(10/26/09)
How fitting that Trial’s first sequence would be a trial, though not the trial that is to become the episode’s centerpiece. It is a trial that shows Batman’s troubling impact on the Gotham City legal system, perhaps suggesting that such issues are to be magnified later on. It also creates a claustrophobic environment. The courtroom is dim and draped with shadows, even as the outdoor sunlight makes a prominent impression on the windows. Structurally this trial might have been used as a parallel to the trial of the Arkham inmates. Instead, it merely contributes to a motif, without following through on the issues it brings up. The actual meat of things is about the new District Attorney, Janet Van Dorne.
She is an infinitely troubling character. She is defined by her contempt for the Batman, not an uncommon opinion to hold if one works in the judicial sector of Gotham City. And yet while Batman’s vigilantism greatly complicates legal procedure, as shown in the opening scene, her criticisms are far more simplified and repetitious. According to her, Batman has created the super-criminals of Gotham. This is where she becomes a paradox.
As she defends Batman in the titular trial, she comes to the logical conclusion that Batman did not create the likes of Joker, Two-Face, and Poison Ivy, based on basic information from each case. Because the evidence contrary to her initial claims is not only irrefutable, but also highly accessible to someone of her stature, one would assume that her hatred of Batman is born of some prejudice. But if she were prejudiced, she would not rethink her position so easily. Because her character is the episode’s main subject, it consequently falls apart because of the incompetence of her character.
Dini seems sidetracked by the bountiful opportunities for sketch comedy to take any of the ideological queries and accusations concerning Batman’s vigilantism seriously. Why even bother with a half-baked dialogue about Batman’s intrinsic link to his psychologically perturbed adversaries when there’s a party waiting to be had? Dini cannot conceal depth of meaning in Trial like he does in the festive works Harlequinade and Harley’s Holiday. He dives straight into the parade of villainy at the risk of alienating those with the desire to see something profound, or at the very least thought provoking.
On Dini’s brand of comedy, his characterization of the inmates is exaggerated, as if each character is aware that he is playing a role in an entertainment. We might also ask how every single member of Batman’s rogues agreed to take part in such a trial, and why every single regular inmate, who need not be a maniac or a criminal, is depicted as a raving madman. I don’t share the standpoint of those who find this offensive, but I do find the whole ordeal lazy writing. As there are several characters thrown in without their voice actors, they come across as lifeless designs who exist to take up space.
The main idea is that Gotham City’s new District Attorney, Janet Van Dorne, has a major bone to pick with Batman. She rants and raves about how Batman is a vigilante (which is true, so I’ll let it slide) and that he has created the villains he fights against. Now wait just a second. The idea that Batman has created his villains has always been a major idea behind many great Batman comic books, so it seems natural that finally an episode should raise that point. However, this episode’s foundational idea is a failure. Does Janet ever provide one shred of evidence for her case? No. I’ve read before that true drama arises from a situation in which two opposing characters are both right in their own way. This is the kind of story where it’s essential that that happen. Instead, Janet repeats herself over and over again, never bothering to give a reason. What makes this idea even more unnecessary is that we already know how most of Batman’s villains came to be, and none of them have anything to do with Batman. Surely Janet must know this, given the fact that she’s the Gotham City District Attorney, but no, apparently she’s either delusional or just flat out lying. If she’s lying, then where’s the dramatic appeal of her character and the points that this character is making? There is none. The episode may be fun, but it’s laden with pretentious notions that have no weight behind them.
Now, I’ll pause for a second, and get into what everyone loves about this episode, before I finish lambasting it. Once Arkham Asylum’s inmates capture Janet Van Dorne and Batman, we get to see a plethora of villains, more than we’ve ever seen in a single episode. People love watching Joker as the judge of the trial of sorts that he sets up, love watching many great villains like Scarface and the Mad Hatter get spotlight appearances, and find the entire ordeal to be a lot of fun. But there really isn’t that much fun to be had if you look beyond these few spotlight moments. Once you get past a few sketches involving a couple of characters, we find that many notable villains have been shafted in the process. Two-Face, Scarecrow, and Killer Croc do virtually nothing the entire time and are reduced to lackeys. In fact, neither Scarecrow nor the Riddler has their respective voice actors available to play their parts. I understand where this episode’s fans get the impression that this episode in fun, humorous, and exciting even in its flaws, but sometimes, I think that you can have too much of a good thing. With so many characters around, for every villain that does something special, there’s another that gets do nothing whatsoever.
Now, my major issue with the episode comes at the climax. As horrible as Janet Van Dorne’s character is up to this point, there’s still the rationalization that she’s just raving on nonsensically because of some interesting deep-rooted prejudice against Batman. However, as soon as the inmates get her to argue in defense of Batman, she changes her whole viewpoint. What’s even more absurd is that, even though she couldn’t come up with a shred of evidence to support her initial proposal, as soon as she starts questioning the Mad Hatter, Poison Ivy, etc. she instantly comes up with substantial arguments. She actually relies on factual knowledge to explain that Pamela Isely became Poison Ivy for personal revenge, Jervis Tetch was jealous of his desired woman’s boyfriend, and that Harley Quinn is who she is because of the Joker. It’s so laughable. All this time we’ve been watching a lunatic District Attorney make absolutely no sense defending a position that she seems to agree with one hundred percent, and now, without even undergoing a defining character change, she’s able to defend Batman like it’s nothing. And so, after all is said and done, it seems that we’ve just watched a one-dimensional character make a completely pointless revelation in the least dramatic way possible.
Those who enjoy ‘Trial’ are still free to enjoy it. I for one find it almost impossible to overlook all of the shortcomings in its story.
No comments:
Post a Comment