This series of films is known for its realism, though. Nolan has removed any material that seems otherworldly or impossible. In this version, The Joker is a maniac that got scarred during childhood (or so he says, he is a psychopath), so he is much more believable. Nolan has attempted to put human characters with real human problems in this series, and, I think the accolades the films are getting speak volumes.
Nolan took the "Super" out of the Super Hero, and the result is a much more engaging and believable series. I am actually curious what your take would be on The Dark Knight. Even if that stuff isn't up your alley, the film stands well as just a crime drama, as well. If you decide to give it a shot, make sure to post some thoughts on not only the film, but what you think of the attempt to make this stuff not only believable, but relevant and important.
I'm not sure if you were addressing me, Sedai, but I'll take a shot at it. I grew up when the original Batman comics were popular, and that's the Batman I know. I've seen a couple of the "Dark Knight" Batman comics, and my general impression is that it's the film noir of comics with brooding, self-assessment by Batman who, like Spiderman, is thought by some to be a hero and by others, including police, to be just another criminal. (That's the sort of thing that the Lone Ranger used to run into--What? A masked man on the side of the law?
) But soul-searching and self-analysis, fear of giving in to "the Dark Side," can be interesting if it doesn't go overboard like Marlon Brando's portrayal of Fletcher Christian.
So not knowing the comic book series and having not seen the movie, I'm not in any position to "judge" or even assess the film and I won't. I did see parts of the earlier film (
Batman Returns?) on TV, never a full viewing, but I gather that Bruce Wayne, who some think is dead, learns his fighting skills from monks in Tibet, then returns home and with the help of his butler Michael Caine and a technical expert in what used to be the family industry, Morgan Freeman, he rigs uo all the fanciful Batman gadgets we all love, including that Batmobile that has more high-tech dodads than the space shuttle and is faster than a NASCAR winner and more rugged than an Army tank. The villains in that first film looked fairly normal, although the guy with the crazy mask and powder isn't exactly your average Dr. Kildare.
All I've seen of Heath Ledger's Joker is in print, so I don't know if he wears a strange costume and makeup other than that streak of lipstick. And apparently he got his unusual face in a knife-fight or something, compared to Jack Nicholson's Joker who gets dunked in toxic chemicals. Knife fights are more common in real life than toxic waste accidents, so in that sense perhaps Ledger's Joker is more grounded in reality than Nicholson's strange personna. Still, presenting one's self in a way that makes one stand out from the crowd usually is not a good move for criminals--look what happened to John Gotti when he started attracting attention.
As I understand it from one review I've read, the Joker "sets up what he calls a social experiment that's meant to show the malign essence of human nature." Now that's not the normal thing one would expect a criminal or a psychotic to do, either.
Anyway, at the core of this creation, you've got a rich young man who plays the playboy during "office hours," but then becomes this secret, strangely attired vigilante who uses whatever fighting and other powers that he learned from some kick-ass monks in Tibet, along with prototypes of all the martial technology his daddy's company cobbled together for World War 3, incuding the afore-mentioned jet powered auto. And he does this in a city so corrupt that only a handful of cops and one lawyer in the DA's office (at least that's what I surmised from bits of the first movie) are honest enough to be trusted--a little. A guy who can appear out of nowhere, disappear in a blink of an eye, hang upside down, jump from one highrise rooftop to another, and shoot the pimento out of an olive at 50 feet.
When you start with a main character like that, any talk of eliminating "other-worldly or impossible material" seems to be said with tongue in cheek.
As for saddling superheroes with normal human problems and woes, that reminds me of the line in
My Favorite Year: "I don't need my heroes to be lifesize! I need you bigger than life!"
It doesn't surprise me that the film is doing good box-office. The Batman franchise has a built-in audience, as does the Black Knight series with its large fan-base. Ledger's death and the resulting publicity about his posthumus next-to-last role just increased the anticipation for this film. A similar thing happened to
Giant after the death of James Dean.
I, however, am not familar with Ledger's work, although even the critics who don't like
The Dark Knight say his Joker is "the movie's annimating force," thanks to his "startling performance." But the movie is so far off my radar screen that I didn't even consider it when I went to the movies last weekend (I assume it was in the theaters by then).
Instead, I went to
Mama Mia! (my wife's choice) not expecting much since I never was an ABBA fan, didn't like Disco, and until lately never cared much for Streep, other than her roles in
Death Becomes Her and
Devil Wears Prada. So I was surprised to find that
Mama Mia! is the most enjoyable film I've seen in years. A funny and exuberant musical with no special message and a completely unknown (to me) cast except for Streep and Brosnan (who I also never cared much for).
I only went to
Batman because a lady I was dating wanted to see it (she had already bought me a Batman T-shirt), but I liked that movie. So I may see
The Dark Knight some day. I never say "never" any more.
Reply to Topic
