15 July 2014

BEST SHOT: BATMANIA!

The second half of the fifth season of Hit Me with Your Best Shot, the most glorious and playful audience participation event spearheaded by Nathaniel of the Film Experience, happen to arrive right in the middle of the month that DC has declared to be Batman's 75th birthday. Accordingly, Nathaniel chose a particularly wide-open Batman-themed subject. In short: there have been, between 1966 and 2012, nine feature films starring the Caped Crusader. Participants are to pick their favorite single shot from any one of those movies - or, I guess, from all nine of them, for anybody with that kind of death wish.

It will come as no surprise to my long-time readers, my newer readers, or people who only know my from my weekly column at Nathaniel's place, that of those nine films, the one shot that I most loved came from the animated movie, 1993's Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I'll get to why in a minute, but first I should mention that it's actually the third in a trio of closely-linked shots, of which the first two occur consecutively, and in fact the first dissolves into the second. I should like to show those to you now:

In the film, there's a good break before the third variant of that image, the one that's my actual pick for Best Shot, so we're going to go ahead and take that same break now, while I explain my reasoning. Basically, we have here an exceptionally pure example of the motion picture attempting to copy the visual vocabulary of a comic book, something that happens almost never at all in comic book movies, weirdly (or not weirdly at all, actually: Ang Lee tried to do it in Hulk, fucked up, and now everybody's scared of it). The use of images that echo one another is one of the most effective building blocks in the comic artist's toolbox - an entire issue of the medium-defining Watchmen was built on the principle, and I would have to imagine that it long predates Dave Gibbon's excellent work there.

I'm certainly not a comic expert, but I know a thing or two about how images in juxtaposition create meaning, and I think the reason this technique works is because it's a terrific way of guiding the eye and directing the reader's thought process. Take those two shots - even totally divorced from any knowledge about the tragic boyhood of Bruce Wayne, it's really clear that the first image is setting up a mournful tone (crushing blues and blacks, silhouettes, the man dwarfed by the painting of the people), that we're meant to continue reading into the second image, even though it's not remotely so gloomy. The mere fact of the graphic match clues us in to two things: one is that the people in the painting are the people below the marker, the other is that the man in mourning has a pervasive, ritualistic attachment to the grieving process - a shift of time and place has left him in exactly the same place relative to the people he has lost. He is visually defined by his place in the grieving process.

So keep that in mind as we head over to third iteration, my Best Shot.

The important bit first: this isn't a great image simply because it completes a trio, or because it is informed by the progression of the other shots. Certainly, that gives it a great deal of added impact, and if the color wasn't enough to give this an exhausting, mournful tone, the way it taps into the feeling of those early images would definitely push it over the edge.

But that's hardly all of it. Forming emotional connections between images is one thing, and it's a good thing, but what the repetition also does is to make us familiar with this composition. When it arrives for the third and most dramatic time, it feels like we've already seen it, because in a very real sense we have. And that - showing us something for the first time that triggers the feeling that we have seen it, that we have always been seeing it, that it is bigger than just this one moment - is what makes an image iconic, and iconic images are the very life's blood of superhero comics. It is not a subtle genre at all: it is heightened, self-mythologising pulp, and it needs to register with immediate, visceral impact. The superhero image lands all at once, imparting its meaning, its emotion, and its celebration of the larger-than-life figure within it on a level that the gut perceives before the mind can sort out what's going.

So what is immediately, essentially Batman? What one concept about this character must land with the most impact if his entire existence is to make any sense? He lost his parents and has spent his adult life dressed as a bat to punch the evil out of the world and expunge himself of his grief over that loss. So, Batman, standing in front of their grave, a black form even against grim storm clouds, his shadow falling over the marker above his parents and obscuring the family name - cue the old bit about how Superman is really Clark Kent, but Bruce Wayne is really Batman. His new identity blots out the old one; and this too is a reason to mourn.

So there it all is, the essential core of Batman in one single image - not just my favorite shot from any of the Batman features, but my favorite single image of that hero from anywhere in his entire 75 year career.

10 comments:

  1. Love the movie, love the best shot take.

    But tangentially (because I can't help myself), isn't the mantra actually that Clark Kent really is Superman and just puts on Clark Kent as a disguise? At least that's the iconic Tarantino rant from Kill Bill, apparently paraphrasing Feiffer's The Great Comic Book Heroes:

    “Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red 'S,' that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Caleb: no, that's Quentin Tarantino proving he knows nothing at all about Superman.

    And I need to watch this movie again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think then you have to say a lot of Superman comic and film writers "know nothing at all" about Superman. He's very frequently portrayed as creating Clark Clent as an exaggerated everyman disguise with a frabricated personality. Sometimes even an oafish, bumbling, insecure one, as in the Donner films.

    As with everything in comics, though, I suppose this varies by canon and by individual authors' interpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "No, that's Quentin Tarantino proving he knows nothing at all about Superman."

    ...no, that's Quentin Tarantino demonstrating that he IS in fact very familiar with the iteration of the Superman character who existed for nearly fifty years, from 1938-1956; the Superman of George Reeves, radio and countless million-selling comic books who implanted himself in the national consciousness and actually matters to people beyond a small number of Gen X comic book devotees.

    And yes, this Superman created the bumbling Clark Kent persona as a disguise and thought of himself as a superman first and foremost.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excuse me, that should say "1938-1986"

    ReplyDelete
  6. The idea of Clark as a "bumbling disguise" is not as pervasive as you are making out. George Reeve's Clark, for example, is anything but. In fact, I'd argue that, as far as live-action representations, ONLY Christopher Reeve (and that poor Brandon Routh - esentially directed to be Chris Reeve) has taken Clark to that kind of dweebish level.

    Clark may have been "mild-mannered," but he was pretty consistently portrayed as a competent reporter and human being. Reeve (and Donner) decided he was a mask for Superman...who's personality matched the "real" Clark Kent far more than "Clark" does.

    Now, the real change comes with the post-CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS re-boot by John Byrne. This series, with some inspiration acknowledged to George Reeves, presented a Clark who was a home-town football hero, and generally a decent small-town guy who was neither geeky or klutzy.

    Frankly, it's this portrayal that has always rung true for me. Superman is Superman, no matter if he's in his uniform, or wearing the glasses. It makes a stronger statement about who he is and what he stands for.

    Tarantino, as I find more often than not, was full of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That should be "George Reeves'" mea culpa...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I really do hate John Byrne football hero Clark Kent with a passion

    how the fuck did we get on talking about Superman on a Batman article

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unlike Batman, who is the true persona because--to paraphrase so many Batman comic books, films, and TV shows--the real Bruce Wayne died along with his parents, Superman presents no such dichotomy. Neither Clark Kent nor Superman is the true persona, and neither Clark Kent nor Superman is the disguise. However, rather than saying "Superman is Superman, no matter if he's wearing his uniform or the glasses," I would argue "Clark Kent is Clark Kent, no matter if he's wearing his uniform or the glasses." When Superman talks to himself in his head, even when he's in costume, I'm sure he calls himself Clark. Why wouldn't he? No trauma metaphorically murdered the boy who was Clark Kent. Clark Kent didn't have to metaphorically murder his Clark Kent identity to become Superman. Clark Kent the boy grew into Clark Kent the quite well-adjusted man--albeit one who happens to have superpowers and who happens to use said superpowers to fight crime and aliens. The figure of Superman isn't a distinct identity; it's more of a title. Like the Pope if for some reason the Pope's identity was kept secret from the public.

    But back to Batman. First of all, Tim, I cannot describe to you the thrill of anticipation I experienced when I navigated to your blog and saw the first screenshot from B:TMofP. Reading your eloquent and hyperliterate analyses of the films you review is already always such a treat, but to discover that you have applied that analytic prowess to what is also my favorite film treatment of my favorite superhero? Pure bliss.

    "The mere fact of the graphic match clues us in to two things: one is that the people in the painting are the people below the marker, the other is that the man in mourning has a pervasive, ritualistic attachment to the grieving process - a shift of time and place has left him in exactly the same place relative to the people he has lost. He is visually defined by his place in the grieving process."

    Perfect. Actually, I had an epiphany the other day that what makes Batman so universally appealing may be the fact that he is both the victim and the hero of his own story, both the unluckiest person (his parents were murdered RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM and he REALLY REALLY SERIOUSLY LOVED THEM YOU GUYS!!!) and the luckiest person (unfathomably rich, famous, handsome, physically and mentally gifted, and he gets to go on all sorts of exciting and glamorous adventures) in the world, and that makes him the most important person in the world--literally the center of his universe. And isn't that what everyone wants to believe they are?

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's funny. To me, the John Byrne Superman will always be THE Superman, and all other versions are just sadly lacking.

    (I don't mean just the stories by Byrne, but the version of the character that came out of the Man of Steel [comic, not movie] revamp and was somewhat undone by Mark Waid's {very good} Birthright and then utterly destroyed by Geoff Johns absolutely terrible Secret Origin, and now has been completely dustbinned by the New 52 relaunch.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.