Stories That Never Were: the Harvey Dent we DIDN'T see in Tim Burton's "Batman" movies

[about_faces]

Click to view

There's a lot more to Billy Dee Williams' portrayal Harvey Dent from Tim Burton's Batman (1989) than you might have suspected. I know that I certainly didn't think there was much to say, which is why it's taken me this long to finally write about one of the most famous portrayals of Harvey in pop culture.

Comments

[about_faces]

*Another original creation by Hamm, Eckhardt (whose name always made me wonder if it was a reference to Dr. Ekhart, the surgeon who fixed Harvey Kent's face in the Golden Age) seems likely inspired by Harvey Bullock, and was played by Jeb Porkins himself, William Hootkins. Like Knox, Grissom, Bob the Goon, Max Shreck, and the Red Triangle Circus, Eckhardt was one of those original creations from Burton's movie whom I've always been sad to see never made the transition into comics, in some form.

[martin_l_gore]

It always annoyed me that Hamm/Burton decided on using a sleazy, fat, corrupt Gotham cop in their Batman-story and then named him something else than Harvey Bullock... Perhaps it was a royalty thing? Or a step to avoid confusion with Harvey Dent?

[about_faces]

I know, right? I mean, hey, I'm glad that he wasn't Bullock just on the basis that Bullock has never been SO corrupt that he'd take bribes and be in a mobster's pocket, but still, I'm not sure where/why the hell Hamm came up with Max Eckhardt.

[napoleoncheese]

On a semi-related note about sleazy Movie Gotham cops, I've always been annoyed by how Nolan's Detective Flass was changed into an Eckhardt-like figure. The point, to me, about Flass was how all-American-boy he looked, which only made his corruption and vileness all the more striking and disgusting. There he was, that guy who looked like someone you'd really like having some beers and cards with, but in truth he's pound scum. I liked that, and it's kinda sad that was lost by making Movie Flass so obviously sleazy at first sight.

[mothy_van_cleer]

...Wow. As someone who always considered this film to be more "important" than actually watchable on its own terms, the idea of what might have been just shocks me. Considering the sheer cultural dominance that the watered-down version had in 1989 (people had the Bat-symbol shaved into their heads, for pity's sake), I honestly think a four-hour-long Godfather-style epic could've inspired its own religion. The release on home cassette alone would exhaust the planet's supply of magnetic tape.

"JACK NAPIER, 32, is right-hand man and chief enforcer to Boss Carl Grissom. His features are delicate, almost feminine, and he takes a vain, gangsterish pride in his appearance."

So not really written with an actor of Nicholson's features in mind, then. I mean, I'm not knocking the guy, and I think Little Shop-era Jack would've been fantastic, but at the time he was starting to develop a wider, more heavy-set kind of physique not quite suited to the type of Joker the script seems to prefer (namely, that of Aparo and Rogers). As such, the Joker's

[about_faces]

Something I meant to mention in the article: I've learned that both of Burton's films benefit GREATLY from being watched in black and white. Just change your TV screen settings to black and white, and all of a sudden, all the German silent film influences come through. They gain so much by losing color. Well, except for the Joker, it's definitely a loss to not have the vibrant, colorful Joker amid the drab Gotham, but the film still benefits from B&W so much that it's an acceptable loss. Try it sometime. It makes both films not just "watchable," but GOOD.

Man, one of these days I really hope I can get Henchgirl to write out her thoughts on Batman Returns. Maybe for Christmas we can collaborate on a review?

So not really written with an actor of Nicholson's features in mind, then.

Heh, you think that's jarring compared to what we saw on screen, did you catch the description for Bruce?

We get our first good look at the smiling face
of BRUCE WAYNE: 32, tall, athletic, impeccably mannered...
and intensely handsome.Well,

[mothy_van_cleer]

I've actually tried out that "black and white" theory since I read it on your Tumblr, and, yes, the results are positively striking. It doesn't really work for the Schumacher films, though, because everything's lit up in atrocious neon and suddenly you're having a staring contest with a blank test pattern.

Looking back, it's the mouth design I object to the most. For a character that's supposed to be highly expressive, it vastly limits the emotive faculties of the actor wearing it, and Jack doesn't really do much with his body to make up with that. Also, it looks like a female reproductive organ mangled in a car accident with two little sets of Chiclets stuck inside, and I'm firmly of the opinion that a proper Joker smile should show more teeth than that.

No, I absolutely love Catwoman, but given its bizarrely campy mix of female empowerment and cravenly sexist gender stereotypes, it's a movie that could only ever work on paper. Same goes for my feelings on Watchmen, actually. (Moloch does a few lines of blow in the restroom! What's

[about_faces]

Yeah, we also tried watching the Schumacher ones in B&W, and you're absolutely right, it doesn't work at all. Whereas Burton's films are full of deep, rich shadows and light, Schumacher's is bland and washed-out.

Thing is, I'm not sure that this Joker was really intended to be highly expressive, since there's this popular, wrong-headed idea (going as far back as Neal Adams, who said as such in an interview) that the Joker can ONLY grin. Adams said something along the lines of how much he hates when artists show the Joker being expressive, since that's somehow not the Joker. Never mind that the character was shown to be able to frown in the very first page he ever appeared in.Considering that the movie's Joker was explicitly shot through the face and that the rictus grin is the result of a scar, I think it was explicitly intended that he COULDN'T be expressive. Given that's what they'd be having to bring to the screen and Nicholson's own grin (which, while legendary, isn't the right full mouth-fulla-teeth grin of the Joker), I think

[1mercystreet]

Something else i think is worth mentioning is the costume design. I like how Billy Dee Williams said in the interview clip that he saw Harvey as a romantic character, someone flamboyant and passionate. His clothes are interesting - he always has a flower in his lapel (there's the romantic idiot we all know and love), and although he's mixing patterns and textures that shouldn't work together, they really do because Harvey is Just That Cool. It could also a little nod to the clashing colours and styles of Two-Face's split suits.

Lookig at the closeups you've posted, his shirts are really of their time with those 1980s stripes and the tie pin, but I think he stands out among the other male characters' more drably coloured. utilitarian,1940s-style attire. It defintiely hints at something more individual under the surface of the man who has to fight an unwinnable war while staying within the rules.

[about_faces]

Good catches, all! Now I'm sorry that I didn't take the time to comment on Billy Dee's own choices that he brought to his performance, not to mention the small costume and prop ideas he had throughout. In retrospect, that should have been one of my priorities in writing this, but I wasn't sure what to say anyway, so I'm glad you caught those touches!

Another thing about this Harvey is that he's often seen smoking a cigar, but I'm not sure what can be said about that. There are at least two instances in the pictures above, and I can name a third: when he dismisses Knox's Batman questions at the fundraiser that they have better thing to do that worry about "ghosts and goblins."

... Man, taking the original version of Hamm's Harvey into consideration, that line now takes on a whole new context. Originally, he was DODGING Knox's questions to cover Bruce's ass, since he knew full well that Bruce was Batman!

[psychopathicus]

I suppose you could see Harvey's stogies as an accentuation of his ''40's man-about-town' stylings - similar to how Jose Carioca was seldom seen without one in Three Caballeros. They also kind of underline his overworked nature - despite it being a throwaway line, his weary "we're working on it" in response to the mayor, accentuated by cigar smoke, always struck me as a rather effective moment for some reason.

[about_faces]

Yeah, good call. I think that line plays into what the novelization made explicit, that Harvey is pretty much the only one managing to hold Gotham together until Batman can take down the Joker.

[abqreviews]

Well, I know what I'm going to be reading for the next few hours. The only scripts I've ever read for the Batman movies were some of the ones for the proposed fifth film; the one that had Scarecrow as a guy whose skin was falling off that he'd have to stitch together was particularly silly

[about_faces]

Have fun! Many, how many unproduced scripts are linked to in this post? Let's see, the Mankiewicz Batman, Hamm's first Batman draft, Hamm and Skaaren's shooting draft, Hamm's rejected sequel, Hamm's Watchmen, and Waters' Catwoman. I wish I could find Daniel Waters' own first draft for Batman Returns, but it seems to have been deleted all over the place! That's the only one that WB has cracked down on, so read the others while you still can!

Also, look for Frank Miller's Batman Year One script. I'm gonna review that one later for another Stories That Never Were! It's interesting stuff. Once you get past the fact that Alfred is replaced by an African-American mechanical named "Little Al," the movie had the potential to be a fascinating L.A. Confidential style crime film.

[abqreviews]

I just read the Catwoman script.

0_O

Well, it's certainly better than what made it to the screen. It would be a modern cult classic if it had gotten made.

[about_faces]

Absolutely it would! But oh man, it would have flopped HARD. We sure as hell weren't ready for that kind of superhero film at the time, but the cult following it would have garnered would have been epic.

I'm still not sure how to describe the quality of that movie. Is it good or bad? Is it a failure of a Catwoman movie or a complete and utter success at what it wants to be? Is it painful to sit through or genuinely compelling? I think the answer is yes. To everything.

[akselavshalom]

I didn't grow up with the Bat-movies of the nineties generally, no matter if I focus on the characters or anything else.
I honestly don't know what to make of either of them, be it Burton or Schumacher. Burton's design style I half-way doubt resembles the Batman-universe of any period, for better or for worse. Shumacher took the neon-lights from comics to the n'th degree, and as a result the movie became excessively colorful. The movies themselves are far from dark enough for my tastes (I would've prefered to see more subtle, psychological 80's/90's movie presentation à la... Manhunter? Does that make sense?), but going dark would probably mean ruining every inch of fun still left within the franchise at that point for an entire generation. And knowing what that line of thinking did to comics, I think it's a good thing

[about_faces]

I honestly don't know what to make of either of them, be it Burton or Schumacher.

I hear you. Even speaking as someone who has grown up with them, my opinions on all of them have changed so many damn times over the years, all the way up to this very week as I was writing this post! Thing is, I don't think any of the films gets enough credit for being fun, especially the Burton films, and ESPECIALLY Batman Returns. Even prominent bloggers like Chris Sims fully embrace and adore Batman & Robin while trashing the Burton films for reasons that... well, many reasons which I used to agree with, but not anymore

[martin_l_gore]

Count me in among those who wants to see that Returns review! I stand up for that movie all the time, as it's one of those flicks who just works so well withn it's own framework (and not in a Batman & Robin way, Returns oozes with mood and atmosphere as well as looking god damn gorgeous!) that you don't mind the whimsical writing and weird choices.

[akselavshalom]

Oh, and Joker defacing the Lady Gotham?
http://www.watchcartoononline.com/the-batman-episode-12-the-rubberface-of-comedy
Go to 4:25. You don't need to see much. Just see what Joker does with the statue.
Here's a hint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6hk73bAPM&feature=player_detailpage#t=12s