In his third piece for Dark Horizons, our correspondent Adam Yeend looks back at one of the most commercially successful but often derided “Batman” films and wonders… is Schumacher’s high-energy, kid-friendly Batman – with all its neon, dutch angles and interesting choices – worth a reconsideration?
1995’s Batman Forever “has a renaissance coming… I’m curious to see if the original cut comes out because I got to see it recently and it was really dark… a psychological exploration of guilt and shame.”
That’s a quote from an April 2021 interview with screenwriter Akiva Goldsman about Joel Schumacher’s blockbuster which broke box office records, outgrossed its predecessor and was a hit at the time with both Batman fans and mainstream audiences.
“Forever” delivered a sexier Batman, Oscar-nominated cinematography, a hyper-neon Gotham City, and a lighter tone. Then there’s the soundtrack with not one but two chart-topping singles by Seal and U2 that dominated our radios during the summer of 1995 (or winter for those in the southern hemisphere).
The film managed to work cross-functionally too, being suitable for families, and merchandising tie-ins, but also made for a hot date movie for teens and young adults. “Batman Forever” hit culturally and commercially in a way its down-beat predecessor, 1992’s “Batman Returns,” did not.
Some may not remember, but at the time of its release, Tim Burton’s “Batman Returns” received a less enthusiastic audience reaction following the Caped Crusader’s big-screen debut in 1989. Warner Bros. Pictures was disappointed by the lower box office receipts and parental backlash to the film’s content inappropriate themes, grim tone, and violence. I was twelve when “Returns” came out; I knew it was violent, a little sadistic – and I loved it – I was obsessed.
But Warner Bros. sought out a new director to creatively overhaul the franchise with hopes to entice a wider audience back to theaters – and please McDonald’s with whom they’d made a merchandising deal. Whilst filming “The Client,” director Joel Schumacher was approached by the studio to do the next “Batman”. His response? “I need to talk to Tim [Burton] first because he and I are friends”.
Over lunch, Burton gave Schumacher his blessing to make his own version of Batman and the rest is history. The resulting film wasn’t originally all lightweight though – the majority of Bruce Wayne’s storyline (and Val Kilmer’s performance) was left on the cutting room floor.
It’s common knowledge that Burton was developing a third Batman film but was met with resistance from the studio. All accounts documented between Burton and the “Forever” filmmakers convey a smooth and amicable transition.
However in a June 2022 interview with Burton by Empire Magazine to celebrate the 30th anniversary of “Batman Returns”, Burton conveyed hypocrisy on the part of the studio saying: “…I was like, ‘Wait a minute. Okay. Hold on a second here. You complain about me, I’m too weird, I’m too dark, and then you put nipples on the costume?’.”
Producer Peter McGregor Scott said, “Joel wanted it fantastic, exciting, and extreme – “Saturday Night Fever” on acid.” And that’s exactly what he delivered; “Batman Forever” was bigger, brighter, easier to digest, sexy, and landed with the MTV generation.
In the context of history, it was the sort of “wild summer entertainment audiences were hungry for” to quote screenwriter, Goldman. Schumacher even paid homage to Burton in his film by casting “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” actor Rene Auberjonois as Dr. Burton – Arkham Asylum’s resident shrink. However, with further iterations of the Batman character on the big screen over the decades since, public opinion on “Batman Forever” has soured.
Forever’s success resulted in Schumacher directing 1997’s “Batman & Robin”. That film pushed the studio’s kid-friendly, merchandising mandate to the extreme and proved a massive failure. Over the years, the criticisms of the Schumacher Batman films have become so commonplace, so mundane, I had forgotten anything close to a nuanced view on these movies – I just lumped them both together as the sort of comic book film I didn’t want – soft.
When Joel Schumacher sadly passed away two years ago, I decided to revisit his filmography but skipped his Batman films entirely. Then after seeing online chatter about the ‘Forever’ extended cut in early 2021, I decided to go back to 1995’s “Batman Forever” – picking up a copy on 4K UHD Blu-Ray (yes, I’m still pushing physical media), and with a new 4K transfer and Dolby Atmos sound.
“Batman Forever” turned out to be a visually explosive, rousing, and shamelessly entertaining popcorn movie in my living room – I had a blast. It was, as Schumacher has referred to it, “A living breathing comic book,” straight out of Batman’s Silver Age – the comic book era of the 1950s and 60s, and the era Schumacher grew up reading.
Clearly, he was inspired by the artwork of Dick Sprang – the man who originally designed The Riddler. “Forever” even stands apart from its maligned sequel. Yes, I could still see the criticisms that have been drummed into me over the last two decades, but I had never stopped to consider, what’s good about the film? Turns out, there’s a lot.
Film critic David Denby said of “Batman Forever,” “I’d much rather be at one with public taste, but I thought it was a disgraceful movie, very badly made.” When Schumacher heard this comment during a 1995 interview with Charlie Rose, he responded: “…it’s sad that life has changed so much, and some people live in a time in a place and in anachronism within themselves. It’s hard for a deracinated East Coast critic to really understand what entertainment is for the rest of the planet… this is a Batman comic book… I’m sorry that all of the hard work and energy, the beautiful sets, the costumes [etc.] disturbs him so much, I’m sorry that he finds our film ‘disgraceful.’ However, I cannot agree with him.”
Schumacher proclaimed in interviews that he made films for audiences, not the critics. Looking back at reviews for many of his films, “The Lost Boys,” “Flatliners,” “A Time to Kill,” “St. Elmo’s Fire,” and “Phantom of the Opera” all received middling reviews but positive Cinema Score ratings and/or box office returns. Critics were often puzzled as to why his films were so well-received by the public.
Maybe it’s because the man wasn’t a snob? As the mainstream public embraced the comic book film genre over the last fourteen years, I wanted all my favorite IPs to grow up with me – darker, more serious, more adult. It’s one of the reasons why I loved Matt Reeves’ “The Batman” earlier this year.
Watching “Forever,” I’d forgotten Batman is for kids too. And since when did darker and serious always equate to being better? That way of thinking perhaps justified my interest in something I still liked from when I was a child and Schumacher’s response to Denby’s critique forced me to reflect on my own cynicism and snobbery as a cinephile.
Both “The Batman” and “Batman Forever” share the same Cinema Score exit poll rating of A-. Yet the two films couldn’t be more different tonally. And those nipples on the bat suit? What can I say? I never had a problem with them – I always wondered why suits even have abs? We all have nipples, but abs are more acceptable?
In any case, the nipples don’t convey anything other than Schumacher’s intent to have a sleeker, more anatomically fitted suit, inspired by photos of Greek statues. Aesthetically, Kilmer’s panther-like suit in the first two acts is stunning. From the shooting style in “Forever” – often focusing the lighting on the actors’ lips; the film does have apparent sexuality to it.
While I can give a free pass to the nipples, I’m still perplexed by the close-up butt shot during Batman’s suit-up scene preluding the film’s third act. How in 1995 that shot made it through edits, studio executives, and test screenings is astounding – a time where that level of embrace for the gaze of a man’s anatomy, especially a perfect muscular ass, wasn’t something we expected let alone witnessed in mainstream summer entertainment. Still, nothing in “Forever” equates to the level of “weird” depicted in Burton’s superior sequel.
“Forever” won’t become my favorite Batman movie – that’s still “Mask of the Phantasm” – but “disgraceful”? Even detractors of the film can see there’s so much creatively unhinged filmmaking on display here – the production design and music alone are unlike anything we see today – they should be celebrated. This is a valid film interpretation from an era of the Batman comic books and is the only Batman movie to offer the audience a message of hope.
Akiva Goldman’s comments regarding the “Preview Cut One” he recently viewed and what is referred to online as “The Schumacher Cut” or “Red Book Edition” isn’t surprising. With the studio’s pressure to please parents and honor their contract with McDonald’s, a film exploring the lasting effects of Bruce Wayne’s complex grief and shame doesn’t exactly scream, “Happy Meals!”
In fact, it sounds less like “Forever’s” sequel, 1997’s “Batman & Robin” and more like its more somber 1992 predecessor.
And this isn’t surprising. This is coming from a filmmaker who had no trouble depicting the darkest sides of humanity on screen – “8mm,” “Veronica Guerin,” and “Falling Down” comes to mind.
Schumacher himself had expressed a desire to bring Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight” to the big screen. Watching “Forever” as it is now, there are scenes in the film between Val Kilmer’s Bruce Wayne and Nicole Kidman’s Dr. Chase Meridian where we’re treated to moments where Wayne delves into his past.
But despite the solid performances from the actors, the film barely scrapes the surface of the subject matter resulting in a story where the audience is denied this examination of Wayne’s grief and the lasting effects of childhood trauma.
The release of this “Schumacher Cut” would not be dissimilar to what 20th Century Fox succeeded in with their release of David Fincher’s original Assembly Cut of Alien 3 on DVD and Blu-Ray, and a considerably less costly endeavor than say “Zack Snyder’s Justice League”.
Considering Schumacher’s legacy as a filmmaker, and the enduring interest in the Batman character, it’ll be interesting to see if Warner Bros. decides to release this longer cut of the film – the addition of the Bruce Wayne storyline might balance out the lighter elements and bring an increased weight to the film.
I’m enough of a Val Kilmer fan where I’d welcome seeing more of him in this role. “Why does a man do this? It’s as if he’s cursed to pay some great penance; now what crime could he have committed to deserve a life of nightly torture?” According to Goldsman, the answers are in Preview Cut One – hence the film’s title – “Forever.”
In a time where alternate cuts of films are becoming more commonplace, “The Godfather III,” “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” “Superman II,” “Kingdom of Heaven,” I wouldn’t rule out this extended cut of “Forever” eventually being unlocked from the studio vault. Warner Bros. no longer need to worry about selling McDonald’s Happy Meals, or parental backlash – this isn’t 1995.
As for Schumacher himself, I highly recommend checking out his filmography; there are hits and misses, but he took risks and had range as a filmmaker. His films explored countless facets of humanity and his goal wasn’t for critical praise, but to entertain audiences and he succeeded.
Revisiting “Batman Forever” in the present day was refreshing, actually – a lot of modern films in the genre seem muted by comparison. It’s a reminder that like science fiction, the comic book genre, and books themselves can and should be diverse in tone – it doesn’t have to be singular, universal, or dark to have value. In 2022’s state of the world, we could use some light to contrast the darkness. “Batman Forever” offers that contrast.
