The Wild World of Batwoman (1966)

*. I’ve often thought of comic books as a kind of gateway drug to porn. Though not explicitly sexual they trigger budding hormones with depictions of women with exaggerated hourglass figures clad in impossibly painted-on costumes. Even in the earlierst superhero comics characters like Catwoman and Wonder Woman were basically pin-ups in action. Throw in some bondage and various forms of mind control and you’ve entered a pubescent fantasyland.
*. The Batman television series (1966-68) rolled with this, making Julie Newmar into a slinky fetish queen. The Wild World of Batwoman just takes this association of sex and superheroes and runs with it, giving us a Batwoman (Katherine Victor) with a full display of cleavage branded with a bat symbol that appears to have just been scribbled on with a marker. This Batwoman also has a bevy of batgirls who dress in party clothes and like to dance. Apparently most of them were strippers who found themselves out of work when the club they worked at was shut down by the police. An opportunistic casting director offered them work on the film.
*. Does this movie have anything to do with Batman? Not really. Enough so that DC comics sued for copyright violation, but they lost (though the movie was re-released as She Was a Hippy Vampire). Instead of a real comic-book movie it’s more just a beach movie where the girls have guns. The kind of thing Russ Meyer dabbled in and that Andy Sidaris made a career out of.
*. There is, however, some resemblance to the Batman TV show in the cultivation of a spirit of goofiness. One of the bad guys, Professor Octavius Neon, has developed a happy pill that makes people start to dance. Neon’s boss, the masked villain Rat Fink, wants to steal an experimental hearing aid powered by plutonium that will allow him to eavesdrop on any conversation in the world. The National Security Agency before its time.
*. Unfortunately, it’s such a cheap production it doesn’t quite rise to the level of true camp. Instead it mostly feels like a cash grab. Writer-director Jerry Warren took no great pride in his work: “I’d shoot one day on this stuff and throw it together. . . . I was in the business to make money. I never, ever tried in any way to compete, or to make something worthwhile. I only did enough to get by, so they would buy it, so it would play, and so I’d get a few dollars. It’s not very fair to the public, I guess, but that was my attitude.”
*. One aspect of this dedication to the bottom line (or biggest return for the least amount of effort) was Warren’s penchant for lifting material from other movies and just pasting it into his own. He would even sometimes make hybrid adaptations of other films that he introduced some new material into and redubbed (not an uncommon practice, executed perhaps most notably in Godzilla, King of the Monsters!). In this movie there are a few movies sampled, including The Mole People. To say The Mole People is awkwardly introduced would be an understatement. I’m still not sure what the point of the underground-city stuff was.
*. On the plus side, it’s short and has a few silly parts — the lethargic cage dancer, Batwoman’s DIY costume — of the type that would provide fodder for Mystery Science Theater 3000. Mostly, however, it just astonishes at how very bad it is. More fun than it probably should be, and good-natured, but still trash.

2 thoughts on “The Wild World of Batwoman (1966)

  1. Tom Moody

    Jerry Warren’s movie philosophy recalls similar sentiments from gore king Herschell Gordon Lewis (“I see filmmaking as a business and pity anyone who regards it as an art form”) and even drier, nudie director Barry Mahon (“We have not aimed for the single picture that is going to make us rich. We are looking for the business that’s like turning out Ford cars or anything else. If there is a certain profit per picture and we make so many pictures, then we have established a business that is on a basis that’s economical”). All this is either plainspoken fact or a brilliant way of deflecting criticism (or both).

    Reply
    1. Alex Good Post author

      It’s interesting to reflect on the achievements of pure hacks. Obviously they’re just in it for the money, but on occasion they do come up with some impressive results, or show some real talent. Maybe it’s only down to the accident factor (which plays a big role in the movie biz), but despite Lewis being a cynical operator I still think Two Thousand Maniacs! works (the other movies by Lewis that I’ve seen are total trash). Then there’s someone like Roger Corman. Again obviously just trying to make a buck, but, even if not overly talented he was at least someone with real professional skill and had a few noteworthy titles to his credit.

      This movie, on the other hand, really is crap.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.