So after the whirlwind that was the Democratic National Convention in Denver last weekend, Obama and his running mate Joe Biden made a stop in Columbus this past Saturday. Having nothing better to do, I headed to the high school stadium in the northwest part of town that held the event and waited about four hours to festivities begin.
It was worth it. I wasn't blown away by much; not by the speakers, which included Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Governor Ted Strickland, nor by the crowd, which the news later reported at around 20,000 and was sprawled all over the football field and into the stands. But I was impressed by how well planned the speaking portion of the event was.
All the speakers leading up to Obama--including Biden--wore either a suit, shirt and tie, or shirt/coat/no tie combination. Obama was the most casually dressed, wearing dark slacks and a light blue dress shirt. Not only does he pull off that look very well, he presented himself as the one most reaching out to the thousands of people gathered, most of us dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. So this was all very smartly run.
The other key difference between Obama and his Democratic partners was in speaking style. Before Barack's keynote address of the evening, all speakers before him spoke behind a podium mounted on the stage. Obama took the microphone off of the podium and walked around the stage as he addressed the crowd, another way of making himself seem more approachable to the audience. I think Barack's a fantastic speaker when he's prepared and up for that big moment, like he was Thursday night, but when it comes to being off-the-cuff, he seems like he still has work to do. He stuttered a few words and let out a few "ums," and it reminded me of some of his debate struggles with Hilary earlier this year. He'll need to be prepared again for that first debate with McCain, I think in early October.
In spite of that, Obama does have two huge factors in his favor:
1) People go crazy for Obama merely by making eye contact with him. He would turn towards a group of people clustered near the stage and they would start screaming. I'm not making this up. Obama didn't ask for this kind of celebrity status, it came to him.
2) He has such a natural, relaxed charisma with his public speaking. As he and Biden (who is also a fine and exciting speaker) strode to the stage, Obama had a huge smile on his face as he shook hands with people, and continued to smile during the introductions of the two candidates. I think this natural connection Obama has with his supporters is so damn intimidating to McCain's campaign staff, they can't help but compare him with Britney Spears.
The highlight of the rally happened during Obama's speech, when a woman about thirty yards away from the stage fainted. Obama asked (on the mic) for EMTs to assist in the heat-stricken woman, and then said, (and I'm paraphrasing), "Actually, we probably have some water here." He went behind the podium and pulled out a bottle of water, tossing it into the crowd so they could hand it back to the woman.
The crowd went nuts over this. He might as well have turned the water into wine.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Film Review: The Incredible Hulk
Last Friday evening, I re-discovered the joy of waiting for a film to have been out for 2-3 months and then going to the cheap movie theater a bit outside downtown, and paying two bucks to see the film instead of the requisite seven, eight, nine, or twenty. Professional film critics get to screen films free of charge; for the rest of us, there's either the cheapie screens or a bad Internet feed.
And going to the Movies 12 on Bethel Road in Columbus was the only way I was going to watch The Incredible Hulk on the big screen. That's not a knock against the quality of the film; this summer (along with the past four or five summer seasons) has been another superhero-heavy offering with shows like Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Hancock. Of these four, Iron Man and The Dark Knight were, in my opinion, the two must-sees for film goers. But at least The Incredible Hulk displays an improvement over its prequel, and allows the audience to enjoy the action instead of being bowled over by an artistic critique that hurt the 2003 version.
The story begins in the slums of Brazil (where director Louis Letterier is at his best in detailing the city life of Rio de Janeiro) as Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) works at a soda processing plant while holding an online correspondence with a mysterious Mr. Blue over how he might be able to cure the levels of gamma radiation within his blood stream. When one of the delicious bottles of Faygo Soda is accidentally infected with Banner's blood (and winds up knocking out Stan Lee's cameo appearance in Midwest America), a team of U.S. soldiers, led by the superficially cranky General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt, who looks and plays the character almost exactly like William Hurt did in the prequel), head to Brazil to capture Banner alive and use his infected body for further research on the installment of the general's super soldier program.
Recruited with the soldiers is evil, Russian-born British Marine Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). Evidently he's good at running fast and killing people. Blonsky asks for, and receives, a dosage of strength-enhancing serum (similar, perhaps, to the serum Captain America received in his comic book tales) enabling him to better hunt down the Hulk.
After being ambushed and escaping the soldiers in Brazil, Banner trails back to America to reconnect with fellow scientist Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and the two travel to New York City to find Mr. Blue and hopefully cure Banner once and for all. But like always, the government and its army screw up the protagonist's quest for peace of mind, and ultimately Banner's alter ego must strive to avoid direct confrontation with Ross's units while also fighting a mutated Blonsky, by now transformed into a monster known as the Abomination and wreaking havoc downtown.
As most people who have seen the film will agree, this a much faster-paced version of the Hulk than Ang Lee's take. I actually very much enjoyed Lee's work with Hulk because it was a different perspective on discussing the beginnings of a comic book character (The other two main examples at that time were Spider-Man, which was huge, and Daredevil, which was not.). But I can also see why people who just wanted to be thrilled by the kind of fast-paced action Spider-Man provided us with would be disappointed by Hulk. Of course, you could also argue that Iron Man was similar to the older Hulk film in terms of philosophy and pacing, but that movie was mostly successful thanks to Robert Downey Jr.'s brilliance. The action itself in The Incredible Hulk is good; nothing we haven't seen before, but enjoyable and even lighthearted at times, in retrospect to its stern predecessor.
Like always, I very much liked Norton and his portrayal of Bruce Banner. Physically he's a much closer fit to what Banner should look like, compared with the bulkier Eric Bana. Add to the fact that Norton can pretty much play anyone these days and you have a good fit. Tyler has several good moments as Betty Ross, although you can't help but question why the most brilliant scientists in comic books and movies are also the most attractive ones. The other two principal characters--Ross and Blonsky--are foils to the protagonists. Hurt (as Ross) does a good job acting like a dick, and Roth (Blonsky) channels what he did in the monkey suit in Planet of the Apes and brings that same primal nature in his role as a super solider.
The Incredible Hulk go down in comic book film as simply moving the plot along without any severe consequences to its principal characters. But it does successfully re-start the presence of one of Marvel's most popular characters on the big screen. More importantly, it moves the Marvel film branch towards its primary target of putting together that one superhero film I'm sure you've all heard about by now...
***/4 stars
And going to the Movies 12 on Bethel Road in Columbus was the only way I was going to watch The Incredible Hulk on the big screen. That's not a knock against the quality of the film; this summer (along with the past four or five summer seasons) has been another superhero-heavy offering with shows like Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Hancock. Of these four, Iron Man and The Dark Knight were, in my opinion, the two must-sees for film goers. But at least The Incredible Hulk displays an improvement over its prequel, and allows the audience to enjoy the action instead of being bowled over by an artistic critique that hurt the 2003 version.
The story begins in the slums of Brazil (where director Louis Letterier is at his best in detailing the city life of Rio de Janeiro) as Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) works at a soda processing plant while holding an online correspondence with a mysterious Mr. Blue over how he might be able to cure the levels of gamma radiation within his blood stream. When one of the delicious bottles of Faygo Soda is accidentally infected with Banner's blood (and winds up knocking out Stan Lee's cameo appearance in Midwest America), a team of U.S. soldiers, led by the superficially cranky General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt, who looks and plays the character almost exactly like William Hurt did in the prequel), head to Brazil to capture Banner alive and use his infected body for further research on the installment of the general's super soldier program.
Recruited with the soldiers is evil, Russian-born British Marine Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). Evidently he's good at running fast and killing people. Blonsky asks for, and receives, a dosage of strength-enhancing serum (similar, perhaps, to the serum Captain America received in his comic book tales) enabling him to better hunt down the Hulk.
After being ambushed and escaping the soldiers in Brazil, Banner trails back to America to reconnect with fellow scientist Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and the two travel to New York City to find Mr. Blue and hopefully cure Banner once and for all. But like always, the government and its army screw up the protagonist's quest for peace of mind, and ultimately Banner's alter ego must strive to avoid direct confrontation with Ross's units while also fighting a mutated Blonsky, by now transformed into a monster known as the Abomination and wreaking havoc downtown.
As most people who have seen the film will agree, this a much faster-paced version of the Hulk than Ang Lee's take. I actually very much enjoyed Lee's work with Hulk because it was a different perspective on discussing the beginnings of a comic book character (The other two main examples at that time were Spider-Man, which was huge, and Daredevil, which was not.). But I can also see why people who just wanted to be thrilled by the kind of fast-paced action Spider-Man provided us with would be disappointed by Hulk. Of course, you could also argue that Iron Man was similar to the older Hulk film in terms of philosophy and pacing, but that movie was mostly successful thanks to Robert Downey Jr.'s brilliance. The action itself in The Incredible Hulk is good; nothing we haven't seen before, but enjoyable and even lighthearted at times, in retrospect to its stern predecessor.
Like always, I very much liked Norton and his portrayal of Bruce Banner. Physically he's a much closer fit to what Banner should look like, compared with the bulkier Eric Bana. Add to the fact that Norton can pretty much play anyone these days and you have a good fit. Tyler has several good moments as Betty Ross, although you can't help but question why the most brilliant scientists in comic books and movies are also the most attractive ones. The other two principal characters--Ross and Blonsky--are foils to the protagonists. Hurt (as Ross) does a good job acting like a dick, and Roth (Blonsky) channels what he did in the monkey suit in Planet of the Apes and brings that same primal nature in his role as a super solider.
The Incredible Hulk go down in comic book film as simply moving the plot along without any severe consequences to its principal characters. But it does successfully re-start the presence of one of Marvel's most popular characters on the big screen. More importantly, it moves the Marvel film branch towards its primary target of putting together that one superhero film I'm sure you've all heard about by now...
***/4 stars
Friday, August 15, 2008
What I would have written for Brett Favre's first blog post, if he had actually had a blog with the Green Packers and I would be his ghostwriter
Well, hi! I'm Brett Favre. Wow it's awesome to be me.
Do you happen to blog? I'm new at it, but I'm still getting paid $20 million over the next ten years, just to write in complete sentences. I wonder if most of you bloggers get the same opportunity?
You know what's good? Bacon.
It's tough living in Mississippi sometimes, because it's so darn hot. But I'll get used to it.
You know, it's funny; I always thought Wisconsin was really cold in the wintertime, but then I peered into Ted Thompson's soul and discovered a new definition of the word "cold." He's neat like that! And it's funny how his feet are shaped like hooves, too.
Well, that's about a hundred words or so, so I'm going to go stretch out and tell my friends about what it's like to be interesting. Minnesota sucks. Hooray!
Do you happen to blog? I'm new at it, but I'm still getting paid $20 million over the next ten years, just to write in complete sentences. I wonder if most of you bloggers get the same opportunity?
You know what's good? Bacon.
It's tough living in Mississippi sometimes, because it's so darn hot. But I'll get used to it.
You know, it's funny; I always thought Wisconsin was really cold in the wintertime, but then I peered into Ted Thompson's soul and discovered a new definition of the word "cold." He's neat like that! And it's funny how his feet are shaped like hooves, too.
Well, that's about a hundred words or so, so I'm going to go stretch out and tell my friends about what it's like to be interesting. Minnesota sucks. Hooray!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Fandom
This past Saturday, I sat in the bleachers of Wrigley Field. It was my thirteenth or fourteenth time in my life going to the ballpark, but the first time I’d sat in the famed bleachers of some of baseball’s most notorious fans. A friend of my sister’s (whose apartment is located a block, a freaking block, away from the stadium) got eleven tickets in an incredible deal on Craigslist for $45 apiece.
This friend had money to burn, as he got at least a dozen beers for himself and friends inside the stadium, giving two to me and my sister as charity. (I had made a pledge before the game to fill up on Miller Lite so I wouldn’t be spending $7 dollars per Old Style.) By the time the sixth ending had finished, I was yelling at people and dancing in between half innings, accidentally kicking over a beer that the person sitting next to me placed on the ground as he went underneath the bleachers…to order another beer. He was a super nice guy, but you think pacing would play a role in beer that expensive, no? Sitting in the bleachers of Wrigley was kind of like paying $75 dollars to attend a keg party held by a university’s most notorious frat party. There’s a reason the four largest team sports in North America love their beer contracts: they make a mountain—a mountain—of money off of alcohol sales in their stadiums.
So I sat in the bleachers, enjoying the buzz, making jokes with my sister (an exceptional host for my weekend in Chicago) and her friends, and watching the most dominant Cubs team I have ever seen in my lifetime. The day of writing this story is August 4th, and with a little less than two months of the regular season left, they might be the most complete team in the National League. The first three pitchers of their five-man rotation are All-Star caliber (Rich Harden was traded to us midseason, but had he started the season a Cub he’d probably have played in the game along with Zambrano and Dempster); the bullpen, made of quality guys like Carlos Marmol and Chad Gaudin, hasn’t disappointed its teammates in the way it might have a few seasons ago; and our batting order, which has been above average for a good ten years compared with other major league teams, is a phenomenally strong chain of hitters.
Yeah, I’m not sure how to describe our batting lineup without hyperbole. There’s recognized guys like Soriano, Ramirez and Derek Lee, and then there’s players such as Reed Johnson, Mark Derosa and Ryan Theriot—players who may not become household names in Chicagoland but make it very hard for pitchers to get around a slugger like Ramirez or Geovany Soto.
We always talk about things like individual achievement and the de-emphasis on “teamwork” when we compare baseball to basketball and football, but in the 21st century, and after seeing high-salaried rosters like the Yankees and this most recent Detroit Tigers team dissolve by the midway point of the season, I can assure you that’s baloney. You have to like the guys on your team, or at least respect them enough to trust they can do their job on the field. You can feel the chemistry that keeps these Cubs together. A guy like Reed Johnson, whom I’d never heard of prior to April this year, comes from the Toronto Blue Jays to bat around .290 and relieve Kosuke Fukudome and Jim Edmonds in the outfield with his impressive agility. Seriously, where does that come from? Is that the benefit of batting behind Soto?
Or is it this so called “playoff atmosphere” that pervades Wrigley Field? That’s what Harden talked about as he made his way here from Oakland; that every home game, more or less, is like a holiday in the Northside. Whatever the cause, home games present an advantage for our Cubbies; as of August 5th, after the Cubs beat the Astros 11-7, they have a staggering home record of 42-16, or a winning percentage of .724. That’s a staggering number, and if they could play a little more securely on the road, the Cubs would already be playoff preparations by the middle of this month (which would be too early…so maybe the road record is a blessing in disguise).
I can tell you from my experience Saturday, Wrigleyville is a magical place. It’s also a very drunk place, but then so is Notre Dame Stadium, Ohio Stadium, Paul Brown Stadium and whatever other big-time sports venues I’ve been to. Yes, there is definitely a tourist feel these days to the ballpark that didn’t exist in the early 90’s, when my father first started taking me to games (I definitely wasn’t drinking $7 beers then). But it’s helped the team tremendously. There is a tremendous sense of fandom with this year’s Chicago Cubs.
And that makes me wonder what it will be like if—when?—our team finally wins it all. In the short term, there’s rioting, drinking, and lots and lots of lovemaking (9 months from October you’ll see all these female new-borns in Chicago getting names like Carlita, Aramek and my favorite, Alfonisco). Long-term, do we stop caring? Does Jim Hendry actually take a day off then? It makes me wonder and worry about myself as a fan, because as friends will assure, my Cubs fandom is a good part of who I am. Do I stop caring, after moaning and whining for at least ten years about how my team’s been no good?
Hopefully not. Hopefully the fun I had Saturday carries along with my passion as a sports fan for a long time.
This friend had money to burn, as he got at least a dozen beers for himself and friends inside the stadium, giving two to me and my sister as charity. (I had made a pledge before the game to fill up on Miller Lite so I wouldn’t be spending $7 dollars per Old Style.) By the time the sixth ending had finished, I was yelling at people and dancing in between half innings, accidentally kicking over a beer that the person sitting next to me placed on the ground as he went underneath the bleachers…to order another beer. He was a super nice guy, but you think pacing would play a role in beer that expensive, no? Sitting in the bleachers of Wrigley was kind of like paying $75 dollars to attend a keg party held by a university’s most notorious frat party. There’s a reason the four largest team sports in North America love their beer contracts: they make a mountain—a mountain—of money off of alcohol sales in their stadiums.
So I sat in the bleachers, enjoying the buzz, making jokes with my sister (an exceptional host for my weekend in Chicago) and her friends, and watching the most dominant Cubs team I have ever seen in my lifetime. The day of writing this story is August 4th, and with a little less than two months of the regular season left, they might be the most complete team in the National League. The first three pitchers of their five-man rotation are All-Star caliber (Rich Harden was traded to us midseason, but had he started the season a Cub he’d probably have played in the game along with Zambrano and Dempster); the bullpen, made of quality guys like Carlos Marmol and Chad Gaudin, hasn’t disappointed its teammates in the way it might have a few seasons ago; and our batting order, which has been above average for a good ten years compared with other major league teams, is a phenomenally strong chain of hitters.
Yeah, I’m not sure how to describe our batting lineup without hyperbole. There’s recognized guys like Soriano, Ramirez and Derek Lee, and then there’s players such as Reed Johnson, Mark Derosa and Ryan Theriot—players who may not become household names in Chicagoland but make it very hard for pitchers to get around a slugger like Ramirez or Geovany Soto.
We always talk about things like individual achievement and the de-emphasis on “teamwork” when we compare baseball to basketball and football, but in the 21st century, and after seeing high-salaried rosters like the Yankees and this most recent Detroit Tigers team dissolve by the midway point of the season, I can assure you that’s baloney. You have to like the guys on your team, or at least respect them enough to trust they can do their job on the field. You can feel the chemistry that keeps these Cubs together. A guy like Reed Johnson, whom I’d never heard of prior to April this year, comes from the Toronto Blue Jays to bat around .290 and relieve Kosuke Fukudome and Jim Edmonds in the outfield with his impressive agility. Seriously, where does that come from? Is that the benefit of batting behind Soto?
Or is it this so called “playoff atmosphere” that pervades Wrigley Field? That’s what Harden talked about as he made his way here from Oakland; that every home game, more or less, is like a holiday in the Northside. Whatever the cause, home games present an advantage for our Cubbies; as of August 5th, after the Cubs beat the Astros 11-7, they have a staggering home record of 42-16, or a winning percentage of .724. That’s a staggering number, and if they could play a little more securely on the road, the Cubs would already be playoff preparations by the middle of this month (which would be too early…so maybe the road record is a blessing in disguise).
I can tell you from my experience Saturday, Wrigleyville is a magical place. It’s also a very drunk place, but then so is Notre Dame Stadium, Ohio Stadium, Paul Brown Stadium and whatever other big-time sports venues I’ve been to. Yes, there is definitely a tourist feel these days to the ballpark that didn’t exist in the early 90’s, when my father first started taking me to games (I definitely wasn’t drinking $7 beers then). But it’s helped the team tremendously. There is a tremendous sense of fandom with this year’s Chicago Cubs.
And that makes me wonder what it will be like if—when?—our team finally wins it all. In the short term, there’s rioting, drinking, and lots and lots of lovemaking (9 months from October you’ll see all these female new-borns in Chicago getting names like Carlita, Aramek and my favorite, Alfonisco). Long-term, do we stop caring? Does Jim Hendry actually take a day off then? It makes me wonder and worry about myself as a fan, because as friends will assure, my Cubs fandom is a good part of who I am. Do I stop caring, after moaning and whining for at least ten years about how my team’s been no good?
Hopefully not. Hopefully the fun I had Saturday carries along with my passion as a sports fan for a long time.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Project 1: Developing students with specific learning problems
An 8 year-old male student who has done very well in lessons for the last two and a half years is slowly losing interest and is telling his parents that he wants to quit.
Plan:
It seems that after two and a half years the boy may have not experienced a wide enough variety of music that kept him interested in playing piano. Or, maybe he just hates playing piano. So, you tie him down and offer him a death wish.
If he actually loves the piano, maybe then it’s important for him to broaden his horizons. For instance, he may have had too much exposure to Beethoven and not enough to Journey. Broadening horizons ensures that you will still have a job teaching this kid, even though he probably won’t practice half the time anyways. Life is good.
First month: Finish off work on the current textbook you are using and introduce him to a more challenging textbook, such as John Thompson’s course or something similarly challenging. After 2-3 weeks pass and you notice the boy still does not practice, begin to flog him with a whip or steel chain. This should be the best way to get him to play a natural minor scale.
Months 2-3: Introduce a beginning book in jazz to the child. Also show him how inject heroin without OD’ing, so as to really speak to the heart of the jazz music in front of him. You might also want to consider teaching him some simpler Classical Tunes as well, so that it serves as a front to his parents that you aren’t turning the boy into a sex slave that will play Count Basie for you as you rub Vaseline onto your belly.
Months 4-5: DO HIM. HARD.
Final lessons of six-month session: Take the boy to Disney World. Tell him that sometimes, mistakes happen in life, and he happens to be one of those mistakes. The child’s real mother and father are waiting atop the Hollywood Hotel on that Twilight Zone elevator ride, and if he were to wait in line for an hour or so and get on the ride, he’d be reunited with his true family. Wave goodbye ass the drugged-up youth skips into the Tower of Terror, and head over to the Animal Kingdom, telling yourself that you have the best job anyone could ask for.
Plan:
It seems that after two and a half years the boy may have not experienced a wide enough variety of music that kept him interested in playing piano. Or, maybe he just hates playing piano. So, you tie him down and offer him a death wish.
If he actually loves the piano, maybe then it’s important for him to broaden his horizons. For instance, he may have had too much exposure to Beethoven and not enough to Journey. Broadening horizons ensures that you will still have a job teaching this kid, even though he probably won’t practice half the time anyways. Life is good.
First month: Finish off work on the current textbook you are using and introduce him to a more challenging textbook, such as John Thompson’s course or something similarly challenging. After 2-3 weeks pass and you notice the boy still does not practice, begin to flog him with a whip or steel chain. This should be the best way to get him to play a natural minor scale.
Months 2-3: Introduce a beginning book in jazz to the child. Also show him how inject heroin without OD’ing, so as to really speak to the heart of the jazz music in front of him. You might also want to consider teaching him some simpler Classical Tunes as well, so that it serves as a front to his parents that you aren’t turning the boy into a sex slave that will play Count Basie for you as you rub Vaseline onto your belly.
Months 4-5: DO HIM. HARD.
Final lessons of six-month session: Take the boy to Disney World. Tell him that sometimes, mistakes happen in life, and he happens to be one of those mistakes. The child’s real mother and father are waiting atop the Hollywood Hotel on that Twilight Zone elevator ride, and if he were to wait in line for an hour or so and get on the ride, he’d be reunited with his true family. Wave goodbye ass the drugged-up youth skips into the Tower of Terror, and head over to the Animal Kingdom, telling yourself that you have the best job anyone could ask for.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Film Review: The Dark Knight
***I went to a midnight presentation of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight with more enthusiasm than I had probably publicly shown for a trip to the movies. It's always, always the second film of a superhero or adventure series that can possess the most pre-release buzz and often fulfill the expectations of its filmgoers (see Empire Strikes Back, Spider-Man 2), while the third film in the series finally shows signs of cooling and a lack of direction (see the third installments of respective series).
I can assure you, The Dark Knight packs enough energy and point/counterpoint to make you ponder the consequences of fighting injustice at any cost, but the film presents so many intense moments you won't have a chance to question anything until the credits are rolling, which is probably for the better.
The film opens with a debate still at hand as to whether Batman (Christian Bale, who spends much more time as the hooded hero than Bruce Wayne when compared to Batman Begins) truly means well for Gotham City. Lt. James Gordan (Gary Oldman) believes so, shining the Batlight regularly into the night sky and spooking would-be criminals. The notable exception, of course, is the newcomer Joker (Heath Ledger) who seemingly overtakes Gotham and its criminal network overnight through mayhem, paradox and gripping brutality.
Okay...so how was Heath? Quite frankly, he wasn't human. Many of you have probably read or listened to stories of the energy the late actor brought to the role. This energy isn't explosive or overblown, but quite often vocally restrained--key words in the script neatly pronounced throughout several of the Joker's soliloquies--while Ledger gestures deliberately and intuitively towards his audience. For instance, shortly after the character's introduction he twists a knife in the face of a soon-to-be victim as he carefully describes how he got so many scars on his face. Unlike a more "classic" rendition of the Joker, Ledger's portrayal treats situations of possible undoing as droll and ironic, rather than bombastic and hilarious.
The Joker has nothing to lose, but his outside-the-box way of inducing panic makes him the king of the criminal underworld. This was an interesting point to think about as I gave myself time to digest The Dark Knight: in Batman Begins, the League of Shadows were focused on implementing fear into Gotham City and attempted to carry out a painstakingly-accurate plan. By contrast, the Joker is a product of chaos; rather than trying to control every variable, he will allow the players and objects of the game come into play and at times turn them against one another. Ledger makes the Joker necessarily reckless in order to establish dominance over the scene--and believe me, the Joker is this film's most dominant character, even if he is one-dimensional.
Bruce Wayne probably ought to have been the most multi-layered character in this film, but because of the added presence of Batman in this film when compared with its predecessor, Bale is sometimes trapped under the winged hood and growls his lines constantly, even to characters who know Batman's real identity. There are attempts to put a human element inside the superhero--as well as a very deliberate attempt by the screenplay to disown him of that very title--but the inherent single-focused Batman we've come to know through comics, television and film still remains, and so the principal character of the series is overpowered by the other actors on film.
These actors fulfill their own one-dimensional roles quite well; Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes, and she gives the character a huge energetic boost that the latter actress unfortunately lacked. Dawes is romantically involved with District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and talk about one-dimensional: here is a character so sworn to extinguishing Gotham's criminal syndicate we can all see his fall coming a good thirty minutes before it happens (comic book fans won't mind this, however). Michael Caine returns as Alfred to offer the occassional sage advice to Wayne, and Morgan Freeman portrays Lucious Fox developing new types of toys the Dark Knight can take to the streets with.
For a PG-13 rating, this is one violent film; lots of gunshot wounds, lots of playing with knives by the Joker. Ledger creates such an unsettling psychopath that one feels like the worst possible things will happen to his victims, like something out of a Saw flick. The Dark Knight should be hailed for questioning why we try to fight injustice so blindly, and perhaps even suggests that in the end there will always be evil and evil people out amongst us. But this message seats itself behind the satirical, violent, and sometimes hilarious realm of confusion Ledger's Joker sets for the audience.
I can assure you, The Dark Knight packs enough energy and point/counterpoint to make you ponder the consequences of fighting injustice at any cost, but the film presents so many intense moments you won't have a chance to question anything until the credits are rolling, which is probably for the better.
The film opens with a debate still at hand as to whether Batman (Christian Bale, who spends much more time as the hooded hero than Bruce Wayne when compared to Batman Begins) truly means well for Gotham City. Lt. James Gordan (Gary Oldman) believes so, shining the Batlight regularly into the night sky and spooking would-be criminals. The notable exception, of course, is the newcomer Joker (Heath Ledger) who seemingly overtakes Gotham and its criminal network overnight through mayhem, paradox and gripping brutality.
Okay...so how was Heath? Quite frankly, he wasn't human. Many of you have probably read or listened to stories of the energy the late actor brought to the role. This energy isn't explosive or overblown, but quite often vocally restrained--key words in the script neatly pronounced throughout several of the Joker's soliloquies--while Ledger gestures deliberately and intuitively towards his audience. For instance, shortly after the character's introduction he twists a knife in the face of a soon-to-be victim as he carefully describes how he got so many scars on his face. Unlike a more "classic" rendition of the Joker, Ledger's portrayal treats situations of possible undoing as droll and ironic, rather than bombastic and hilarious.
The Joker has nothing to lose, but his outside-the-box way of inducing panic makes him the king of the criminal underworld. This was an interesting point to think about as I gave myself time to digest The Dark Knight: in Batman Begins, the League of Shadows were focused on implementing fear into Gotham City and attempted to carry out a painstakingly-accurate plan. By contrast, the Joker is a product of chaos; rather than trying to control every variable, he will allow the players and objects of the game come into play and at times turn them against one another. Ledger makes the Joker necessarily reckless in order to establish dominance over the scene--and believe me, the Joker is this film's most dominant character, even if he is one-dimensional.
Bruce Wayne probably ought to have been the most multi-layered character in this film, but because of the added presence of Batman in this film when compared with its predecessor, Bale is sometimes trapped under the winged hood and growls his lines constantly, even to characters who know Batman's real identity. There are attempts to put a human element inside the superhero--as well as a very deliberate attempt by the screenplay to disown him of that very title--but the inherent single-focused Batman we've come to know through comics, television and film still remains, and so the principal character of the series is overpowered by the other actors on film.
These actors fulfill their own one-dimensional roles quite well; Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes, and she gives the character a huge energetic boost that the latter actress unfortunately lacked. Dawes is romantically involved with District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and talk about one-dimensional: here is a character so sworn to extinguishing Gotham's criminal syndicate we can all see his fall coming a good thirty minutes before it happens (comic book fans won't mind this, however). Michael Caine returns as Alfred to offer the occassional sage advice to Wayne, and Morgan Freeman portrays Lucious Fox developing new types of toys the Dark Knight can take to the streets with.
For a PG-13 rating, this is one violent film; lots of gunshot wounds, lots of playing with knives by the Joker. Ledger creates such an unsettling psychopath that one feels like the worst possible things will happen to his victims, like something out of a Saw flick. The Dark Knight should be hailed for questioning why we try to fight injustice so blindly, and perhaps even suggests that in the end there will always be evil and evil people out amongst us. But this message seats itself behind the satirical, violent, and sometimes hilarious realm of confusion Ledger's Joker sets for the audience.
Face it: you’re going to see The Dark Knight to see the Joker. And you’ll like it. ***1/2 out of ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)