Batman (1989): Why the Joker Works/Being “Faithful” isn’t Always Important

When it comes to superhero movies, people always seem to look at it through two different lenses: as a superhero movie and as it’s own movie. Comic book fans seems to always look at it as a superhero movie first and an individual movie second. Casual fans/regular moviegoers mostly tend to look it as an individual movie first and a superhero movie second. Similar to what I said in about Batman (1966), people tend to have two definitions of what constitutes a good movie. However, specifically when it comes to movies based off of superheroes and comic books, the two definitions of a good superhero movie mainly refers to whether you look at it as both a faithful adaption to the source material and as a standalone feature film.

There are many Batman films made throughout the years that helps redefine the terms of a good superhero movie and a plain good movie. And with a few exceptions (and by exceptions, I mostly mean just Mask of the Phantasm), the way filmmakers have gone with adapting the character of Batman on to the big screen is by making a film first and a superhero movie second. The focus isn’t so much on making a faithful Batman movie but a movie that just happens to have Batman in it. Sure, there are definitely inspirations and call-backs to the original comic books, shows, movies, etc.. but for the most part, what makes each different Batman adaption different from the rest is how it stands as it’s own version of the caped crusader rather than trying to recreate what came before.

Along with Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight trilogy, Tim Burton seems to have taken that exact same approach with both of his movies and in the case of Batman (1989), the direction he decided to go with Batman and the Joker. The Batman and Joker is arguably the best hero/villain rivalry in the history of superhero. They are two polarizing figures with so much depth, complexity, and psychological views on crime, terrorism, and class warfare! So different yet so similar with their goals. They always want the same thing but for completely different reason. They are always responsible for one another’s actions and one doesn’t feel completely whole without the other. They are basically two sides of the same coins! They are the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees of the superhero genre!

Where their history gets complicated however is in their origin stories! Despite multiple source material created for multiple decades, there hasn’t been much engaging (or much at all) material surrounding how they became the Batman and the Joker themselves! And whenever writers try to create origin stories for both of them, it lead to iffy results at best. When it comes to film adaption, Batman’s origin story wasn’t properly addressed and explored until Batman Begins and the Joker was given his own feature film in the form of 2019’s massive hit, Joker. However, the latter wasn’t the first time that Joker was given his own proper origin on the big screen, it was with the film that this post is covering, Tim Burton’s Batman (1989).

Admittedly, Joker is a character that really doesn’t need an origin story. He always been more than just a superhero villain, he’s a mysterious force of nature who always contradicts himself when talking about his past (something that Nolan captured brilliantly in The Dark Knight). He’s always been someone that becomes the more interesting the less you know about him. The biggest attempt at adapting an origin story of the clown prince of crime came in Alan Moore’s now infamous The Killing Joke, a story that while still has it’s moments, hasn’t aged well in the slightest and it’s influence on the industry has made it look more a like a mistake with every passing day on Earth.

Nevertheless, in Batman (1989) (this’ll be the last time I’ll refer to the year it came out), Tim Burton’s decided to take his own stab at creating an origin story of the beloved villain icon Joker. In this version, Joker’s real name is Jack Napier, a right-hand man for Gotham City’s crime lord Carl Grissom. However, after a mysterious bat creature accidentally drops him into a pool of chemicals along with discovering Grissom’s intent to kill him, it’s then that Napier decided to take matters into his own hands and become the Joker. Near the tail end of the 2nd act, there comes a bit more information about him with his connection to Bruce Wayne/Batman. After a confrontation with Bruce Wayne on his date with Vicky Vale, Joker says his catchphrase, “Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?” Something which a stranger once told Bruce when he witnessed his parents getting shot in cold blood. As it turns out, that exact estranged lone gunman who murdered Thomas and Martha Wayne was no other than the Joker himself.

Ever since the film’s release, this has been a very divisive topic among hardcore fans. There are many people who absolutely hate it and feel that the Joker and Batman should not have any personal connections whatsoever. The Joker is someone that should not have a straight forward-origin story and be the sole reason that Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. It takes the mysterious and intrigue away and just makes him look like another ordinary villain. In hindsight, these people may be right but yet, I still think that this works not just in spite of itself, but because of it.

Here’s the thing, I’m not gonna sit here and argue that this version of the Joker is in any way, shape, or form faithful to the comic book character. However, I will argue though that it is faithful to the mere idea and point of the Joker and Batman. (Something which I will definitely bring up once I write my piece on why The Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 is actual genius!)

First off, the fact that the Batman and Joker unwillingly created one another does help redefine the idea of the two being two sides of the same coin. Both are tragic and mysterious figures who went through life changing events and feel it’s best to move on from those events by taking matters into their own hands. And the results of this has led to chaos, violence, and resurgence throughout the criminal underworld that is Gotham City.

But, what it makes it worth for me and actually worthy of this character being called the Joker is by going back to that infamous line he mentions to Bruce the night he killed his parents and the day he meets him again at Vicky’s place, “Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?”

The reason that line works is because it feels totally in line with the Joker. He doesn’t have any real reason or meaning behind it. It’s just something he likes to taunt his enemies with because it makes him feel like….well a Joker.

There also comes the line that follows soon after, “I’m only laughing on the outside. My smile is just skin deep. If you could see inside, I’m really crying. You might join me for a weep.” Once again, that feels completely in touch with Joker and how he essentially uses his joke-like nature to hide the pure sorrow and awfulness that he has done and has gone through.

Joker in this movie may not be mysterious in terms of who he is but more on what he says throughout the film. Every line of dialogue that is spoken through his lips can be interpreted in many different ways, just like how the Joker is suppose to be. While you can always understand and know what exactly he’s trying to say, the real reason and meaning behind it remains a mystery.

That feels just as line with the character of the Joker stands for and in a way is what also Batman stands for. The movie more than anything else is how villains can bring out the most out of heroes and how the heroes can bring the most out of their villains. The more they collide, the more they will feel motivated. The more they hold onto to their own beliefs and limits, the sooner the time will come where you will want to cut ties. Just because anyone can be a hero doesn’t mean that anyone can not be a villain as well.

It’s those personal connections, lines of dialogue, and actions made by the characters that helps this Batman/Joker relationship feel more complex than it has any right to be. There is an argument or two that can be made with the way it tries to collide with being a quality superhero movie along with being a quality movie, like how the Joker interpretations can be seen as lazy writing or asking the audience to fill in too many blanks. Regardless, it does fit with the core idea of what the two figures always stood for even if that is not quite what they stood for as individual characters.

This also helps make the final conflict much more personal as the two fight for not just for Gotham’s soul but for their own personal vendettas. Batman is willing to do it through physical force where Joker is willing to do it laughing his ass off. And that’s not even going into how utterly great Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson are in this scene, and honestly throughout the movie.

Not to mention, that line that Batman utters during the fight, “I made you, you made me first!” is the real master stroke here and makes this whole conflict come full circle by the end of it.

Batman is not a perfect film by any means. Side characters such as Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent aren’t given much development time, it’s quite inconsistent as to whether or not Batman should kills his enemies or not (something I will definitely bring up with Batman Returns and Dawn of Justice), and there are times where so much focus is put on the Joker that you can argue that it takes away from the actual titled character of the film. But I do think when it comes down to the core conflict and the way both the hero and villain are portrayed here, it makes for a rather unique, interesting, and personal conflict between the two pairs. Tim Burton might not have captured the Batman and Joker from their original roots but he did help create original roots of his own that made the film for the better.

And those are roots that Burton himself will continue to explore in his follow-up, Batman Returns.