On Demand
A Darkly Shining Knight
By Claudia La Rocco
August 7, 2008
Well, I finally saw “The Dark Knight.” I hadn’t planned to write about it, as I don’t have much to add beyond what others have been saying: that Christian Bale is a ho-hum Batman, that the supporting cast is lovely and, most importantly, that Heath Ledger is incandescent as the Joker. The character is terrible and terrifying, a psychopath who delights in chaos-inducing savagery. But Ledger’s performance is so beyond the movie’s perceived sense of itself, so obviously (yet subversively) Art, that it’s hard not to be joyful while watching this final performance. Furthermore, it’s clear, as Ledger said in this interview, that he was having a blast:
And those were my thoughts, not worth a post - until I came across David Denby’s review in the New Yorker, and across these lines in particular:
“At times, I was reminded of Marlon Brando at his most feline and insinuating. When Ledger wields a knife, he is thoroughly terrifying (do not, despite the PG-13 rating, bring the children), and, as you’re watching him, you can’t help wondering—in a response that admittedly lies outside film criticism—how badly he messed himself up in order to play the role this way. His performance is a heroic, unsettling final act: this young actor looked into the abyss.” (Italics mine)
I keep returning to two ideas in the italicized phrase. First, I am intrigued by Denby’s sense of his boundaries as a critic. That one little insert touches upon so many areas of interest: what role critics play, what the critic’s relationship is to other audience members, to what extent we want our critics to look at art differently than we do, to what extent it’s possible (let alone desirable) to block the world at large and the specific context in which a piece of art was created when critiquing that art …. I’ll be teaching a course on criticism at CW Post this semester, so these questions have been much on my mind of late. I’m most curious to hear what you all think.
The other idea within this excerpt is far more troubling. Denby writes, “you can’t help wondering—in a response that admittedly lies outside film criticism—how badly he messed himself up in order to play the role this way. His performance is a heroic, unsettling final act: this young actor looked into the abyss.”
Oh, really? Funny, I thought I was watching a young artist at the height of his powers, fully in control of his art and delighting in his abilities (sadly, now, we’ll never know if he had higher heights within him - I suspect he had).
And I thought Ledger’s final act was an accidental drug overdose - to link this wretched end with his triumphant art does him a grave insult, and to mistake ability and skill with “heroism” is to lessen his life’s work, and infantilize him. It plays into that old canard - the stupidly romantic notion that great artists are tortured creatures, undone or driven to madness by their art. When other professionals achieve glory, we seem able to appreciate their accomplishments without such editorializing - why do we treat our artists so differently?
Comments
Comment from antnee
Date: August 7, 2008, 3:33 pm
I too had much the same reaction to Mr Denby’s insinuation about Ledger’s performance—and his sanity. It’s easy to look for explanations for his tragic end in the evidence left behind, even if that evidence is entirely a work of fiction. Also, notion that somehow an actor’s performance is correlated with an actual state of mind, rather than a performed and projected one, persists from the bad old days when the Method myth held sway. The idea that one simply “becomes” the character by remodeling oneself from the inside out is a very simplified though attractive explanation of the actor’s art (and not one that most actors would subscribe to). Why not go back to Brokeback Mountain to find the seeds of his demise in the emotionally isolated and self-destructive Ennis? Or any other of his characters? How have plenty of other actors managed to play tortured and even psychopathic characters and lived to play on?
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: August 7, 2008, 3:49 pm
Great points, antnee, and well put.
I was thinking that the movies play into this fantasy themselves - how many ridiculous films have been made about the tortured painter/composer/poet?
what about “The Patriot” - Ledger’s character died in that, so maybe the seeds were planted then …
Comment from Jonah
Date: August 7, 2008, 5:17 pm
I too am disheartened by Mr. Denby’s comments. And I, too, a few days ago watched the interview to which you provided the above link. It did not seem that he was “messed up” or tortured by playing the Joker (he was exhausted, sure, but that’s to be expected), but rather quite the opposite: he seemed immensely satisfied and proud of his portrayal of the Joker.
I think the general public and media tend make sense of tragedy by constructing a narrative around it: “Heath Ledger’s latest popular piece of work is ‘The Dark Night,’ therefore that must be the source of his downfall.” Because popular culture was not privy to Ledger’s personal life, the only thing they have to connect with his death is the (terribly disturbing, granted) character he portrays in “The Dark Knight.”
I agree that if “Brokeback Mountain” had been released when “The Dark Night” was, a similar popular narrative would be constructed around it.
With regards to the borders of criticism: is it possible to extricate one’s personal response to something from one’s “objective,” structural critique of a film? I tend to think not. Also, while we are critiquing the popular narrative of Ledger being “pushed over the edge” (or rather his “pushing himself over the edge”) by playing this character, this popular narrative nonetheless play a significant role in people’s personal lives: many people were(for various reasons) deeply affected by Ledger’s death, and needed a way to make sense of it. Denby is no exception: he is not above popular culture, which is I think an example of how criticism is not “above” culture, but very much of it.
A question I have is, what part does (or should?) the media play in promoting alternative narratives to explain Ledger’s (or anyone’s) death?
Thanks, Claudia, for a very thought-provoking post!
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: August 7, 2008, 5:36 pm
Thank you, Jonah, for such a thoughtful response …. tell me more about your intriguing question: how would the media go about doing this, or how does it already? One alternative narrative that occurs to me is that creative endeavors probably sustain a lot more troubled/substance-addicted people than they hurt - although I suspect that narrative is just as dangerous in the end. But explain a bit more, you’ve got my wheels spinning.
The idea of objectivity in criticism is a silly one, I agree - even were it possible, why would we ever want to read objective criticism? It’s an oxymoron, or at least reactionary, hearkening back to the good ole’ days of Beauty and Truth … I prefer things much muddier.
I saw the movie a few days after hearing about the abuse allegations against Bale, and prepped to be amazed by Ledger - villain and hero had already switched places, before the picture started. As it progressed, Bale’s recent brush with the law fell away, as did all thoughts surrounding his tired performance (and who on earth thought it would be ok to have him adopt that ridiculous Darth Vader voice??). Meanwhile, I became more and more nervous at the thought of seeing Ledger’s character die on screen - and when he didn’t, it was such a relief, one that had nothing to do with the movie, but everything to do with the world, and the way The Movies, with their adoration of youth and immortality, fit into this world.
Comment from Jonah
Date: August 7, 2008, 6:22 pm
I think the popular conception that Ledger was driven to insanity by his art wrests on the “troubled artist” archetype you mentioned in your initial post. Should the media more readily examine that assumption instead of going along with it?
I suppose, really, I’m asking the media to be more post-modern — which is very uncomfortable to many people. Once you break down the commonly-held view and open it to debate in recognition of fact that there are many ways to construct a meaningful narrative around Heath Ledger’s death… everything becomes very “muddy,” (which I like, too!), but people would rather things be crystal clear.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that the media should recognize that when it reports a “story,” it is just that: a story. It takes bits and pieces of “reality” and attempts to contextualize them in a framework that is meaningful to its viewers. That framework has cultural assumptions, though, like “all great artists are tortured creatures.” What about the artists who aren’t? What if, as you said in your last post, art can be a sustaining force in a tortured person’s life? I wonder if it is not the media’s responsibility to present alternative stories and alternative meanings that might help its audience to actively question their cultural assumptions.
Is this making any sense?
Comment from jolene
Date: August 7, 2008, 9:56 pm
I think we editorialize artists because we editorialize a lot of other professions too. I don’t think we treat artists *too* differently from other professions. In general, it’s a romantic notion of someone dying or sacrificing themselves for the sake of their profession - there’s a scientist who was trying to prove to a skeptical audience that gastric ulcers are caused by a bacteria, and not only by stress. So in an act of wild heroics, he swallowed a spoonful of the bacteria. And sure enough, he started getting gastric ulcers. And then he received the Nobel prize.
I do agree with you though; it’s like people WANT to think that Heath Ledger died for the role of the Joker. I haven’t seen Dark Knight yet but I think he’s a really good actor. I even liked him in “10 Things I Hate About You”.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: August 8, 2008, 9:52 am
Ok, I see what you mean … postmodern journalists, what fun!
I think that good journalists do (at least try) to question assumptions, no? Isn’t that what we describe as nuanced reporting? And it also depends on what type of journalism we’re talking about - wiggle room varies. But, certainly, how we lay the facts out can be as telling as the facts themselves, and all journalists can lose sight of this, especially in stories that necessitate speculation or interpretation.
But then, I wonder if journalism can ever be truly postmodern, because it is predicated on the existence of an author - a single author. In that sense, maybe blogs (or comment threads at least!) would be the way stories become postmodern, created by multiple authors. Do you think?
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: August 8, 2008, 9:57 am
True, Jolene, we do love our Mad Scientists.
But I do think that we treat artists differently, or that we mythologize/romanticize them in more extreme ways. And I think it’s because art, at the end of the day, creates a realm of silence about itself that explanations cannot penetrate - it’s one of the most exciting and most maddening things about being a critic, or a watcher of any sort. We can make sense of the scientist, mad or no, hurting himself for his work (and, of course, science and art often overlap) because there are results to be had, there is Progress being made. Art, thank goodness, has no truck with progress, with results. So we find other ways of explaining.
Write a comment