Thanks for commenting! You seem like the right guy for my question:
Ever since the writers’ strike of 2007, I am very, very interested in the mechanics of screenwriting and show-running. As I understand dramatic writing and also even deadpan acting such as by Clint Eastwood, etc. the art must seem to have some deeper meaning, yet it must have enough vagueness about it to allow the audience to project their own emotions and meanings onto it.
If Eastwood shows too much facial expression then it will interfere with what the viewer wants the scene to mean. If the writers avoid controversy, nobody buys a ticket. If the writers take a clear position, then they alienate half the audience, which is what is now happening most often as they cannot bear to not “make a difference.” The social engineering is obvious to me in most of these situations.
Stay with me, I will have a question...
The perfect example of the phenomenon I describe is “The Hunger Games” trilogy, novels by Suzanne Collins, and the movies, screenplay by her and others like Billy Ray, and directors Ross and Lawrence. These movies were hugely successful because of this. Of course, there are a hundred factors in making a hit movie, this is not the most important one, but given that other dramatic factors are present, this moral projection thing I describe moves it up to the next level. Both sides, of our cultural divide could imagine themselves as Katniss fighting the evil capital.
Hold for the question:
Now I have no doubt about the projection phenomenon in writing and directing. My question for you is whether you think this film allows for that kind of projection. I accept your premise that “the modern Joker is the equivalent of Batman...” In other words, in this story arc, Joker is the Moriarty to Bruce Wayne’s Sherlock. Will either liberals or conservatives both be able to identify with the good guys in this film? The posted article seems to be saying no.
The writers and show-runners working now seem to be preoccupied with amorality and moral relativism, which I describe as “the good guys are the bad guys, the bad guys are the good guys, but wait no! they are really good/bad guys after all.” I expect that is all that is going on with this movie. These things are done so poorly that they do not take enough time to even establish the “goodness” of the good guy, before they try to show his badness, and vice versa.
If the movie is actually attacking moral relativism, that would be very interesting. If the movie is allowing us to interpret it as an attack on moral relativism, that is interesting. Thanks in advance for your answer. If you do not accept the premise of my question that would be interesting. If you are not gonna watch the film, then please comment on the phenomenon from any vantage you like such as batman comics.
First, I’m the guy who as a kid...consumed comics with a passion...more so DC than Marvel. So I have a different prospective on this.
To your question....”In other words, in this story arc, Joker is the Moriarty to Bruce Wayne’s Sherlock. Will either liberals or conservatives both be able to identify with the good guys in this film?”
There are three answers to this. First, for the people who read the comics before the 1990s (before all of this deep-thought came into storylines of comics)...we will always identify the good and bad guys, putting them into their rightful place. Politics won’t matter.
Second, to the non-comic reader who watched all the Batman movies up until the Christian Bale ‘period’...I think most people will identify the good and bad guys, and just watch for pure entertainment. Again, politics won’t matter.
Third, but then along came the 2005 reboot, and we were introduced to a complicated Batman, with complicated background characters. Batman got the job done, but he wasn’t pure of heart anymore. As the second of the Bale Batman movies is delivered, with Dark Knight...we finally get introduced to the new Joker vision...with Heath Ledger delivering a one of a kind performance. Scene by scene, this Joker is no longer a plain criminal or nutcase...he’s a revolutionary. He wants to bring society to chaos, to reshape it. Batman is going down his traditional path....simply to catch the bad guy. Joker’s intent is more sinister, but ultimately to make everyone a loser...to restart the system.
In the third case, liberals and conservatives probably have a problem in identifying the good and bad guys. Some liberals might even say that the Joker as a revolutionary is doing work that Bruce Wayne and Batman should have been doing...resetting the capitalistic society.
Adding to this, along came Suicide Squad where you were pulling for the bad guys to win against the super-bad guys.
Some of the DC material can go this way...other material (Wonder Woman and Aquaman) can’t be bent too far. Although I admit that the new version of Aquaman isn’t anything compared against the early comic version.
Birds of Prey is slated for 2020, and promises to be another ‘bad guys aren’t that bad’ experience.
All of this brings me to this last point...comics are unique. They can’t compare against the story-line of A Tale of Two Cities, Robinson Crusoe, or the Last of the Mohicans. Bad guys are bad guys, and things are two-dimensional. A liberal and conservative can both read a novel by Upton Sinclair and each reach generally the same conclusion on good versus evil. Modern comics can suggest something that is radically different.