The Catwoman: Batman's Sexiest Adversary and Femme Fatale

samboiam 23 months ago

No matter who played the part Catwoman was always good on the eyes. Eartha Kitt was my favorite of all.

newdiabolic316 23 months ago

Good read Mike. My youth prevents me from remembering the older incarnations of catwoman in much detail. Michelle Pfeiffer was infinitely better than Halle Berry I thought. I'd heard/read a rumor that Megan Fox was either interested in or had been cast in a part to play Catwoman.

mysterylady 89 23 months ago

An interesting hub, Mike. I remember watching Batman and Robin on t.v., but I don't remember the movies. I do recall Eartha Kitt's sexy voice. Do you remember her singing "I Want to Be Evil"? I loved it!

bingskee 23 months ago

funny but i loved it seeing michelle pfeiffer doing catwoman role. i thought of her as the perfect fit for the role.

ThomasWMutherJr 23 months ago

Well, I knew it was only a matter of time. I'd seen the signs for years and what I'd feared and dreaded has finally arrived. Vis-à-vis your comments about Michelle Pfeiffer, it's clear you've lost it. Totally. Completely. Utterly. With-out-a-doubtedly. First of all, I never thought I would see the name "Michelle Pfeiffer" and the words "projecting far too little sexuality" in the same paragraph!???! (Points for idiosyncratic perspective.) Second, to your comment that her "reserved performance as Selina Kyle was equally drab"--that is decidedly an unfair criticism, as Selina Kyle's drabness (in as much as anyone who looks like Michelle Pfeiffer could be drab) was exactly the point. She was absolutely suPOSEd to be drab, to be "meaningless" as her character puts it. I would go as far to say that the fact this preternaturally beautiful woman came off as drab to you was a great testament to her talents as an actress. So how could you knock her for achieving exactly what she was trying to achieve? Third, it's very true that Michelle was petite and by virtue of her physicality (as represented by the potential for sheer brute force) could hardly have represented much of a threat to The Batman--but what actress COULD have projected such threat?--especially a Batman as portrayed in the films (the TV series was another matter as THAT Batman--for all his charm--projected no masculine power at all). HER threat, primarily, was the threat to undermine his resolve with her cunning and very-MUCH-in-evidence sexuality (case in hilarious point: the time Batman had just decked her and she says something to the effect: "How could you?! I'm a woman!" to which Batman, as would any heterosexual male, immediately melts and moves forward to help her--only to receive a kick to the face for his troubles). But Michelle had something else going for her other than her beauty and invisible-only-to-you sexiness--acting ability in spades. How she has managed to never snare an Oscar is a mystery (well, not entirely, as she does have a penchant for choosing roles beneath her abilities). No one in you list, save Barry, is remotely in her category. Her line readings here are so droll, so mesmerizingly unique that for me, she stole every scene she was in, even when paired with the king of unique, Christopher Walken. She has the most interesting role in the film--the (sometimes) conflicted budding psychopath, as opposed to the out-in-out psychopaths played by Walken and DeVito, and the underdeveloped (personality wise) Batman--and this talented actress, IMHO, makes the most of it. Excepting Heath Ledger's astounding performance as The Joker (why are the names of Batman's villains always preceded by the article "the"?), Pfeiffer's Catwoman is my favorite villain of any super-hero film to date. I thought she would be a real possibility for a supporting Oscar win--but I've thought that several times over the years about Ms. Pfeffier (most especially for her scary performance in "White Oleander")--but so far, no hardware.

Obviously, everyones perspective is uniquely there own, so just because you evidence psychosis in your appraisal of this particular Catwoman, this doesn't mean you are psychotic generally, of course ;-). (I'm sure you are relieved to know it.)

As to the rest of your comments, they seem pretty much on point, though I was never really a big fan of the TV show--watching it only occasionally. I enjoyed reading them--even the apoplectic paragraphs about Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Cheers!

equealla 23 months ago

T.V. came late to S.A. so I did not know the other girls. Was actually surprised to learn she has been filmed before.

But the Barry/Pfeiffer thing between me and my twin sons, 19yrs, sounds like this:

Mom, Cat woman was Hally Berry, you see (pointing with a finger to a photo of her in a magazine).. this girl.

No,no,no- I would respond. You have it all wrong. It was that sexy blond, Michelle Pfeiffer. I will go and buy a DVD and show her to you.

They look at each other, shaking heads. The older one's lip curled in a snarl, whilst talking to his brother, totally dismissing me from their world. " Let's go. She doesn't know what she's talking about. She just wants an argument.

End of discussion.

Arthur Windermere 23 months ago

Interesting, Mike. To be honest, I was never a fan of Batman. I like the Adam West incarnation and the feature-length Batman cartoons; the movies are too dark and self-important for my tastes.

Just looking at the pictures, Julie Newmar would win my vote. That's a kitty I'd like to stroke. MEE-OW! I agree that Pfeiffer was kinda dull as Catwoman--but then, I found those unbelievably dreary Batman movies difficult to sustain my interest in any way.

Also nice of the Halle Barry incarnation to give us so much kitty cleavage. I feel to be true to the character, though, she should have had four sets of feline funbags. hehehe

ThomasWMutherJr 23 months ago

Well, I certainly can agree with your assessment of Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl . . . but then that whole film was ludicrously cast (even Schwartzennegger--who SHOULD have been terrific as Mr. Freeze wasn't, so I suspect the director can take much of the blame). And I thought Silverstone was terrific in a few other roles, most notably in "Clueless"--but she wasn't much of a Batgirl. And George Clooney as The Batman (to divert a bit from the Batwoman discussion)? The guy has come a long way since that film and he now stands as one of my favorite present day actors--as well as filmmakers. But “Batman and Robin” came out before he'd really nailed his craft as an actor down--but the role just wasn't suited to him anyway (except for the age factor, he'd do better today). He was awful as Batman. And Robin?--cheeesz! I'm not so sure Robin even translates to the big screen (though I'm sure they could have found someone better to play the part than Chris O'Donnell). It worked in the comics, and it worked on TV, but he's just too, well, hokey (and hokey was much of the point of the TV series). Batman Forever was one of the worst "super"-hero movies I've yet seen. On that, as well as Silverstone's performance, I suspect we agree completely.

But back to Catwoman--I suspect this is one of those instances where our perspectives just lie (lay?) on different planes. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how much passion and reason I bring to the table with my arguments, you will persist in being wrong! ;-) Oh, well. We're all wrong occasionally. But let me point out something, you knock Pfeiffer for not being "dangerous" enough, or "menacing" enough. Well, I've got to tell you, if I were being threatened by Julie Newmar, or Lee Meriwether--at least, back in the long-ago days I was in shape--I would find their threats pretty laughable. I'm talking about fearing for my physical wellbeing--it goes without saying I would fear for my chastity. Really now, are you telling me that if Julie Newmar had come up to me when I was thirty, that I should have feared for my safety? And if you can make that claim, could you do it with a straight face? And I assure you that neither Meriwether nor Kitt would incite much in the way of fear in my person. And if this is true—and speaking for myself, it definitely is—than your whole argument about Michelle not being up to the task because she wasn't menacing enough goes out the window, right along with the supposed “scariness” of Newmar, Meriwether and Kitt.

That argument laid aside (you're welcome to try and scape it from the ground if you've a mind to), I think one reason we see Pfeiffer's performance so differently is that I sat down to watch it without any built in expectations. Put a capable actress into the role, and as long as she handled it seriously, but with humor as well, she would have convinced me she was Catwoman—at least for the length of the film. Pfeiffer did more than that, IMO, she made the part her own with her idiosyncratic touches and her considerable acting gifts (I loved her when she walks back into her apartment and says, “Honey, I'm home! . . . Oh, wait. That's right, I'm not married.” It was hilarious, but a lesser actress would have made those lines pathetic). For you, who had been brought up watching the TV series, the part of Catwoman was already well established in your mind. For you, Michelle's original touches were an affront to this vision already there in your memories. The only way she could have made the part hers was by being the Catwoman you were expecting, that you had grown up loving. She didn't do that—didn't even try to do that. She spread out a great big blank canvas, starting completely from scratch, and etched a masterwork—or so it seemed to me--but what to you seemed like a strange counterfeit. Having only watched the TV series intermittently, I didn't develop those expectations. I liked the series, but for me, the laughs didn't come in sufficient numbers to make it must viewing. I'm not putting it down—I liked it, and I think I understand why you liked it as much as you did—it just didn't have as MUCH appeal for me.

Okay, having won that argument [ ;-) ], you made a comment about liking the series better than the films. In the context of your comments, I wasn't sure if you were referring to the first go-round of the Batman films, or to all of them, including the Christopher Nolan films. If you were including them all, then I must conclude that nostalgia has corrupted your judgment. Understandable. It's corrupted mine as well. I hold the TV series I watched as a kid in higher regard than they probably deserve (“I Spy” is my all-time favorite . . . but is it REALLY the best series of all time?--not likely). But even those series I admired so much cannot hold a candle to my favorite films. Perhaps one reason for this is that TV never held quite the preeminent position in my growing-up that it did for many in my generation and the generations after me. For me, the best thing about the television was the world of movies—“old” movies—that it opened up to me. Back when I was 9 thru 14, there was NOTHING on TV after the 10 o'clock news, except “The Late Show” and old movies (my parents dominated the selections during the evening). So I watched movies, and even in my youth I could see how superior they were to the TV offerings—at least in the vast majority of cases. Since those days, TV has become both better and worse—but film still generally remains a superior medium. Thus, the Nolan versions of the film are I think objectively superior to the series, as well as being better than the earlier films—with more complex characters and intriguing plots, with believable dialogue, stellar special effects, incredible production values/design, and actors capable of delivering the goods—all capped off by being nurtured by a director with a coherent and compelling vision. But I doubt you would disagree. But then again, it's hard to argue with nostalgia. Eh? Cheerio!

ThomasWMutherJr 23 months ago

Incidentally, what's your view of Bob Kane?--speaking of idiosyncratic. It's clear the guy had some trouble with anatomy--but he was completely consistent in this distortion to the extent you could call it "style." I would, in fact, call it that, and loved his work on The Batman--much more than anyone else who tried his hand at it (though I haven't opened a Batman mag in at least 20 years, so couldn't comment on recent developments).

cupid51 23 months ago

I enjoyed very much reading this fantastic hub on famous characters from movie and television shows. Personally I also like to write this type of review hub! Your presentation as well as the pictures are fabulous!

susanlang 23 months ago

Mike: I'm not going to keep this short and sweet as I see by the other writers it has been covered well.

As I said to you on your Twitter webpage, Julie Newmar wins hands down in my book. Another wonderful hub with great photos and lots of details. Loved it Mike.

hypnodude 23 months ago

OMG, killing Robin to get him out of the house, lol, this made my laugh almost until my belly split. :)

Anyway for me the best Catwoman was Michelle Pfeiffer but I must admit I have a soft spot for her, and while Halle Berry is very beautiful her film was actually bad.

Great article Mike, detailed and well done, rated up, beautiful, stumbled and shared with my followers.

Well done my friend. :)

ThomasWMutherJr 22 months ago

Actually, I had written a full-fledged response to your counter-argument to my counter-argument a short time after yours appeared, only to inadvertently delete them (this site has a weird quirk in that when you open another screen and then comeback to what you were writing, everything is highlighted as if one were about to copy it. Well, if you hit a key, everything is gone. After an hour's work, seeing it all go down the drain was too much, so I gave up the task—but I'm back, with a streamlined version). To be brief (or at least, briefER), first of all I don't think your argument about Newmar being more threatening than Pfeiffer holds up. Even if it's true, what does that mean? I could say a grasshopper is more threatening than a butterfly, and a case could be made to support that argument, but the grasshopper remains utterly UNthreatening, at least to humans. Okay, Newmar is a little taller, a little heavier, but she still remains devoid of threat. And if she is not threatening, it just doesn't make sense to insist she's a better Catwoman because Pfeiffer isn't threatening enough. Part of what is required here is a suspension of disbelief. We know that neither Pfeiffer nor Newmar nor any other actress could pose a credible threat to the Batman in the films (at least, not on the basis of brawn), but we go along and pretend that they have abilities that make them worthy adversaries. We see Pfeiffer, or her stunt double, doing multiple back-flips and other athletic moves and we nod and go along (at least, most of us do). For reasons uniquely your own, you weren't able to successfully do that with Pfeiffer's portrayal, but were able to do it with Newmar (even though I don't think she was ever given the benefit of having stunt doubles doing complicated gymnastic moves). Perhaps part of the reason for this was that the TV Batman was hardly an imposing physical specimen so Newmar didn't come off as being so obviously over matched. Also, I still think my argument about your preconceived notions of what Catwoman should be like still holds some water.

Which is my second point. I think you effectively countered my arguments in this regard, but nonetheless, I think they still may be valid. It may be true that your experience with the TV Joker in your formative years didn't prevent you from enjoying Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger, but then, it is only too obvious that Caesar Romero could hardly hold a candle to your feelings for Newmar—not to mention that it seems very clear that The Catwoman was far and away your favorite villain in the series. Thus, the nostalgic hold Newmar/Catwoman had on your psyche undoubtedly would have colored your appreciation of anyone in that role to a degree far exceeding what it would have for the other panoply of villains. I don't wish to overstate here. I'm suggesting this as part of the reason we see the performance of Pfeiffer so differently. Obviously, in a million years we would never be able to completely account for the reasons each of us appreciate one thing but not another. So many things influence us, things that often have long since been forgotten but whose traces still linger.

And finally, as to your suggestion that my unbridled passion for Michelle Pfeiffer has crippled my ability to objectively judge her performance . . . good try but might I suggest that this is so much balderdash :-). Consider: A particular favorite of mine is Jean Harlow. For me, she is the sexiest actress to ever grace the screen, and one of it's most talented. Michelle Pfeiffer does not hold a candle to Harlow in terms of my appreciation. In other venues I have waxed poetic about both Harlow's appearance and her comedic gifts. A large poster of her adorns one of my walls. There is no actress I hold in higher esteem. Thus, according to your theory, I should be incapable of rationally evaluating her performances and would ascribe nothing but superlatives to every one. In the films, "Red Dust," "Dinner at Eight," "Libeled Lady," "Wife vs. Secretary," and many others you would be correct, but consider the film Public Enemy, the film that launched James Cagney's legendary career. She absolutely stunk. And I mean PEE-U! The director and screenwriter must take some of the blame, but she was SO awful I would count it as one of the worst performances in mainstream Hollywood history. Now, if I'm able to say that about an actress I adore to a degree which far outstrips my admiration for Michelle Pfeiffer, why would my appreciation for Pfeiffer prevent me from being able to quantify her performance? And with that, I rest my case.

Yes, believe it or not, my original response was considerably longer.

Cheers! And DO say hello to your Mom and Dad.

ThomasWMutherJr 22 months ago

Oh! Just a side note. I don't mean to impugn Julie Newmar. She was, after all, a doll, and projected an appealing personality onscreen.

Cheerio!

ThomasWMutherJr 22 months ago

LOL! I think our discussion here is approaching a point of diminishing returns. Perhaps a little “acrimony” is what is needed. Okay, I'll give it a shot. Mike, you miserable boneheaded slut! There. In some circles the argument would now be considered won by yours truly.

To your rebuttals of my most recent rebuttals of your rebuttals of my rebuttals—No. 1: Twice as threatening as non-threatening is still non-threatening. And even if it were valid to say Newmar's superior size made her a better Catwoman PHYSICALLY, Michelle Pfeiffer had the ability to project a harder edge (see “White Oleander” where she was the kind of woman that if you were her boyfriend? and she turned her wrath on you?--you'd want to change your name and move to Tierra del Fuego) than did Newmar who came across as unfailingly sweet [though I'll say that part of her appeal as The Catwoman WAS the underlying sweetness which played nicely against her villainy—thus, when she says of Robin, “We'll kill him,” it makes the line all the more hilarious—wait a minute! Who's side am I on here? ;-) But may I point out that this “strength” in the TV series may not have worked as well on the big screen, as the earlier films, though not without humor, had a much darker tone entirely devoid of camp]. For me, the harder edge/psychosis coupled with the interposed scenes with the gymnast/stunt double made her actually the more threatening of the two.

As to my “assumption” that I “somehow assume[d] that [you] preferred Julie Newmar’s Catwoman to Cesar Romero’s Joker or any other villain from the television series”--I suggest that it wasn't much of a stretch. You say you “never said that,” but you DID write: “One villain in particular stood out from the others, however:  Selina Kyle, also known as the Catwoman.  Catwoman was as cunning and malevolent as any of Batman’s enemies, but she was also a beautiful, alluring woman with a soft spot in her heart for the Caped Crusader.” When I read the words “stood out from the others” I did indeed make the assumption that she was your favorite—but your words do imply this. Whether this is an accurate reflection of your feelings is another question, but based on your words I believe most people would have come to this conclusion. And if she had been your favorite as your words imply, than my argument about your preconceived notions of the character being harder to overcome make perfect sense.

Which isn't to say that these “notions” would be imPOSSible to overcome. I'm just offering thoughts on why our views of this performance (Pfeiffer's) are SO diametrically opposed. Which leads to your final rebuttal of my rebuttal of . . . etc. You make a very good point. It does seem on its face that I am suggesting your opinions of the Newmar/Pfeiffer dichotomy lack objective perspective when compared to mine. And it's true--I am in fact making that claim. Not because your intellect is “inferior” in anyway to mine (obviously), nor that your objectivity is, in general, in any way compromised vis-à-vis my own. In this case, however, your esteem for the Newmar Catwoman was established when you were still a child. For most of us, our feelings for favorite places, things, people, books, TV shows, what have you, that develop in our formative years often—not always to be sure--retain an aura of affection and nostalgia immutable to the ravages of later experience, logic, or evolving tastes. This is what I suggest MAY be at work here. My esteem for Pfeiffer and Harlow developed when childhood was but a distant memory (indeed, much of the charm of Jean Harlow in particular would have very much been beyond the ken of a child). I do not view them through the haze of nostalgia and thus may be better able to assess their strengths/weaknesses with dispassion.

On the other hand, perhaps I just happened to like Pfeiffer's performance, and you did not. Is that possible?

Well, perhaps I will get around to looking into your Star Wars/Star Trek comparison, being a big fan of both. As to the others you mention—Ginger/Mary Ann, Brady Bunch/Partridge Family, I having absolutely nothing invested in those programs and watched them very rarely, so I wouldn't have anything useful to offer.

Cheerio!

PS. I note I goofed in one of my earlier entries above (I mean, beside the innumerable typos, dropped words, malapropisms, etc.) when I mentioned “Batman Forever” (decent if not inspired) as being one of the worst superhero films of all time when I was clearly referencing “Batman and Robin.”

ThomasWMutherJr 22 months ago

Ah! And I forgot to add one further thing to my argument that your bias toward Newmar's Catwoman prevented you from appreciating Pfeiffer's performance--your words, to wit: "Until someone new comes along with exceptional talent, grace and panache, Julie Newmar will always be Catwoman to me." Hmm. Sounds like there is an awful lot of preconceived notion to overcome there, eh? LOL.

Cheerio!

ThomasWMutherJr 22 months ago

Just to clarify, I wasn't using bias in a pejorative sense. I had used "preconceived notions" 2 or 3 times already and was just attempting to find a close synonym. I recognize that it often is used as a means to describe toxic prejudice, but I was definitely not using it in that sense. I have a bias FOR redheads, for example, but have absolutely no disdain for other hair colorations.

As for my "psychoanalyzing"--I do like to dig into the marrow of things, to try and understand why people are so different, even while conceding (as I did at least twice in the above) that the effort is ultimately doomed as the maze of human experience is too convoluted and complex to ever be able to reach causal bottom. Still, that doesn't mean the effort is necessarily wasted as there is much to be learned in the process—not least of which, in trying to understand others one can learn a great deal about oneself. In all of my “psychoanalysis” above, there was never any effort to ascribe anything pathological about your preference—but there is a reason for everything, even if we can never fully fathom it. In my futile effort to rummage about your cerebral attic (as well as my own to an extent), I learned a good deal from your responses, but still the reason why two intelligent males, reasonably well educated, brought up in the same culture, could view this performance so differently eludes me. “Fascinating” as our friend Mr. Spock would say.

In the end, my attempt at self-mockery at my analyses undoubtedly comes closest to an explanation: “[P]erhaps I just happened to like Pfeiffer's performance, and you did not. Is that possible?”

Cheerio!