Einherjar86
Active Member
Not saying you're wrong, but I wouldn't have singled Arthur's lines out of a list of criticisms. He's supposed to be an awkward guy who sucks at expressing himself. He can't exactly be full of wit.
That's a fair point, but the Joker is supposed to be full of wit. I guess you can say they took it a different direction, and if that's the case then I'm simply not a fan of this portrayal.
That's probably closer to my broader critique, which I didn't have time to get into earlier. The Joker's eventually mythic rise is based on his status as a supergenius, albeit a nihilistic one. This film demythologizes him, making his rise out to be little more than a series of accidents. I simply found it to be a less compelling and self-apologetic narrative structure. It felt lazy to me, although I certainly see the appeal in an accident-driven narrative.
Also, I wish they'd played up the class warfare issue, specifically as it pertains to Arthur and the Waynes. Batman's main superhero ability is that he's a billionaire; the Joker's is that he has, almost literally, nothing. Joker nods to that dynamic but doesn't play it up. It could have been an impressive critique but never really gets there. And what's with the age difference between Arthur and Bruce?
tl;dr, Heath Ledger was a much better Joker--but that's largely because Christopher Nolan is much better director than Todd Phillips.
Also, I wish they'd played up the class warfare issue, specifically as it pertains to Arthur and the Waynes. Batman's main superhero ability is that he's a billionaire; the Joker's is that he has, almost literally, nothing. Joker nods to that dynamic but doesn't play it up. It could have been an impressive critique but never really gets there. And what's with the age difference between Arthur and Bruce?
tl;dr, Heath Ledger was a much better Joker--but that's largely because Christopher Nolan is much better director than Todd Phillips.