The Dark Knight New Aus Article: 'Batman to play second fiddle to Joker'

[The Battousai]

I leave it up to you.

That is the most unflattering pic of him, though, so I wouldn't go by that one, myself

 

[Reflectionist]

This thread needs a Batman Playing the Fiddle Manip.

 

[ultimatefan]

That is the most unflattering pic of him, though, so I wouldn't go by that one, myself

Yeah, it was an on set picture, didn´t have right lighting or cinematography, nothing.

 

[ultimatefan]

So beeing deep into a characters suddenly means nothing? The average joe didn't mind that there was no batmobile, because they weren't that deep into it as me. I however, being a life long fan of the character and his "gadgets" was hoping for a batmobile because that's part of his mythos. Average Joe didn't care that Ra's was completely different from in the comics. However, I did because part of the reason I go see a comic adaptation is because I want to see what is in the comics come to life. Granted, they strayed away from alot of the source material, but you know what? They made it work. Just like Tim Burton made it work. I'm not saying that the movie or the Joker won't be great. I'm saying that, at least in my book, one of the main points in going to see a comic book film, is to see what actually took place in the comics on the big screen. This Joker is not what was in the comics.

It doesn´t mean "nothing", but doesn´t mean you´re always right and the person who isn´t a fanatic or purist is always wrong. The fanatics often get too attached to specific details and miss the bigger picture.

The Joker I saw on the trailer is totally The Joker, malicious, psychotic, anarchic - in the bad sense, ruthless, with a twisted sense of humor and creepy-looking, with a maniacal laughter. That is The Joker. His origin and backgrounds had a ton of different takes and interpretations, even in comics. Writers like Alan Moore and Paul Dini don´t even think he should have a "definitive" origin.

 

[itsthebatman]

There is, but less of it. I think optimism at this stage verges on naivety, though of course I hope the optimists are vindicated.

What, other than the perma-white and slightly scruffy look, makes him veer so far away from the comics Joker?

 

[regwec]

Hard to say for certain, though his knife-wielding po-facedness doesn't really sing "Joker" to me.

I find myself moving more towards a view of The Joker as an ultimate trickster archetype. I re-read Arkham Asylum last evening, and recalled how fitting was the moment when The Joker allows Batman to gamble for his freedom. Life should be a game to him. I actually think he is less about "anarchy" than eschatology, in a way; like he has some sort of defined role in the moral fabric of Gotham, which mirrors Batman's.

How are you, anyway? I'm currently afflicted with the norovirus, which isn't much fun.

 

[ultimatefan]

Hard to say for certain, though his knife-wielding po-facedness doesn't really sing "Joker" to me.

I find myself moving more towards a view of The Joker as an ultimate trickster archetype. I re-read Arkham Asylum last evening, and recalled how fitting was the moment when The Joker allows Batman to gamble for his freedom. Life should be a game to him. I actually think he is less about "anarchy" than eschatology, in a way; like he has some sort of defined role in the moral fabric of Gotham, which mirrors Batman's.

How are you, anyway? I'm currently afflicted with the norovirus, which isn't much fun.

In both Arkham Asylum and TKJ, the Joker can be considered an "evil anarchist", as someone who doesn´t believe in society´s rules and values, but doesn´t bother to offer any real alternatives, he just "wants to watch the world burn".

 

[regwec]

Yes, that would be an incredibly superficial reading of both stories.

 

[Darknightnomis]

This is nothing more than hearsy hype.

 

[ultimatefan]

Yes, that would be an incredibly superficial reading of both stories.

I´m talking in general terms, but you can well see that direction in Joker´s characterization in the stories. Your previous post on Asylum wasn´t the least bit "deeper".

 

[regwec]

Actually, it is much deeper, since your interpretation equates to saying "The Joker is a baddie and does bad stuff".

Otherwise, I suggest you pass on your comments to Grant Morrison, since his "interpretation" of Arkham Asylum is the basis for mine.

 

[ultimatefan]

Actually, it is much deeper, since your interpretation equates to saying "The Joker is a baddie and does bad stuff".

Otherwise, I suggest you pass on your comments to Grant Morrison, since his "interpretation" of Arkham Asylum is the basis for mine.

That´s a gross - not to mention a bit rude - misinterpretation of what I said. The Joker in The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum is someone with a clearly nihilistic view of the world, like "it´s all one big joke", he´s pessimistic. Therefore, he sees no meaning in what our society stands for, our values, social rules and hopes. Therefore, he plays cynically with all of them, trying to expose its meaningless and ridiculousness - as in trying to make Gordon insane and forcing Batman to face his own issues in the asylum, all clearly a form of anarchism, but not a constructive one. If that is a "baddie who does bad thing", so be it, but the stories clearly point to that.

 

[regwec]

all clearly a form of anarchism

Right, that's the bit I disagree with. In both of those stories, The Joker acts to deconstruct and then reconstruct somebody, while giving some sort of lesson to the heroes and to the reader. I don't really think that can simply be described as "anarchism" any more than Satan's temptation of Christ. It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.

 

[ultimatefan]

Right, that's the bit I disagree with. In both of those stories, The Joker acts to deconstruct and then reconstruct somebody, while giving some sort of lesson to the heroes and to the reader. I don't really think that can simply be described as "anarchism" any more than Satan's temptation of Christ. It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.

I don´t see any "reconstruction" in what Joker does, he just wants to make these people snap, he clearly doesn´t have any purpose of making that person improve in anyway, he looks at it from a cynical point of view, only someone very cynical sees insanity and cruelty as some kind of utopia the way he does in TKJ and AA. It´s anarchism in the sense of defying the established, and creative in the sense of being playful, and Nolan´s Joker clearly is that, but it´s basically watch the world burn, yes.

 

[Juha]

It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.

You think that the Joker requires any character development?

I like the idea of the Joker being "absolute". He is just this evil that exists. He's not on a spiritual journey. This is not a learning process for him. There is no beginning and there is no end for him.

When it comes to the Joker in this particular movie, I think there's no need for any deeply meaningful character development.

 

[regwec]

In TKJ he sets out to prove that anyone is capable of crossing the thin membrane between sanity and insanity. Gordon is resistant to the process, and grows as a character by refusing revenge in order to prove that "our way" (sanity) works. Batman and The Joker's final dialogue is a meditation on their respective mental states, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the crucial difference between them. This is all "lesson learning" in the fairytale mould.

You should really read Morrison's annotations to Arkham Asylum- an attempt to refresh and rebuild Batman is exactly The Joker's objective in that story.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the pattern of every Joker story, only that themes such as these are the ones I like best. I certainly find them more compelling than the catch-all of "anarchism" or "he's just bad" or whatever.

 

[ultimatefan]

You think that the Joker requires any character development?

I like the idea of the Joker being "absolute". He is just this evil that exists. He's not on a spiritual journey. This is not a learning process for him. There is no beginning and there is no end for him.

When it comes to the Joker in this particular movie, I think there's no need for any deeply meaningful character development.

Definitely not in that sense. The Joker never cared for giving or learning lessons in any constructive, helpful sense. He takes joy in being a cruel sadistic psychopath and that´s his basic motivation.

 

[ultimatefan]

In TKJ he sets out to prove that anyone is capable of crossing the thin membrane between sanity and insanity. Gordon is resistant to the process, and grows as a character by refusing revenge in order to prove that "our way" (sanity) works. Batman and The Joker's final dialogue is a meditation on their respective mental states, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the crucial difference between them. This is all "lesson learning" in the fairytale mould.

You should really read Morrison's annotations to Arkham Asylum- an attempt to refresh and rebuild Batman is exactly The Joker's objective in that story.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the pattern of every Joker story, only that themes such as these are the ones I like best. I certainly find them more compelling than the catch-all of "anarchism" or "he's just bad" or whatever.

The point is, The growth is a byproduct that wasn´t what The Joker intended, he wanted Gordon to snap. And with his joke in th end he clearly attempts to blur whatever difference exists between him and Batman.

Once the story is out there, readers can interpret it whatever way they want. To me Joker is set to prove to Batman that he belongs in the Asylum with the nuts. Whatever Morrison says, it´s in that cynical note that the story concludes - Batman´s "growth" is to allow a dazzled and confused Harvey Dent to decide his fate...

The Joker is a classic psychopath. He´s remorseless, completely self-absorbed and devoid of compassion. He´s as close to "pure evil" as it is. Whatever philosophies work along with his basic cruelty are a byproduct, not his main motivation.

 

[itsthebatman]

Hard to say for certain, though his knife-wielding po-facedness doesn't really sing "Joker" to me.

I find myself moving more towards a view of The Joker as an ultimate trickster archetype. I re-read Arkham Asylum last evening, and recalled how fitting was the moment when The Joker allows Batman to gamble for his freedom. Life should be a game to him. I actually think he is less about "anarchy" than eschatology, in a way; like he has some sort of defined role in the moral fabric of Gotham, which mirrors Batman's.

How are you, anyway? I'm currently afflicted with the norovirus, which isn't much fun.

I'm grand, not a bother, hope you get over the virus soon. Remember to take an extra 2 - 3 days off after recovering so you're not contagious by the time you go back to work.
I remember you talking about the trickster archetype before, comparing him to Loki, IIRC.
Regarding eschatology: wouldn't someone who followed that doctrine take joy in 'watching the world burn?' So that line doesn't seem out of character. I don't think he's as po-faced as you imagine either; in the trailer, we hear him laughing, uses the 'why so serious line', and talks about 'putting a smile on that face.' Remember the truck also, Slaughter is the best medicine - what could be a more Joker-esque line than that? The humour is dark and sardonic, sure, and not as goofy or outrageous as the comics Joker may exhibit, but it's still there.

 

[DV8]

this article doesn't really specify that the Joker will have more screen time, necessarily . . . but we've seen 4 different people portray Batman to the ONE Joker portrayal that was Nicholson . . . OF COURSE we're gonna be pry a little more hyped for the Joker this time . . .

I'm def more excited to see Joker than Bale, only cuz we saw Bale in the last one . . . but I'm equally as excited to see this Joker as I was to see Bale as Batman in Begins . . .

 

[Ibn]

It doesn´t mean "nothing", but doesn´t mean you´re always right and the person who isn´t a fanatic or purist is always wrong. The fanatics often get too attached to specific details and miss the bigger picture.

The Joker I saw on the trailer is totally The Joker, malicious, psychotic, anarchic - in the bad sense, ruthless, with a twisted sense of humor and creepy-looking, with a maniacal laughter. That is The Joker. His origin and backgrounds had a ton of different takes and interpretations, even in comics. Writers like Alan Moore and Paul Dini don´t even think he should have a "definitive" origin.

Like I said. Yeah, it pissed me off, but I'm to the point where I'm still going to go watch the movie and probably be blown away after seeing all of the things you referred. I mean, of course it's not that serious, but at the same time, one is left with the feeling like "why can't they just do it like it is?" I mean, was it that hard to make the guy all white and then have the audience put together the pieces on how he got that way? Tim Burton differentiated, so did Nolan, and I loved all three of those films. The only thing is we've yet to see something that is exactly how it is in the comics. But like I said, I still see him being all white by the end of the movie. Some crazy **** will happen, and that will be the "twist". Nolan knows that not making Joker all white is going to piss people off. But I'm thinking that that is his aim, initially. Have people all pissed and then at the end something happens to the Joker to make him perma white after all.

 

[Ibn]

I leave it up to you.

But see that's without the filter and everything. I think he'll probably look a little better than that on screen, especially in that scene........ I hope.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Right, that's the bit I disagree with. In both of those stories, The Joker acts to deconstruct and then reconstruct somebody, while giving some sort of lesson to the heroes and to the reader. I don't really think that can simply be described as "anarchism" any more than Satan's temptation of Christ. It's much more creative, and it really does seem an awful lot more sophisticated than a "just want(ing) to watch the world burn", which seems like Nolan's half-hearted way of explaining away a lack of character development.

Regwec, you're so smart. Comparing Joker and Batman with the temptation of Christ... it's brilliant. I love seeing how certain archetypes have been around for thousands of years to shape our stories. In that way you can really see how the Joker can not be killed, and has to remain in the story... its the balance between Batmans self-righteous moral absolutism, and Jokers chaotic, questioning behavior. The idea that Jokers character can also force Batman to confront his own issues, weaknesses and most importantly his own evil, is awesome. Far more interesting than "lets just have a story (or a movie) about a bad guy who says 'F the whole world! Muahahah!'" There have been too many of those.

But if the Joker has some good in his evil, and Batman has some evil in his good, then it's the ying yang that makes these stories so mesmerizing. Joker can force Batman to question himself, and yet without Batman Joker also questions his purpose....

They really are a perfect couple

 

[Gianakin_]

I leave it up to you.

Actually, that's my 2nd favorite pic of him.

 

[ultimatefan]

Like I said. Yeah, it pissed me off, but I'm to the point where I'm still going to go watch the movie and probably be blown away after seeing all of the things you referred. I mean, of course it's not that serious, but at the same time, one is left with the feeling like "why can't they just do it like it is?" I mean, was it that hard to make the guy all white and then have the audience put together the pieces on how he got that way? Tim Burton differentiated, so did Nolan, and I loved all three of those films. The only thing is we've yet to see something that is exactly how it is in the comics. But like I said, I still see him being all white by the end of the movie. Some crazy **** will happen, and that will be the "twist". Nolan knows that not making Joker all white is going to piss people off. But I'm thinking that that is his aim, initially. Have people all pissed and then at the end something happens to the Joker to make him perma white after all.

If we are to be rigid, very little in any of these movies is "exactly" like in the comics. Some differences may be bigger than others, but they´re always there.