The comic book Joker, at least through the 1960s with Batman, was more of a character who wore the paint-face, and told jokes....being a strategist. As you got into the 1980s and 1990s, he was a guy on a mission to bring change or revolution. Crime was his tool, but he was out to revolutionize society.
This is the difference between Jack Nicholson’s Joker and the Heath Ledger/Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker. This modern Joker is the equivalent of Batman on intellect. He’s focused on bringing revolution for the little guy.
But there is something real going on here. When I was asked to talk to students at a capitol city University a few years back I couldn’t help but notice that the students were 90% female at the time. I commented that it must be great to be a guy on campus nowadays. But there is something sick going on there. 20 something males are being discarded by society as worthless. Creates a powder keg of resentment. Eliot Rogers is their hero. What could possibly go wrong?
Didn’t Alpha Romeo play the Joker in the TV show?
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.