The Best Batman
The Best Batman
Who is the best cinematic Batman? I am under no illusions: I understand that merely asking the question would spark fierce debate (in the unlikely event, that is, that anyone reads this). But come, let's discuss...
First, let's establish one important premise for this discussion: Anyone can play Batman when he's in costume. The role requires a minimum of talent, save, arguably, for competence with at least elementary stunt work. So the only way to really address the question of "who is the best Batman" is to ask "who is the best Bruce Wayne?"
Let's look at this chronologically. The first (unless you count TV's Adam West) was Michael Keaton. He's a particularly interesting case. At the time he was cast, he was known almost exclusively as a comedic actor only, and so comic book fans everywhere objected strenuously to the idea of him in the role. Yet his performance turned out to be so good that to this day, it is held as the gold standard-- and rightfully so.
And yet...
I don't argue against praising Keaton's performance, but I do argue against over-praising it. Keaton absolutely nails the broodingly lonely and oft-overlooked intellectual aspects of the character. But despite my admiration of his performance, I think that he gets a bit too much credit; his performance is effective not only because of his own talent, but also because it is at the service of ground-breaking treatment of both the Batman character in particular and superhero films in general. The movie has a sense of humor, but lacks the tongue-in-cheek tone of the earlier Superman films. More to the point, the first two Batman fims are (with the arguable exception of "The Dark Knight") the best Batman movies so far. The lion's share of the credit for all of this should go to director Tim Burton and his screenwriters. Yes, Keaton is very, very good in the role, but how would his performance have been rated if it had debuted with the movie "Batman & Robin" ?
Because of all of these caveats, I cannot see Keaton as the best Batman. I place him as a close second best.
Next up was Val Kilmer. I would say he does a decent job -- no better, no worse. It's not entirely his fault; perhaps his performance would have been praised to the heavens if "Batman Forever" had been as good or as innovative as Keaton's films, but without that support from equally good directors and writers, he, unfortunately, doesn't have the same advantage Keaton had.
And then came "Batman & Robin." Until the disastrous "Batman vs. Superman" many years later, "Batman & Robin" was, without a doubt, far and away the worst Batman movie. A misguided exercise in chaos, excess, and illogic, its director and writers ignored everything that worked in the first three films.
And yet ...
In the middle of it all, you've got your George Clooney as Bruce Wayne. Keaton was great, and Kilmer was adequate, but Clooney -- well if you can manage to ignore the lousy script, you will see that Clooney, more than any other actor who has tackled the role, was born to play Bruce Wayne. I'm not talking about talent in this case, so much as persona. With every gesture, whether broad or nuanced, Clooney is thoroughly believable as a millionaire playboy, spoiled enough to take his money and butler for granted, but innocently well-meaning enough to understand on a deeper level that it's the butler who is more important to him.
In terms of the evolution of his craft, Clooney was still in his earlier stage: an over-dependency on tilting his head down and looking up to indicate a meaningful look, for example. Or, even more noticeably, Clooney, at this stage of his career, had a tendency to bop his head back and forth with every line reading. Still, I stand by my premise: Clooney sinks into the role so completely you forget you're watching the star of "E.R."
The exact opposite can be said about Ben Affleck in "Batman vs. Superman," although just as I credit Clooney's persona rather than his performance, Affleck's performance isn't the problem with his casting as Batman. You just never forget that you're watching Ben Affleck.
Kilmer and Christian Bale are in the exact middle of this spectrum; chameleonic actors, they lack enough of a persona to either add or detract from the role. This may seem like near sacrilege to fans of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but keep in mind that I'm faulting neither Bale's performance, nor the films themselves.
So, in summary, from worst to best: Ben Affleck is the worst, though only because we never forget, "oh, look, it's Ben Affleck."
Tied for third place: Christian Bale and Val Kilmer, whose performances are certainly professional enough, but whose casting is neither particularly inspired nor problematic.
A very close, but still definitely second place goes to Michael Keaton, whose only demerit-- fairly or unfairly-- is that the effectiveness of his performance owes as much, if not more, to his director and writers as to Keaton himself.
But even Keaton can't compete with the letter-perfect casting of George Clooney, who manages to sell the role completely, even despite the fact that he's surrounded by chaos and borderline incompetence. "Batman & Robin" may be a lousy movie, but Clooney and the people responsible for casting him deserve their props.
Who is the best cinematic Batman? I am under no illusions: I understand that merely asking the question would spark fierce debate (in the unlikely event, that is, that anyone reads this). But come, let's discuss...
First, let's establish one important premise for this discussion: Anyone can play Batman when he's in costume. The role requires a minimum of talent, save, arguably, for competence with at least elementary stunt work. So the only way to really address the question of "who is the best Batman" is to ask "who is the best Bruce Wayne?"
Let's look at this chronologically. The first (unless you count TV's Adam West) was Michael Keaton. He's a particularly interesting case. At the time he was cast, he was known almost exclusively as a comedic actor only, and so comic book fans everywhere objected strenuously to the idea of him in the role. Yet his performance turned out to be so good that to this day, it is held as the gold standard-- and rightfully so.
And yet...
I don't argue against praising Keaton's performance, but I do argue against over-praising it. Keaton absolutely nails the broodingly lonely and oft-overlooked intellectual aspects of the character. But despite my admiration of his performance, I think that he gets a bit too much credit; his performance is effective not only because of his own talent, but also because it is at the service of ground-breaking treatment of both the Batman character in particular and superhero films in general. The movie has a sense of humor, but lacks the tongue-in-cheek tone of the earlier Superman films. More to the point, the first two Batman fims are (with the arguable exception of "The Dark Knight") the best Batman movies so far. The lion's share of the credit for all of this should go to director Tim Burton and his screenwriters. Yes, Keaton is very, very good in the role, but how would his performance have been rated if it had debuted with the movie "Batman & Robin" ?
Because of all of these caveats, I cannot see Keaton as the best Batman. I place him as a close second best.
Next up was Val Kilmer. I would say he does a decent job -- no better, no worse. It's not entirely his fault; perhaps his performance would have been praised to the heavens if "Batman Forever" had been as good or as innovative as Keaton's films, but without that support from equally good directors and writers, he, unfortunately, doesn't have the same advantage Keaton had.
And then came "Batman & Robin." Until the disastrous "Batman vs. Superman" many years later, "Batman & Robin" was, without a doubt, far and away the worst Batman movie. A misguided exercise in chaos, excess, and illogic, its director and writers ignored everything that worked in the first three films.
And yet ...
In the middle of it all, you've got your George Clooney as Bruce Wayne. Keaton was great, and Kilmer was adequate, but Clooney -- well if you can manage to ignore the lousy script, you will see that Clooney, more than any other actor who has tackled the role, was born to play Bruce Wayne. I'm not talking about talent in this case, so much as persona. With every gesture, whether broad or nuanced, Clooney is thoroughly believable as a millionaire playboy, spoiled enough to take his money and butler for granted, but innocently well-meaning enough to understand on a deeper level that it's the butler who is more important to him.
In terms of the evolution of his craft, Clooney was still in his earlier stage: an over-dependency on tilting his head down and looking up to indicate a meaningful look, for example. Or, even more noticeably, Clooney, at this stage of his career, had a tendency to bop his head back and forth with every line reading. Still, I stand by my premise: Clooney sinks into the role so completely you forget you're watching the star of "E.R."
The exact opposite can be said about Ben Affleck in "Batman vs. Superman," although just as I credit Clooney's persona rather than his performance, Affleck's performance isn't the problem with his casting as Batman. You just never forget that you're watching Ben Affleck.
Kilmer and Christian Bale are in the exact middle of this spectrum; chameleonic actors, they lack enough of a persona to either add or detract from the role. This may seem like near sacrilege to fans of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but keep in mind that I'm faulting neither Bale's performance, nor the films themselves.
So, in summary, from worst to best: Ben Affleck is the worst, though only because we never forget, "oh, look, it's Ben Affleck."
Tied for third place: Christian Bale and Val Kilmer, whose performances are certainly professional enough, but whose casting is neither particularly inspired nor problematic.
A very close, but still definitely second place goes to Michael Keaton, whose only demerit-- fairly or unfairly-- is that the effectiveness of his performance owes as much, if not more, to his director and writers as to Keaton himself.
But even Keaton can't compete with the letter-perfect casting of George Clooney, who manages to sell the role completely, even despite the fact that he's surrounded by chaos and borderline incompetence. "Batman & Robin" may be a lousy movie, but Clooney and the people responsible for casting him deserve their props.
posted by Movie Man at
9:01 AM
0 Comments
