Note:  This post does contain some spoilers of both the movie and the comic The Killing Joke, from which many aspects of the Joker in the film are taken.  You have been warned!

So of course, Friday night, I went and saw the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight.  Big surprise there, eh?  Even my new found miserly ways could not keep me from seeing what might be the most anticipated film of the year.  And the quick review?  It truly is all that and a bag of chips.  The long review, well, that’s what I’m about to write now, of course.

So the most talked about aspect of this film in all the advance reviews was Heath Ledger’s performance of ‘The Joker,’ and while I’m not completely sold on all the Oscar talk, I will say that he has created one of the most memorable on screen villains of recent memory.  His portrayal of the Joker is chilling, freighting, and psychotic.  Now before I go any further, I must give credit where credit is due.  If it were not for the excellent script by director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan (wow, a family working together!), Ledger would not have had the material to work from that gave rise to his wonderful performance.  Anyway, the Joker of this film is one that is miles away from the one of the ’60s TV series, and a few padded cells down from Nicholson’s 1989 Joker.  Whereas Jack played the Joker with more comedy then true psychosis, Ledger gives himself wholly over to the psychotic nature of the character.

And there is nothing wrong with either interpretation.  The character has been written both ways in the comics, and even in Batman: The Animated Series, we see both aspects.

And here is the rub, Nicholson’s Joker would not work in the world created by Nolan.  Tim Burton’s Gotham was a more fantastical place, with Gothic spires and Gargoyles on every roof top.  It was dark and nightmarish in a demented sort of way, but was far enough removed from reality, that a more comedic, over-the-top Joker was called for.  Nolan’s Gotham is a much more real place.  Shooting on the streets of Chicago, we feel like it is not so far removed from our world, thus calling for a more realistic Joker.  Even the way Nolan set up the Batman in the first movie makes him feel like a more plausible character.  Yes, we can never truly believe that Batman and the Joker could ever be real, but it is so hard to imagine that a truly criminally insane person, like a serial killer, might adopt such an identity before going on their crime spree?  No.  The existence of such criminals as “Jack the Ripper,” the “Zodiac Killer,” and Charles Manson and his cult gives grounding to the Joker.  And Ledger performs him as such an insane person, or as he calls himself, an “Agent of Chaos.”

Which brings me to the strongest aspect of the Joker in this movie, and that is as a foil to Batman.  In the comics, the Joker has always been the best foil of Batman among his rouges gallery.  Batman seeks to bring the people of Gotham order.  He wants take back the streets from the criminals, and give power back to the good people of Gotham.  The Joker wants nothing more than to throw it into chaos.  He’s never sought power like so many other villains, it holds no appeal for him, what he seeks is merely anarchy.  Take Alan Moore’s seminal The Killing Joke, for example (something I believe was an inspiration for Nolan and Nolan).  In it, the Joker escapes from Arkham (again!), and seeks to prove that sanity is just a thin facade, and even the supposedly sanest person can be forced into insanity.  To that end, the Joker kidnaps Commissioner Gordon, and in the process shoots and paralyzes his daughter Barbara from the waist down.  He then subjects Gordon to psychological torture, stripping him naked and parading him around a carnival.  Torture fit for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay!  He then shows him images of his still bleeding daughter stripped naked.  All trying to break him and prove that anyone can be driven insane, though Gordon never breaks.  The whole story is bookended by Batman talking to the Joker, asking if there is anyway they can stop their endless dance that can only lead to one of them killing the other.

Ledger’s delivery, the body language, everything he does physically brings out this psychotic nature and makes you truly fear the character.  He feels real, truly psychotic.  And the end, in his upside down monologue to Batman after his “social experiment” with the two ferries has failed (re. Killing Joke experiment with Gordon), we get to hear just what it is that he wants, to be nothing more than an Agent of Chaos, to reveal the truth of society underneath our politesse.  In this aspect, we see a much deeper aspect of the Joker, one that truly earns him his name.  One aspect of the Joker/Pierrot/Jester of the Commedia dell’Arte/Shakespearean tradition is that of social commentator.  He alone sees the truth of society, it’s follies and foibles, and thanks to his place as a Jester/Comedian of the court (in the Shakespeare), he can comment directly on it without fear of reprisal from the King.  In this, we see that sense of the Joker, but to us, he is proven wrong.  His view is warped by his own psychosis…but is he so wrong?  That is the question.

Now, I would be remiss to discuss one further aspect of the Joker in this film, and that is the musical aspect and its relationship to the idea of foil to Batman.  The score for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight is one that doesn’t really have character “themes” in the traditional Romantic sense, like Wagner or the scores of Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.  But, it does have some ideas and gestures that can be called motifs of sorts.  The one most associated with Batman has two parts: first is a two note repeated motor rhythm played in the strings (in someways I think this is a sideways homage to the original T.V. Batmantheme, but I could be wrong), and second is a two chord progression that moves upwards.  The chords themselves has a decidedly minor/dark quality, but the upwards motion is a very recognizable heroic topic.  In this sense, we get the nature of Batman represented, his dark/fear inducing quality mixed with his want to do good.  In Dark Knight, the score gives us a similar two-part motif most associated with the Joker, but it changes the elements to make it a musical foil to the Batman motif.  First, the two-note rhythm, now played by an electric guitar (I think), is mostly one repeated notes with accents to give it a more off-kilter feel, it doesn’t settle into regularity and is very uneasy, like the Joker’s mental state.  The second aspect, the chords, now move downwards, and for the second chord is goes to a deep pedal note, musically it is the bottom dropping out.  And the downward motion, of course, is the opposite of the upward heroic topic.

These are just some thoughts.  There is much more I could go into:  the amazing effects for Harvey Dent’s Two-Face persona (truly chilling), the death of (SPOLIER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOLIER ALERT!!!!!) Rachel Dawes (now played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) and how it clears the decks for the possible introduction of a new love interest (i.e. Talia al Ghul or Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman) in the next movie, or the very end and the implications for the next movie.  But this has gone on long enough and I really should go do some work…since I am at work.

Addendum:  Okay, I’ve edited the many, many spelling errors!  Also, my friend and film scorer B (name withheld to protect the innocent) pointed out that in the Joker’s motif, it is not electric guitar playing the rhythm, but most likely an electrically altered (distortion) cello.  This, though, fits well with the foil idea because for the Batman motif, the rhythmic aspect is played by groups of cellos.  So the same base instruments (no pun intended), but the Joker’s are distorted.  Also, he corrected me that also, for the Joker, there are not chords, but open octaves that move downwards.  Again, I feel that these differences only strengthen the concept of foil nature that the Joker plays for Batman.  Aural skills have never been my strong point.

 So this weekend I saw Julie Taymore’s newest film Across the Universe.  A movie musical love story set to works by The Beatles taking place in the late 1960s in the U S.  The history of the ’60s in the US, while somewhat romanticized by nostalgia of a time that, despite the social strife, was a time when people actually fought for what they believed in, is truly one of great upheaval and unrest.  The film depicts both the political and racial tensions in the nation.  It pulls in allegorically many major events of the time:  race riots (one character flees from Detroit, most likely the 1967 riots that was one of worst in US history), and both peaceful demonstrations and the eventual violent turn by the anti-war movement.  The title choice, Across the Universe, is an interesting one I think.  The repeated line of the chorus, after the mantra that is the title of this post, is “Nothing’s gonna change my world,” I believe has a lot to say about the history of the 60s political movement, and in extension, our current society.

Now, “Across the Universe” was written by John Lennon in 1968, just as the anti-war movement was starting to reach its heights.  But as the song is used in the movie (and is juxtaposed with “Helter Skelter”), during a climatic protest scene in which our male lead, trying to reach his more radicalized girlfriend through the crowd, the line “Nothing’s gonna change my world” drifts up between lines of “Helter Skelter,” and we understand Taymore’s choice of title, the line is a prophetic comment on the anti-war movement.  The solemn tone of the song is the funeral of American revolutionary spirit that died when the 60s anti-war movement would eventually failed amidst increasing government policing and incidents like the Kent State Shootings.  The violent turn taken by some groups, like the Weather Underground linked above, also led to a disillusion by many who saw a betrayal of the peace and love spirit of the 60s, incidents like this at UW-Madison led to the collapse of what had been growing support among more of the general public for the movement.

In the end, nothing did change our world.  Despite and unpopular war, one of which had a dubious beginning to American escalation, it was only the collapse of the American defense that led to the pull out from Viet Nam.  The anti-war movement achieved nothing except the death of the spirit of public protest of governmental policies.  The American Imperial agenda that had been growing since the end of World War II, and especially the growth of the military-industrial complex (as used by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech when leaving office), had successfully entrenched itself into America’s political landscape and has grown stronger with ever subsequent American led invasion, American backed coup or insurrection in other nations, from Korea right down to our current scrap in Iraq.  The failure of the 60s anti-war movement has made it harder to organize large scale efforts against the Iraq War here in the United States, though worldwide the movement is quite large.

In the end, many people feel like the beast is too large to take down.  It would take a widespread change in political culture to get rid of the of the ‘military-industrial complex.’  It’s hard to pinpoint where the beginnings of America‘s imperial ambition began, some say the War of 1812, while others point to the Spanish-American War.  There is no doubt that post World War II though, America had become addicted to the heroin that is being a World Superpower, and even though that in today’s society military power does not equal true power, America is still looking for a military fix to prop up its status.  Through out the last fifty years, it has been the constant military readiness that has fueled America‘s economic rise, and now those corporations see the danger in today’s world where wars are fought not by men in the field, but by bankers and accountants, and stock brokers.  Money has always equaled power, but now they’ve just cut out the middle man of the military.

You say you want a revolution?  Well you know, we all want to change the world.  I don’t have any answers, and there are so many things wrong with the way our government works.  Politicians are bought and sold by lobbyists, though it’s all “campaign contributions.”  Right.  We can’t get health care reform because the HMOs buy off enough congressmen to block it.  “Stay the course” has kept us in Iraq, along with American pride, never give up, never surrender.  Smart businessmen know when to cut their losses and dump a losing stock, or in the case of Time Warner, AOL.  But as Bush’s early business career attest to, he went from one failed company to another, though somehow always ended up with a high position at the company his was sold too.  Savvy.

So I’ve seemed to have strayed from the initial topic of Julie Taymore’s latest film, or have I?  I do believe that many of these things were the intended overtones of the film.  Commentary on our current situation and the parallels between Viet Nam and Iraq are a dime a dozen today, but I believe the true subtle genius of Taymore’s story and title choice is showing us just how much the failure of the anti-war movement against the government has had a sustained impact on our culture.  The movement was truly on the verge of open revolution at times, but was stopped before it got that far (though the fact that some did take up arms as it was faltering shows the dedication of a few towards that end).

Now, I must tread carefully, or else Homeland Security might be beating down my door, I do not support violent revolution.  That is only the last act of desperation after peaceful, political options have all been exhausted.  Though that is just the trajectory that the 60s took: after the peaceful demonstrations had failed, after many instances of government violence towards its citizenry, those left, and most radicalized, took up arms, and the rest is history.  The movement withered upon the Tree of Liberty, showing sometimes that it cannot be refreshed by the blood of riots and tyrants.  Political insurgency is such a tricky thing, because to one side it is freedom fighting, to the other it is terrorism.  Your view depends on which side of the looking glass you are on, for what were the American revolutionaries but terrorist against the British crown?

“Through the looking glass“, or “through a glass, darkly,” it is all based on perception.  And too many of us are afraid to look in the mirror for fear of what might be looking back at us.