Messages

We don't need Batman to appear for Phoenix to be considered 'legitimate'. I think it's best to approach JOKER as something that includes 'Joker' themes, but exists as its own thing, which I find allows a mysterious disconnection from the other Joker actors while still embodying their spirit. 'It's not exactly the same as the comics or even the other films, therefore it's invalid' is dead end thinking. JOKER is a bit like The Shining – some things align but others don't.

I embraced the stripped down, character focus well before the glowing reviews came out. In this film, the impact Fleck has on others is there, but the main focus is Fleck's own mental evolution, or devolution – that point is a matter of perspective. His change of personality is largely dependent on the way society treats him, or how he perceives society treating him. Becoming a costumed killer represents the end of HIS arc, as he's certainly not going back to his Arthur days. This is him now. That is the sense of completion with the story they're telling.

Throwing down with Batman in a mudhole with copious CGI isn't what this film is about. Nor should any hypothetical sequels be that way inclined. If you're not on board with that concept it seems you won't be enjoying this 'one note origin story'.

Again... what is the purpose of a character study for a fictional villain when history tells us it always diminishes their appeal? We had three films in Star Wars that explained the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. At least  there was an endgame to all of it. We saw how that would play out in the other three "chapters". But in retrospect, it did nothing to enhance the villain because it stripped him of any mystery and actually made him more one dimensional. One of the 20 century's great sci-fi monsters was reduced to a whiny, immature brat. So much for that character study.

So now the thinking is we need to see why the Joker is disconnected from reason? My hunch (and hope) is this so-called "origin" is actually going to demonstrate that he is the author of his own madness and that  environmental issues are more a narrative that he purposely embellishes to justify his compulsions for violence (Very much in the same way Ledger's Joker changed the story of his scars). The LAST thing we need is a story using armchair reasoning to bail out a fascinating character like this as a 'byproduct of society'. What an unoriginal and completely pandering message that would be to the new "victim" generation.

The counter narrative in these stories, namely Batman, shows an identically scarred mind coming at the same issues from a different perspective. Its the battle of the wits (and ideology) that make Batman and Joker the premiere showcase. Not some "slug fest in the mud" as you demean it to be. I'm sorry if I find those possibilities far more challenging and intriguing as a character study than a superficial profile on the Joker that hides behind medical disorders as the commercial "hidden novel" (and crutch) for selling Hollywood's skewed view of "morality". Respect the source material instead of using it as a platform for personal agendas.

The negative one and done commentary ignores the fact Nicholson and Ledger are precisely that. Phoenix will also have one appearance, but guess what? He'll end up having more screen time than both put together. So it really is a moot point

There is nothing "ignored" because the Nicholas and Ledger Jokers were staged against Batman AS INTENDED. This movie wants to step outside that box and give the audience a one note origin story. My response to that is why do it at all if the suggestion is not to go any further?  Would you have preferred Nolan stop at Batman Begins? Do you build the world's fastest car and decide not to equip it with wheels? If the argument is, "This is for the art of it", then what is the statement? And please don't tell me it's to romanticize Tedd Bundy.

I laughed out loud recently when I read how people were outraged at the idealized ending for Tarantino's current film, " Once upon a time in Hollywood". Somewhere along the way people forgot to read the title or understand this was NOT a biography on the Manson family. IT IS FICTION. I'm finding myself reacting the same way to those who want to embrace this project because a critic called it a "masterpiece". And then we have the reaction in Venice to this film as well. Is Venice now the beacon of truth in art or can we just apply a tad bit of transparency and understand all of this is well crafted MARKETING to influence opening weekend that is just under a month away? Funny how that works...

The Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. All of the sprinkles of social allegory (that most movies carry anyway) will never get me to consider this interpretation as a serious study of mental illness or class warfare as conceptualized by Joaquin Phoenix.  I see with better eyes than that and understand what is commercial and what is window dressing to make a buck. If you had one of these disorders would you enjoy seeing it portrayed by a fictional homicidal villain? Might set you back a bit. But the responsibility of that is for another discussion. All of that being said, my reaction is to the conjecture of this film. I'm hoping to like this movie, but I don't have to guess at my disappointment if they do not marry it to a Batman film to give it completion. There is no case study to be had on a fictional antagonist, nor is there a payoff if the fictional protagonist is never intended to share center stage with him.

Its difficult for me to draw any fair conclusions on this until I actually see the film. That being said, I certainly have opinions on the suggestions regarding this being a stand alone project. If this is to be nothing more than a origin story wrapped in social commentary, what is the intention for the audience? Deconstructing villains is not a new approach in the age of cinema. And it goes without saying this exploration often devalues the villain when we're handed an explanation far less interesting than what we could personally imagine. God knows we've had some classic villains destroyed with shallow depictions of "good people, filled with good intentions, steered in bad directions by others with less noble pursuits." It's a bit of a tired formula. So when I see a film that promises to take me "inside the mind of the Joker", history has taught me not to invest too much on that promise.

Hopefully this is the launch of something interesting to bring in the new Batman and not another shallow rambling from Hollywood about the shortcomings of society, (which they exploit to generate revenue). There's nothing more disingenuous than someone virtue signalling while picking your pocket.

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it.

Bale played a very different kind of Batman.

In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara.

Dick already knew his secret and he occasionally found himself in conflict with Barbara before she discovered his secret.

Clooney played Bruce in public as scatterbrained and a bit vapid. The press conference about the telescope is a good example. Even during his dinner scene with Julie, he's not taking things seriously. The only time Clooney's Bruce is ever serious is mostly when he's around people who know his secret.

There are differences between Clooney's Bruce and his Batman.

I get what you're saying and I realize if we split hairs over nuances of personality in any given moment, one can conclude a slightly different take on a character. But to be fair if we compared what both characters had in common, it would be easy to connect the dots in that world as to who was under the mask. It didn't help that Batman was as much a celebrity in the public eye as Bruce Wayne, so the advantage of being elusive and in shadow were not factors here.

Ultimately I accept it as it is. I can channel my disbelief to another frequency when I watch this movie and just enjoy the ride. But I DO think general audiences for the day would have been more receptive of this interpretation had Schumacher not broke continuity and kept the Batman character cloaked under a different vocal presentation. I think it was too radical a departure given this was supposed to fit with the other films in the series up to that point.

When I watch this movie by itself, its always enjoyable. But if I'm watching it in chronological order with the others, it knocks me out of that ongoing story because of the abruptness in depiction of the Wayne/Batman characters. There's no association with them and the characters played by Kilmer and Keaton. Val at least tried to play Keaton's Batman through much of the first half of Forever. He then gradually came into his own as the story developed from there. You get no transition with this film. You get a new actor and a completely different depiction.

I don't think that I agree with this. Clooney's Bruce voice is indeed rather similar to his Batman voice, there's no denying that. But his Batman is a strong-willed and decisive man of action whereas his Bruce is a foppish, scatter-brained and vapid socialite. The differences between Clooney's Bruce portrayal and Clooney's Batman portrayal are strong enough that I can buy that nobody would suspect Bruce is Batman. Honestly, the idea that nobody in Gotham is smart enough to figure out how Batman pays for all his gear is one of the key conceits of the character. I don't see B&R as a more egregious offender in that department than zillions of comics, cartoons, films, etc.

I maintain that if BF and B&R came out today, they'd both be looking at $800 million worldwide, at least.

I never saw his Bruce Wayne contrast differently from Batman. Especially not in the manner in which Christian Bale illustrated it. In fact Clooney's Wayne showed quite a bit of strong will, especially when he was talking to Dick or Barbara. He also showed an enormous amount of toughness yet compassion at  Alfred's bedside when he thought he was dying. And when he would be indecisive about the marriage question by the media or when Poison Ivy approached him and said, " You're not going to hurt me are you", its all said in a mocking kind of droll manner like he's humored by it, but not threatened. I felt he was pretty consistent throughout. Heck, he joked more as Batman than he did as Bruce Wayne!

100% agree with you on the degree of disbelief we have to afford other characters more so than Batman here. Clark and Superman will always be the most blatant offender in that category. And I also agree both of these films would be enormous hits with today's audience and their general sensibilities to this genre. That too is where I return to my earlier point about the expectations of the day in 1997. In today's marketplace there's a kind of "next batter up" mentality to the genre'. People are open to an enormous array of treatments that involve immense devotion to the comic sensibilities all the way to a more grounded realism. It's all there.

In 1997, Batman was the ONLY active superhero franchise in the world. I was almost 33 when that film came out... ... ...damn I'm old.  But during that period, it contained people like me who either loved comics and thus loved everything we could get out of it, or we had others who thought it was for individuals who were challenged to be anything serious in life. My generation was still fighting an older world that mocked the genre, but those folks were still in control of the entertainment industry. So B&R had ridiculous weights on it. You had the fans who were reading Frank Miller's Dark Knight needing their 'dignity' well represented and then there was the old world mentality of, " Well this genre was never viable to begin with." Its not like it is today where you have generations of people who see this genre as a normal part of the entertainment field, while my generation (that grew up reading those stories only in comics) are essentially running the industry. It's an entirely different playing field top to bottom. But I digress...

So with me now in my mid-50's, I was hoping these younger generations would find some bonding to B&R or at least have less of a critique to it. And that seems to be the case. This  "embarrassed/hatred" attitude seems to be losing traction. And while there will always be that segment that deplores it, just like the '66 series, I think the general complaint about it's treatment is becoming harder to argue given the volume of product out there that treads on similar notes.  The general audience for this genre has lightened up and embrace the fun in these films much more so in today's world.

And let me end on this note - If my life experience has taught me one thing about movies and television, its that you can never assume something hated in one generation will not find its audience and be embraced much later. Movies have an ongoing life of their own, long after their theatrical run has ended and the fans/critics have offered their assessment. That's just a stitch in time.  The one similarity B&R has to other movies that have gone on to be embraced decades later, is this persistence by people to continue talking about it. That right there is a tell-tell sign that a movie has life. Bad movies are forgotten. Movies that entertain, endure. For all it's quirkiness, I will always enjoy watching this movie. There is a timeless quality to it that most other Batman films do not possess. It's very much its own animal with a visual palate that has yet to have lost its allure. And to do that in this day and age where effects are so visually incredible is really saying something about a film made 22 years ago.

The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

I don't hate the film, but if I had the chance to go back in time and erase it from history I'd do so. That said, I think B&R has the grounding for something decent, but they overplayed their hand, which blemishes the whole. The awkward, extended conversation of "this is why Superman works alone" and things like Freeze throwing the guard vertically to dislodge his out of reach gun stick out automatically. Yes, I prefer a darker tone, but I'm not against something lighter either. I think B&R would've been better received if they ironed out more of that outright silly stuff without sacrificing the outlandish sense of adventure (the Batmobile jumping off the statue and Batman ejecting towards Freeze). The camp of Poison Ivy at the flower ball (and Batman attending public events) was perfect for what they were going for. But I think overall, the balancing act of poignancy (Alfred's illness) and comic book just didn't work out as well as Batman Forever.

I think if you take that movie and turn the sound down, you see everything it could have been, because what you hear really gets in the way of that film. First Clooney was never given a Batman "voice", so that alone rattles the viewer because its a big continuity problem from the first three. He looks fine as Batman and he makes a great Bruce Wayne. But its painfully obvious he looks lost in the outfit because he's not really playing anyone. He's just dressed up with essentially the same personality as Bruce Wayne and you can see that look on Clooney's face that says, " What the hell am I doing?" So I give the biggest blame of that to the director who should have seen his awkwardness right away. But I also shoulder some of that on Clooney too, who should have said, " I don't have a character to play."

And that's further supported by the commentary Schumacher gives in the movie when he says the costume is akin to Elvis's wardrobe going on tour by itself. He says, "All fans really want is the suit."  Well we all know how that worked out, and this movie demonstrates the flaws in that thinking. So if you lose the audience with the primary hero, the rest of the film will suffer as well because now the suspended disbelief is removed and the audience is just reading the film literally which leads to people looking for more gaffs that all films have anyway. If the actors don't believe in it, neither will the audience. Let's face it, if Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford were not delivering those lines in the original Star Wars, could you really find merit in the dialogue just by reading it? I doubt it. For the most part its pretty bad. Charisma and conviction are a great dressing for dialogue that is absurd. It would be interesting if someone dubbed in a new voice for Batman to see if added characterization made a big difference. I really wish someone who had good skills in this area would do that for just a handful of scenes to see how it reads. It would be interesting.

I was pleasantly surprised at the balance and fairness of that overview. Nice article. I think the buildup to the film's release really gives you the foundation for why fans/media were setting themselves up to be disappointed. Hollywood has a history of overdoing it in sequels when they think they have found a formula. When the audience really likes something, Hollywood feels inclined to drown them in it with the next feature. The Batman franchise in particular has been like that throughout its history.

When Batman hit huge in the 60's, the TV series was so big, they released a movie that showcased all of the campy/wit elements of the show. Within a few years, that style was frowned upon and was kept under lock and key when they decided to make a new film in 1989. The studio would not even consider any cameos from the classic television show. So when Burton made "dark" Batman cool, the studio took the reigns off the director and let him run wild in Batman Returns. While this film would be enjoyed by future generations, it nearly mothballed the franchise back then. Parents complained about the violence and dark images. Plus the film did not perform nearly as well as the debut film.

Like most studios, they panicked and decided the 60's Batman was their friend after all. Enter Schumacher and a considerably more colorful and lightweight interpretation. The business came back and the studio hugged Schumacher for being a genius. How was B&R not inevitable? The studio saw success as more color, more camp, and more OTT characters to give the public more of what Forever had most assuredly introduced.

And just like the reaction to the original Adam West series, the studio ran for cover and mothballed the franchise when they didn't get what they expected. Could any of us really have doubted a more "serious" and "dark" Batman would return? Since then Batman has been all over the map in film and animation. While you had the Dark Knight series running, cartoons celebrated the 60's camp with the Brave and the Bold. Then Snyder got a hold of Batman and gave us the perfect example of why going too serious gets you right back into unintended camp which, for me, is far more painful to watch than when its planned.

So as much as B&R may not have satisfied expectations in its day, the industry was completely different and the marketplace was not sure of its footing with this genre yet. You still had allot of people running these companies that belittled the panel graphic art-form who longed for these kinds of movies to go away. Today you have fans of this genre running the studios and making the movies. Some context needs to be applied. B&R never got to enjoy the advantages these movies get today, including a far greater appeal from the general public. So I think when everything gets unpacked here, the kind of big budget movie that Batman & Robin became was something of a miracle given the forces in play at that time. The film still holds up really well more than 20 years later, which some of its counterparts can not say as well.  Sure there are some note-able gaffs in there, but overall the film is uniquely timeless in its style and presentation. And I think that has allot  to do with why it endures.

[less so with the Robin figure]

High quality representation of the sonar suit - less so with the Robin figure. I have a lot of time for Batman Forever and Kilmer's portrayal these days. I bought the Hot Wheels Elite 1:18 BF Batmobile a year or more ago now, which is another high quality representation. This sonar suit figure would look very good next to it.

I too was surprised by the almost generic appearance of Robin (especially in the head sculpt). That almost looks like something Hasbro would have done, least of all Hot Toys. That being said, I do hope they get around to Clooney in the panther suit. I would find it disheartening to have B&R somehow shamed again for being the only movie that doesn't get a high-end level figure. Can you imagine a Hot Toys level Mr. Freeze with lights? Oh wow... Even still, moving back to Forever, do the Riddler and Two-Face.

Fun! Thanks for sharing.

I find it funnier that in the final sequence where they're all sacked on the couch, you can see their outfits laying on the back of the couch and on the floor. Slightly odd given they had Barbara with them. I can't see them disrobing in the family room, especially when they have a wardrobe chamber in the Batcave.