batman is a little like woody allen to me. every few years or so, i will get sucked into the hype swirling around, believing comments like "a rare return to form," or the "best work in years" only to end up completely disappointed in the formulaic and ultimately uninspired retread that unspools in front of my eyes. the new batman is a little like match point to me, in that after watching what has been reviewed as a "great piece of cinema" i left the theater feeling just as empty and unfulfilled as when i walked in. both films fail to deliver anything more than a rehashing of themes and motifs already covered in previous similar works. much like match point is essentially a remake of other woody allen crime films(like the one with martin landau), the new batman is essentially just another batman film in a long lineage of bad ones since the first tim burton directed piece with jack as the joker.
my complaints are as follows:
first, it's way too long. now i know regis got killed for saying that, with people saying that he was "too old" and all. but regis was right. this movie is about an hour or so too long. it really could have ended with the dual explosion. it could have killed maggie gyllenhaal(a good thing) and set the stage for the next film's villain. but it didn't. no, this film instead decided that it wanted to be like an elementary school research report speech. it beleves that if it keeps on adding information on top of information that we won't notice the lack of cohesion in the narrative and we wont recognize what it is doing, which is rambling. it's like one incredibly long, and ultimately pointless, run on sentence. and i am not sure why it chose to do this.
ater all, if heath ledger is as freaking good as everyone says he is in his portrayal of the joker(which he really isn't...sorry...r.i.p.) then why does nolan feel the need to tack on another villain to the end of his film.(as boring a last houe as there ever was) as opposed to the "original" retelling that nolan's series has aimed to be, i find that this is a recurring motif in all batman films after the first burton. why is that? are batman's villains too insufficiently drawn as characters to warrant carrying a film by themselves? which brings me back to the question: if heath ledger is so "oscar worthy" why not let his performance carry the film? the answer to that is hopefully this: deep down i think nolan understands that ledger is really just doing a shitty, not nearly as funny(or as menacing) version of the frank booth character from blue velvet. now that muther fucker was crazy. he was chaos. ledger's joker just seems like a one note, sadistic clown that completely lacks the depth that the continual explanation of his scars strives for. maybe he needs a hit of the gas, but it seems alot like the guy at the party who talks louder than everyone else and laughs at his own jokes. he just wants attention and that in itself kind of makes him pathetic. so pathetic that in a failed attempt to glean some sort of emotional resonance, therefore giving the joker's character more depth/importance, they tack on another villain that they try to explain as some sort of joker protege.
and that is harvey "twoface" dent. admirably portrayed by the often fire aaron eckhart, who frankly has very little to work with here. character deficiencies aside, my real complaint was his face after the burn accident. it was like one half was eckhart and the other side was the face from the evil dead 2 video box. seriously was that eye bruce campbell's? and anatomically speaking, if one's muscular tissue is exposed wouldn't that a: be bleeding and b: get infected in a way as to cause death or at least lots of puss? not in the batman world...where apparently batman can be shot and stabbed but a man can walk around with muscular tissue and burnt flesh exposed and everything is okay. for real?
and while we are on the subject of mangled flesh, i have to ask, is christian bale's throat okay? in his (few) scenes as bruce wayne he seemed to be speaking fine, but when confronted with the criminal element his vocal inflection seemed to be channeling the vocal register of louis armstrong singing what a wonderful world. seriously he sounded like satchmo with a dick/cum bubble caught in his throat. what's up with that? i mean he sounded like buster poindexter singing hot hot hot.
in all i found this film to be almost exactly like every other batman film starring val kilmer or george clooney. batman fights his way through a convoluted plot much to the chagrin of a two headed monster that acts as his antagonists. there are explosions, gadgets and ultim ately the unfulfilled hopes and dreams for better film inspired by the countless good reviews of the piece in question.
and ultimately, like the title of this entry states, that is why the jonas brothers(the jo bros for those in the know) kick batman's ass. see the jonas brother's come to you with hype, but it is the right kind of hype. far from being dubbed as the savior of an otherwise uninspired season, the jo bros are touted merely as brotherd that play music for preteens. no reviewer has ever told me that they are great, or a return to form for the "boy band" or that they are the new greatest band in rock and roll. no, the hype machine merely informs me of their existence(and the fact that young girls scream for their existence) and then i hear them and i say to myself...damn these dudes aren't half bad, a little like a the maroon five without the racy lyrics, but generally pretty poppy and most likely infinitely dancable. and that is really the best we can hope for with a disney channel band. ultimately it comes down to the fact that the jonas brothers deliver the goods that were promised to me, while batman surely does not.it's a little bit like the guess who and the doors argument. i groove to the jo bros on the radio and want it to play all night as opposed to the new batman, which i just wanted to end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I believe the reason for the "I drink whiskey" voice is so people can't recognize his voice. Of course, it's as easy to tell that's Christian Bale from his face under the mask, but I think we are just suppose to play dumb. I agree with the two-face thing. The makeup was either suppose to be intentionally funny or just really piss poor and I am guessing it wasn't suppose to be funny. I was entertained by both the film and Ledger. It's not going to be on my top ten list at the end of the year, but I liked it.
ryan, do you ever get the feeling that we are essentially only writing blogs for each other's enjoyment?
Well, I guess we are leaving you two to your own little world.
Since "The Dark Knight" was one of the ten BEST films I've ever seen. The complex story, the various human emotions it touches, and the simplistic, pure, undeniable evil that is present. Plus, Heath Ledger wasn't even in the film - it was the BEST "acting" ever captured on film, that was now actor, he became that part in all aspects.
All I can do is shake my head in disbelief, when you make the ridiculous claims and comments that you do.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess?
i would argue an actor's job is to somehow chart the change that is being inflicted by the plot of the film. heath never shows anything more than a sense of humor towards chaos and misantropy. he hates people...boo hoo. pure evil is someone like the original michael myers, someone who kills because that is just what they do. no explanations, no pseudo explanations meant to fuck with victims(trite), no words. because pure evil doesnt use words it uses actions. and the only actions heath uses are over the top gestures meant to punctuate obvious emotional outbursts.
i love how people feel free to throw around praise like "the best acting" without even offering evidence as to why it is so. what exactly did heath do besides ham up the fact that he was a humor laden bad guy with broad physical gestures and theatrical changes in the intonation of his voice. it was like watching a freshman in the lead of a high school play, he was so excited to be there he needed to jump up and down to draw attention to himself.mark ruffalo, who has always given better performances than this, never needs to cry "look at me" because he understands that when he does what he does he is compelling. heath was showy and flashy and garish and gave a really freshman performance with an already underdrawn chacature. now why was he good?
I can agree that Michael Myers is a figure of pure evil.
However, there was NO acting involved in that role. Nick Castle brought nothing to that role. The entire "package" and representation of "pure evil" was a result of the brilliant directing of John Carpenter. Proof of this is how poor Rob Zombie did in his remake, and with the adding of an "explanation" to Michael Myer's origins, it removed any and all fear from pure evil. Nick Castle and Tyler Mane both did the exact same things, and neither one of them were acting.
If you were going claim that Nick Castle was a great actor, then you're going to have to give credit to David Prowse for Darth Vader or Frank Oz for Yoda. NONE of these characters involved ANY real acting.
In contrast, what Heath Ledger did with the character of the Joker was amazing. Many people ranted and raved in 1989, when Jack played such a great Joker in the Tim Burton film. But, when you look at that character, this is what you see: Jack Nicholson in White Make-Up Laughing. He was a goof-ball and loon. But, people loved it and thought he was good.
What Heath Ledger did was prove what a REAL character actor can do. He transformed himself into a character, at the expense of his own mentality. I completely agree with Michael Maier: "I never once saw Heath Ledger in the film". Maybe its the make up, maybe its his acting, but the bottom line is this: It NEVER feels like Heath Ledger playing a character, it feels like a psychopath from opening sequence to closing monologue.
You make (a ridiculous) argument for Michael Myers, based on "...because pure evil doesnt use words it uses actions..." Are you trying to tell me that the number of lives taken and the amount of destruction caused by the Joker was less than the FEW murders ever committed by Michael Myers?
Mark Ruffalo IS an amazing actor, and "You Can Count on Me" is one of my favorite films ever. But, when you watch the movie, you SEE Mark Ruffalo ACTING. As good as the acting is, he's just Mark Ruffalo in each scene. He's the exact same as he is in "Zodiac" or "Reservation Road". He's Mark Ruffalo ACTING.
"Ten Thing I Hate About You"
"The Patriot"
"A Knight's Tale"
"Brokeback Mountain"
ALL of these films were just Heath Ledger ACTING.
His first glimpse at something more was in "Lords of Dogtown", I really felt he did a good job acting in that film. I have "Candy" in my Netflix Queue, because I've read he's pretty good in that one too, but I haven't seen it to personally comment.
Then comes "The Dark Knight" where Heath Ledger achieves the top of performance acting - removing the audiences memory that you are an actor, and replacing it by convincing them that you ARE that character. I have not found one picture that even RESEMBLES Heath, he truly lost himself in the character and created probably the best performance I've ever seen on film.
We've obviously got different opinions on "good" film-making (which blows my mind why you would ever want to be a part of any film project together), but I can't believe that you can't see such an amazing performance as Heath's.
the root of the word acting comes from action...the sly slump of a shoulder...the minute glance that gives away what the character is truly thinking...the smallest gesture which draws the audience into what the actor is doing...in a word subtle...there was nothing subtle about the joker and i never once wondered what he was up to because i knew in like two seconds he was gonna tell me(either through words or garish gesture) this is not acting...its mimicry.
as for heath "becomming the character"...i am reminded of a quote from lawrence olivier to dustin hoffman.
during the shooting of the marathon man, hoffman, who was reportedly running miles on miles a day, said to olivier that even with all this preperation that he just couldn't "get into character"
olivier's reply: "why don't you try acting."
i wish gary oldman, who actually does disappear into the role of commissioner gorden without the aid of overarticulated semantics, would have taken heath aside and told him the same thing...he may have saved a movie and a life.
Before getting into the meat of the discussion, I think Shane's wrong about Nicholson. He did a great job, it's just a different incarnation of the Joker than Ledger's. More like Mark Hamill's great performances in the Batman cartoons, but still fun and a good job.
"pure evil is someone like the original michael myers, someone who kills because that is just what they do. no explanations, no pseudo explanations meant to fuck with victims(trite), no words. because pure evil doesnt use words it uses actions."
Wrong. Michael Myers is more like a great white shark. He's not evil, he's a monster. He just kills because that's what he does. The unstoppable object and all that rot. When you boil it down, it's not even interesting to watch. Hating Michael Myers is like hating the earth in the movie "Volcano".
I wouldn't even call "The Dark Knight"'s Joker evil, either. He's insane and chaotic.
"heath was showy and flashy and garish and gave a really freshman performance with an already underdrawn chacature."
Nope. Nicholson was showy and flashy. Ledger was nothing of the sort. He was almost casual about being chaotic. He didn't have to try to be a force of chaos. He just... WAS.
"i would argue an actor's job is to somehow chart the change that is being inflicted by the plot of the film. "
And EXACTLY what in the plot would have changed the Joker? Other than finding his nemesis and getting a little satisfaction in achieving his goal of chaos (which would most likely only whet his appetite for more chaos and destruction), point something out.
And why don't you be a little more over-dramatic about the Joker killing Heath. I'd put money down that it was the Ambien. Drugs are bad for you.
michael, while i commend you on actually providing evidence for your assertions, i can't say that i agree with them at all.
when you ask what in the plot would change the joker, you almost inadvertantly make my point for me. a character like the joker has his roots in the great greek dramas which employed stock characters that had to embody very specific aspects of behavior so that the plot could easily move towards its impending message. when plays were given actors donned masks essentially making their performances null and void as they were merely vessels for the written word, the drama.
i would argue that the joker in this case was pretty much the same "shark role" that you have michael myers being. there was no trajectory, no arc...it was simply a straight line.
as an occasional jazz fan, i would ask this and have it applied to heath's performance. would miles davis blow and b-flat over and over and over again and consider it jazz? no he calls that practice, trying to find good tone. now when he strings several different notes together, mixes in some e's and g's, that becomes jazz.
great acting is like jazz. even with a stock character, in this case the proverbial trickster of african folklore, there is jazz to be attained although it is harder to attain it as shading is not necessary for a stock character. if you would like to see a trickster with some depth i suggest you watch charles burtnett's film to sleep with anger and pay particular attention to the danny glover character. he is kind of like the joker...but with emotional resonance.
We all have our opinions.
And I agree much more with Michael's than Troy's.
I thought Heath's performance was amazing, and was true acting.
Although, I do have to give credit to Troy for bringing up Gary Oldman, another beautiful and amazing actor - who I don't think I've ever seen do a bad role. Although, despite his amazing range of characters ("Sid and Nancy", "Dracula", "True Romance", "Leon", "Immortal Beloved", "The Fifth Element") I've NEVER seen him as good as Heath was in this film.
I don't care how you feel about the storyline, you CAN NOT deny his presence, demeanor, attitude, and mannerisms. How many times did he lick his lips, for no reason? Just a subtle mannerism I guarantee 90% of people never caught onto.
I honestly believe Troy's complete attitude towards Heath is a result of his ANTI-Hollywood mentality. When everyone in Hollywood acknowledges an amazing performance, Troy is forced (by his nature) to look for any and all ways to refute it. I just think that's how he's programmed - and there's nothing wrong with that.
"How many times did he lick his lips, for no reason? Just a subtle mannerism I guarantee 90% of people never caught onto."
????? How could anyone MISS it?
anti hollywood? no homie, i am old school hollywood. which means that yes, i have seen the hype machine trumpet many a role/film through the year and occsionally they get it wrong.
as for the lip licking, or as i like to think of it, the lizard effect, that is almost exactly what i am talking about when i speak of garish gesture, gesticulation for gesticulation's sake...in case the overwrought dialogue didn't prove to you that he was crazy. this gesture is one that the viewer "can't miss" i.e. not subtle.
and since you bring it up, and to prove that we don't annoint gods here at beer cannes, i will say that it kind of reminds me of the use gary oldman's rather hammy performance in leon. everytime oldman is about to do something "bad" he takes a snort of something(nervous tick) and puts on his classical music. it's repetitive and showy and ultimately unnecessary. instead of acting, he is indicating that he is a bad guy.the lip licking serves the same purpose here,only it indicates craziness.
but back to the claim that i am anti hollywood...i'm not... i am simply an advocate of using one's brain whilst inside the cinema. obvious acting choices coupled with obvious dialogue turn me into an unengaged automoton, which i am becoming increasingly convinced is the hollywood's goal, especiallly during the summer blockbuster season.
batman, for all the praise heaped upon it, really is the same old uninspired shit, and i do mean shit, that they have been pumping out for years. don't let the small amount of moral ambiguity trick you into thinking that it is deeper than that...it's not.
Ledger's performance is showy, but I don't think it's hammy. There is a fine line and I don't think it's crossed. Once Aaron Eckhart's character becomes two-face, he hams it up a little. Ledger's performance is entertaining, but it is a shame that he's getting ALL of the attention, because I agree that Oldman gives the more interesting performance. Ledger's performance has to be somewhat showy. Warner Brothers isn't going to spend $185 million for a Batman movie with a restrained Joker. I agree with Shane that Ledger is better than Nicholson. Mainly because Ledger is at least playing a character. Jack was just being Jack.
I also don't buy for a minute the BS that Ledger died because he was too deep into the role.
Post a Comment