If you've seen any of Christopher Nolan's film direction prior to The Dark Knight (I've seen Memento (2000), Batman Begins (2005), The Prestige (2006) - all screenplays co-written with his brother), one shouldn't be as surprised by the quality, intrigue, and tightness of this film. Its a different matter that Heath Ledger (rather, his character - The Joker) is the person who makes the film a dramatic confluence of the macabre, incredulous and scarily believable - even the Joker masks in this film are the scariest I've seen. Its also telling that the young admirable Mr.Ledger overdosed himself to death earlier this year. Upon release (and even before), there was an immediate insinuation that the intensity of his involvement with the Joker led to the overdose of prescription drugs, which he was taking for insomnia and depression. Unlike Bollywood, where actors 'get a break' through some influence or the other and then evolve (and sometimes never do), Ledger is one in the long legacy of the quintessential Oscar-worthy actor (as evidenced by his past performances), who takes method acting to exalted levels - read Brando, Nicholson (though not as the first Joker), Pacino, Heston etc.. Sometimes, I wonder if De Niro decided to switch to comedy in the past decade or so, simply to stay alive longer (he could simply be the successful businessman/restaurateur that he is but an actor of his caliber can't live without acting; and more Taxi Drivers and Raging Bulls and Scorcese's direction could drive even a De Niro to an early death). To endorse the current calls in Hollywood, an Oscar for the Joker is the only apt tribute to Ledger, even if it may seem a little sentimental (much like the lead characters in Il Postino and The Lives of Others passed away even before their films could be given their Academy Awards).
Nolan himself has expressed surprise at the film's success ($364 million US + $128 million Int'l, before the 3rd weekend! - btw, the production budget was $185 million!) and I think that this success has bothered the critics as well. Its reflective of the Joker's philosophy - ordinary people get disturbed by anything that does not play by the plan - its the Joker's prescription for his anarchist ways.(Couldn't find a free online version but WSJ's review "Too Far from Escapism" reproduced in the Mint, page L20, Aug 2, 2008 and the New Yorker one are 2 such reviews that suggest wariness of the dark path taken by a 'Superhero' film and, especially, what its success speaks of an American society, circa 2008. For the record, the NY Times & Rolling Stone were more laudatory and unperturbed in their reviews.)
For those of you who are interested in understanding the Director's mind, Nolan's Newsweek interview is a wonderful insight (you can also read anecdotes of the intensity of Ledger's method acting ways that I referred to above). However, to me as a viewer, it felt like a glorious Batman version of another memorable movie experience of mine - Unbreakable - by M.Night Shyamalan. Apart from the silly coincidence of Night and Knight, the common idea of the uncovering and the testing of the Superhero, by the Supervillain, is something that was not captured by any of the big film commentators. Even Nolan doesn't see these undertones perhaps (he's after all adapting an existing facade of the Joker). Though a concept of a hero and a irksome villain seems like common sense, even in their exalted 'Super' avatars, most (if not all) comic book film adaptations reduce this confrontation to a fantastical farce. The WSJ and New Yorker reviews are quite pathetic on one count - they seem to reminisce the lack of continuity of the Superhero idea on film - which is oh so boring and repetitive. This action-oriented Superhero is vintage and its better viewed for nostalgic reasons. However, all that every new Superhero release, once or twice a year, launched with a new name - Daredevil or Spiderwoman or Catwoman - achieves is greater heights in special effects and greater mediocrity in terms of performances and punchlines.
I, for one, am glad that the newer directors are not overwhelmed by technological wizardry and are questioning the role of a contemporary Superhero and what he should stand and fight for, rather than how. While its easy for the Superhero to squish the villains in sequel after sequel, remake after remake, such a Superhero can as easily be replaced by the more flamboyant James Bond! (I would hazard a guess that an average Bond flick makes more than any any Superhero sequel since the audience has figured this one out too). More interestingly, Nolan, and Night before him, record the story from the Supervillain's point of view. It is the age of the Supervillain! The Supervillain questions everything. In the absence of the Supervillain, the Superhero simply protects stagnancy and outdated values, without questioning them. The Superhero's job looks like that of a sophisticated janitor, cleaning up scum, if not for the gauntlet thrown by the Supervillain. And seldom do we have such a Supervillain, who questions the existence of oneself, of the current order in the world, of ethics, morals, of hypocrisy in society's rules. Samuel L.Jackson's portrayal of Elijah Prince in Unbreakable has striking parallels with that of the Joker. What adds to the dark convoluted beauty of these two Supervillains is that they are but mere mortals. The mind is their only weapon. No special powers, no gizmos, no gadgets, no genetic morphing and no single manifestation of the greed and fear that binds the ordinary person on the street.
In Elijah Prince, Shyamalan investigates the pristine concept that everyone wants to know their place in the world. Prince has a rare bone condition where his bones were extremely brittle, like glass ("I knew when the kids called me Mr.Glass"), and he was determined to find a alterego in the world - someone who was just as unflappable physically as he was vulnerable to a simple fall. The Joker is slightly different - he wants to breakdown all limits of the human condition and expose us for the animals that we can be - by putting Gotham through extreme moral tests that challenge the emotional limits of the movie's characters as well as the movie's audience! Nolan left us with a ray of hope (and I'm not talking Batman) when he refused to have ordinary humans blow up each other - the hope that, collectively, the human race may yet make the right choices and not be crushed by the first concerted effort of a single anarchist Joker.
These directors also expose our Superheros for their human vulnerabilities. Yes, even in fantasies, there is real grief. So what? And the execution of this element in The Dark Knight was violent, devastating and yet required. While Batman pulverized the Joker physically, the Joker hit back harder in every other way. But for sacrifice and loss, the measure of victory of good over evil is difficult to relish, if not measure (when wars are won, the body counts are always highlighted). These exhausting victories are what a Superhero should and will aspire to. Else they risk being reduced to sex symbols and quirky undergarment fashion icons. Ultimately, Superheroes should thank the Supervillains for stretching their limits, for being able to rise to the occassion, and for redefining their own purpose in contemporary society. Let's all thank the Joker for giving us a new and improved Batman!
Author's note: While the Superhero and Supervillain have been referred to as 'he', this is only for purposes of convenience of writing, and I eagerly await a flood of women superheroes and villains. I think their time has come and they can probably handle the emotional pressure much better than Bruce Wayne. Mr Nolan? Mr Night?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment