Date: Fri 20-Jun-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: DONNAM

Quick Words:

Playing-Clooney-Keaton-Uma

Full Text:

Now Playing: Will New `Batman' Sink or Swim?

By Trey Paul Alexander III

Batman & Robin opens this weekend and Warner Bros. is hoping moviegoers

haven't tired of returning to the Batcave. Audiences should be concerned that

the franchise may be a prime example of the principle of diminishing returns.

Where the movie execs point to all important box-office numbers (and why

shouldn't they? In the United States, Batman grossed $251 million, Batman

Returns netted $163 million, and Batman Forever pulled in $184 million), fans

may fear the series is less about well-crafted entertainment and more about

deafening mayhem and suffocatingly pervasive promotion. In short, Batman

movies are becoming all sound and fury signifying nothing.

To be fair, there is no denying the Warner Bros. marketing machine has been

going full force on these films since before the opening of the first

installment in 1989 (has it really been almost a decade?). The lasting image

of the myriad Batman T-shirts hanging in countless stores should remind us of

that. Yet just a glance at the casting of the lead in the first movie would

suggest there was more going on than just an assemblage of famous name and

pretty faces. Whereas the newest film boasts a cast that includes

international superstar Arnold Schwarzenegger, young talents Chris O'Donnell,

Alicia Silverstone and Uma Thurman, and TV hunk George Clooney, the Tim

Burton-directed original featured the relatively modest threesome of Kim

Basinger, Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton.

Keaton as Batman? What kind of star was Keaton before he put on the signature

cape and cowl? There was an outcry from comics fans when Warner Bros.

announced his hiring and many assumed the film would make a mockery of their

beloved caped crusader. But the clownish Keaton brought a surprising solemnity

to the production and made the delineation between Batman/Bruce Wayne

believable and downright distinctive. Now, eight years later, a poll by

"Entertainment Weekly" shows that a majority of fans would rather see Keaton

as the Dark Knight than either of his successors, Val Kilmer (an able

one-timer) or Clooney (let's wait and see...). To use a Bond metaphor, Keaton

has become the Connery of the franchise, Kilmer is a Lazenby, and heaven help

us if Clooney takes on the Roger Moore mantle!

But just as important is the talent behind the cameras and the attention to

plot that goes into the making of these movies. This is where I'm at a loss to

find a solution for the series to get back on track. Burton directed the first

two, and Joel Schumacher has followed up with two of his own, but only

Burton's first effort contained a singular vision that engulfed both the

visual and the narrative. In Batman , he created a hellish Gotham city whose

hero was a dark knight whose existence was rumored and whose form was detected

only in the shadows. There was definitely a richness and resonance to the

film. But by Batman Returns , Burton's guiding hand became too abstract in its

storytelling.

In 1995, Schumacher stepped up to the plate to direct Batman Forever , and

brought with him a new Batman (Kilmer) and a new approach. Instead of Burton's

nihilistic conceit, a more fanciful (if yet still dark) concept emerged,

complete with the introduction of the Boy Wonder (O'Donnell) and a more

cacophonous sensibility. It was a crowd-pleasing strategy, and Warner Bros.

again raked in oodles of cash. But the script was lacking and previews of

Batman & Robin already indicate Schumacher's zealous pursuit of accessibility

may now equal sheer bedlam and overkill. As the summer unfolds, we viewers

will get a chance to weigh in on the matter and judge for ourselves, as the

dynamic duo wages war both on Gotham City's newest crop of villains - Mr

Freeze (Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Thurman) - and the onslaught of summer

movies at the multiplex.