My daughter was right about the new Batman movie
A while back I mentioned that my two year-old, after seeing a preview of the new Batman movie on TV, summed up her opinion with two words:
Дурак. Гадость.Having now watched it, I can confirm that she's more or less correct.
(Fool. It's garbage.)
I admit that most reviews of the film have been positive, focusing primarily on Heath Ledger's performance. And, yes, he gave a compelling performance, especially if, like me, your image of the joker is primarily formed from the graphic novels of Frank Miller (The Dark Night Returns) and Alan Moore (The Killing Joke). This review in the First Things weblog particularly appreciates the storytelling. Ironically, some reviews I've read complain that the storytelling is a little overwrought. Personally, I agree with the charge of its being "overwrought".
My real disappointment came somewhere around 2/3 of the way through the film, when I realized that I was watching a film starring Batman and the Joker that was not only rated PG-13, but contained an extraordinary amount of disturbingly graphic violence. (I'm not sure I'd be inclined to let my 11 year-old watch it anytime soon.) I think Thomas Hibbs is correct that the storytellers were at least trying to deal with some serious ideas:
What makes Nolan’s latest film such a success is… the way in which he uses that character [the Joker] to bring out the depth and complex goodness of the other characters in the film, including Batman.Indeed, there's a bit of serious talk reminiscent of the best introspection from The Killing Joke.
That's when it hit me: these "intellectual" conversations are placed in the mouths of comic-book characters. I don't mean to assume a conceited air about literary characters being inherently better than comic-book characters, but Batman and the Joker really are comic book characters. By their very nature they aren't complex; they're outlandish, attention-getting devices, and the point of their extravagance was never so much to tell a story as it was to sell comic books.
Comic-book writers have, over the decades, found ways to inject a modicum of complexity into those characters that managed to survive the brutal slaughterhouse that is the comic-book marketplace. Some of them have graduated into the "graphic-novel" market, an upscale version of illustrated storytelling that includes a lot of genuinely complex storytelling such as Road to Perdition (made into a movie a few years ago with Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, and Daniel Craig).
The problem with trying to tell complex stories using the characters of Batman and the Joker is that unless you are willing to change the characters, you are stuck with a comic book story, which is not conducive to complex ideas. Sure, you can put Batman and the Joker into a graphic novel and give them a more "mature" story line, but all you've succeeded in doing is dressing up two characters made to entertain kids as adult characters. (Indeed, Frank Miller's Dark Knight smacks more of a Batman dressed up in vulgar themes than mature themes, befitting Miller's subsequent descent into supposedly mature works as Sin City and 300.) Batman cannot change the essence of what he does as the Batman, which is to dress up in a ridiculous bat suit and beat up criminals at night. The Joker cannot change the essence of what he is, even if over the decades he's acquired a bit more flair and complexity in his style.
This may be the reason people are so impressed by Heath Ledger's performance: he does not portray the comic-book Joker. The comic book's joker has at times been a compellingly complex character. The film's Joker is instead an absolute, someone who (as Alfred remarks) wants nothing more than "to see the world burn." He is no more complicated than that. As if to symbolize this, consider the difference in their appearance. Traditionally, the Joker's bizarre appearance (and criminal insanity) is explained by his having once been scarred by acid. Usually this is due to his trying to escape the Batman while committing a petty crime, so that the Joker can even be a somewhat sympathetic character. The film's Joker wears makeup instead, and his origin is a complete mystery. By reducing the comic book character to its very essence, the filmmakers made him more compelling, befitting a film starring comic book characters.
And this is my problem with everything else in the film: the other characters are still comic book characters, but they're trying to be graphic novel characters, or even serious film characters. It just doesn't work for me.
Besides, I'm tired of the whole Gotham is at risk and may not survive unless Batman manages to find the needle in the haystack storyline, which is true for pretty much all comic book movies. Whatever happened to ordinary evil?
Posts
4 comments:
Interesting observations:
This may be the reason people are so impressed by Heath Ledger's performance: he does not portray the comic-book Joker. The comic book's joker has at times been a compellingly complex character. The film's Joker is instead an absolute, someone who (as Alfred remarks) wants nothing more than "to see the world burn." He is no more complicated than that.
What I noticed about the movie was that it was 'real'. It basically removed Batman from the world of the comic book & positioned him as much as possible in the real world. OK there's still some elements that require the suspension of disbelief. For example, despite claiming to be impulsive and against planning the Joker carries out highly complicated plots on the fly that would normally require a large organization, sophisticated intelligence and highly skilled followers (not mental patients and fools).
But still, IMO, the movie took Batman as much into reality as he could plausibly be. In real life, the Joker would be a terrifying source of evil. He is worse even than Al Qaeda because his terrorism is motivated not even by any political agenda. The city reacts to him almost as I think it would IRL....the echos of 9/11 were in the movie but taken to an even higher level as politicians and citizens confront a terrorist who seems unstoppable.
I thought the depiction of how Gotham confronts the Joker was quite well done. He brings out fear and distrust and generates panic. But society is also resilient and able to turn to its better instincts rather than throw away its principles. I'm thinking here not only of the sacrifices Batman and Dent were willing to make (Dent making himself a target and Batman giving up his love interest for the sake of the greater good) but the people themselves. The Ferry scene in particular. That's an old cliche in comic books, the villian sets up a situation where the hero can't save two groups at once and must choose. Usually the genre flubs the issue by having the hero find a way to save both (I'm thinking of Spiderman here). There's no flubbing in this world, choices have to be made and people die but people can also choose to reject the selfish choice and opt for the good.
Likewise, I noticed that most of the movie takes place in the daytime, instead of night. The buildings look real, even Batman Begins played up the comic book vision of the city. Batman looks a bit silly in his suit & he is confronted with copycats who rightly ask him what right does he have to monopolize the superhero role. There's also a nagging question of how much longer can this superhero thing go on? There's also the very real fact that people are starting to figure out who Batman really is.
The artistic price for this, though, is that it does limit the relaunch of this franchise. In the real world Batman wouldn't last very long and despite being able to smuggle in some comic book tools into this world of hyper-realism Batman in this movie seems very finite. I would be surprised if they could produce more than maybe one or two more movies out of this Batman and still preserve the quality.
That's when it hit me: these "intellectual" conversations are placed in the mouths of comic-book characters. I don't mean to assume a conceited air about literary characters being inherently better than comic-book characters, but Batman and the Joker really are comic book characters. By their very nature they aren't complex; they're outlandish, attention-getting devices, and the point of their extravagance was never so much to tell a story as it was to sell comic books.
Or are they mythic characters? That is what makes it fun to revisit their stories again and again, trying variations of the same thing. Yes they were created to be outlandish in order to sell comic books but that begs the question; why does this type of thing sell comic books?
Thanks for the comment!
Before I reply, I want to admit that I have had second & third thoughts about this post even from before the time I sat down to write it. I seem to have some contradictions as it is stated. I'd like to imagine that, if only I had time (or interest) to think & edit this more, I'd have a much more consistent post.
Having said that...
I'd like to point out that I don't think comic book movies are inherently bad or incapable of communicating deep thoughts. In fact I loved the first X-Men movie.
However, I don't think the characters are "mythical". Maybe I don't know enough about myth, but my understanding about myth is that mythical characters such as Hercules, Beowulf, or Gilgamesh don't generally maintain secret identities and dress up like bats or deranged clowns. This is part of my point: comic book characters, with their ridiculous getups, immediately lose the ability to convincingly portray deep or serious ideas, unlike mythical characters.
In addition, mythical protagonists don't generally have to save the world; rather, their quests are intensely personal. If Hercules, Beowulf, or Gilgamesh had failed in their quests, the world would have moved on. (Hercules' labors are a good example. Cleaning donkey droppings of mythical proportions may be impressive, but the world would have gone on if he hadn't done so.) The protagonist's trials rather represent our necessary interior struggles through life.
One cannot say the same about comic book characters. I've read quite a number of comic books and I can't see how Batman would teach me something about my interior struggles along life's journey. In addition, the actions of comic book heroes are always necessary to save the world, or at least the city, from the clutches of evil. This seems too outlandish in comparison to myth—which despite its reliance on unbelievable situations still refrains from making its hero the necessary savior of the city or the world. (This also distinguishes mythical protagonists from religious figures who are necessary saviors of the world, while at the same time incorporating many aspects of myth, including their intensely personal nature.)
Again, I am distinguishing between comic book characters and graphic novel characters. The problem isn't the medium, but the character proper.
Contrast the Joker with the "unstoppable evil" that appears in many Coen brothers movies such as Barton Fink, O Brother Where Art Thou, and most recently No Country for Old Men.
For example, despite claiming to be impulsive and against planning the Joker carries out highly complicated plots on the fly that would normally require a large organization, sophisticated intelligence and highly skilled followers (not mental patients and fools).
I also wondered whether the Joker's highly complicated schemes belied his claim to represent pure chaos. In the end I don't know. From a mathematical point of view his claim would be insightful: mathematical chaos involves the ability of small perturbations to send everything awry. (Also it's not clear that the Joker's work is done on the fly. To the contrary it seems to be meticulously set up.)
As for fools, there is a wonderful poster at despair.com about what can happen when you get a bunch of fools together. My (perhaps mistaken) understanding of organized crime is that the upper echelons tend to contain a lot of very smart people, while the muscle at the bottom tends to consist of disposables. The disposables frequently imagine themselves to be indispensable, much as the Joker's patsies during the bank job. Also like the Joker's patsies, they frequently learn the hard way that they are not indispensable, although (again) in somewhat more mundane fashion.
I thought the depiction of how Gotham confronts the Joker was quite well done.
Our thoughts take radically different direction here. No right-thinking police would put the citizenry at risk for such a public funeral. The ferry scene, although it may appeal to romantic sentiment, is certainly not the natural consequence of a real-life situation. If it were, I don't imagine we'd have quite so many wars, or quite so many criminals for that matter.
(Although, yes, that is a good turn on the usual comic-book technique of finding a way for the hero to save everyone—or, how they ruined the Spiderman movie franchise.)
Yes they were created to be outlandish in order to sell comic books but that begs the question; why does this type of thing sell comic books?
That's an interesting question, and I'm happy to assert, without the ability or the interest to think too deeply about it, that it sells comic books merely because at a certain surface level we enjoy ridiculous entertainment, and certain patterns work very well. Trying to attach profound discourse to characters associated with ridiculous entertainment fails to elevate the characters, but serves to debase the discourse instead. Again I'd observe that much of what passes for "mature" entertainment in the comic book world is actually quite immature, but the comic book industry has a peculiar psychology such that dressing up a story in nudity, profanity, and such like gives it a presumption of being "adult" material.
Maybe I don't know enough about myth, but my understanding about myth is that mythical characters such as Hercules, Beowulf, or Gilgamesh don't generally maintain secret identities and dress up like bats or deranged clowns. This is part of my point: comic book characters, with their ridiculous getups, immediately lose the ability to convincingly portray deep or serious ideas, unlike mythical characters.
Perhaps the set up (secret identity, ridiculous outfits) are just a modern way story tellers can set up a new myth. Earlier mythmakers could set their story in the distant past or as Lucas did "in a galaxy far, far away".
In addition, mythical protagonists don't generally have to save the world; rather, their quests are intensely personal. If Hercules, Beowulf, or Gilgamesh had failed in their quests, the world would have moved on.
True, this seems to have become a standard comic book cliche. This also leads to the problem with setting up super-heros in the real world....why don't they solve the real world's problems? This was an issue over half a century ago when many kids rightly pondered why Superman didn't go after Nazi Germany with his superpowers.
Not all such myths are so personal, though. There's plenty of myths that revolve around great battles, the founding of an Empire and so on. Explanatory myths (like the founding of Rome or how humans got fire) do have an element of 'saving the world' even if the 'world' is envisioned in much more local terms.
I agree, though, that comic books do overdo the 'save the world' idea. As Spiderman said when confronted with yet another supervillian in Spiderman3, "where do they get these people"....it always seems odd that as soon as a superhero dons the outfit then does the supervillian show up. It also stretches credibility to have a superhero wondering if he could put down his outfit when he lives in a world of supernatural villians that only he can defeat. Can Peter Parker really just go to college class while Sandman smashes the city up "Cloverfield" style?
I also wondered whether the Joker's highly complicated schemes belied his claim to represent pure chaos.
I've been thinking about this. One part of it is just a concession one has to make to the comic book genre's suspension of disbelief. Like in kung fu movies and their clones, you have to just accept that martial arts is sufficient for one man to take on an unlimited number of men in hand to hand combat. Another part is given in Afred's observation that the Joker is a man who just wants to see the world burn. Despite what he said to Dent, he is quite happy to do a lot of intricate planning. His end, though, is to watch the world burn while lesser criminals would use such skills to amass wealth or power.
Our thoughts take radically different direction here. No right-thinking police would put the citizenry at risk for such a public funeral.
After 9/11 I remember there was lots of talk over how we had to go on. Major events like the Superbowl continued but with very high security. I think Gotham's reaction was quite realistic. The city attempted to assert its continued existence "business as usual" while the Joker's continued success leaves society speechless. A point of unrealism, though, seems to be that Gotham's police force is amazingly vulnerable to infilitrators. In the first movie the police force was highly corrupt and the infilitrators were only staging a brief strike. Here it seemed a stretch to imagine that the honor guard could be replaced with Joker's stand-ins carrying armed weapons.
I'm not sure the ferry scene was so unrealistic (aside from the Joker's ability to transport and set up large amounts of explosives in large ferries, hospitals and other buildings during a period of hightened security). People are very reluctant to kill other people, even other people who they think are guilty (like the prisoner ferry) or even people they think will try to kill them. Governments and military organizations throughout history have had to deal with the fact that on the front line, face to face, it is hard to get people to kill others. At least initially, desensitize people to violence, weed out the people who 'freeze up' and dehumanize the enemy relentlessly and you have a force that will kill.
Trying to attach profound discourse to characters associated with ridiculous entertainment fails to elevate the characters, but serves to debase the discourse instead
As I said, I think what is interesting about this movie is that it's a bridge between the comic book world and the real one. Another movie that was like that was Unbreakable....but it was talking about a different type of 'superhero'. It is as if some elements of the comic book world had slipped into the real one and the limits are showing. Batman does look silly in his suit. The 'secret identity' is not plausible to maintain for long in the real world. Aside from the existence of supervillians, there are real questions about the ethics and wisdom of tolerating such characters operating ouside the law.
(This also distinguishes mythical protagonists from religious figures who are necessary saviors of the world, while at the same time incorporating many aspects of myth, including their intensely personal nature.)
Perhaps you've hit upon the nature of their appeal. These are essentially religious myths set in a modern age. This would explain the need to set them as close to our world as possible (as opposed to setting them up in fantasy worlds totally unrelated to ours like the Star Wars Universe or Tolkein's Middle Earth) with as plausible a backstory as possible (fake-scientific explanations, billionaire playboy able to aquire the best tech., alien from another planet). It also hits on many other cliche's that never seem to die....having to 'choose' between a normal life and one of service to humanity, having to resist the temptation of power or to start acting like the enemy, the infamous "choose which one you're going to save" story, and so on. And, of course, the "sacrifice your life and you save humanity" meme which comes directly from Christianity.
Sorry for the tardy reply.
This also leads to the problem with setting up super-heros in the real world....why don't they solve the real world's problems?
Oddly, that never bothered me. I don't necessarily want my heroes to solve real problems, but if Gotham is always in danger of being blown up (say) suspension of disbelief is being strained.
A point of unrealism, though, seems to be that Gotham's police force is amazingly vulnerable to infilitrators.
Curiously, this doesn't trouble me at all. My understanding from historical films such as The Untouchables, as well as my reading on the Italian Mafia, is that this is a very real danger for any police force.
At least initially, desensitize people to violence, weed out the people who 'freeze up' and dehumanize the enemy relentlessly and you have a force that will kill.
That's the problem. Many law-abiding citizens have a dehumanized view of criminals, and many criminals have a dehumanized view of law-abiding citizens. Listen to debates on capital punishment, for example.
There are criminals like the good criminal on that boat, but I find it hard to believe that in a real situation you wouldn't fact some kind of riot instigated by the worst of them.
Another movie that was like that was Unbreakable....but it was talking about a different type of 'superhero'.
I hated that film too. I seem to be the only person in the world who liked The Village.
These are essentially religious myths set in a modern age.
Here I really disagree. I can't think of anything in any Batman story that rises to The Epic of Gilgamesh, which is ponders a transcendent notion of the meaning of life. You might come close with Hercules but Greek myths in general seem to be quite shallow, which may be why the Greeks do not seem to have taken them very seriously.
Tolkien was indeed trying to construct a modern myth, and he took cues from Christianity, in particular from his Catholicism. I see a profound chasm between Tolkien's thought and anything in any comic book story—again, as distinguished from genuine graphic novels. Likewise, Lucas strove for something a little more transcendent, and although I think he failed miserably I still concede that he is a step well above the comic book level.
I don't doubt that authors of some Batman stories are trying to rise to the level of myth. To the contrary, my entire point is that all they succeed in doing is trivializing the point. Batman, and the comic book characters in general, are too ridiculous to serve as mythical characters.
…and watch me change my mind one day.
Post a Comment