All the pieces were in place:
animation to allow for vivid, surreal storytelling, an R-rating to prevent
censorship restrictions, Kevin Conroy and the great Mark Hamill reprising their
iconic roles for one of, if not the greatest Batman story ever told…AND
THEY BUTCHERED IT.
Thirty minutes. It takes thirty minutes for the film to get
to the actual canon material which is Alan Moore’s Batman: The Killing Joke, but I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s first talk about the graphic novel
itself…it is a masterpiece. The Killing Joke is, by far, my favorite
graphic novel written, my favorite Batman story told, and, in particular, my
favorite portrayal of the Joker. Its complex
psychological and philosophical examination of the mad clown is nothing short
of brilliant. A story that explores the Joker’s
origin—one bad day that turned him insane—while still leaving it satisfyingly
ambiguous (“If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!”). A story that dives into the twisted intricacy
that binds The Dark Knight and Clown Prince together in a never-ending struggle
of ethics and insanity with seemingly no hope for a happy ending. A story filled with beautiful, expressive
artwork and vibrant, unsettling colors.
A story told with passion and thorough understanding regarding its
character motivations—ending on a haunting conclusion, masterfully displaying
the core tragic elements that makes Batman and the Joker’s relationship so
thoroughly captivating. The Killing Joke has forever ingrained the
Joker as my favorite comic book villain, so why the hell does it take him thirty
minutes to appear in the film adaptation!?
I kid you not, The Killing Joke film—adapted from the graphic novel entirely about
the Joker—spends a half-hour focused on a bizarre love-triangle between
Batgirl, Batman and some generic, wannabe-psycho. There’s not a single mention of the clown prince throughout the filler subplot; the film’s
essentially two entirely different stories crudely mashed together to make a
feature length film. It got to the point
where I paused twenty minutes in and returned to the film’s title screen to reconfirm
it was the right film—considering (or rather hoping for) the possibility of a
DVD mix up—and when that didn’t convince, visited Wikipedia to see if their
plot summary matched up to what I was watching.
What the hell were they thinking!?
The entire subplot plays out like a Lifetime original movie: clichéd,
predictable, and downright painful to watch.
I’m absolutely fine if the adaptation wanted to give Batgirl/Barbara
Gordon more screen time and/or development, but not if it’s written like a crappy teenage fanfiction!
Oh I feel bad for people who think the
graphic novel is sexist—they must have been fuming after watching this version. The adaptation gives Barbara significant
screen time as Batgirl (the graphic novel never shows her in costume), several fight
sequences, more screen time, more lines, and more development…and somehow ends
up being shockingly misogynistic! While
far from feminist, I defend the graphic novel’s treatment of Barbara: the
Joker’s aim is to mentally break Jim Gordon, torturing his closest family will
definitely increase those odds (the story was also meant to be standalone—hence
the ambiguous conclusion—meaning Barbara’s paralysis never had to be continued,
nor did Batgirl need to be removed from future comics). Yet with the adaptation’s additional scenes
and dialogue, Barbara/Batgirl is turned into little more than a sex object. What’s worse is the film’s additions make the
graphic novel’s vague nude picture scene far more rape suggestive than
initially represented.
In all fairness, Tara Strong does a
terrific job voicing Batgirl (delivering her lines with powerful inflection),
but this story isn’t about Batgirl, it’s about the Joker, and it’s really
foolish to leave him two-fifths out of his own story. The subplot doesn’t even transition well into
the canon material—shifting focus with an out-of-the-blue Joker crime
which severely reduces the graphic novel’s opening impact. The film ends up leaving 45 minutes to tell
one of the greatest Batman stories; so how is the canon material handled?...actually
pretty damn good, particularly any scene with the Joker. Mark Hamill delivers a fantastic performance (Kevin
Conroy is still quite good, but he’s definitely lost his touch over the years),
delivering his finest serious and somber Joker impressions, while additionally
getting the rare chance to use his regular voice for Joker’s “backstory”. The animation sadly isn’t as vivid and lively
as the graphic novel’s imagery, though there are scenes which come close to
matching (mostly the ones focused on the Joker). Some of Joker and Batman’s lines are also
altered and/or shortened—which is slightly annoying, but hardly disrupt their dialogue’s
overall flow.
The comic’s greatest scene is also
the film’s best: the climatic clash of determination and perspective between
Batman and the Joker. The adaptation
handles the conclusion with respect and understanding, creating only a few nick
picks—such as Hamill not stuttering when telling the final joke, and the character
animations being less expressive than the graphic novel’s drawings. The film even makes good use of what all paper-to-media adaptations should, and alters the final shots to better work
with its auditory advantage. Yet no
matter how outstanding a conclusion, the adaptation is overall tainted by its
horrible choices for padding out time. While
The Killing Joke’s last three-fifths
are great, its disastrous opening half-hour leaves a heavy stain upon the
graphic novel’s brilliant story. I still
recommend seeing the film (after reading the far-superior graphic novel first), just make
sure you have the fast-forward button ready.