There was a time a few years ago when Mark Hamill decided to permanently retire from voicing the Joker, claiming that the role put too much stress on his throat after all these years. The only exception he would return for, he said, would be an animated adaptation of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. An understandable caveat; an actor considered by many to be the definitive Joker, playing the part in an animated adaptation of what many consider to be the definitive Joker story. Years passed, and not only has Mark Hamill returned to voicing the Joker on a regular basis, but his dream of seeing this classic story adapted into an animated feature has come to pass. The question remains, does Batman: The Killing Joke do its source material justice?
The plot is the first thing that will concern comic fans. The original story is not particularly long (before writing this piece, I revisited the comic and finished it in about ten minutes). There's essentially enough material to make for a 30 to 45 minute runtime at best, but then that's hardly feature-length. Warner Bros Animation would be hard-pressed justifying a full-price home release for something so short, let alone a limited theatrical run, so naturally some additions have been made. The original plot of The Killing Joke concerns the Joker once again escaping Arkham Asylum to wreak havoc on the city of Gotham. After crippling Barbara Gordon (Tara Strong), the clown prince of crime kidnaps her father, Commissioner Jim Gordon (Ray Wise) and attempts to drive the old man insane in order to prove that even the most upstanding individual is "one bad day" away from descending into total madness. While the Batman (Kevin Conroy) tries to track the Joker down and put a stop to his scheme, we see flashbacks that shed some light on the Joker's mysterious origins. The source material is an exemplary display of the dynamic between Batman and the Joker; these two are without a doubt, the stars of the show. Which is why it's so confusing to me that the entire first act of this movie is a totally unrelated story about Batgirl.
I'll admit, I can see where writer Brian Azzarello was going with this. The graphic novel on which the film is based was released on comic stands; if someone was reading The Killing Joke, chances are they knew who Barbara Gordon was and understood why she was important. Her incidental role in the original story could be forgiven, considering that the book was part of the greater ongoing Batman canon that comic fans of the time would clearly be familiar with. However, film is much less of a niche medium than comics; whereas an issue of a comic series can act as a smaller chapter in a greater overarching storyline, a movie usually has to end up being more or less self-contained. It follows that, in a story in which a major plot point finds a character getting shot in the spine and crippled for life, it would make sense to endear any uninitiated audience members to that character before delivering such a powerful emotional beat.
While I can understand the logic behind adding in additional scenes of Batgirl in action, it still doesn't change the fact that The Killing Joke was never about Barbara Gordon; it was about Batman and the Joker (with extra emphasis on the latter). A prologue to further characterize Batgirl would have worked just fine, so long as it tied in with the actual meat of the story. Instead, we're given a one-off storyline involving a narcissistic would-be crime lord named Paris Franz (Maury Sterling ) and his creepy obsession with Batgirl. In terms of tone and content, this story and The Killing Joke couldn't possibly be more different. Whereas the parts of the film that are adapted straight from the book are full of somber imagery and the iconic prose of Alan Moore, the primary conflict of the Batgirl prologue involves Barbara feeling jilted after an uncomfortable one-night stand with Batman. The second half of this movie delves into the Joker's tragic backstory and is full of spine-chilling imagery and dialog, while the first half has Babs pouring her heart out to her camp gay best friend, wishing that the dark knight would call her back. Despite Batgirl not being the primary focus of the original story, it would have been very possible to write a prologue that not only characterizes her for a new audience, but also ties into the primary plotline in terms of content and theme. Instead we get this boring, baffling diversion that feels like it would almost make for a good one-off story if it wasn't taking attention away from everything that we all obviously came to see.
I must also call attention to the animation, art style, and general look of the movie. While some shots do an admirable job of mimicking Brian Bolland's iconic artwork, the entire thing just appears too simplified. When I see Bruce Timm's name in the credits of anything, even just as a producer, I immediately hold it to the same high standard of animation seen in Justice League Unlimited and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Unfortunately, the film doesn't come close to reaching that standard; I spotted numerous animation errors, as well as shots that simply came off as purely lazy (keep an eye on Gordon's silhouette as he makes his way through the Joker's funhouse). The art of the graphic novel had a true sense of grit to it; the heavy shadows and meticulous details fit the tone perfectly. This is a Batman story that is grimier and dirtier than those you're used to reading. While the designs of the comic are used here, liberties had to be taken in order to keep things easy to animate. The shadows are less complex, the range of motion is for the most part stiff, and minor details have been smoothed out in favor of something cleaner. "Cleaner" is not a style that compliments the content of this story. There's also some genuinely garish CGI at times that stands out like a sore-thumb; while I understand that a carousel must be one of the absolute worst things to animate, the one featured in this film made me physically cringe. I can only dream of what this would have looked like had it been made in the mid-late 90's, when Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Batman The Animated Series was taking the world by storm. While the art design here is acceptable in terms of a TV/direct-to-video release, it's definitely a poor adaptation of Bolland's original artwork.
For all the issues I had with this movie, there was one facet that justified the entire thing for me; the voice acting. As a movie, it's heavily flawed, but it's a damn good audiobook. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill return once again as Batman and the Joker, in my opinion the best interpretations of the characters ever committed to screen. While I rolled my eyes at just about everything in the first act, I got genuine chills hearing Hamill recite iconic lines from the comic. It's only dawned on me just now that this is the most true-to-form Joker to ever be shown on the big screen. He's legitimately terrifying, unpredictable, and despicable, but at the same time relatable and sympathetic. In an era when I was suffering from Joker-fatigue, this movie came along and reminded me why the character has stood the test of time. Every moment from the graphic novel, from Batman's plea for compromise to the ambiguous ending are all adapted flawlessly. I simply cannot praise the main cast of Conroy, Hamill, Strong, and Wise enough; had this movie used a different cast, this all would have been utterly pointless. The vocal performances on display here are what made the movie worthwhile for me. While I obviously can't say this works as a replacement or stand-in for the original comic, I can say that, once the actual plot begins, it's an overall excellent adaptation of one of the greatest Batman stories ever told. If you're a fan of Batman or the Joker or both, I highly recommend you check this out at least once; it's entirely worth it just to hear those iconic lines being read by those iconic voices.
And now I sit back and pray WB Animation does a better job with the inevitable animated adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?
No comments:
Post a Comment