Were you pleased with the finished product?

I was really pleased with it. While it?s certainly not for me to say whether the film?s any good or not, it was the film I set out to make and it was the film I told everyone I was going to make.


So it met your expectations?

I was sat there with Lee Smith, my editor, very late in the dubbing stage. Looking up at the film we sort of said to each other, ?Yeah, it?s funny: there?s nothing that should be in the film that isn?t in the film, or is on the cutting room floor and there?s nothing in the film that we didn?t want there.? I think that for a film of this scale that?s almost unheard of really. It was just a very smooth and fortunate collaboration with the studio that was behind the film.


One thing that really came out in this film were the similarities between Batman and Bond ? the playboy lifestyle, the gadgets, the villains. Did you consciously go for that feel?

Oh yeah, absolutely. Frankly, I?m surprised it didn?t get noticed more because to me they?re fairly direct influences. It was something I was very keen to do. When I talked to the studio about what I wanted to do with the character, I talked about the Bond sensibility, that idea of recognisable grounded reality but then very heightened to take it into a sort of more entertaining realm. We really did try to look back to the best of the previous Bond movies, in terms of the direction, of tone. Also, technically in terms of how we tried to achieve things, because over the years those films have set the standard of technical excellence in terms of stunt work and special effects as opposed to visual effects, you know, what?s going on on the floor. So we really tried to avail ourselves of the people who?d worked on those films and a lot of their method.


But whatever the similarities, once he puts on the suit, I suppose, he's Batman.
Yeah, I guess once he puts his ears on he has his own iconography that kind of dominates.


One of the few criticisms that has been made of the film is that the action is hard to follow. Was that effect what you wanted?

Very much. The editing of action scenes, a bit like the volume of the sound makes is something that a lot of people like to complain about, so films are cut too quick, all the rest but, the fact is, you have to think about point of view in terms of action. If you watch the film, and now that people have it on DVD they?ll be able to watch it, the point of view of the action is always very carefully delineated in the way the films put together; it?s put together very precisely. Lee Smith who cut the film is an extraordinarily, meticulous and talented editor and there are certain points at which you want to completely disorient the viewer in order to make them more disciplined in some kind of very frenetic difficult action. There are other times when it?s more controlled, but there?s always a very specific point of view on the action, which is the reason I insisted on shooting the entire film main unit, so I directed all the action myself as opposed to the usual two or three units.


That's pretty unusual on a film this big, isn't it?

I think it?s very, very unusual from what I gather but, for me, it?s the only way I go about getting a consistent tone to the film. I think that when you look at the film as a whole, the entire film is very, very quickly cut and a very rapidly told story. Of course the action has to turn up the volume or push the accelerator pedal down in those sequences, so you?re gonna get what I call challenging energetic. I think if the action didn?t work well with the people, the film wouldn?t be successful.


The fact that most of the stunts were mechanical rather than CGI also gave those scenes some real weight.

Yeah, I am mean it gives it a more tactile quality, but once again it also demands a more fractured style of editing, which in a funny sort of way is a little more old-fashioned. When you look at the Spiderman movie or one of these films where they have these continuous non-cutting shots, to me, it borders on the video games reality. It works very well for Spiderman because the entire film is all about that style, but when you?re trying to get back to something where it?s a little more bone-crunching you have to be a little more aggressive.


Another thing that came as a real surprise on first viewing is that you managed to keep the identity of the main villain under wraps. Was that a surprise in this day and age of internet spoilers?

I was surprised to a certain extent. It was just a question of keeping everything under wraps for as long as possible, and once the script did get out there online, it was really a question of trust in terms of the fans. You know not all the fans are wanting to spoil all the surprises for themselves, so it never really got out there. And then we had a lot of cooperation from the marketing department/publicity department in terms of how they would present the film in the trailers- it worked quite well.


I suppose that people can go back and look for the clues now on the DVD. Are you one of those filmmakers who sees DVD as part of the process?

Yeah, I think it?s a very exciting medium. I mean, theatrical exhibition is, for me, the sort of primary goal and the thing you gear the film towards, but then it's wonderful to be able to go in to it a bit further. I mean, it takes a number of months to really prepare the DVD picture and sound wise, properly, but it?s a wonderful format in terms of retaining the aspect ratio of the film you?ve shot ? the look of it, the sound of it. As the home theatre sounds systems get better and better, I think all of the special features and the archival nature of the format make it a really exciting base to sort of finish off your film.


So what's the next step? There was some mention of The Joker at the end of the film- does that give you a lot of room to play with for the sequel?

Those elements at the end, certainly, are just there for the feeling of Batman Begins rather than an end specifically suggesting a sequel. On the other hand, it?s a very exciting sort of character and a very exciting sort of world that we?ve got to play in, and I have been talking to the studio about what we would do for a sequel. I wouldn?t do it as my next film, but I?m talking about doing it as a film after that.


Jeff Robinov at Warners was quoted as saying that you tell him what the sequel is going to be. Is that the case?

Well, he?s very polite to put it that way! I have marched into his office and I have told him what David Goyer and I think the story is, and they seem to like it a lot. I think the success of Batman Begins, in my terms, in it being a film that I wanted it to be, is very much due to a collaboration with the studio. It wasn?t really one or the other telling the other what it should be, so I think he?s poking fun!


But it?s good to be in a position where you?re working with the studio and not sort of against them, or despite them.

For me it?s essential- I?m not very confrontational and I don?t work well in a situation where people don?t trust me, so I?m very careful about the projects I take on and really try to give my due diligence and make sure we?re all on the same page. The way I do that is by telling them exactly what it is I?m turning out to do and making sure we see the same film.


Fair enough. So your next film is The Prestige with Christian Bale again and Hugh Jackman?

Yes we?re just in pre-production on that. It?s a script that my brother and I have put together based on the novel by Christopher Priest and we?re going to start filming in January.