Huh. I didn’t think Two-Face was interesting at all. YMMV.
And the Joker isn’t supposed to funny. At least not to anyone but himself, even though he is trying to make others see what’s so funny from his point of view: namely that we’re all vicious animals when we reach a certain point, but we work hard to deny that “truth.”
No? I thought he was much more interesting than the comic version I’m familiar with, and frankly also much more interesting than this movie’s Joker. He doesn’t embrace villainy just because his face is scarred, or from some hokey latent multiple personality triggered by 1980s comic scripting. He’s broken not because of any flaw, but because of his strength. He persuades others to believe in him, and his sincerity destroys him. I thought the movie did an impressive job of elucidating his tragic descent. There’s a remarkable dynamic between him and Gordon, the triangle with Rachel and Bruce, the triangle with Batman and the Joker. I think the movie would have been much stronger if they had alloted more time to exploring these various interactions, instead of oh say AN IDIOTIC QUARTER-HOUR CAR CHASE. Yes, we get that Batman has a cool car! We’ve already seen it! We don’t need to see yet another mind-bendingly retarded incident of Batman and the Gotham P.D. conspiring to murder dozens of bystanders! Just skip to the part where he deploys the AT-AT cable please.
I disagree. I think Ledger was at his best in the role when given the opportunity to project wry, mordant humor. There’s no reason why he can’t preach his nihilist philosophy while also being entertaining. Batman somehow manages to deliver his unique brand of vigilante justice alongside effective thematic branding. Two-Face gets his coin. Joker should at least have some concession to his own chosen idiom, yet he gets nothing. “He has nothing in his pockets but knives?” How lame was that? Joker’s pockets should be a demented playground of opportunity, like a psychotic Doctor Who. Where’s the acid flower? Where’s the piranha? He should have had an unsettling arsenal to give Harpo Marx nightmares. He started out so promisingly with the pencil gag, too.
I’ll tell you one thing though; if you spend as much time as Ledger’s Joker did with your tongue hanging out of your head, it won’t matter how many playing cards you distribute or how much clown makeup you wear; people are going to call you the Tongue. At best, you’ll be dubbed something like “the nefarious Carny Tongue.”
I’m sorry, but I think this is exactly the attitude that makes American movies suck so much.
I just watched the movie for the second time and it held up very well. Two thumbs up to the simple message of the movie: life is complicated.
Heath’s performance is oscar-worthy.
Well you’d be wrong about that. I’ve never made an American movie, sucky or otherwise. Except… nevermind.
Do you deny that Ledger’s Joker had some darkly humorous moments? I just think there could have been more of them, is all. It seemed to me that his physical performance was intentionally suggestive of silent film comedians.
Yeah, because homicidal sociopathic terrorists are supposed to be fun to watch.
Okay then, what do you think Ledger was doing WRONG, that people in the theater were occasionally laughing at his performance? How is it possible that he fucked up his role that badly? Because homicidal sociopathic terrorists aren’t supposed to be fun to watch, at all.
Definitely. Would’ve been a much better movie with Batman played by Adam West and the Joker played by Caesar Romero. We can only hope.
I hate you all.
Terrifel - I think your opinion regarding Leger’s performance (that it could have had more comic moments) is legitimate. It relates more to the writing than the acting, though. I agree that the Harvey Dent/ Two Face character was really interesting. and Eckhart was perfect for that role. I was sorry that he was killed off. (But as I have pointed out way earlier, when that was done, the writers thought they could bring the Joker back. & then iwhen they couldn’t it was probaby too late to change the Two/Face ending.)
I think there were so many, many problems with the plot of this film (not to mention editing, pacing) that to call it a masterpiece is a gross exaggeration. The only thing about it I’m enthusiastic about is Heath Leger’s joker. I did love that.
This is basically my reaction. I adored Heath Ledger, but the rest of the film? Eh. Bruce Wayne struck me as kind of an arrogant prick. Harvey Dent was pretty likable even pre Two-Face, and post…he was pretty awesome to watch. But for the most part, when the Joker wasn’t on film, I was wondering when he’d be back again. The rest of the movie felt overhyped, but definitely not Ledger’s role in it.
OK so anyway.
I’ve been having an offboard debate with another doper about thematic resonances in The Dark Knight, specifically allusions to a couple of John Ford’s favorite themes. I don’t think there’s any doubt at all that Harvey Dent’s “heroic” death and immortality as a symbol of justice indicates that Nolan is familiar with **The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance **(“When legend becomes fact, print the legend”) and Fort Apache (". . . here was Thursday leading his men in that heroic charge! / Correct in every detail."). And the cute little nod to **Shane **(“Come back, Batman!”) and the Joker’s many movie allusions are further indication that such references aren’t unlikely on their face.
So, the way I see it, when Batman goes alone out into the dark night at the end of the movie, the voluntary scapegoat whose sacrifice is necessary for the security of the society in which he is no longer welcome, this is another allusion to Ford: specifically, to the ending of The Searchers. (Well, maybe allusion is too strong; echo?) At the end of The Searchers, John Wayne has returned the lost child to her home, but against his instincts: his instincts were to kill her, as having been “tainted” by her time among the “savages.” At the end of the film, the daughter is welcomed back into the arms of her family, while her embittered rescuer is effectively ignored. The famous final shot is of Wayne, seen through the doorway from within the safety of the family cabin, walking alone out into the unwelcoming desert.
Now, replace the sun-burnt desert with the dark night of Gotham, and the ten-gallon with pointy ears, and you have the ending of The Dark Knight–including the child restored to safety.
Not that it’s at all necessary to enjoy either film, and not that it could ever be definitively or empirically proven (barring Nolan explicitly claiming the reference), but still, it’s fun to identify such, um, what, Easter eggs.
In Roger Ebert’s review of the film, he writes: “His Joker draws power from the actual inspiration of the character in the silent classic ‘The Man Who Laughs’ (1928).”
Oh no doubt, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Ledger patterned some of his mannerisms after other silent film influences as well. Silent film comedians often used physical violence to comic effect; and studying their craft would be a very prudent choice for the role in any case, as Ledger knew that he’d be forced to act through heavy greasepaint and facial appliances. The scene in front of Gotham General especially gave off a classic silent comedy vibe to me, sort of like Buster Keaton with a remote detonator.
Hmm. I think you might mean someone other than Buster Keaton; his schtick was a kind of wooden expressionless affect.
I notice also that, in his review, Ebert attempts to parallel Batman and the Joker as “two adults who were twisted by childhood cruelty.” He doesn’t appear to recall that the Joker gave multiple conflicting accounts of his origin and disfigurement.
Yes, I noticed that, too. I was wondering whether the “he claims” in “he seeks revenge, he claims, for the horrible punishment his father exacted on him when he was a child” was an attempt not to give too much away. But he does seem to make these little errors more often since his illness.
I kind of agree with Terrifel: the Joker was really funny on several occasions: hanging his head out of a car like a dog, wobbling away from the hospital in a nurse’s uniform, the pencil trick, and so on. Even little things like his pool-cue contest for the henchmen of the mobster he killed was kind of funny.
Laughing at horror doesn’t make you an awful person, of course. Writing a character called “the Joker” without jokes would be a bad choice. Ledger was phenomenally believable in the role, so that you both laughed and recoiled at his jokes.
Daniel
Then it’s a good thing that no one suggested any such thing. Ledger’s Joker provided LOTS of macabre laughs; to insist on a shallowly, unbrokenly comic performance–to wish Jim Carrey hadn’t turned down the role–is silly.
Yes, I thought much of the stuff the Joker did was very funny. I can’t understand the notion that one must be a bad person to laugh at it. It’s a movie! I thought the pencil trick was a classic, but I’d never try it at parties myself.
There’s a good photo from "The Man Who Laughs " here. Ebert makes the claim that this was even the inspiration for The Joker character in the Batman comic books. I would love to see this.