Ledger’s unnuanced Joker, on the other hand, seems to be all places at all times, an unstoppable vortex of evil. Within days, he takes over Gotham City from bands of organized criminals who, in anything resembling reality (which the film oddly strives for, despite its naturally absurdist nature — something Nicholson’s Joker found glee in), would have had him dead within minutes. Yes, I can suspend disbelief, but not indefinitely. Yes, I can possibly believe the Joker could walk into a meeting of ethnic crime cartels (such a meeting already a huge stretch from reality) and get away clean — but survive multiple beatings, car crashes, and other deadly events with barely a scratch? And, unlike Batman, all without any armor protection? No. There is not a single moment where Ledger’s Joker is human — even for the ill. He is merely a symbol in the film. He could have been a plague of locusts. He’s that uninteresting, generically psychotic, and rote, as well as far less menacing than Nicholson’ Joker, precisely because he is far less human.
In fact, Ledger’s Joker is so ridiculous that he makes the claim that he never has plans, that he’s an agent of chaos; even though his character is scheming the most grandiloquent of capers from the start of the film till its end. And the fact that the script belies no sense of irony in that claim — in fact, Ledger delivers the lines to an incapacitated Dent in such earnestly serious and moralizing tones — means that the flaw in that claim is not with the character, but with the character’s creators, the screenwriters. This is not Postmodernism, nor ironic glee, either within or without the diegetic moment, but simply an overreach by a couple of overmatched scenarists who felt that the best way to imbue depth into the film was to have its chief antagonist utter non sequitured banalities. I guess really showing degrees and shades of emotion was too simple a solution?
Plus, unlike Nicholson’s Joker, Ledger’s Joker is not remotely funny. Hell, in that regard, give me Cesar Romero’s Joker from the 1960s campy television series. Then, to top things off, this Joker is ham-handedly called guess what? -- in this post-9/11 world — to make the film seem "relevant." You got it — a terrorist! Ach du lieber Gott in Himmel!
But the film suffers from many other ills, only a few of which I’ll list, such as the infamous middle filmitis, wherein new viewers are supposed to be already aware of and in touch with an ongoing mythos, so that things like plot and character development become afterthoughts. The dialogue in the film is reduced to sloganeering for advertising soundbites, and the plot is laced with absurdities even the comic book genre cannot reconcile, the least of which is why no one has been able to figure out Batman’s real identity. The whole town is familiar with the tale of his parents' demise; the whole town knows he is wealthy and runs a military industrial conglomerate (perfect for funding and arming a vigilante). It gets to a point, after Wayne deliberately runs a red light to thwart another of the Joker’s plans, that one feels like one is watching reruns of the old Superman television series from the 1950s, wherein not a single person can tell that Clark Kent (George Reeves) is really Superman, even though only a pair of eyeglasses is used as a disguise.
Article comments
1 - Deano
this is a very naive and unprofessional review
2 - Dano
I'm getting so angry reading this review. it's so disrespectful to heath ledger-
"in a sign of the film franchise gods’ revenge, the script decision, by director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan, to kill off Dent, played by the still alive Eckhart, and keep alive the Joker, played by the still dead Ledger, is the only justice associated with this film"
that's really harsh mate.
And besides, THE DARK KNIGHT was an amazing movie. stop trying to be an individual mate, just admit u love it!!
3 - Jordan Richardson
stop trying to be an individual mate
Erm...
4 - Deusx
Hey, Dan. I respect you as a book critic and as a poetry writer, but you need to stop reviewing movies and stick to what you're good at. You remind me of one of those guys who predetermines whether he will like a movie or not based on it's general appeal. Your non-objective attitude causes you to miss things, like when wrote about the 'agent of chaos' scene having no irony. He's wearing a woman's dress during the whole scene! Of course he's lying. You've done this with a lot of other popular movies too, like Blade Runner. It's not just that you call good movies bad, but when you hold up a piece of shit like Spiderman as being better, you just make an ass of yourself. You guffaw at Gordon's speech but not at 'this is my curse.'?? That's the only WTF I can think of. It never takes itself seriously, is that why Spiderman is better? Please. I guess that means Date Movie is funnier than Annie Hall.
5 - Deusche Schneider
Dan Schneider,
Please channel your [baseless] writing toward something you happen to have a clue about. My guess is you have no experience with acting, composing, screenwriting, OR directing. You also clearly lack any ability to detect well-done, artistic craft when it presents itself. I don't know how you believe Burton's interpretation touches more on realism than Nolan's. Every piece of The Dark Knight's plot is carefully devised in a way that exposes justice for the way it is, whereas in Burton's Batman, Nicholson waltzes around with stupid toys and contraptions, blowing shit up in public simply to show that he's "crazy." Jack Nicholson doesn't lend a commendable performance whatsoever as the Joker, he simply acts as himself. As for your homophobic issues, get over them. You're lame as fuck and have no business writing about any art form. Try sports.
6 - Allyson Christy
That is possibly the worst review I have ever read. Heath Ledger owned Jack Nicholson's Joker. Sure Jack did an amazing job but Heath just put more effort into the role. He completely devoted himself to his role and did the best Joker i have ever seen. And as for the homophobia and comparing it to Heath's role, that's just plain immature. Get better at reviewing movies douchebag.
7 - Claire W
Finally an intelligent review about a vastly overrated movie. Thank you!
8 - James
[personal attack deleted] Jack's Joker character might have been better but his performance was not. jack played Jack in makeup. Ledger transformed himself into the character by drastically changing everything from voice to laugh to mannerisms to facial expressions. He was 100% immersed, couldn't believe it was the same guy from A knight's tale.
9 - James
Keep in mind this is the same person who praised Spiderman 3 and at the same time bashed TDK, Brokeback and Crash(3 of the most well respected acclaimed films of the decade). He has also praised Topher Grace's Venom character(which was just grace as himself) and bashed Ledger as Joker(which was Ledger transforming himself into the character).