Comparing Ledger to Nicholson? Please don’t
August 6, 2008 | Media
Someone on a message board of which I’m a subscriber mentioned Jack Nicholson’s 1989 “Batman” performance and weighed against the late Heath Ledger’s 2008 ”The Dark Knight” performance. It’s strange how, even generationally separated, that comparisons are made pitting one against another. So, let’s run with that thought a second.
First, one just shouldn’t measure one against the other. Jack is Jack. And he carries a lot of volume and weight into any role (save ‘Bucket List’ or films of that ilk). There are simply arias that require his presence (’The Departed,’ ‘A Few Good Men’,’The Dark Knight’). In 1989, the Tim Burton version required his weight. It was taking Tim Burton and mashing it with elements of what Frank Miller had already put into print (more on the Miller effect in a moment). Also, Jack was a hip choice then and now. It was win-win for everybody. Besides, Jack was asked to play the role that way. The performance was carrying elements from the old (the Cesar Romero Joker), Tim Burton Elements and Frank Miller elements (and in fact, Jack’s Joker felt much more toward Miller’s creation, although Miller’s creation also had elements of homoerotica. I’m babbling …) So, for 20 years ago, this was a seminal performance.
Two, the movie itself had BIG BIG legs. Big director (Burton). Big villain (Jack). Pretty good Batman (Michael Keaton, carrying some weight from his career at the time, though NO ONE agreed he was the best choice). A soundtrack by Prince, still at his peak. Huge marketing. Huge promotion. Big budget. The film had all the right elements. You couldn’t spit and not hit someone with a bat cut into their hair.
Three, this Dark Knight is not THAT Dark Knight. Today’s Dark Knight is more violent, raw and serious. Today’s Dark Knight is more deliberate and deals more with reality. Today’s Batman. And because this Dark Knight shepherd’s under Chris Nolan is nowhere close to the Dark Knight birthed by Burton, then it’s simply a fallacy to weigh one against the other. It’s like comparing the efficiency of auto mobiles today with those of yesteryear. It doesn’t stack up.
Four, Ledger. Bluntly, he’s dead. Now, was he a good actor before his death? Yes. Was he on the rise? Yes. And he was bound to pretty good at this. A seminal character performance a la Day-Good in “My Left Foot,” or Kevin Spacy in “Usual Suspects.” However, the pathos is pushing his work to exagerrated levels. It didn’t hurt that he was cute and well liked in Hollywood. I loved his performance. I thought it stood out. I admired what he was able to do in the moments he could ‘act” vice being slave to the CG or action. So, it’s bedrock performance. Watershed? Maybe. Oscar worthy? No. I’ve always said: if you wanted to give an Oscar to a Batman villain, you should have given it to Jim Carrey for his role as the Riddler. It was the PERFECT role from him. And he nailed it.
Finally, the Miller element. What every filmmaker since Burton has tried to do is reconceive Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns” for screen. Here’s a better idea: PUT ‘THE DARK KNIGHT FREAKING RETURNS’ ON SCREEN! It’s a brilliant work! Stop ripping elements from it and bastardizing it in film. Make Miller’s TDKR and be done with it. And if you are a Batman movie fan, go out and buy it tonight. Read it. And then you’ll get it.
So, I said all that to say this: treat them as separates. No white after labor day. That sort of thing. Just as useful. Just as impactful. But different generations have a way comparing things that don’t warrant comparison. Simply put, they are both seminal performances. However, they’re in different swim lanes.
