Much has been said about this movie. It's darkness, it's performances, it's awesomeness. I loved the movie. Loved every second of every minute. It, at times, brought out the child in me. The fist-pumping, adrenaline-rushing, beat-the-bad-guys child in me. If you have not seen it, you should, just as an exercise in why movies can be cool.
Ledger's performance was good, perhaps even great. He did not supersede any previous interpretation of the Joker, he merely brought his own to the role. Embodied it in his own way. Whatever you read about the excellence he called upon, his Joker is worthy of the approbation. And if the Joker never appears on screen again, it may very well be because it never needs to. And while I liked Ledger, I still stand by Nicholson who was vastly different in his approach. While Ledger nailed every mannerism, every dark nuance of the character that could manifest itself physically did (especially the tongue flickering), the villain lacked swagger. Nicholson gave the Joker that villainous swagger, an arrogance, a propensity for narcissism and evil. Ledger's Joker was vastly dark but I perceived him as a lightweight. Just because he kills coldly and without pretense does not necessarily make him a worthy adversary -- though I concede he was to Batman. Ledger's Joker lacked some weight, some material, physical swagger that precedes him in the moments before he appears on screen. With Nicholson, you felt the Joker coming before he appeared. I didn't get that with Ledger. Still good though, perhaps Oscar worthy too.
If you've seen it, you've seen the darkness of the film. It's strength. It's brilliance of it's characters. It's non-plot plot. The problem of evil. It was at the forefront of the movie and it cannot be ignored. It's also at the forefront of life around us. The movie did well to incorporate the goodness of mankind, even in small amounts as a necessary adversary, as the true rival of the evil. I compare the problem of evil in this movie to the problem of good in another movie I just watched: Lars and the Real Girl. For that entire film I wanted, expected, anticipated the proclivity man has for evil to show itself. But it never did. That movie was all about the problem of good. It believed in the goodness of people in large amounts. I highly recommend Lars and the Real Girl. It is utterly moving.
Now The Dark Knight believed in it too. And perhaps, in the small amounts we saw we came away with the notion that goodness, even as small of a grain of sand, can combat and overturn and right the largest amounts of evil.
One other thing, I tire of ketch phrases. Perhaps that's the staple of comic books, but the "he's more than a hero" sounds more like a Nickelback lyric than good writing.
Ledger's performance was good, perhaps even great. He did not supersede any previous interpretation of the Joker, he merely brought his own to the role. Embodied it in his own way. Whatever you read about the excellence he called upon, his Joker is worthy of the approbation. And if the Joker never appears on screen again, it may very well be because it never needs to. And while I liked Ledger, I still stand by Nicholson who was vastly different in his approach. While Ledger nailed every mannerism, every dark nuance of the character that could manifest itself physically did (especially the tongue flickering), the villain lacked swagger. Nicholson gave the Joker that villainous swagger, an arrogance, a propensity for narcissism and evil. Ledger's Joker was vastly dark but I perceived him as a lightweight. Just because he kills coldly and without pretense does not necessarily make him a worthy adversary -- though I concede he was to Batman. Ledger's Joker lacked some weight, some material, physical swagger that precedes him in the moments before he appears on screen. With Nicholson, you felt the Joker coming before he appeared. I didn't get that with Ledger. Still good though, perhaps Oscar worthy too.
If you've seen it, you've seen the darkness of the film. It's strength. It's brilliance of it's characters. It's non-plot plot. The problem of evil. It was at the forefront of the movie and it cannot be ignored. It's also at the forefront of life around us. The movie did well to incorporate the goodness of mankind, even in small amounts as a necessary adversary, as the true rival of the evil. I compare the problem of evil in this movie to the problem of good in another movie I just watched: Lars and the Real Girl. For that entire film I wanted, expected, anticipated the proclivity man has for evil to show itself. But it never did. That movie was all about the problem of good. It believed in the goodness of people in large amounts. I highly recommend Lars and the Real Girl. It is utterly moving.
Now The Dark Knight believed in it too. And perhaps, in the small amounts we saw we came away with the notion that goodness, even as small of a grain of sand, can combat and overturn and right the largest amounts of evil.
One other thing, I tire of ketch phrases. Perhaps that's the staple of comic books, but the "he's more than a hero" sounds more like a Nickelback lyric than good writing.
3 comments:
How was the joker in the tent scene? Oops, wrong movie.
Joker, I can't quit you.
Just saw it yesterday...
The Joker's lip smacking freaked me out a bit - it was scarily perfect. I thought Heath was wonderful. But I also loved loved loved him in 10 Things I Hate About You, so I suppose my opinion doesn't count for too much.
Nice comparison, and I agree completely.
Although Heath was great, Nicholson's Joker will always take top honors with me.
"This town needs an enema." -The Joker. Batman-1989
I like to think he was talking about Columbus.
-z
Post a Comment