Batman ’89: 6 reasons it’s more comic-accurate than you think

Credit

: Warner Brothers; from

Batman

(1989)

Contrary to popular belief, Tim Burton’s classic depiction of the Dark Knight is more faithful to the comic book Batman than most. 

Thirty years ago, Batman was an undisputed, cultural phenomenon. It’s one of the top 100 highest-grossing films of all time. It led to the creation of the highly acclaimed Batman: The Animated Series. Danny Elfman’s score still perfectly captures the essence of the Dark Knight, just as John Williams’ did with Superman: The Movie (1978). To this day, Tim Burton’s film not only continues to influence Batman comics, movies, television series, and video games, it shapes current comic book movies.

Yet as celebrated as Batman is, even it’s most ardent supporters will be quick to point out that it’s not at all faithful to the source material. However, this is a misconception. If you actually watch the movie again, along with some knowledge of the character’s history and what the comics were like at the time, you might be a little surprised at how much it actually gets right.

To be clear, this isn’t an argument that 1989’s Batman is the best Batman movie ever made (that would still be 2008’s The Dark Knight). Nor is it being argued that it’s the best comic book adaptation ever made (that would be the criminally underrated 1993 animated film, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm ). What is being suggested is that, rather than being a huge departure, the movie is a far more accurate depiction of the Caped Crusader from the comics than one might believe.

It would also be far too easy to point out all the ways how Batman violates the source material, from Batman not partnering with Commissioner Gordon to him firing off gatling guns. Also, simply responding to those points by simply saying, “Every comic book movie isn’t a perfect adaptation” isn’t enough of a defense. Evidence must be provided. Therefore, here are six reasons why 1989’s Batman is actually a faithful comic book adaptation. Just remember, it’s this author’s opinion, so debate is welcome.

6. The dark, moody atmosphere

Batman took audiences by surprise because they were so shocked by how dark it was. Keep in mind, most people’s firsthand knowledge of Batman came from the deliberately campy 1960s TV series. Seeing a character once played by Adam West now going around terrifying criminals (and in some cases outright killing them) seemed like such a huge departure. Where was the morally upright “duly deputized officer of the law?” Where was Robin? Why did Gotham look like such an awful place to live?

What the general audience didn’t realize is that, except for the 1950s and 1960s, the Batman comics have always dabbled in darkness. Bill Finger and Bob Kane’s early Batman stories in Detective Comics were heavily rooted in the pulp detective genre, where the Caped Crusader had no qualms about violently dispatching criminals. Denny O’Neil would return to those roots (albeit with a less murdery Batman) in 1970s. And of course, Frank Miller would underscore them even further with The Dark Knight Returns (1986) and Batman: Year One (1987).

As someone who embraces the macabre, all Tim Burton really did was accentuate what was already there. So did Anton Furst’s Academy Award-winning production design, creating a gothic world that looked like a collision between the 1980s and the 1940s. Gotham City literally looks like an urban hellhole built on crime and corruption, exactly the kind of place in desperate need of someone like Batman. So visually effective was the film that it continues influencing the comics to this day, just as the comics influenced it.