On Sep 10, 4:06 pm, Janice <jan... at (no spam) dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote:

The rest of the movie didn't really play for me.  The character of the
Joker, however, became increasingly more interesting and frightening
as the movie progressed.  I left feeling a kind of terrible sympathy
for both the character of the Joker as played by Ledger, and the
character of the person who played him.

I agree here, but I don't see the performance as so over-the-top it
would have caused his death. On the other hand, it's easy for non-
actors to dismiss how deeply/badly an acting role affects someone;
just conjecture.

How would you distinguish the Joker from Darth Vader? Vader wants
evil? Do you see Ledger's Joker as sympathetic?

I read the novel after I saw the movie, and I was impressed with how Anthony
Hopkins really filled that character in.  The brisk intelligence didn't
really come through in the book the way it did in the movie.  And that
constant sneering contempt of the lesser mortals -- that didn't come through
either.

In article <n66dnYQhJLZeX1rVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>, Alric
Knebel says...

That's been done countless times. It's nothing new. You're
apparently too fond of your own hyperbole to see it for what it
really is, and it's not as original as you want it to be. The bad
guy has always been fascinating. You and Mute both enjoy having the
moral vapors, and display you moralistic effeteness at every
opportunity. I'm smart enough to know that.

It *has* been done countless times, but there is a difference here of
degree. The depth of the depravity of the character(s) is noteworthy.
As if they were trying to make him the most repulsive villain ever,
so bad that no one could create one worse. It is the effort to make
him quintessentially evil that is evil. Couple that with their
fascination with him, their inviting the audience to be fascinated by
him, and you have something almost as appalling as the character.

They have done one positive thing. I can now define obscenity in
four words: Silence of the Lambs.

On Sep 10, 9:49 am, George Peatty <pttyg47-1... at (no spam) copper.net> wrote:

It *has* been done countless times, but there is a difference here
of degree. The depth of the depravity of the character(s) is
noteworthy. As if they were trying to make him the most repulsive
villain ever, so bad that no one could create one worse. It is the
effort to make him quintessentially evil that is evil. Couple that
with their fascination with him, their inviting the audience to be
fascinated by him, and you have something almost as appalling as the
character.

They have done one positive thing. I can now define obscenity in
four words: Silence of the Lambs.

This is a good response to what are increasingly ad hominem responses.
There's no question this was a landmark film in its time and in its
genre, and that it glamorized sadistic killing. I never said I haven't
tried to watch it; I have several times. I always find my spirit
sinking because it's simply sick. I find myself asking, "Is this
supposed to *entertain* me? How could I be entertained by suffering
like this? Or is it supposed to be 'cool' and make me think deep
thoughts about evil? But all I have to do is turn on the nightly news
to do that."

Many other 90's films are sick in a way that unlike modern gore-porn
DID fall into the category of "serious film." For example, Copycat,
which did well at the box office at the time of its release and, like
SotL, got great reviews as a *dramatic* film. I don't resort to
calling names on Usenet until someone calls me them long enough (in
however allegedly intellectual a way). I do question the character of
anyone who could sit through films like this and be "entertained."
It's like being entertained by watching a car wreck or footage of dog
fights.

On Sep 9, 10:32 am, nick <nickmacpherso... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:

Silence of the Lamb had it's humor at the end, with that sick joke
coda that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the film. It's that
ending more than anything else in SotL that kickstarts the whole
charismatic serial killer genre, which develops as the Lecter
franchise moves on and increasingly he becomes a "sympathetic" serial
killer because he only kills and eats people who deserve to be killed
and eaten, Nazi war criminals, child molestors, etc.

And in the books, at least until the Lecter-movie-phenomenon started
moving, he's far from sympathetic. He's dangerous and charming and
sharp, but he's also a smug dickhead who's not as clever as he thinks
he is.

On Sep 10, 4:06 pm, Janice <jan... at (no spam) dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote:

I saw it. The first time I saw a preview with the Joker, I was
instantly intrigued. I had no idea it was Heath Ledger playing the
part, and I certainly couldn't tell it was him from the clip. Each
new clip showed a different Joker moment, and I was mesmerized. The
make-up was brilliant, it was the first thing that hooked me -- as if
the wearer knew it wasn't the art of the make-up that mattered, but
the fact of it: in a world where people behave as if they don't wear
masks, I will wear my smeared and blotchy and uncaring mask right
where you can see it at all times.

If there had been one (and I mean *one*) scene where the source of his
sociopathological character was put under the microscope, I'd agree
with you. But there was only lots of dialogue by other characters
about whom (or what) he might be. There was the inference he might not
even be human, when the DNA and other identifying forensic information
turned up nothing.

Apparently my post/response to this didn't "take," so here goes again.

So then the question becomes Isn't chaos therefore the ultimate evil.
The closing lines suggest that while "Gotham City" can appreciate and
fight what it perceives as "evil," it can't bear, and therefore can't
fight, chaos. Hence, Batman.

But it was
only when they encountered ... let's call her the woman who insisted
she couldn't possibly have known Mel ... that I began to think about
the existential theme flowing through the story. It was all just
great -- but I still wouldn't want to watch it again any time soon.

I think you'll have to lose about half that definition's attributes
before it can apply to more than even one film, much less a whole
genre...

universal and emblematic of the intensity of secrets and needs we all
carry. Maybe he was crazy, but no more crazy than either of the
gringos.

I continue to omit comments I'd intended to make.  "Estrada" means
"road," so there's your journey theme.  And I must shamefully confess I
wondered for some time how in the world they ever came up with some old
guy who could play the blind man so brilliantly.  Do you know who that
was?  Levon Helm from The Band.  I'd totally missed his name in the
credits and didn't recognize him on screen.

movie I've seen, In Bruges,

On Sep 10, 8:51 pm, "Alric Knebel" <al... at (no spam) cableone.net> wrote:

Indeed, I think most of us know that there's no such thing in the real
world as truly evil people,

A realistic
portrayal of evil helps us to consider this question and is much more
meaningful than the typical comic book portrayal of evil with the
villain going "Muhahahhaha!" That being said, I'm not interested in
99.9% of horror because it's almost always the "Muhahahahaha!" type of
villain.