shoots the grapnel gun, you can see exactly how it works and that, coupled with what you said about the consistency of the aesthetics, and I never for once doubt that it works the way it does.
The tools in the film are a beautiful mix of form and function.
Another thing to consider is the film stock used in the UK at the time versus film stock used in the United States in the 90s.
I’ve never heard nor read anyone describe with such eloquent sophistication, what art is. It’s not that it’s doctrine (Chesterton shares the same views), but rather that it gives weight to the joy of the experience. I share the reasons why Batman is your favorite character, but there are a myriad other reasons for me. One of the greater ones is the way comic book writers have evolved into telling it from Batman’s thoughts and mind. Though not unique, his higher purpose seems authentic and yet insurmountable without it being futile. The way it is universal, even though he’s wrongly perceived and misunderstood. But the best part of Batman to me is the mystery of his identity , and this could be a whole subject matter in itself. Whether this was planned or not, but the ubiquitous gargoyles in Batman has got to be the most brilliant piece of symbolism. I wonder what your view is in the evolution of Batman in the comic books v movies/tv. There’s at least 3 more episodes dedicated to Batman hehe. As always, your videos are gold.
Thank you very much, and you're right. You could pull any thread from the concept of Batman and follow it into a deep essay.
I've have heard and read plenty describe with such eloquent sophistication what art is.
Love that Joker
Very lovable, that one
Joel Schumacher went on and on and on about Greek statues when developing his sequels. That was his entire design aesthetic. So many print articles about this exist already.
Loved your video .
Thank you!
I got carried away and ended up writing an essay below, so I apologize in advance. Just wanted to say at the top that I love the video. Your work remains stellar, and thank you for sharing your insight. Also, thanks for nearly making me spit a mouthful of almonds all over my monitor with Master Samwise's potato bit. I giggled for five solid minutes at that.
I wish more modern "creatives" could get that point about the human body as an artistic ideal. I spend more time than I should being salty over the state of entertainment today and its insistence on homogenizing characters to the most inoffensive of low standards. Most people would agree, I think. The establishment counters with a straw-man accusation of, "Oh, you just want to see half-naked women with unrealistic proportions everywhere." Sure, some people do want that. But I think we all simply crave human beauty ideals. There's a reason it has resonated throughout history, even if the particulars of those standards have shifted somewhat over the ages. I want characters who inspire me to greatness, who tug at my heart on a primal level, who make me marvel at the divinity of human potential both in visual aesthetics and the genius of artists who are able to raise the bar by depicting figures that surpass reality's limitations. Batman is a perfect example of how this can be implemented without being gratuitous or overtly sexualized. 99% of him is covered in dense rubber, for crying out loud. But he's still an obvious masculine ideal, both in form and action.
Indeed, his heroism serves to combat the deliberate choice to fashion himself into a demon. There's such depth to the character, which you covered wonderfully. But imagine a modern take on the Bat: he's (excuse me, "they" are) pudgy, gender-ambiguous, bitter, cynical, mean-spirited, and disdainful of all things normal. I can't see this character fighting crime and being a symbol of hope. I can't fathom "them" being at odds with the Joker. Unless the Joker were recast as a classically-attractive man who embodied tradition and normalcy.
In my opinion, the genius of Batman is that he isn't normal. He doesn't fit in. He has every excuse to become one of those spiteful mutants who rail against the norm and drowns in self pity. But he doesn't. He knows he isn't one of the normies, but he fights for them all the same. Because he understands the value and importance of that normal world, even if he can never be a part of it. Instead of using his influence to bend the world to his will and force them to accept him, he chooses to stand apart, using his unique perspective and position as a bulwark against the tide of his fellow weirdos. He has more in common with the villains -- with the demons -- but he chooses to be a hero. His aesthetic perfectly mirrors his soul.
The Joker, on the other hand, is the opposite. The most colorful presence in the film. A veritable rainbow of flamboyant fun. He presents himself to the people as a ray of sunshine in their dismal lives, while Batman hides in the shadows. But the Joker despises the world around him and won't rest until he sees it all burn. He and Batman are both demons of Gotham's creation, but their perspectives and paths couldn't be more different. It's a beautiful contrast in every way, and that's why it's a classic.
But there's one contrast that doesn't fly so well these days, and that's the visual. Batman (and Bruce Wayne) is a masculine ideal -- handsome, athletic, competent, and skilled. Even with his demon visage, he looks like a sculpted statue. He's attractive. The Joker is hideous. Modern critics might say this is an outdated trope, where you can tell who's good or bad based on how attractive they are. But there's a reason this has always worked so well. It's because we all value the ideal, even if it's subconscious and our bitterness makes us want to destroy it. Just like the Joker. The brilliance of Batman is that even his attractiveness is twisted and broken in some ways. It has demonic aspects. By all rights, he should be a villain, where that beauty and form is deceptive. After all, everything else about the Bruce Wayne persona is. So we're presented with a series of inversions in the Bat character that make him endlessly complex and interesting.
But I don't believe any of it would work without the classic beauty standards as a base. Audiences get their first impressions of characters based on what they see, after all. After that, competent storytellers can weave a tapestry that either supports or subverts this foundation as the characters are developed. That foundational impression is a critical baseline, even if we wish it weren't so. I don't believe these characters would work if they were given the modern treatment.
I did not intend to ramble for this long, so I'll cut it off here. If you read all of this, thanks again for the video and for inspiring all this thought in at least one individual.
I read the essay! And I think you're right. What inspires you about Batman, and how you perceive him, mirrors my own perception. And in a fascinating way, I understood it long before I could say it. Batman just inspired me when I was a kid. And now that I CAN articulate it, it's not in contrast to that childlike perception, it's just an exposition of what already existed which I appreciate all the more. That's the power of an idealistic character.
@@jholtillus
That's a great way to put it. Iconic characters have something for everyone, children to seasoned scholars. Every level builds upon the previous. At some point, the character becomes downright archetypal.
I like this video a lot,cause its not so much materials about arstyle of film,no artbooks or deep documentary film.I was searching it?and finaly got it!
Welcome back
Glad to be back. I like making these so it's always a loss when I have to push it off.
The two Burton films will always be my favorite Batman films because of how much they understand that Batman is a PULP character. Burton embraces that not just visually, but with the storytelling as well.
Miss me with the "comic accuracy" AKA "the worst and most boring way to talk about superhero movies" debate. I'm here for the whole schmear. And Batman 89 and Returns are indeed, the whole schmear.
Beautifly said.
C’mon!!!! The ridiculously red microphone AAAND the red coffee mug???!!!
What’re we doing here? 😂
Soon everything will be red
I will like any video where the presenter uses the word “substrate” properly. =D
I don't think I've run across it used improperly (not a particularly common word, granted). What are others doing to it?
I am actually watching the video as I type this. The version of Batman you are cutting two seems blue/green shifted, and a bit blown out, the colours are not the same as the theatrical release. Is it the 4k version? They also for some reason or other changed the sound effects of the guns, especially in the Axis Chemical shoot out.
All thr interiors matches the exteriors in feel, closterfobic, Wayne Manors room all seem small, the press office, the mayors office, all except Vicky Veils which is bright and open. There is an great video on the making of BTAS and they called the look of Gotham as Dark Deco
Lots of people have mentioned the color shift. This is from a completely separate 35mm film scan I acquired a good while ago though. Probably just different because of that. But for heaven's sake people have raked me over the coals for it.
What an astute observation. To ask your students how people would see Batman over a hundred years ago, because in yester yeats the Jester may be mistaken for the hero & Batman may have been seen as the terrorist. 🤔
That suit and how it's lit is magical. Nice deep dive, man! And... you're horrible. I'm sorry, I have to be honest with you. Great video though.
Thank you and...it's okay. I understand. Glad to have you!
I love 89 better than the dark knight trilogy- which has a lot of problems
Speaking of symbolism, why not mention that the inside of the cathedral looks deserted. The fog, the broken seats and the lack of faith. It also represents the lack of faith in the people living in Gotham
Well I did mention it.
Three things drove me, well, batty about this movie's artistic choices. First, after a marketing tsunami centered around the classic yellow-and
black Batman logo (you know the one), the actual logo on Batman's actual chest was DIFFERENT. THAT bat had two extra pointy bits at the bottom, I suppose to represent the bat's feet. Anyway it was irritatingly, distractingly different. If the studio feared it lacked the legal rights to show the classic logo on film, why have the opening title scene consist of slowly traversing a carved-in-stone version of the classic logo?
Second, as is overwhelmingly established by generations of comics and comic-derived products, Batman's eyes are supposed to be blank white, with no visible iris or pupil - a supernaturally scary and cool look. And yet 1989, like every other live-action depiction of Batman going back to the TV show and the serials, and all the following movies, neglects this essential part of his look, instead showing his eyes. With his eyes, it always just looks like a guy in a Batman outfit, kind of silly. With blank white eyes, you instantly have BATMAN.
Third, they cast Michael Keaton. Yes, he took the role seriously and his acting was decent. 1989 fan unease about casting a comic actor proved misguided. But the LOOK is wrong; and in comic book movies the look is crucial. Christopher Reeve didn't just nail the acting for Clark Kent & Superman, he LOOKED the part, PERFECTLY. Keaton does not. He's already balding, he lacks "leading man" good looks, and worst of all he lacks the clear sharp jawline. He's got pudgy, jowly baby fat that looks ridiculous.
Good insights, thank you. I can't help when listening to you speak, not think that this is a you of the future - and there is a shared elephant theme. ruclips.net/video/Z1tKWCj6jMM/видео.htmlfeature=shared (go to 1:30 mark).
There probably are some similarities there, and elephants are indeed awesome.
100% sure the you're the first person to describe Bob the Goon as a stallion. I'm picturing girls with Tracey Walter Tiger Beat photos on their wall.
The movie is so dense with style, not a common thing anymore. Reality is boring, take me somewhere for 2 hours.
I think Denny O'Neil described it as something like Batman is good dressed in evil and the Joker is evil disguised as good. That's a contributor to their arch rivalry appeal.
You talked about the movies colors and color theory, but you used the 4k version with the awful blue tint. DISLIKE!!
Just kidding😏 I liked the video👍🏼
Just to add confusion, that's not the 4k version or the blu ray
@@jholtilluslol what version is it?
The 4K version is teal colored dogshittt