Heath Ledger. There is no doubt in my mind that much of the hype surrounding his performance as The Joker is due to his unfortunate death.
I managed to see The Dark Knight on the first day it was out here in the UK and I have to say I found it both exhilarating and refreshing as a film. Scenes were expertly put together and many memorably dark decisions were cast in front of the audience to marvel both at the character of The Joker and the strength of the "symbol" of the Batman. I really enjoyed that aspect of the film: the Joker always found a way to make things incredibly worse for everybody just because he felt like it. His mysterious and unexpected nature were entertaining in such a deeply sinister way that you couldn't help but.... love him...
Now I know that I have already said that I enjoyed this film, but the problem in the back of my mind is that I remember feeling the same kind of satisfaction after seeing Batman Begins and later realising that it was not as strong a film as I had remembered. Is much of what we enjoy from a film based on what we have been told prior to seeing it by advertising, or even critics opinions that we have had forced in front of our eyes?
Whether I say that The Dark Knight is a good film or not seems to be dependant on me seeing it for a second time after the initial hype has died down. I did thouroughly enjoy it first time however, which could suggest the arguement that it is a good film but that I just don't want to like it because everybody else does. Upon seeing it a second time I could decide not to like it to make a statement of some description.
When it comes to film or music or even any expressive arts, like many others I find that I want to have my own identity rooted in what I like. If I come across something that initially gets my heart beating in all the right ways, I want everybody to know that I discovered it first, somehow affiliating me to that particular expression. It's either that or I take a complete offence to what has been put in front of me so that I can declare that it is rubbish and too mainstream to be acceptable by my supreme opinion.
I think this is a common condition. I would even say that people have always been the same in this sense, always wanting to be involved in "the latest craze" which comparably, during ancient times would have probably been the latest cult or religion (ooo bit of a stretch!! but you get my point).
Back to our leather clad friend: My main frustration with the film came from the real world situation surrounding it. The realisation that what I was watching was the only time I could ever watch the Joker, there was no excitement when they suggested a relationship between batman and his arch nemesis that could span beyond one film. Also the change of actress for the character of Rachael left me struggling to imagine who she was in the previous film and I kept trying to fit her square shaped personality into the new triangular hole. It made me take a step back and realise that it was..just a film. Much like when you are playing a computer game and a terrible glitch steals away the realism and makes you aware that it is just a game.
Finally, one of my only true critisisms is one that has nothing to do with the quality of the film. It should not have been a 12. I was actually disgusted that children would be allowed to watch such a traumatic, violent and disturbing film with a moral compass that tends to face NNW. I would not want any child to watch that film, make it a 15, great! That way it is justifiable. As a 12 it could confuse about true right and wrong, it could traumatise them and give them nightmares that won't go away very easily. Somebody clearly thought they could bend the rules (again!!!) so that they could get more money. Surprise surprise. I am fed up of seeing films with a 12 rating that have little difference to 18 rated films from 5 years ago.
Yes... I think that it had many classic film moments that will stick with me forever. Yes... I think that Heath Ledger was genuinely incredible as The Joker. Many scenes come to mind when I say that, which just proves to me that I am being a ponse.
There we are, I have just dicovered that I am just stubborn when it comes to having my identity rooted in the materialistic achievements of others. In other words, I am selfconcious and not proud enough of who I am but feel I have to add to that by saying what I like or dislike. I'm not the only one though am I? ;)
