Batman 1989: Thoughts...

I can’t tell if I’m just bored or if I’m just feeling starved for some quality Batman related media.  I can’t claim to be overly excited about any of the new Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice footage that came with their supposedly “leaked” trailer this past week.  Maybe I’m in a funk, I don’t know.

I do know, however, that there was a lot more unspoken in the 1989 Batman film that what we saw.  Like, why did Boss Grissom order a hit on the Wayne’s?

Yeah that came a little out of left field, but when you want some quality stuff and there’s nothing on the market, you have to sometimes go back to the beginning.

Tim Burton’s Batman tried to mark a new era in superhero films.  Christopher Reeve’s Superman back in 1978 dared to not play up a superhero story just for laughs, which was actually rather common for Superman franchises.  Even the George Reeves television show in the 1950’s wasn’t a straight laugh riot.  For some reason, up until Superman III, and one abysmal musical, Superman was always played straight.

1960’s Batman, however, was not.  For some reason Hollywood took a man wearing blue tights and a red cape more seriously than they did a man wearing grey tights, a blue cape and a bat mask.  As I type that sentence, I can kind of see why, but still, Batman did nothing to deserve that.  So Tim Burton came along and took a shot at the Dark Knight, emphasizing the Dark.  Here the Joker killed, Batman took hits, and there was collateral damage.  While Batman never out right murdered anyone, actually actively trying to save the man who killed his parents at one point, all the death’s attributed to Batman were circumstantial at best and negligent homicide at worst.  Aggravated assault which caused crippling bodily injury on the other hand, Batman was completely fine with that.

But as I was thinking about this movie, I was recalling some complaints heard about the story, even ones that I once raised myself.  Take the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne.  It’s revealed in a flash back that Jack Napier, one day to be the Joker, actually gunned them down in that alley.  People got so pissed about that.  “Joe Chill killed Batman’s parents!”

But maybe he did here to.  Remember, there was a second robber at the scene.  He’s the guy who actually takes the pearls from Martha Wayne, enters into the ensuing fight with Thomas Wayne and looks on in shock from the side when Jack guns both of them down.  Then, as Jack threatens young Bruce, the second robber calls for them to get out of there as the police are on their way.  I believe this guy was Joe Chill.

So what do we know about the crime based on the information presented in the film.  Jack and, we’ll call him Joe, did not just randomly run into the Wayne’s but rather followed them from the theatre down the alley.  They were waiting for these two very specific people.  Joe attempts to rob them, trying to intimidate them, and when Thomas fights back, Jack shoots them both.  Shocked and probably appalled, Joe calls for them to retreat.  Jack, being the psychopathic showman, gives a parting threat to the now orphaned child, and leaves. 

Let’s look at how these two men were dressed.  Nice suits, tailored overcoats, well-groomed hair, and at least one very nice hat.  These are not muggers, they are mob enforcers.  Further, we have to look at where this fits in with Jack Napier’s time line.  By the time Batman is running around, Napier has made it to second in command of Grissom’s criminal empire.  The young Bruce in the flash back looks about 11 or 12 years old, and the grown up Bruce looks about 30, which gives us about 18-19 years between flash back and the narrative proper.

For context, when Al Capone entered the employ and became the second in command of crime boss Johnny Torrio he was about 20 years old, however he had known Torrio since Capone was 14, which means in order to become the right hand man of any crime boss, you need to know that guy for a long time.  We can assume that by the time the movie starts, Napier has been Grissom’s right hand for more than a few years, possibly 8 or 9, leaving 10 years to move from enforcer to under boss, which given what we can gleam from history, isn’t that hard to believe.  Now roll the clock back.  He’s been Grissom’s hand for 8 or 9 years, and before that he had to be working his way through the ranks of Grissom’s criminal organization, meaning that at the time he shot Thomas and Martha Wayne, he was under the employ of Carl Grissom, and by association so was Joe Chill.

When you are under the employ of a crime boss, you do what you are told, and given that, we can safely connect the dots that Carl Grissom ordered the attack, if not the death of the Wayne’s.  But why?

Here too is where the movie actually fits in well with the comics, because Batman never solves the murder of his parents.  Here, he knows who, and he can connect who ordered it, but since at the end of the movie Grissom is dead and so is Jack Napier (not that we could have relied on the Joker to give us a solid account of what happened) the only other option is Joe Chill, and he’s nowhere to be seen.  After the flash back, he literally disappears from the story.

I’ve searched and searched, and for the life of me I can’t find a fan theory that addresses this topic.  So I’m going to make one, based on an early draft of the scrip.  Originally Carl Grissom was going to be mob boss Rupert Thorne, you know, someone actually in the comics.  He was going to put a hit on the Wayne’s because Thomas Wayne was running against him for a seat on the city council.  So here it goes:

Thomas Wayne was a staunch opponent of Grissom’s corruption of the city, going so far as to run against the suspected mob boss for a seat on the city council.  Grissom orders two of his enforcers, Joe Chill and Jack Napier, to track Wayne and put a scare into him.  The high priced thugs corner the Wayne’s behind the Monarch Theatre, Joe Chill just wants to intimidate them and makes it look like a robbery.  Jack sees Thomas isn’t so easily spooked and that Chill’s plan is going to not only implicate them, but Grissom as well, which could make things far worse for their boss.  Napier decides that its best to eliminate Thomas all together pulls his revolver and guns him down.  He then eliminates the next credible witness, Martha Wayne.  Seeing their young son as just a kid, he levels his weapon and gives a catch phrase to put a scare in the boy before Chill, who is shocked and horrified at what’s just occurred, hears police responding to the gun shots, calls for Jack to flee.

Back at Grissom’s, Jack is reprimanded for killing Martha.  Grissom isn’t all that concerned about the death of Thomas, but killing Martha not only makes Wayne look like a martyr, but also violates one of the tenants of early organized crime: Don’t kill them if they don’t have to die, don’t leave orphans.  Jack justifies it saying that with the Wayne’s fortune, the kid will be fine, and martyr or not, a dead man can’t hold a political office.  Grissom waves it off and reprimands Joe for such a stupid plan in the first place, gunning him down in the office and making Jack his new right hand man.

Then there is the often complained “Alfred let Vicki Vale into the Batcave.”  Oh I have heard this cried out from internet reviewers and people I personally know alike.  “Why would Alfred just let her into the Batcave?”  My response, he was probably told to.

Alfred loves Bruce like a son, and isn’t about to let a reporter, even one his charge knocked boots with, blow his cover.  When Vicki Vale came knocking, she already had a suspicion that Bruce was Batman.  Also note, he didn’t look terribly shocked when Vale entered the cave.  More of an “Oh, you’re here.” Rather than “My God, how’d you find out?”  I think when Vale came calling, she said “Where’s Bruce?  I know he’s the Batman.  Take me to him.”   Alfred probably called down to the Batcave and said “Master Bruce, Ms. Vale is here and she’s figured out you are the Batman.”  Bruce still focused on the biggest case of his life probably said “Fine, bring her down here.”

And, no, I’m not totally forgetful about “Batman Returns” where in Alfred makes a comment about upping the bat-security and Bruce quips “Who let Vicki Vale into the Batcave?” with Alfred giving a reproachful look.  The way I see it, Bruce probably feels Alfred should have been a little more stalwart with Vicki’s deduction “Batman?  That’s ridiculous young lady.  He’s just an emotionally scarred man with billions of dollars at his disposal, a top notch physique, and happens to like hanging upside down…”  Basically Bruce was just being a dick.

Its all conjecture, trying to plug up plot holes where I see them.  You might have a different opinion.