Batman in Brooklyn: Mission Statement

Why is Batman in Brooklyn Important?

Because it is a Batman movie.  All Batman movies are important at the time of their release (though opinions may differ, mine is that two of the films--or three--or four--are mostly forgotten to history, but five films endure).  Batman in Brooklyn will be important when it is released.  We are aiming for a release date of December 20, 2013.  The premiere must take place, of course, in Brooklyn.  Preferably at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

But aside from the excitement that each new Batman movie generates upon its release, Batman movies are important in general because they reflect society via metaphor (as all films should aspire to do).  This metaphor has been written about here previously (see "Batman in Aurora" post) but is essentially the struggle between good and evil--that is, the choice to be good or evil.

It is essential that Batman in Brooklyn be made because Brooklyn is Batman's true home.  Yes, I know Gotham City is his true home, and most people associate Manhattan with Gotham--but there are plenty of signs that Brooklyn is a more realistic setting for Batman than Manhattan (See The Dark Knight Rises denouement. See also Bloomberg's decision to divert all traffic in Manhattan so that a "g**d*** Batman movie" could be shot, in the words of Keith Olbermann).

I think it practically goes without saying that Batman is the most commercially successful comic book character film franchise--and will never be topped.  Not by Superman.  Not by Spiderman.  Not by Iron Man.  Not by The Avengers.  No.  (Not by Twilight.  Not by Hunger Games.  Not by Harry Potter.  And not by Fifty Shades of Grey either, or the Lord of the Rings for that matter.)

Those movies do not get nominated for Oscars.

Lord of the Rings did, but I challenge anyone to argue that that Trilogy is better than the new Batman Trilogy.  I do not think there is any better Trilogy except for the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones films.  I would rank one other Trilogy in the same class:

1) Star Wars (excluding the 3 new movies)
2) Indiana Jones (excluding the 4th)
3) "The Dark Knight" Trilogy
4) Back to the Future

The difference is that those films (ALL OF THEM!) are unrealistic action-adventure fantasy epics.  Batman is very much the story of modern society and all of its attendant psychological uncertainties.  (There may be some dispute as to whether BTTF is unrealistic, but most scientists agree that time travel into the past is impossible.)

Batman in Brooklyn is essentially a remake of the original Batman (1988) but elements have been added to the make this film entirely something new.  Here are the key differences:

1) Budget.

Batman had a massive budget, and was the most successful film in box office history (by opening weekend receipts) at the time of its release.  Jack Nicholson became the highest paid actor in film history (until Leonardo DiCaprio copied his idea for--surprise,surprise--Christopher Nolan's one-non-Batman movie amidst his trilogy--another highly-acclaimed film). But it took about ten years to make, numerous script revisions were made, and a last minute horse-riding accident necessitated re-casting the female lead (Kim Basinger subbing for Sean Young).  Roger Ebert's review (which gave the film 2 stars) said that it was beautiful to look at, but did not appear as if anyone had any fun while making it.

Batman in Brooklyn will be filmed on the most meager of budgets.  The special effects will be a joke.  But it will be fun to make.  And while it will exist in a metaphorical world where Marc Drier is not in jail in 2012, it will be directly situated in real world events.  While the make-up and costumes and art direction may suffer from some aesthetic deficiencies, it will be the quality of the performances that take the film out of the "remake genre" and into the "update genre."

Some films need to be updated, and some do not.  Superman was definitely in need of an update, and we will see how Man of Steel stacks up next summer, but Superman Returns was certainly a disappointment.  The original Superman is not bad at all - from what I understand (I've only seen most of Superman 2 - which I think most people consider comparable to the first) - but it is certainly a relic of its time.  Batman Returns is more of a relic of the early 1990s than is Batman, and so in a sense might be the better film to remake.  However, Batman Returns is a significantly more complex film.  Ebert also gave it 2 stars.

2) Not directed by Tim Burton.

Let me make this clear: I do like Batman Returns--a lot.  But, as Ebert I think correctly points out, the film is very episodic and lacks a coherent plot.  There are wonderful scenes--the opening scene is probably the most heartbreaking scene in any Batman film, period.  Danny DeVito does what he can with the role of The Penguin--but I believe the film suffers from "Burton-vision."

Let's delve even deeper into Burton and Ebert.  Interestingly, Ebert gave Beetlejuice 2 stars.  Beetlejuice may not be a 4 star film (which I would give it), but at least deserves 3.  Ebert concedes that it is a "fairly original" plot (understatement!) but then goes on to denounce Michael Keaton's performance!  He claims that every scene with Keaton is a misstep.  I believe this is patently false and time has shown that performance to be a stroke of comic genius.

(Note: I have not yet read the review of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure but I suspect it got 4 stars...)

It is interesting to note that Burton made Edward Scissorhands in between Batman and Batman Returns.  Ebert also gave Edward Scissorhands 2 stars (he may have given it 2.5, I can't recall).  Again, Ebert is wrong.  Note here that most of the time, I totally agree with Ebert.  I do not LOVE Edward Scissorhands, but it is better than 2 stars.  Deserves 3.  Many people would say it deserves 4.  Some consider it a classic film.

And then look at what Burton went on to do (everything?).  He directed Batman at age 29 (another reason I am meant to make Batman in Brooklyn).  He took Johnny Depp as his de-facto star, and in the 20 years since Batman Returns, became a Hollywood icon of the most unlikely sort, creating a visual style completely his own.

Also interesting to note: Tim Burton's first film was Frankenweenie--a live action film judged to be unsuitable for children.  Tim Burton's upcoming film is Frankenweenie.  Not live action, but "Nightmare Before Christmas-style" live action.  I do think it is important to remember that Tim Burton has made these films since 1992: Ed Wood (excellent), Mars Attacks! (underrated/misunderstood), Sleepy Hollow (boring), Planet of the Apes (a remake worse than the original, as they usually are--See The Parent Trap), Big Fish (excellent), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (a remake worse than the original--but not without its certain charm and visual originality that Apes lacked), Corpse Bride (excellent--and though I may be in the minority here, an improvement upon Nightmare Before Christmas), Sweeney Todd (a film I could not watch for more than five minutes - boring), Alice in Wonderland (a remake worse than the original, and lacking a certain charm despite supposed visual originality--too weird), and Dark Shadows earlier this summer (never saw it, heard it was not good).  Frankenweenie will be out before the end of the year and looks to be a very emotionally compelling film. (Trivia: Johnny Depp is in 8 of these films and has appeared with alarming regularity since Charlie.)

 With Frankenweenie coming out, and Tim Burton's career coming "full circle" in some sort of sense, which includes more than its fair share of remakes, this is the perfect time to make Batman in Brooklyn.

3) Bloomberg.

The Mayor of Brooklyn is not Mayor Borg - but Mayor Bloomberg.  He is undoubtedly one of the most ridiculous mayors in American history, and his time will soon be up in New York.  Batman in Brooklyn is, on a sub-textual level, a critique of New York City Post-9/11.  It is a critique of capitalism and the fraud that it necessitates.  It is a critique of politics and media coverage.  Finally it is a critique of humanity--or rather, inhumanity.  That is, "silent/helpless observation," or "apathetic one-dimensional thought."  Whoever is next elected Mayor of New York has a great task ahead--but it will be their leadership that determines whether this city sinks (like in the 1980s) or is restored to another period of glory (2001-2002, late 1990s, mid-1960s, etc.).  Batman in Brooklyn will be the cinematic equivalent of The Prince - a text that informs the powerful how to best govern the citizenry.

4) No famous actors.

Batman in Brooklyn was going to be very important if D.A. Hynes of Brooklyn were to play himself, but word has recently leaked out that he is no longer interested in the project.  While this rumor has yet to be substantiated (I call statements made by press secretaries "rumors"), if it proves true, the project must go on regardless.

While Jay-Z might be a very good celebrity to get involved (or Brooks Lopez, who is apparently a big fan of Batman), we simply lack the personal connections to make such a business arrangement feasible.  But the project continues to evolve, and new forms of serendipity seem to affect it on a weekly, if not daily basis.  Anything is possible--until the scenes are shot.

5) New sub-plot.

The new sub-plot will make the film much more coherent than the original Batman because it will bring in more "macro" concerns that the "Dark Knight" Trilogy has been so good at incorporating.  I am being purposefully vague so I do not ruin the surprise.

However, I must state that some discussion of including Superman as a villain has taken place.  The final decision on this matter has not been made, but while there is a strong presumption in favor of including Superman, adding said element could be the proverbial straw to break the camel's back, given the apparent extraordinary difficulty of making Batman in Brooklyn in the first place.  Everybody wants to see Superman in a Batman movie, but we run the risk of turning the project into more of an absurdity than it already may be considered.

Why Would Batman in Brooklyn Fail?

Because I am not a professional director.  I did not go to film school.  While I will concede that this film is likely to be a failure, it will be completed, even if it gets to the point that I need to play (almost) every single role there is in it.  Batman in Brooklyn is a personal statement for me, and my love for film, and my love for Batman.

When I was about 6, I wrote a screenplay for "Star Wars Part 4" (which probably would have been better than The Phantom Menace proved to be about ten years later).  When I was 18, I opted into Blockbuster's 30 rentals for 30 dollars for 30 days deal - and I went to the store every single day to get a new film (most of them were Woody Allen movies).  I went to NYU, ostensibly for film school, but decided against it at the time.  I did not like the rigid structures that those students had to adhere to, and I did not see how I would make any money straight out of it.  So I focused on writing first.

And I tried to work in the real world.  And I wrote novels, short stories, memoirs, essays, and book reviews.

And I went to law school.  This is the real turning point in my life.  My writing dreams have been dashed due to my own personal belief that the book industry has died due to mass-ADHD-outbreak, where the only books that get read are those that are turned into massively successful film trilogies. And because I have gotten mired in the rigidity that is an education in legal doctrine, I rediscovered my love of film and the freedom such expression entails.

I do believe that law school has improved my writing (this post excepted--for various reasons, primary amongst them its personal nature) and Batman in Brooklyn is my attempt to show the world that just because I did not go to film school, just because it is not made with even "adequate" equipment, just because the players are not actors--but mostly law students (which requires a certain measure of acting skills, to be sure), just because there is no financing, just because it's probably a minefield of copyright and trademark infringements, just because I'm incredibly busy as a 3L looking for a post-grad job, along with balancing my coursework and all the other extracurricular commitments I've foolishly bought into, and just because nobody knows who I am, I can make a film that is truly different and great.

And I do believe, that while Batman in Brooklyn is likely to be a failure, it is a necessary failure--for it is only the first step in a planned set of four films (Back to the Future Part 2: Present to be released October 21, 2015; The Parent Trap Redux to be released November 18, 2016; and Older Wayne's World to be released October 27, 2017).  I know from my experience with writing novels that the first, at least for me, was primarily a learning experience.  I only hope that my experience with film will not cause me to abandon all future projects because of the extreme difficulty of it all.

I know that making a film is not an easy thing, but Batman in Brooklyn is not supposed to be easy.  However, it is supposed to be fun and if we have fun making it, even if it fails to find an audience, then it will bring me much happiness and personal satisfaction.

Special Comment: Batman in Aurora

While this was intended as Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #14, my co-editors at BLS Advocate did not feel that it was appropriate for the site. They did not know where I was headed with this, and they felt that some of it might be offensive due to the nature of the shootings. This is totally understandable as nobody wants to touch this topic unless they accept "one-dimensional thinking" as an appropriate analytic process. Also, I fully admit this article jumps from idea to idea with little apparent "connection," but believe that within the totality of the piece, a meaning arises. While it is upsetting that BLS Advocate is not interested in the piece (for I believe it is one of the best I have ever written), and my audience will therefore be smaller, I am glad I do not need to edit out all of the seemingly irrelevant details. For BLS Advocate purposes, whatever I write next will be NIED #14, and this will remain simply a "Special Comment":

Batman in Aurora
by Christopher J. Knorps
On July 20, 2008, I went to see The Dark Knight at the movie theater at CityWalk at Universal Studios Hollywood with my two friends Mike and Molly.

On July 21, 2012, I called my friend Emily. I told her that, while Mike and Molly’s wedding was surely going to be a beautiful occasion, I was a tad upset that I would have to miss seeing The Dark Knight Rises during its opening weekend, given that Mike, Molly and I had done it four years previous. Emily responded that I should be happy that I hadn’t gone to a midnight screening in Aurora, Colorado, as a massacre had taken place there the previous night.

This was the first news I heard of it, and the last for a few days. The wedding took place in Big Sur, CA, and the majority of its attendees did not have cell phone reception or internet access. When I got back to Chicago and put the final touches on my ACA Analysis, I saw that far more releases had been posted on the www.whitehouse.gov website in regards to this massacre than in regards to the passage of the ACA. Clearly this is no small matter.

For those of you that do not already know, I am filming a shot-by-shot remake of the 1989 Tim Burton version of Batman, which will be titled Batman in Brooklyn. While I do not care to get into the particulars of my inspiration here, I will note that Charles Hynes has tentatively agreed to play himself (in the analogous role of D.A. Harvey Dent) and we will be needing student volunteers to play extras in one or two of his scenes, so please stay tuned.

Only July 27, 2012, my friend Joe texted me. Joe has recently taken a job in Albany, NY and is leaving Astoria. His text read as follows:

“Jack, i know this is late, but i think this whole shooting Colorado thing just made what you are trying to create all that more incredibly prescient and important. I know i cant be around for your production. Can i shoot some b-roll or secondary stock footage for your movie....”

He went onto describe the cobblestone paths of Albany, but I have since deleted the texts. Regardless, many people doubt my ability to pull this off next year since it will be such an incredibly busy one, but this has become a personal mission. As soon as Hynes became involved, I could not let the project peter out. Now that a mass-murderer (whose name I will not even deign to learn) has taken the “corporate opportunity” provided by a multi-billion dollar franchise to immortalize himself with a heinous act, Batman has undoubtedly become the most notorious comic book superhero of all time. And another Batman remake must be filmed.

Batman’s moral compass is not at issue here, though it is a subject of frequent debate amongst his fans. Superman is essentially a government tool (and probably a Republican if one takes Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns as his “true story”) and Spiderman is a nerdy kid whose morality is rarely, if ever questioned. It is unlikely that this killer was a fan of Batman, but more likely a fan of the Joker (I have seen his hair). 

In The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger cemented his status in the pantheon of American cinema with an iconic performance of that role and led many to write-off Jack Nicholson’s virtuoso accomplishment (which also made him the highest paid actor of his time) as nothing more than a footnote. But Ledger’s performance was seriously dark, the type of thing to spur imitation (in contrast to Nicholson’s--which was much funnier, and more inimitable). He also made it seem “cool” to be criminally insane. He supposedly took inspiration from Sid Vicious in the similar way that Johnny Depp took inspiration from Keith Richards for his role as Captain Jack Sparrow in The Pirates of the Caribbean films. Sid Vicious died young of a heroin overdose; Keith Richards lives on; Heath Ledger died young of an “accidental” overdose; Johnny Depp has been a Hollywood heart-throb for the past thirty years (and worked with Tim Burton more than any other actor); Jack Nicholson lounges in Los Angeles, and goes to far less Lakers games.

Kurt Cobain once said, “Punk rock is freedom.” Sid Vicious is a more popular figure in punk culture than Johnny Rotten because Johnny Rotten lives on, lounging in Los Angeles, collecting on the commodity he helped to create by branding himself an “anarchist.” Kurt Cobain also died young of a heroin overdose.  

It’s no secret that “living fast, dying young, and leaving a good-looking corpse” has been a mantra of the counterculture for the past sixty years, and while it is doubtful that this massacre will prevent similar future acts of self-destruction, it reinforces the “Columbine” issue, raised some thirteen years ago, raised on the campuses of Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech more recently, and now in the national spotlight again.  

Do video games make people more violent?  Do films make people more violent?  Can we blame a film for the deaths of 14 innocent people?  Should Warner Brothers pay for their funerals?  Does Christian Bale have a duty to visit the injured victims in a hospital?  

No. In Video Software Dealer’s Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, the 9th Circuit held that California did not have a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm to minors allegedly caused by violent video games and that even if it had a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm allegedly caused to minors by violent video games, the law was not narrowly tailored to further that interest.  John Hinckley tried to shoot President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, but no one goes around trying to be like Patrick Bateman (because he is a “dork”). Warner Brothers doesn’t have to pay for the funerals, but the movie theater showing the film offered to do so. And Christian Bale is not required to visit the victims, but he did because he knew it would mean a lot to them, and it probably did. It was the right thing to do.

This murderer was clearly imitating the Joker (the Ledger version) but his regime is over. The murderer will not escape from prison, or a home for the criminally-insane in Colorado (one of which incidentally housed my younger brother’s assailant after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, after being previously tried for attempted murder, and allowed to work in the school cafeteria). The Dark Knight Rises will still be an enormously successful film. Batman will remain as popular a figure as ever, and Batman in Brooklyn will be shot this Fall and Spring.

I will be playing the Joker in Batman in Brooklyn. And to me, there is a fine line between Batman and the Joker. Batman does not hate the Joker, and does not want to kill him, but feels that he must for the good of Gotham City. The Joker kills hundreds of innocent people.  Batman’s fans hate it when Batman kills, but he only kills when he has good reason to do so. Perhaps an analogy can be made to cops who shoot when presented with a threat to bodily injury, but Batman is never overzealous in his defensive measures. The fine line comes in where writers draw psychological parallels, namely, childhood trauma as a cause, and violence as an effect.  

The Joker, this murderer, the Columbine shooters, et. al. have been traumatized (as have many others who alternatively make positive contributions to society). The Joker has been disfigured by Batman. The Columbine shooters were bullied. And I don’t know about this murderer except I think he was getting his PHD in something and that he told his psychiatrist that he was planning some kind of “big event” (while graduate degrees may not be considered traumatizing, I think everyone at BLS knows earning one can drive you at least a little bit insane).

The interesting legal issue that arises to me is not gun control (which will be debated until the end of American history) but tort liability. Nobody had a duty to anyone in this case, except perhaps the psychiatrist. And while Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California held that a psychiatrist has a duty to report to the police if their patient expresses a desire to inflict harm upon a particular person, a potential civil action may arise in this case which may extend that policy to generalized groups of people. This is now certain to be a moral dilemma for psychiatrists: at what point does the patient cross the line that demands notification of the authorities?  

As the Joker states in The Killing Joke, an excellent story by Alan Moore, all it takes is one bad day to cross that line. Whatever it is that drives these people to violence may be one small remark (a stray gay joke, a slight regarding choice of clothing), or something more major (being forced to assist the Mob with an inside job after you’ve just learned of the deaths of your wife and unborn child), but it can be enough decimate hundreds of people’’s lives.  

Very few lessons, if any, can be learned from this tragedy. But I can think of one: we all need to be more sensitive to the needs of others. Hate breeds hate and if these people were happy, if they never had their “one bad day,” then they might have lived to help improve society, rather than harm individuals within it. It is entirely possible that The Dark Knight glorifies criminal violence and insanity, but the attraction towards that glorification is felt most strongly by the disaffected, the outcasts, the losers. This is not to say that any semblance of a glorification of violence should be purged from every film. The catharses that art can provide are every bit as valuable as the laughs derived from a stand-up comedy routine.

The solution is not to stop telling stories with morally ambiguous characters, but to ensure that people treat one another with love and respect. We are all on this bumpy ride together and we are all going to die anyways, and we shouldn’t be mocking people that have problems: we should be looking out for them and trying to improve the conditions for happiness across society as a whole. Once the most disaffected among us have the opportunity to attain happiness, senseless crimes will subside.  

            On August 5, 2012, I went to see The Dark Knight Rises in downtown Chicago at a 9:00 PM showing.  There was no security checkpoint, as I feared, nor any inappropriate jokes shouted near the opening.  There was only applause at the end.  A full review should be posted here in the next couple of days.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.

The Dark Knight Returns - Frank Miller with Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley

This is the first graphic novel to be reviewed on Flying Houses, but (pseudo-oeuvre rule.....I mean, genre rule!) I have read Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware, and Horror Hospital Unplugged by Dennis Cooper.  "Horror Hospital Unplugged" was included in short story form in the collection Wrong, and though I did not review that book, I read it shortly before this book http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/04/userlands-new-fiction-writers-from.html, which inspired me to start Flying Houses.  So, it is not unreasonable to assume that Flying Houses will start to offer more reviews of graphic novels, because wow, they can be a lot more fun than straight up fiction.

I couldn't get into Jimmy Corrigan as much as I could Horror Hospital Unplugged.  Both were depressing.  But JC was just kind of boring to me, whereas HHU contained all the insanity of Dennis Cooper's other books.  However, I recognize that JC is a work of art, and that Ware is clearly going for something different than your typical graphic novel (though I cannot really say I am an expert on the genre, by any stretch!): it's not really plot-driven, a lot of it is just extraordinarily elaborate art, content is sort of minimal though there are interesting forays into the history of Chicago--I can't really remember what it's about?  He has a sister, and their father is dying or something?  I can't remember.  Of course, I remember HHU is about a punk band with a singer who is gay and seems largely modeled off of Nirvana--or at least a parody of Nirvana-imitation-bands.

The Dark Knight Returns is my favorite of the three.  I believe I have mentioned on Flying Houses that I am planning on making a shot-by-shot remake of the original Batman, the 1989 version directed by Tim Burton, and I have been studying the film, and the special features on the DVD in order to understand how best to make a low-budget version.  The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke are both mentioned as major influences on the "darkness" of the film, which dissociated themselves from "Batman the Comedian," played by Adam West, but not from the original spirit of the comics created by Bob Kane.

Bob Kane said he loved these two books, and Killing Joke will be reviewed shortly (as soon as I buy it).  I devoured The Dark Knight Returns-started it on Monday and finished it on Tuesday.  It's about 200 pages long, but densely packed with action.  Maybe I didn't study the illustrations closely enough to understand what was going on towards the end, which is my chief complaint with the book.

The richness and complexity of the work, however, is what makes it classic.  It was actually assigned to me as required reading for a course I took at NYU called "Writing New York," which, obviously, studied the concept of New York as represented in literature.  And Gotham City is, basically, New York in this.  There are references to the Twin Towers of Gotham, there is a reference to Bay Ridge, and there are a few other obvious signs that Gotham City is New York City.


This book takes place in present-day Gotham City, which was 1986, and Ronald Reagan (or at least a character very similar to him) is President, and plays a somewhat prominent role in the story.  And this book is deeply political, and complex.  It's sort of funny--I asked my older brother last weekend why Superman and Batman hated each other.  He responded that Superman was a Republican and Batman was a Liberal.and a lot of this book suggests that.


I am going to avoid the temptation of spoiling the story for you, except to say that Batman is 55 years old, and 10 years retired, Commissioner Gordon is 70 years old and weeks away from retirement, Harvey Dent/Two Face is about to be released from Arkham Asylum, a gang called The Mutants have overrun Gotham City with crime, and there's a female Robin.  


I won't reveal anymore, because I had such a good time anticipating what might happen in this story.  Let me just say it is action-packed and beautifully written.  It doesn't lend itself easily to excerpting, so I will not attempt any.  Sometimes it is hilarious.  It is also pretty vulgar and gruesome.  It's definitely not for little kids.  


I love Batman more than ever and want to read all the best comics about him.  I loved it, and highly recommend it, except for those that are easily confused or don't have the patience to figure out what order to follow the panels in.  I would only say Book Four is the one that really started to lose me.  It was awesome, but I sort of had no idea what was going on.