Why Batman and Robin (1997) is a very influential film?

                                         (Joel Schumacher apologizes for Batman and Robin)

Batman and Robin has been universally condemned i.e. the critics and the regular moviegoers did not cherish the film. Yet from this condemnation was borne new fruit when Batman Begins (2005) was released and so ushering unprecedented success at the box office with the release of the sequels The Dark Knight (2008) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012). These three series of film offered a more gritty take on the  batman universe as opposed to the camp of the previous series directed and produced by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher: Batman (1989) (directed by Tim Burton), Batman Returns (1992) (directed by Tim Burton), Batman Forever (1995) (directed by Schumacher) and Batman and Robin (1997). If Batman and Robin (directed by schumacher) was so bad then how can it be deemed influential?

One must bear in mind that influence can be both positive and negative. The positive normally emerges from the negative and likewise the negative emerges from the positive. This is done through several stages of mediation or transitions to the negative. When the negative emerges the positive state is negated and ceases to function in a positive light. This negative must be transformed into a new positive or it will fester. The importance here is the synthesis that emerges in the new positive. It will take on elements from the previous positive and the negative elements of the previous system are a means of reinforcing the new positive or the new direction. What I am saying is that in order to know that you are on a positive new direction you must have passed through the negative.

Batman and Robin, therefore, represented a negative direction for the series of Batman films that emerged in 1989. It reinforced the negative of the positive elements of the first 1989 film. This suggests that the path on which these films began naturally culminated with Batman and Robin. Batman and Robin was not a standalone effort. It was merely building on its own foundation which found a formula for success way back in 1989. It merely enhanced the contradictions in the positive. When people talk about being only positive it means that they are denying the contradiction inherent in such a premise. The contradiction is represented by the negative. So when Batman (1989) was released one can identify the elements that would lead to the downfall of the franchise with the release of Batman and Robin.

The primary contradiction or negative that began with Batman and culminated in Batman and Robin must be identified for this to make any sense. The primary negative of the original Tim Burton film was the exaltation of the character of the villains over the main protagonist that was Batman. There was the Joker in Batman and then the penguin in Batman Returns, the Riddler and Two face in Batman Forever and, lastly, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze and Bane in Batman and Robin. The exaltation of the villains over the hero stunted the development of the Bruce Wayne/Batman persona as he was rendered as a sideshow or, at times, a mere spectator.  The primary highlight of batman was the advanced technology at his disposal.

It was a success originally because the camp associated with Batman on tv, particularly, the television show of the 60s, was significantly reduced in favour of a more gritty reality. This gritty element was taken up by Nolan over a decade later. This was the  primary positive of Burton’s original film: the change in context. The exaltation of the villains being the primary negative.

Now when you have a successful formula you must abide by it until it fizzles out in the negative. As it begins to fizzle out the primary sign that things are going wrong or entering a state of the negative is the extravagance. When you have a formula of success you want to expand it, tweak it (not twerk), or refine it to perhaps make it better. In your mind you are doing the best you can to make that particular formula for success even more attractive. There is nothing wrong with this approach because those who support you come to depend on that successful formula and the extravagance that goes with it. Batman and Robin did fairly well at the box office internationally and if you adjust it according to ticket price inflation, it would not have done poorly in the US domestic market today. In terms of ticket price inflation, for instance, Batman Forever would have done very well by today’s standards. Batman Forever grossed $184 million+, domestically, in 1995 and when it is adjusted for ticket price inflation, according to box office mojo, that would equate to $336 million+ today. This means the amount of tickets sold would put it on par with a lot of the successful films today, in the top 144 according to Mojo. Batman and Robin made $107 million+ domestically or $77 million off its predecessor.  At 1995 prices it would be more like $83 million off. By today’s standards it would have made about $186 million according to Mojo. That is not too bad; better domestically than Thor (2011), $181 million, and almost as good, domestically, as Thor: the Dark World (2013), $206 million.

When you look at the franchise as well Batman and Robin would have added a significant amount to the series as a whole. This film however was suffering more from a qualitative point of view and this is where transitions normally take place. The quantity has bearing on quality because the quantity is generated on the basis of the qualitative shift or the successful formula that begun in 1989. The quantity was being generated although the quality was burdened by the weight of the quantity. It is just like squeezing as much out of a device even though you have to keep patching it and knocking it in order for it to work. The quantity influenced the quality in the case of Batman and Robin because of the many additions in the form of villains and support cast which was a means to generate more revenue. The original positive formula still remained however although it was now being overwhelmed by the negative elements.

Extravagance is normally a sign that the seeds of decay are being sown or that the elements of decay are already present. Extravagance is reflective of success in some particular field or area and so how do you continue to generate that success when the formula stops to work? The formula will not work forever and this is why it becomes a negative although initially very successful.  The extravagance will then become a sign that decay is ever present from a qualitative basis although the negatives are being amplified in extravagant form by the quantity. The negatives will then become a sign that the extravagance is loathed or derided. Batman and Robin by all accounts was dubbed an extravaganza. The ailing health of Alfred in that film was a clear sign.

I already spoke of how Batman and Robin, which amplified the negatives of the original formula, influenced the direction taken by Nolan with his films. However, with regard to other franchises their downfall was also echoed by the direction this film took when it was decided to focus on the negatives. We saw the downfall of the Spider-Man film franchise associated with Sam Raimi with the film Spider-Man 3 (2007) which was an extravaganza. It exalted all that made the first two great but amplified the negatives, the ghosts of Peter Parker’s past and his new found celebration of life that occurred at the end of Spider-Man 2. The first two were also very comic book in tone and context which explains all the randomness that came with the third. These negatives all contributed to the great extravaganza.  The final scene in that film was one half hearted way to tone down the extravagant elements that could be seen from a mile with the preceding film. It was still a better film than Batman and Robin because it acknowledged the extravagance and the decay inherent in it. This was why the final scene was so unspectacular and less celebratory. With Batman and Robin they persisted with the spectacular even while sinking.

Batman and Robin acts as a reminder to all franchises. Marvel comic films are doing well at the moment but are the seeds of decay being sown as we speak. That is for another time but all will be revealed with the release of The Avengers 2: the Age of Ultron. Nolan learned from its failure and rightly stated that he will not do another Batman film. Knowing when to pull out before the extravaganza gets to your head is a good start. I am not judging because when anyone finds a successful formula they are going to use it, exalt it and amplify it. We will sow the seeds of our own destruction without even realizing it because of the extravaganza that is generated by our success.