Re: The Dark Knight
So, when are we going to get Dark Knight on iTunes?
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
So, when are we going to get Dark Knight on iTunes?
I think the anticipatory dread of the LOTR marathon has sent everyone into premature comas.
Wow - extra special high bit-rate of 192kbps for this one. Thanks guys, and congrats on a marvellous line-up of the best fan commentaries on the 'net.
I've just thrown $50 your way via Paypal as pizza money for the upcoming Lord of the Rings marathons. That should cover the food for the prologue and the Hobbiton scenes. The pizza boxes will be empty by the time the Hobbits arrive at Rivendell and then it'll be time for second-breakfast. Hopefully other listeners will chip in with pizza & drink money as well.
Last edited by avatar (2012-03-06 01:11:58)
haha! Well I will probably not be available for the Epic LOTR streamcast. I have a new niece to see!
First off, great Dark Knight Commentary. Was a nice way to end the regular commentaries that DiF became known for.
TO DO LIST FOR LotR Marathon Commentary
Have food ready
PLENTY of liqour
Find a way to keep yourself from going nuts during commentaries
Can't wait for the 3/11 show. Looking forward to see how you guys deal with something that'll certainly be a LONG show. Despite that, I'm sure that the live show will be one not to miss.
I shall be working on the day of the marathon, but I'm hoping that I'll be able to get off early, as it's overtime and it's not the sort of overtime where they'll need a billion people. The thing that pisses me off is that it's inventory and 9 times out of 10 when you're working inventory, you spend most of the day playing cards and dicking around waiting for something to come up that you have to do. I'm hoping that we can get most of it done by Friday and not have to endure two additional days of sitting around waiting for the suits to give us something to do. I'd rather spend my day watching the LOTR movies back to back than playing cards with people I don't necessarily like being around all that much.
it would be different if we could drink while we were playing cards, tho...
At the London Imax this month is a Lord of the Rings all-nighter (i.e. all three theatrical editions in one go) but it begins at midnight so you'd need intravenous Red Bull. In the past, you'd get someone like Ian McKellen turn up and make some introductory remarks.
I would normally go if it was on during the day, especially if they'd screen the extended editions, but as I far as I know there was never a print of the extended edition of Return of the King released for cinemas.
What was the name of that Ursula K Le Guin story? I didn't catch it.
Great episode but one question.
Why does Gonzo intro the episode with the line "And here we go!"?
Animal kept flubbing it.
As usual, great commentary on this movie. Lots of fun discussion, interesting ideas (the voice changer in the suit) and political commentary without being boring.
Also, I thought I would share this:
Osama bin Joker!
Nolan back-to-back Batman on IMAX... http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_imax/ … ouble_bill
Correction: A TRIPLE feature with Dark Knight Rises from midnight!
Last edited by avatar (2012-06-22 17:09:41)
Yuuuuuup. It exsists. Where is your god now?
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-08-06 10:11:14)
Seeing has how this is a trope has been around for a while, I'm really not sure what the issue is here...
Will Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy stand the test of time...
Phil Sandifer, who's always an intelligent and engaging critic, did a fantastic analysis of the Joker/the broader politics of TDK this week. Big chunk of the middle quoted below.
To understand what’s going on with Ledger’s Joker, it’s necessary to understand the basic oversignification of the character. For that, let’s turn fleetingly to what is both the best comic story written about him and the low point of Alan Moore’s career, Batman: The Killing Joke. (This being where Nolan’s “multiple contradictory origins” idea originates.) For all that Moore crafts a typically symbolically rich take on the Joker, the big problem with the story, as Moore readily admits, is that he didn’t define the Joker as anything other than Batman’s archnemesis. He represents nothing save for a particular limit point for Batman - an irreducible reality of his mythos interesting for few reasons other than that homicidal clowns with good visual design are kinda cool.
This is not what the Joker in The Dark Knight is doing, although it’s easy to miss that fact. The centrist liberalism that is the default setting of most popular culture means that we’re most used to villains who are cuddly versions of fascism: Voldemort, the Empire, the Daleks, etc. It’s easy to make too much of this - the defanged fascists of popular culture villainy are generally so cartoonishly that if they have any political effect, it’s to blind us to fascists that don’t literally call themselves Death Eaters, have the Imperial March as their theme song, or shriek “EXTERMINATE” a lot. But it means we’re strangely unused to seeing a villain who’s applying the same cartoonish excess to leftism. Which means, in practice, that it’s easy to miss that the Joker is a leftist villain, with the same basic relationship to anarchism that Darth Vader has to fascism.
It’s certainly not that the Joker is the only villain in pop culture who can be described as “anarchic.” But it is by any measure a shorter list than the fascism analogues, and more to the point, few of them are quite so defined as to get an ostentatious villain monologue about the evils of “schemers” and “plans” that ends in a declaration that they’re an agent of anarchy and chaos. Fewer still get to deliver the monologue opposite a semi-fascistic narrative of powerful rich men running elaborate surveillance operations.
One of my favorite things ever posted to my site is Jack’s TARDIS Eruditorum guest post on Merlin. He sent it to me late on Christmas Eve so I ended up reading it on Christmas morning, happily ignoring a stack of presents in favor of his hymn to the glories of villains. His argument is that villains, as the force in a story that wants to change the status quo, are an occasion where “the radical howl be heard, even if in a distant and garbled form.” But this garbling mostly comes from the routine use of the liberalism/fascism opposition. Because fascism is little more than the acceleration of liberalism’s worst instincts, this opposition tends to collapse. To use one of Jack’s examples, Voldemort may be marked as a fascist due to his zealotry over racial purism, but this ends up being a mask for the fact that Rowling’s “good” wizard society is built on systemic racism of its own, including literal fucking slavery.
But the Joker sidesteps that aporia. He doesn’t embody the same flaws as the heroes only in black. Rather, he offers an actual ideological difference. Batman endorses a world ruled by militarized power wedded to a mythic and incorruptible symbol. (And it’s worth noting that Harvey Dent’s “maverick tough on crime prosecutor” personality is very, very Bush era.) The Joker endorses burning that world down. Tellingly, the Joker doesn’t get what the sort of standard villain moment that will be afforded to Bane whereby whatever political alternative he offers is revealed as disingenuous, typically because the villain is actually a genocidal maniac. The Joker is never presented as anything other than a force of violence attempting to dismantle Gotham’s society. There’s no reversal. He just wants to watch the world burn. This fact is presented to the audience as a self-evident horror, the possibility that anyone might nod with agreement not even entertained.
I don’t want to go too far towards “the Joker was right” here, although I’ll admit that’s more because of the historic lameness of that argument than out of any particularly substantive objection. The reasons he’s wrong mostly come down to the distortions necessary to transmute anarchism into straightforward villainy. He’s a sadist who blows up civilians for no reason other than the fun of it. But what interests me is how terrible a job Nolan does selling the apparently straightforward case that he’s wrong. His final comeuppance - the stunt with the two boats - may well be the single worst sequence Christopher Nolan has ever committed to film.
To recap, the Joker has taken two boats - one a prison transport ship, the other full of civilians - and put bombs on each one, with the detonators given to the people on the other boat. The point is, as he puts it, a “social experiment” to see who blows who up first. Its resolution is that neither boat blows up the other because, in one case, a bussinessman is unable to bring himself to do it while in the other what the script describes as a “huge, tattooed prisoner” (played, of course, by a suitably intimidating looking black actor) demands to be given the detonator so that he can make the hard decision, only to heroically chuck it out a window. It is gobsmackingly schmaltzy, and completely lacking in any conviction - a hopelessly contrived affirmation of the basic goodness of human nature that literally nothing else anywhere in Nolan’s trilogy backs up. It’s as though the film recognizes the suppressed possibility that the Joker might not be as self-evidently awful as it desperately wants him to be and goes to ostentatious lengths to deny a possibility that it can’t even acknowledge in the first place.
And no wonder. In marked contrast to R’as al Ghul, whose sense of Gotham’s decadence seemed utterly contradictory given his own methodology and whose solution was simply to eliminate the entire city, the Joker clearly wants the city to survive in what he views as a better form, and is thoroughly coherent in diagnosing its problems. Consider his monologue about how “nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like a gangbanger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics. because it's all part of the plan,” which is, notably, a more coherent response to R’as al Ghul’s whole “we tried to destroy Gotham with economics” thing than literally anything Batman says over the entirety of Batman Begins.
Indeed, this is in some regards the crux of the problem (if one wants to call it a problem) with the Joker. Yes, he bypasses the tedious aporia created by the liberalism/fascism dualism of a lot of hero/villain pairings, but he does so in pursuit of a different sort of breakdown. The truth of the matter is that Gotham, as envisaged by Nolan, is a strong case for anarchism. When the world is systemically corrupt and the only apparent alternative is violent authoritarianism, burning it down is an entirely rational response. The sensible points of disagreement with the Joker are over tactics, not goals.
I still love TDK and find a lot to like about TDKR, but that central sticking point—"Gotham has been overtaken by the rich and corrupt, let's let more rich people combat this by . . . dealing with largely impoverished people extrajudicially"—is a big one to get past. Especially in TDKR, where it basically devolves into utter political incoherence that's rescued by the sheer ballsiness of Nolan's cinematic eye more often than not.
Last edited by DarthPraxus (2017-11-15 05:19:29)