The Dark Knight In Heath We Trust: A Ledgerbration: The TDK Joker Appreciation Thread

[The Senator]

I think that's debatable man. These people don't think that they need "legitimate" reasons. The fact that a movie was made about a love story between two men was all they needed.

In some cases. But once they get word that a main character acted in a predatory manner, that's enough to send them off the rocker and give them a fairly legitimate argument.

I remember when 'Queer as Folk' debuted on Showtime. A conservative group was up in arms because one of the main characters, who was in his thirties, was having sex with a seventeen year old. In some senses, these groups know that they will be mocked simply for attacking a movie or a show because it has a gay character or plot in it. If they can find a universal issue which would concern anybody-- predatory actions, statutory rape, etc.-- then that legitimizes whatever attacks they may make against the show.

All they have to do is go on TV and say "it's bad enough two gay people were having sex, but the fact that one of them practically date raped the other was too much." They generate attention. They get people thinking. And, in some cases, they convince folks who are on the fence about homosexuality that there may be something utterly wrong there. Protect your children, run for the hills, cover your eyes-- the gay rapists of "Brokeback Mountain" are coming to corrupt you!

It strikes me as odd that no one saw this coming. Thankfully, it didn't escalate into something worse than it was. But I still feel it's a questionable scene which caused a lot of unnecessary controversy (Not to mention, it makes me and other views uncomfortable).

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I think that's debatable man. These people don't think that they need "legitimate" reasons. The fact that a movie was made about a love story between two men was all they needed.

Yes, exactly.

And as I've already stated, I was pleasantly surprised when a few of my conservatively-brought-up friends could say "I thought it was a really beautiful love story, even if it was about two guys..." Without the film they might not have had in their minds any examples of real love and passion between men, rather than the religious bashing and damnation they constantly hear in church about gays.

And perhaps it was the first time ever they had seen two men portrayed in a somewhat mainstream film (at least it got a lot of mainstream press) as lovers and complex human beings rather than silly steriotypes or crazy sex fiends. There might have been smaller films that did more, or were more groundbreaking in some other way about homosexuality, but this film was clearly a turning point in US film history by subject matter and distribution and press coverage.

 

[Crook]

Hmmm, I'll pass, thanks. I think it destroys the trust of the relationship to start off groping the other person in their sleep.

I was kidding. But I did it as a joke once, and she took it just fine.

So, it's acceptable because it's impulsive? I don't buy into that.

I didn't say it was acceptable. I said it wasn't predatory. The term invokes a certain waiting period, testing out the waters, or scoping out the environment and such. The fact that it was impulsive suggests it wasn't a planned maneuver.

How?

How is it not? How can you possibly come to the conclusion that all homosexuals are evil and all that mumbo jumbo from one scene? That is the very definition of generalizing. Taking one event and applying it to an entire division of people.

I don't personally think it justified some views that homosexuals are a bunch of lustful, thoughtless sex fiends. Others do, though. And this scene fed into those narrow-minded views-- if folks wanted to interpret it that way. The fact that this scene was blasted on Fox News, and by several film critics, proves that this scene caused considerable controversy.

This entire film was controversial from the subject it was tackling alone. If the tent scene never existed, you'd better believe the critics would've jumped down on a different scene.

I tend to see arguments from all angles. I argue that this behavior would be unacceptable in all situations. Others, however, view homosexuality at a lower stature than they do heterosexuality. Naturally, a scene like this would cause controversy, whereas a scene involving a heterosexual couple would not be regarded as such. And if someone like myself felt as if this scene crossed a line, then someone who views homosexuality with utmost contempt would view it the same way.

When you deal with a hot button issue such as homosexuality, you have to be careful with how you present it. Yes, this was just a gay love story at its heart-- but, it was a mainstream movie which presented homosexuality to every day Americans and moviegoers. Folks who disapproved of homosexuality could very well have been turned off by the concept altogether simply by that scene. It was the wrong way to initiate that relationship, in my opinion.

This isn't a shot at you, but....who the hell cares what homophobes think? Seriously, it's their insecurity, their problem, their fault. To suggest altering how a film is shot in order to appease certain narrow-minded idiots undermines the artist's original vision. That is something I am completely against.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

In some cases. But once they get word that a main character acted in a predatory manner, that's enough to send them off the rocker and give them a fairly legitimate argument.

I remember when 'Queer as Folk' debuted on Showtime. A conservative group was up in arms because one of the main characters, who was in his thirties, was having sex with a seventeen year old. In some senses, these groups know that they will be mocked simply for attacking a movie or a show because it has a gay character or plot in it. If they can find a universal issue which would concern anybody-- predatory actions, statutory rape, etc.-- then that legitimizes whatever attacks they may make against the show.

All they have to do is go on TV and say "it's bad enough two gay people were having sex, but the fact that one of them practically date raped the other was too much." They generate attention. They get people thinking. And, in some cases, they convince folks who are on the fence about homosexuality that there may be something utterly wrong there. Protect your children, run for the hills, cover your eyes-- the gay rapists of "Brokeback Mountain" are coming to corrupt you!

It strikes me as odd that no one saw this coming. Thankfully, it didn't escalate into something worse than it was. But I still feel it's a questionable scene which caused a lot of unnecessary controversy (Not to mention, it makes me and other views uncomfortable).

But the people who are going to say stuff like that will say it no matter what, so who cares? Do you have any idea how insane these people are? These are the same people who think the teletubbies will make your children gay. Who think that Barney will make your children gay because he is an un-manly purple. The same people who think that soy milk with it's "plant estrogens" will turn little boys into flaming queers.

They are utterly beyond belief, and they will say anything as long as it gets them attention and spreads hatred. Brokeback Mtn did not do anything wrong. Instead you choose to, for some BIZARRE reason defend THEM rather than see the beauty in an amazing film.

Come on now. You know I have a point.

 

[The Senator]

This is the vibe i get from you. No offense. I'm sure you're able to be happy in your way and your view of relationships and people, but also I think there's alot of experiance out there you're willfully ignoring.

It was a postive gay film because it treated gays (or bisexuals) in a truly honest and equal manner, like we're accustomed to seeing straight relationships. But you've singled out the behaviour Brokeback because it's gay. You've said that because it is gay it must be treated in a more ideal fashion, or else people might think that *shock* gay people are exactly like the rest of us. The fact ism people are predatory in romance, so what? and if you really had paid attention to it's critism and broader reception you'd know there was far more controversy for Brokeback postioning itself as a gay film when in fact the characters were actually bisexual. Big difference, depending on who you talk to. The film apparently dealt with discrimination and alienation yet these were characters who were able to enjoy sex (and subsequently, marriages, families and lives) with other women. They were not gay. If they were it would have been a different story. So stop pretending like you're watching out for homos on this point; you've merey picked something that doesn't fit with your personal values (promiscuity? lust? uninvited advances?) and saying that the film is somehow wrong or insidious because of it. Too bad the film was made for a far broader audience than yourself.

Now this is all too funny.

Spoiler

I'm not just watching out for homosexuals-- I am one myself. I am the finance director for my campus's GLBT outreach club, and I'm quite active in GLBT activism besides that. This movie doesn't just irk me, but many others in the gay community for the reasons I have listed.

I didn't think people would resort to accusing me of being anti-gay, so there was no reason to mention this little detail of my life, but once the accusations start flying, I guess I have to get far more personal than I want to on this board.

Now, you were saying something about my personal values...

 

[The Senator]

But the people who are going to say stuff like that will say it no matter what, so who cares? Do you have any idea how insane these people are? These are the same people who think the teletubbies will make your children gay. Who think that Barney will make your children gay because he is an un-manly purple. The same people who think that soy milk with it's "plant estrogens" will turn little boys into flaming queers.

They are utterly beyond belief, and they will say anything as long as it gets them attention and spreads hatred. Brokeback Mtn did not do anything wrong. Instead you choose to, for some BIZARRE reason defend THEM rather than see the beauty in an amazing film.

Come on now. You know I have a point.

I've seen the beauty in this film.

I just didn't like that scene. And I feel that some of the characterizations and eventual plot twists were a bit cliched. But, I feel like I'm talking myself in circles here...

 

[The Senator]

But the people who are going to say stuff like that will say it no matter what, so who cares? Do you have any idea how insane these people are? These are the same people who think the teletubbies will make your children gay. Who think that Barney will make your children gay because he is an un-manly purple. The same people who think that soy milk with it's "plant estrogens" will turn little boys into flaming queers.

They are utterly beyond belief, and they will say anything as long as it gets them attention and spreads hatred. Brokeback Mtn did not do anything wrong. Instead you choose to, for some BIZARRE reason defend THEM rather than see the beauty in an amazing film.

Come on now. You know I have a point.

You have a point.

Sadly, these people are the most vocal people in our society. They will always receive considerable attention. It's better not to give them a reason to go ape**** in the first place. Make them look bad. Make them struggle to find fault with a film. There's so much they could attack without even attacking homosexuality itself. And because they wouldn't sound like a bunch of lunatics by saying things like "Twist and Del Mar were unfaithful," "Twist tried to grope Del Mar while he was sleeping," etc., their points are legitimized all the same.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

You have a point.

Sadly, these people are the most vocal people in our society. They will always receive considerable attention. It's better not to give them a reason to go ape**** in the first place. Make them look bad. Make them struggle to find fault with a film. There's so much they could attack without even attacking homosexuality itself. And because they wouldn't sound like a bunch of lunatics by saying things like "Twist and Del Mar were unfaithful," "Twist tried to grope Del Mar while he was sleeping," etc., their points are legitimized all the same.

I'd personally rather ignore them as the insane bunch of idiots they are, and if the American press is too lacking in moral fiber to ignore their hate mongering (which they clearly are) thats just another reason not to take the press seriously. I mean, CNN will play funny youtube videos in it's broadcast now days. How anyone can care about what they have to say is beyond me.

But one thing is for sure, I would never want to see independent film makers creating their work by first saying to themselves "well how can we make sure this doesn't give the religious right nazis any reason to complain...." That would be a bunch of really pathetic films, IMHO.

 

[Nepenthes]

Now this is all too funny.

Spoiler

I'm not just watching out for homosexuals-- I am one myself. I am the finance director for my campus's GLBT outreach club, and I'm quite active in GLBT activism besides that. This movie doesn't just irk me, but many others in the gay community for the reasons I have listed.

I didn't think people would resort to accusing me of being anti-gay, so there was no reason to mention this little detail of my life, but once the accusations start flying, I guess I have to get far more personal than I want to on this board.

Now, you were saying something about my personal values...

So you're gay....you present that like it automatically voids any other point . You're still using a measure of personal morality (and a rather naive morality I might add) to attack the films integrity. You're still advocating a different standard for gay and straight films and you continue to ignore major refutes. apologies if i'm getting personal or presumptive but for an activist you seem pretty tame. Like you're more concerned with projecting ideal or 'safe' versions of homosexuality rather than further upsetting people who already don't like you, by merely allowing gays to be themselves.

You don't have to be a moral paragon to be a good ambassador for gays, whether that applies to a film or an individual.

 

[Marx]

I've seen the beauty in this film.

I just didn't like that scene. And I feel that some of the characterizations and eventual plot twists were a bit cliched. But, I feel like I'm talking myself in circles here...

I think we're all talking in circles Jman.

The point is that that scene can be interpreted in two completely different ways - predatory or impulsive. How the scene really comes across is up to the individual viewing the film. What comes off as predatory to some comes off as impulsive to another. It all comes down to how you personally interpret it.

But that can be said for anything...

 

[The Senator]

I'd personally rather ignore them as the insane bunch of idiots they are, and if the American press is too lacking in moral fiber to ignore their hate mongering (which they clearly are) thats just another reason not to take the press seriously. I mean, CNN will play funny youtube videos in it's broadcast now days. How anyone can care about what they have to say is beyond me.

Well, the news media would be denying those folks a say. They have every right to believe that homosexuality is sinful and unacceptable as I have a right to believe it's absolutely acceptable. Most of the folks who make it on to cable news aren't bigots, they're members of the religious community who adheres to one belief system. It's only fair to let them speak as an opposing side to the argument.

Unfortunately, many folks do care what these people have to say, and that's why a film dealing with such sensitive subject matter should have as few controversies as possible.

 

[Crook]

Well, the news media would be denying those folks a say. They have every right to believe that homosexuality is sinful and unacceptable as I have a right to believe it's absolutely acceptable. Most of the folks who make it on to cable news aren't bigots, they're members of the religious community who adheres to one belief system. It's only fair to let them speak as an opposing side to the argument.

It's one thing to have a right in a belief or a chance to voice an opinion. It's completely another thing to promote hate and bigotry. In which case, I'm absolutely for ignoring those individuals.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Unfortunately, many folks do care what these people have to say, and that's why a film dealing with such sensitive subject matter should have as few controversies as possible.

It SHOULD have as few controversies as possible?

So you don't believe at all, that it is the job of the independent film-maker, the job of the artists, to push cultural boundaries, to start conversations, to point out injustice?

What meaning would films about sensitive subject matter have if they avoided all controversy (even assuming thats possible, which it clearly isn't?) It sounds like you are advocating that they gay people sit quietly in the corner with the artists and not make too much noise or fuss as not to upset the very sensitive religious right wackos.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that is a solution, and it sounds almost insultingly cowardly on the minority party. Where would the black people be if they didn't march? Where would women be if they didn't ask for the vote? All of these things were controversial in their day, it doesn't mean that they should not have been done.

What if Rosa Parks have up her seat on the bus, just so that she could avoid any "controversy." ??? For shame!

 

[The Senator]

So you're gay....you present that like it automatcally voids any other point . You're still using a measure of personal morality to attack the films integrity. You're still advocating a different standard for gay and straight films. I also find it confusing that a gay person can think in such black and white terms. And you continue to ignore major refutes. You have nothing to stand on here; you're only continuing out of principle and ego.

Uh... what?

I've said this, again and again (and this will seriously be the last time I write it, I'm sick and tired of repeating myself, especially when people refuse to read what I have to say), I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

The relationship can be gay, straight, trans, gender queer, animal or alien... any forced sexual act would disturb me.

Meaning... there's no double standard there! If a man forces himself on a woman, it repulses me. If a man forces himself on a man, that repulses me!

Same thing.

Same standards.

No double standards.

I think that, before you try making a point, you should be sure what it is you're trying to make. Because I'm not saying that the scene was wrong because it is gay. And if it helps matters more, I believe that similar scenes in hetero romance films are uncalled for as well.

My whole argument is, these scenes generate controversy, it fuels criticism against the film itself-- regardless of how touching or moving the film is.

I'm not the only person seeing things in black and white here.

 

[Nepenthes]

In that case I simply have trouble believing that you are troubled when you see the same scenario in a hetero context. You must be a very special person, otherwise that just smacks of self-delusion. Were you troubled when Beast locked Beauty in his castle? When Prince charming kissed SLEEPING Beauty? If this is the stuff of childrens stories I think adults should be expected to be able to handle a little more. And we do. We all know know nothing is clean and clear cut in real life especially when it comes to sex and attraction. You seem to be holding everyone else to an impossbily high and simplistic standard. Oh but you're merely concerned with how gays are percived, right. So from now on only perfect gays must be shown on film, the kind that sit down and say "I like you, you like me" before touching each other. Like the couple from the sex-education video I saw when i was 12.

 

[The Senator]

It SHOULD have as few controversies as possible?

So you don't believe at all, that it is the job of the independent film-maker, the job of the artists, to push cultural boundaries, to start conversations, to point out injustice?

What meaning would films about sensitive subject matter have if they avoided all controversy (even assuming thats possible, which it clearly isn't?) It sounds like you are advocating that they gay people sit quietly in the corner with the artists and not make too much noise or fuss as not to upset the very sensitive religious right wackos.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that is a solution, and it sounds almost insultingly cowardly on the minority party. Where would the black people be if they didn't march? Where would women be if they didn't ask for the vote? All of these things were controversial in their day, it doesn't mean that they should not have been done.

What if Rosa Parks have up her seat on the bus, just so that she could avoid any "controversy." ??? For shame!

There are differences between film and real life.

Leading a real life revolt would generate much more attention than a movie.

Rosa Parks's story wasn't a film released in the 1950s which received a lot of attention. It was a real life event. Incomparable to the likes of "Brokeback Mountain."

Gay folks aren't marching through the streets because Ang Lee and co. came down and saved the day. And they aren't idolizing the performances of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, as if they are some sort of saving grace and the faces of the GLBT movement. No, we're still searching for acceptance-- and this film barely put a dent in how we're received in this country.

Hell, I think it can be argued that "Will & Grace" did more to help normalize the gay community than "Brokeback Mountain" did. Why? Because it presented the characters in that show as ordinary, everyday people. It was like a straight sitcom, but with gay characters. And while I find that show annoying as all hell, I think there's more evidence which suggests that sitcom did more to make homosexuality more mainstream and acceptable than "Brokeback Mountain."

This was a good movie. A touching film. A great love story.

But that's where it ends. Its effects were short-lived. They were not influential. I don't think many heterosexual people are going out and helping the advancement of the GLBT cause because they saw this film. Politicians in Washington aren't demanding changes to GLBT policies because "Brokeback Mountain" opened their eyes.

I'm insulted as a political scientist and a homosexual that you would even consider this on par with something like the civil rights movement, that you would even draw this comparison at all because I disagree with how a scene played out in this film... that you would believe that I feel these filmmakers should be silenced... that's not the case at all. These film makers have a right to put whatever they want on screen. But they have to ask how certain aspects of their film will be received. Excluding Twist's initiation could have gotten rid of half the arguments against the film. It would have painted him as a far less desperate individual. And it may have even transcended that and done something far different.

One thing's for sure, I wouldn't be having this debate. I would probably appreciate the film more than I did.

 

[dimmutaker]

jmanspice,

I'm a 26yo gay man from Tampa,FL.. im also a volunteer for two charities here that relates to gay issues... Right now we have over 65 teenagers here, and one of the main reasons the majority of them are here is because of that movie.... By seeing that movie they took courage to accept who they are and what they can do to advance gay rights in this country.... I'm not going to debate your points here cause i find this not to be the "forum" to talk about that... But i will say something. In my 13 years of me coming out to everyone i knew, i never heard(or read for that matter) calling the gay community the "queer community" and also the "gender queer"... I not only find that offensive, i find it absurd, coming from someone who says that is gay, like me..... And the reference from a fellow member about rosa parks is right, we can't give our seats to anyone and we need to fight, in a educated manner, for our rights.... So even though this is a forum, and we can debate about things, i dont think anyone here in the batman forums wants to read this kind of discussion....

Thanks,
Jose Hernandez

 

[Nepenthes]

So even though this is a forum, and we can debate about things, i dont think anyone here in the batman forums wants to read this kind of discussion...

No one is forced to read or participate and anyone can still post about the Joker if they want to. Anything tangentially related to the good works of Heath Ledger belongs in this thread and it's always great when we can get a bit beyond and above Batman and comic books. And as you say Heaths role was inspirational to many. Obviously it was also controversial and this board loves nothing if not controversy .

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I'm insulted as a political scientist and a homosexual that you would even consider this on par with something like the civil rights movement, that you would even draw this comparison at all because I disagree with how a scene played out in this film... that you would believe that I feel these filmmakers should be silenced... that's not the case at all. These film makers have a right to put whatever they want on screen. But they have to ask how certain aspects of their film will be received. Excluding Twist's initiation could have gotten rid of half the arguments against the film. It would have painted him as a far less desperate individual. And it may have even transcended that and done something far different.

One thing's for sure, I wouldn't be having this debate. I would probably appreciate the film more than I did.

No one said this film changed the entire world to be rosy. (don't tell me it didn't have an impact though, because I know it did and I've seen that with my own eyes, as I have already described.)

But as an artist and aspiring film maker I reject the notion that any other artist should first "question themselves" as to what might "offend" or be "controversial" especially to a fraction of society which is hateful and idiotic and should be ignored to begin with.

I damn sure don't paint paintings or write stories by first thinking to myself "would any baptists be offended by this?" and I wouldn't expect anyone else too either. Now if that scene ruffled your feathers, it seems you are quite in the minority. Along with those baptists.

Artists don't need to ask permission or consider what religious nuts will think of their work at any time for any reason. Thank god we still live in a relatively free country and they can make whatever film they want to make whether you, or the baptists like it or not. And if it pisses them off, well then all the better because they need to grow up and accept that not everyone shares their views, their lifestyle choices, and all of us who are not just like them aren't going to simply shut up and abide by their wishes!

The second you tell artists to censor themselves on behalf of those religious lunatics, you are LETTING THEM WIN by no longer having a voice. And THAT is why I compare art and freedom of speech with civil rights and womens lib.

Thank-you.

 

[Nightmare]

Heath Rules.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Heath Rules.

I'll drink to that mate.

 

[The Senator]

But i will say something. In my 13 years of me coming out to everyone i knew, i never heard(or read for that matter) calling the gay community the "queer community" and also the "gender queer"... I not only find that offensive, i find it absurd, coming from someone who says that is gay, like me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

In as few words, 'gender queer' describes those who refuse to conform themselves to the boundaries of one gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

"Queer community" refers to the entire GLBTQA etc etc. community. It's been adopted and accepted by many GLBT associations over the years, because it is a phrase which describes the entire queer movement. The organization I belong to, for example, uses "Queer" in its title. We refer to the gay community as the "queer community" not only for convenience, but because it is an all-inclusive phrase which describes any sexual identity and behavior not conforming to 'traditional 'heteronormative identities.

If you find that offensive, you should take it up with the gay community for adopting those terms in recent years. Not me.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Regardless of whether they see the movie or not, the fact that this scene exists gives them a reason to lash out against the gay community altogether. Hell, it happened. I'm sure most of these folks didn't actually see the film, but all that they needed to hear was that Jack Twist nearly raped Ennis Del Mar, and that gave them a reason to become the 'morality police.'

This may be a small point, but how could Jack have "raped" Ennis, when it was Ennis that was....erm....on top?

 

[Schlosser85]

This may be a small point, but how could Jack have "raped" Ennis, when it was Ennis that was....erm....on top?

Agreed, Ennis is the one who throws Jack down, rips his pants off, and quite roughly "has his way" with him, so obviously Ennis wasn't being raped. After about three seconds of half-hearted resistance, he takes charge pretty quickly.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

To get this topic back on track concerning the Joker, my mother told m,e she doesn't want to watch this film because of Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker and how she feels it's what caused his death. I think she's going to be missing out on a very good movie.