The Dark Knight’s Next Villain
By Lisa Fary
Where does Batman go for villainy after this? On the way home after the movie, John and I ran through the list and dismissed most of them. The Penguin? Lame. The Riddler? Meh. Catwoman? Maybe. But how threatening is she, really? She’s more of a burglar than a killer – she’s not exactly going to burgle Gotham City to its knees.
After The Dark Knight, only Batman vs. Alien vs. Predator can follow. That’s all I can think of that could be scarier and more challenging than Heath Ledger’s Joker.
Of course, we can’t talk about The Joker without bringing up Jack Nicholson. Nicholson’s Joker was dapper and elegant, prone to theme gags like murder by joy buzzer and toxic gas balloons (and really, when you get right down to it, it’s just Jack Nicholson in make-up – the guy hasn’t acted since Chinatown).
That Joker may have worked for that Elfman scored Gotham City at the end of the 1980s, but now he’d be more appropriate as the Guild of Calamitous Intent’s approved arch enemy for Dr. Venture.
And looking back, it’s hard to see why he was such a challenge for Batman to conquer. Nicholson’s Joker was kind of a pussy.
Ledger’s Joker is an animal. Worse than that, actually. An animal will kill out of predatory instinct – this Joker will do it because he likes it. He has animalistic mannerisms and he’s clearly a psychopath, but just as clearly, there’s a sharp mind at work behind that smeared greasepaint. This Joker is a worthy arch for Christian Bale’s Batman, and he’s scary as hell.
The reviewer in the New York Press, Armond White, said that The Dark Knight, by making The Joker so grim and showing the darkness of the titular Dark Knight (this one is a Nicholson lover, and would clearly prefer Batman drenched in a Prince soundtrack), panders to a hip, pessimistic, and nihilistic generation. In Rudy Giuliani fashion, White links this to 9/11:
“This pessimism links Batman to our post-9/11 anxiety by escalating the violence quotient, evoking terrorist threat and urban helplessness.”
OK, that’s kind of like poo-poohing pre-1990s James Bond for exploiting Americans’ Cold War fears. Movies and their villains have to work with the modern psyche – 1989 Americans were afraid of Russians with nukes and movies gave us plots and villains to match. In 2008, Americans are afraid of one unhinged dude blowing up one building at a time.
PRETENSION ALERT
Jack Nicholson’s Joker was a Cold War era villain. He wasn’t a Soviet, but he embodied America’s vision of those ideas. He wanted to re-make everything and everyone around him in the spirit of his ideal, sometimes on a one-on-one basis (his girlfriend, Alicia) and sometimes on a wider scale (Smile-X gas). Art and culture were not exempt – remember the scene in the art museum? The Joker wasn’t vandalizing – he was “improving” the paintings. In addition to invoking fear, The Joker was stamping out any competitive vision. That’s a very Soviet thing to do.
|
|
|
We’re no longer afraid of the Soviets, so we need a different kind of villain. One whose motives can’t be understood. One who is unpredictable. One who can’t be reasoned with. That’s how America views the terrorist threat, so that view is going to find its way into pop-culture villains like The Joker, even if he isn’t explicitly the current, real-life enemy.
(BTW, many of us were grim and pessimistic well before 9/11 and for societal reasons that had nothing to do with xenophobic paranoia.)
PRETENSION COMPLETE
That said, Ledger is masterful as The Joker. No one can ever play this role again. That’s not out of respect for the late actor, but because he was so perfect, so definitive in his performance. He’s elevated The Joker to the winner of every hypothetical villain match up that geeks have over beer in the basement while switching DVDs.
The Dark Knight isn’t just dark – it’s effing pitch black. It’s horrifying, nerve wracking, and relentless. And it’s brilliant. If you haven’t already seen it, go see it now.
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS
|
|
Lisa Fary’s early exposure to classic Battlestar Galactica in 1979 is largely responsible for her lifelong interest in science fiction and her childhood ambition of being an intergalactic space cowgirl. She thinks diagramming sentences is a fun alternative to Sudoku.
I agree with you about Catwoman being just a burglar, but there WAS that quip about how the new suit might not stand up to a large cat. So they might use her as a periphery villain? Also, this was mentioned to me last night and it sounds oddly brilliant: Do you think Christian Slater could play the Riddler?
[Cheap gag] >>>In addition to invoking fear, The Joker was stamping out any competitive vision. That’s a very Soviet thing to do. <<< Yeah, they do that over at IO9, too. <<< [/Cheap gag]
I just want to see Batgirl, done right this time *glares at Batman & Robin* As much as I like Alicia Silverstone (or rather, Cher from Clueless) they effed up Batgirl so much I saw red. Grrr.
Quite a while ago, I read that David Tennant was interested in playing The Riddler. . . but I like the idea of Christian Slater better. He’s got the necessary darkness and can do creepy/ crazy well.
Speaking of Batgirl. . . I was annoyed that Commissioner Gordon’s son got so much camera time while Barbara wasn’t even seen. Well, we saw the top of her head at the end there, but it would have been more appropriate for Gordon to have that last conversation with her instead of the boy. Even if the character goes nowhere in Nolan’s movies, it still would have been a nice nod.
I have to echo your question. Where DO we go from here? What story line or character could match the insanity of Ledger’s Joker? What premise could expand on this frighteningly dark vision? What force could allow the people of Gotham to appreciate the Batman again? What happens now, and how will Producers/Directors/Writers do it in such a way that will match this film? I fear that this may be the end of this line and yet, I hope that something will come along that can match this.
Who’s the villain for the next Batman film? Batman is. Wasn’t that the point of the ending?
Also, I don’t know why you denigrate any of the Bat-villains as being entirely out of contention. The thing that Nolan proved with “Batman Begins” is that he can make any villain interesting. He took two villains with almost zero pop culture recognition and made them real and important and dangerous. Ra’s al Ghul is big in the comics, but translating his specific type of mercenary mission into film isn’t easy. And Scarecrow? Please.
I pretty much think anyone they pick would probably work. I’m half wondering if, since Batman’s the public enemy #1, they won’t go for more bureaucratic, practiced villains to point up the fact (started with Harvey Dent) that people trust too easily to faces. Someone like Penguin (or hell even the Clock King) wouldn’t be entirely out of the question.
Trinity – Although Batman as the villain of the next film is an obvious pick (now that you mention it), I still think that there has to be some greater evil present to allow him to be redeemed in the eyes of Gotham’s citizenry. Batman Begins dealt with the theme of Fear and Dark Knight deals with the theme of Belief. I can see Nolen going with a theme of Hope/Despair (Ra’s Al Ghul’s daughter (Talia?) and a Bruce-Baby pregnancy, perhaps).
Based on Dark Knight, however, I’m now convinced that whatever it is they come up with for the next film, there is now way I can begin to guess.
Cowboy – I would love to see Talia come in, especially if Ra’s al Ghul returned, but no Bat-babies. They already reduced Superman to that. And Indy. And Hellboy. No more, I say!
Batgirl/catwomen? Oh please, that would completely ruin it. And the riddler is kind of like the joker, I cant imagine much difference between those villains, it would be cool though. I think its best to let Nolan and Goyer speculate on this one.