The Dark Knight- Page 8

[Sandy in Sable]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 7:14pm

I really liked TDK, I wasn't bored at all and I enjoyed it for what it was: an action movie, a dark comic book on screen.

I did however find Batman's peanut butter laced Clint Eastwood meets Marlon Brando with bad bridge work voice rather laughable. But I thought Christian Bale made for a very smooth Bruce Wayne.

As for Heath Ledger's performance, "brilliant" and "genius" is going a bit overboard imo. "Very entertaining" will suffice. I think those who call it "genius" are the same type of people who call Johnny Depp in POTC "genius". All too often, fans confuse charisma with acting talent. And perhaps I'm being unfair (or even a snob), but I think when we're talking about performances like Ledger's Joker or Depp's Jack Sparrow we're not talking about the *real* acting I've come to know and appreciate. Not that what they do is any less valid for entertainment purposes, but we're not talking Al Pacino or Geraldine Page here. When I can see the work, the cool/flashy/interesting for the sake of being interesting choices, quirks, and ticks... it all seems so empty to me and reminds me of pretty boy high school actors whose first priority in a performance is to look cool. I guess this is what seperates the movie stars from the true actors, and keeps the ladies with untrained eyes filling theatre seats. At any rate, I DID enjoy the film, but I'll say Ledger was "cool" and "fun" as The Joker, not "genius".
Updated On: 8/6/08 at 07:14 PM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 7:28pm

I'm not saying that "things happening" won't make a movie interesting alone, but I'm talking about all the themes at work. I really found Gotham to be an allegory of post-9/11 America. The whole film is about the idea of escalation - things getting worse before getting better.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 7:33pm

"I think when we're talking about performances like Ledger's Joker or Depp's Jack Sparrow we're not talking about the *real* acting I've come to know and appreciate.'

I can't agree with that statement at all. People always think dramatic performances are more difficult, when comedic performances are usually more so.

[Sandy in Sable]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 7:46pm

What I was trying to say had nothing to do with comedy versus drama. I'm talking about fully realized performances by trained actors versus performances by "movie stars" (whose careers were in large part built on their looks) who think a bunch of flashy choices can carry a performance. The difference between actors who focus on the truth of the internal versus the dazzle of the external. And the best kind of comedy comes from the former.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 7:55pm

"I'm talking about fully realized performances by trained actors versus performances by "movie stars" (whose careers were in large part built on their looks) who think a bunch of flashy choices can carry a performance."

Heath Ledger may have been very good-looking, and that probably helped him win early roles, yes. But the reason why he STAYED so popular and won so much acclaim during his lifetime was because he was incredibly talented.

What has Orlando Bloom (Who slightly resembles Ledger if you think about it) done lately aside from PIRATES sequels? Nothing.

Plus, the Joker wasn't really what I would call a "comedic" performance in the true sense. He was humorous, but in a more funny-strange way rather than in a funny-ha-ha way. The Joker's humor was the personification of the joke about the shark attack victim who was told by his doctor that they had to amputate his legs but were able to save his shoes.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 8:00pm

I don't think any brilliant perforance is "less than" just because the person isn't considered a true actor.

Updated On: 8/6/08 at 08:00 PM

[Sandy in Sable]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 8:25pm

"I don't think any brilliant perforance is 'less than' just because the person isn't considered a true actor."

Which brings us back to my original point, I don't think the performance was "brilliant". Don't get me wrong, I know trained actors who suck, that's not my prerequisite for being a "true actor". All I'm saying is that being quirky and mashing together neat little idiosyncrasies is not acting at its full potential.

Cruel Sandwich, I also wouldn't call Ledger's Joker a comedic performance, and I don't think that's what jrb meant either. I don't want to put words in your mouth jrb, but I think you were speaking more to realistic versus OTT comic book characters.

I like Heath Ledger, but I will say that I think I've enjoyed him more in his frothier roles, like in Casanova or even A Knight's Tale. What I saw was a poised, charming young man at ease, and I think he was very good at that. In TDK, Brokeback, Monster's Ball, I saw "the work"... I saw a good looking guy who was working very hard to create something, something that would perhaps make us forget his looks and accent if only for a moment, and see a fine chameleon of an actor up there. Maybe it's just me, and I would like to see all of his films. But for those I've mentioned, it's like what Katherine Hepburn said about Meryl Streep, I can hear the "click, click, click" of the wheels in his head turning.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 10:08pm

Same difference for genre pictures. I don't discriminate or differentiate. A great performance is a great performance.

Ledger's performance is a great performance. No exceptions. Or clauses. Or sidenotes.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 10:45pm

I finally saw this film tonight.

I am probably the only person on the planet who didn't think it was that great. Certainly not worthy of the praise it's getting.

Ledger was good, but the only reason people are mentioning an Oscar nomination is because he's unfortunately passed away.

Batman Begins was much better.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 10:48pm

I'm getting really tired of people assuming that others only think his performance is Oscar worthy because he died.

Please don't presume to know why I think what I think.

[Sandy in Sable]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 10:51pm

"Ledger's performance is a great performance. No exceptions. Or clauses. Or sidenotes."

In your humble opinion.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 10:55pm

Well, duh that it's my humble opinion. That wasn't the point. The point was that it can be considered a great performance without some side note of "for a movie star in a genre pic".

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 11:04pm

I think this is one of the few times Jerby and I actually agree on a movie. Awesome.

[Sandy in Sable]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 11:34pm

"The point was that it can be considered a great performance without some side note of 'for a movie star in a genre pic'."

This is true, but my point is that my opinion is just as valid as yours and I feel like you were dismissing me by speaking in absolutes.

And perhaps you're right, what Ledger (or Depp) seems to do from my estimation is a craft of its own and I shouldn't put a lesser value on what they create. "Genius" is a subjective term anyway. A lot of people wouldn't be as quick to call Martin Short and Chris Guest geniuses like I would, some people just don't "get" them.

I guess my "issue" with this whole issue is the way in which the word genius is tossed around so flippantly in a world where people don't even know who Kim Stanley is. And I have a gripe with the whole Hollywood scene that employs actors who have hundreds of thousands of dollars tossed at them to learn to act on the job opposed to being properly trained before hand.

But I hope no hard feelings jrb, I respect you opinion and appreciate how you led me to look at things differently.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 11:49pm

In any case, it's a PHENOMENON. I don't think there has been a movie this huge since...I guess...Titanic?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/08 at 11:57pm

I wasn't speaking in absolutes. Those "absolutes" were directly about the point I was making--not that a person can not dislike his performance.

I don't have hard feelings from a debate about art. I was raised in greenrooms where you had a fiery debate and then you went to class or to rehearsal. The debate never left the greenroom.

My debates don't leave the threads.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 12:10am

When I can see the work, the cool/flashy/interesting for the sake of being interesting choices, quirks, and ticks... it all seems so empty to me and reminds me of pretty boy high school actors whose first priority in a performance is to look cool. I guess this is what seperates the movie stars from the true actors, and keeps the ladies with untrained eyes filling theatre seats.

Okay, well, as an actor with a trained eye, I couldn't disagree more.

[jasonf]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 12:52am

I couldn't disagree more about the comments dismissing Ledger either. To me, good acting comes when an actor disappears inside a role. I'll be honest, a lot of times watching Al Pacino or Robert Deniro, I never stop thinking of them as Pacino or Deniro. Sometimes being too famous becomes a hindrance in this. But Ledger? He BECAME the Joker. Everything from the voice to the mannerisms to his body language was the Joker. Those early scenes when we see just his back in the bank? You knew who that was IMMEDIATELY because he did his job in conveying the body language - to the point that we saw enough in the trailers of how he held himself to know that was him. Watch him in the scene when he comes out of the hospital dressed as the nurse -- he IS the Joker there - and NONE of it feels false or forced. I really believe we'd be talking Oscar now even if he had lived - he WAS that good.

To be fair, I didn't think the movie was the greatest thing I've ever seen. I thought it was very good, but there were slow parts, and (as opposed to Ledger's job with voice work) did NOT like Bale's Batman voice at all. Believe me, I'm usually one to criticize "pretty face" actors almost on sight, but I really thought Ledger was the real deal here.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 12:56am

Updated On: 1/15/09 at 12:56 AM

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 1:11am

It may be the script's fault for never revealing to us specifics about his character, but watching Ledger, you could tell that he'd done his homework and that there was a lot more going on inside than crazy. I think that is one of the main things that makes his performance so great.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 1:25am

Updated On: 1/15/09 at 01:25 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 1:28am

Well, then we saw two different films. Fancy that.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 1:33am

Updated On: 1/22/09 at 01:33 AM

[jasonf]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 9:32am

There's more than crazy there, and I think it's even in the script. If nothing else, there almost seemed to be a sadness about the Joker, like he was crazy and knew it, but was putting up this huge front to cover it. My evidence: if I remember right, there were several times when the Joker taunted people to kill him (kind of a put me out of my misery). The body language he used - the almost slumped shoulders, the tics -- showed more of a weight being carried than just craziness for the sake of craziness. He DID get off on the chaos he created, but there was more there than just that. To the doubters: why did he make up different stories about the scars? Did you think it was because he was crazy and didn't know how he got them? I think there was MUCH more behind that...not only was there a truth that he was hiding, but there was a reason for hiding it...

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/7/08 at 10:45am

I'm not qualifying my earlier comments either. I think Heath's performance is worthy of Oscar recognition, and I thought he was brilliant.

It has nothing to do with him being a movie star... although star quality, or the ability to carry a film, isn't something you learn in an acting class, or by performing Shakespeare in the park. "You either got it, or you ain't." And Heath's got it.

My opinion of his performance also has nothing to do with his death. It has to do with taking a role that isn't all that interesting or particularly "new" on paper, and turning it into startling and memorable performance. The work is excellent.

I also won't qualify my opinion of the film as a whole... which I still feel is an endlessly boring, muddled, insignificant mess, only made interesting by Ledger's work. The rest was resoundingly and painfully mediocre.

It's funny that people say things like, "I must be the only one on the planet who thinks this movie isn't very good."

Wrong. You are not alone, not even in this thread, let alone the rest of the country or world. Read a little bit. While the majority clearly thinks it's successful (on all counts), there is a small but vocal group, including me, who thinks this is a crappy film. Sorry to take away your "unique" opinion. But it's not all that unique.

Updated On: 8/7/08 at 10:45 AM