Campy and fun: have you seen…Batman (1966)

BY JOHN BILLINGER

I’ve heard once that 1960s pop culture was all about James Bond, The Beatles, and the Adam West Batman show. Whether or not you find that statement true or if you think that “Star Trek” should be included in that lineup, one can’t deny the popularity that the 1966-1968 Batman television series had in its initial run and through the many years of continuous reruns. Equally as iconic, is the resulting film adaptation of the show, released in between seasons one and two of the show. However, in recent years, people have slowly turned away from the way the show and its movie portrayed the characters, in favor of a more, shall we say, “emo” take on the character. I personally find this to be a mistake, and I find the 1966 take on the Batman characters to be underappreciated.

In the mid-1960s, ABC and 20th Century Fox got the rights to create a TV show based on the Batman comic books. Put in charge of developing the show was producer William Dozier, a man who had never read comic books before, and after buying some Batman books at an airport newsstand, concluded that the only possible way to adapt the source material was to do it in a style that would blend serious and funny. Partially taking inspiration from the 1940s Batman movie serials, the show began filming and cast to play Batman and Robin was Adam West and Burt Ward. The show premiered in January of 1966 and became incredibly popular. 

Overnight, Batman went from a moderately well-known comic book superhero to a pop culture phenomenon. It wasn’t too long before a film adaptation based on the show was made. Released in July of 1966, “Batman” was the first feature-length film based on the character.

“Batman” features Gotham City’s four biggest criminal baddies, who have teamed up for a sinister plot the likes of which have never been seen before. The villains are The Joker (played by Ceaser Romero), The Penguin (played by Burgess Meridith), Catwoman (played by Lee Meriwether), and The Riddler (played by Frank Gorshin). Their goal? Take over the entire world. Only one crime-fighting duo can stop them. The Dynamic Duo…The Caped Crusaders…some other term for them…Batman and Robin. Will they be able to stop them? Watch and find out!

I’m sure one can tell what the tone of this film is like from the way I wrote that synopsis. This film is Wacky with a capital W. Almost every character is in some form or another, like a cartoon, the villain’s plot is completely insane and downright implausible, there’s a goofy narrator (voiced by William Dozier) putting emphasis on everything, and there is not a hint of irony from anyone. 

And it’s great. 

In my opinion, it might just be the most accurate movie adaptation of the Batman comics. I’m obviously not talking about the modern ones from the last 30 years or so, I’m talking about the ones from the 1960s. Ironically, Bat-fans during the 60s thought that the show and movie were not adapting the comics well, but if you look at the comics that were published during this time, it is completely accurate. From the colorful visuals, over-the-top narration, heroes on the side of good, villains on the side of bad, it knows what it is. This movie is a comic book movie first, and proud of it.

The cast is nothing short of iconic. West and Ward were a match made in heaven as Batman and Robin. It’s weird to think of anyone else in the roles in this version, but apparently, they almost went with actors Lyle Waggoner and Peter Deyell. Good thing they went with who they got because it works. West may not have the physicality of the later Batmen, but his performance and awesome voice make it all work. Ward, while definitely a 21-year-old man and not a 15-year-old, captures the role of Robin as a youthful equal to Batman. Overall, great casting for the pair. There’s a reason why after all these years, this is the most iconic visual idea of the Dynamic Duo.

But what really makes the movie entertaining, though, are the villains. They got the four most popular villains from the show to be in this movie, they’re completely crazy, and they’re all a lot of fun. Caesar Romero is as great as he was in the show, and still donning his mustache under all that makeup. Apparently, he refused to shave his mustache as he believed it was the key to his success as an actor. One could make the argument that this makes him the best Joker because only an insane egomaniac would make a demand like that. 

Burgess Meredith as the Penguin and Frank Gorshin as the Riddler, likewise do as good of a job as they did in the show. The one villain that stands out, however, is Lee Meriwether as Catwoman, but not because she did a bad job. It’s really because, in the show, Catwoman was played by Julie Newmar, who was unavailable for the movie. So they decided to recast the character with Meriwhther, who does a great job playing the character while making it her own. The scenes with any of the villains together also got quite a few chuckles out of me, because these are all established actors letting loose and having a ball. It’s a delight to watch.

And the film is also great to look at. Back then, color in films was very vibrant and really popped, and it captures the look of the 1960s comics well. All the sets and props from the TV series are used here to full effect, including the awesome Batcave, where everything is labeled, and the equally awesome Batmobile. All in all, if you don’t have time to check out all 120 episodes of the TV series, the movie is the perfect representation of the show upon which it is based. And just like the show, the movie is actually a comedy rather than an action-adventure film. 

This is why this movie has scenes where Batman is fighting a shark or trying to dispose of a bomb in a comedic manner. It’s supposed to be funny, and I feel like people trying to watch it now don’t realize that you’re not supposed to take it seriously. You just sit back and have a few laughs at either some of the intentionally funny moments or some of the unintentionally funny moments.

For this reason, I also find the movie to be a breath of fresh air. In the last 20 years, the live-action Batman movies have pretty much done the same thing. We had Christopher Nolan’s excellent Dark Knight trilogy, which gave us a great dark and realistic Batman. Now, you would think that after having that, the folks at Warner Bros. would decide to go in a new direction that would bring Batman to a new generation in a different manner. Instead, we got Ben Affleck’s Batman featured in the Zack Snyder DC movies. That take was yet another dark and more realistic take on the character. It didn’t really win anyone over, so Warner decided to reboot Batman again, resulting in the Robert Pattison Batman movie. Which, yet again, is another dark and realistic take on the character. This is just my opinion, but I personally find that this obsession to have Batman be portrayed as dark and bleak as possible is, at this point, repetitive, unappealing, and here’s an ugly word, boring. We’ve seen this before, and I believe that if they do this over and over again, it’s going to affect the way future audiences will perceive the brand.

That isn’t to say that Warner Bros. should return to the 1966 film’s tone. One can make the argument that while the 60s television series and movie made Batman a household name, it also made audiences perceive Batman as a campy superhero for decades, which it undeniably did. The show’s image remained the dominant idea of the Caped Crusader well until the late 1980s. Warner Bros. also did sorta return to this depiction with Joel Schumacher’s two Batman movies in the mid-90s, which didn’t go over very well critically. So certainly, a light-hearted campy tone would not work, but what I think that the 60s incarnation does show is that Batman can be more than just a dark, brooding character. He can also be a very fun and comedic character that can appeal to a wide demographic.

What they should do is go for a different tone. Maybe not a campy tone, but maybe something similar to the Batman animated series from the 90s. That show, in general, was very good at balancing all the different Batman mythos and could appeal to everyone. Maybe they can also not have Batman be by himself. In terms of live-action, Robin has not been used since the 90s (Joseph Gordon-Levitt in “The Dark Knight Rises” doesn’t count). When done right, Robin can be a very good equal to Batman, which is what he is in the 60s show. When done wrong, he’s a bratty annoying character, which is what Chris O’Donnel is in Joel Schumacher’s two movies. Supposedly, they want to include Robin in a future Robert Pattinson film, so hopefully, there’s some hope for this character in the future.

Overall, the 1966 version of “Batman” is a good, fun take on the DC Comics character. It may not be a perfect film for everyone. It’s not even my favorite version of Batman (that honor goes to Michael Keaton), but I really enjoy it, and I might rank it as my top four, maybe three favorite Batman movies. I think that there’s a lot to appreciate about it, and a lot to take from it for adapting the character in the future. Whether or not that fact shows anything about my tastes or the film itself is up to the viewer to decide. Give it a watch, pick a side, and regardless, I’m sure anyone will have a laugh or two in the process.