This is helped by the broad outlines of his actors, and the costumes he fits them in. There's naught here, as performances go — they're all sparse, and are less characters than they are cliches or archetypes relying on past popular images of the characters. Still, Schoenke's picked out two actors at the heart of it all that could not be visually a better fit for the two nemeses. His Batman cuts a huge, black figure against the moonlight sky, muscular but not a Hulk. And here he does something that no Hollywood rendition of the character has done — he puts him in the traditional black-and-gray tight-togs of the comic, and it comes off far better than expected, helped not a little by the production value invested in it, I'm sure. I can't quite tell if it's Spandex or not, but it looks astounding, an image cut right from the pages of Jim Lee (in all the right ways, for those who know my opinion on Snyder's Watchmen). His Joker is no different — a gangly, knobby-nosed, corpse-white ghoul done up in dainty-fit which isn't too far a stretch visually from Heath Ledger's own inimitable portrayal. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but the holes around his eyes and the raggedy nature of his once-great clothing can't help but recall that performance. His voice is a self-acknowledged rip on Mark Hamill's, but it works.
As I said before, this is not a film for performances or writing. The story is rote, and if not for its ending, would be pretty well indistinguishable from anything found before in the monthlies. Schoenke's actors are better seen and not heard - what dialogue they are given comes off as trite and emotionally unconvincing, whether that's because it's just bad, exposition-laden dialogue, or because they really just cannot act. The man playing Batman is actually The Rock's stunt double, and too often the words coming out of his mouth sound too much like the growly, pumped-up speech of a wrestler coming into the ring, through a veil of Conroy-esque animalism. You'd not be too far off in expecting him to say "Joker! I'm gonna break ya' face!" And the Joker is no different, given dialogue that's a little too indistinguishable from Mark Hamill's own take on the character. It's all just this side of cliche, but then again, I don't think any of that is the point.
Article comments
1 - Darwin
I don't think we should put bad acting as "besides the point." Good actors are the core of any project, and just having people 'look' the part and stand there like dynamic paintings is not compelling enough. Casting is an important part of directing, as is wringing the best performance out of mediocre talent.
2 - Henry J. Baugh
Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that notion. Sure, they're drastically important to a film that is more dramatically or personally oriented, but not always with those filmmakers who are more concerned with the formalism and machinations of film, and all of that stuff. Not that Schoenke is one of those guys, but -
But, like I said - I don't think it's the point of the project. Schoenke is obviously more interested in the visual, visceral aspect of the whole deal than anything else. And, it's his visual sense of storytelling that's the strongest. He'll get better at directing his actors as he goes along, I'm sure.
Problem is, it's a trade off - with a character like Batman, you can either find someone who looks the part but isn't really an actor, or you can find someone who can act but doesn't really look the part. It's kind of a catch-22, I think.