TO THE BATPOLES podcast #66: This Joker Really Pops!

[bat-rss]

This time we're talking POP GOES THE JOKER/FLOP GOES THE JOKER, an arc in which Joker is... super-queeny? Check. More emotion-driven? Check. Less intelligent? Hmmmm....

Also, digging into Stanford Sherman's take on pop art, what this arc says about the Duo's "real mission", the surprising truth about Mother Machree, and your mail!

http://tothebatpoles.libsyn.com/066-thi ... eally-pops

[Dan E Kool]

What a great discussion on one of my favorite episodes. Thanks Tim!

A note on Joker's "nothing" painting: I consider that to be a parody of Robert Rauschenberg's White Paintings from the 1950s. You can read about it here on the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art website: https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A ... ree-panel/ It's an interesting read! An excerpt:

Fittingly, Joseph further suggests that with the White Paintings, Rauschenberg enacted the evolution toward essential flatness foretold by Greenberg as the extreme, logical end point of modernist painting. With this flatness would come an absolute eradication of image, mark, and color.

So it should come as no surprise that Joker's "painting" is so well received - he has taken this high-art concept to the next level! It's hardly the final level of nothingness, though. Far from it: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... exhibition

I believe that in the Alfred quote you're having trouble making out, Alfred says, "Yes sir. The Bat-nap, sir, finally did the trick!" Bat-nap obviously being a bat-shaped wet-nap. It's the only moist towelette that can be trusted in the fight against stains.

[clavierankh]

Alfred is saying Bat Naphtha. Naphtha is a stain removing chemical. There is a laundry detergent that included napthacalled Fels Naphtha

I think the Joker knew what Muzzy's reaction would be and used it to gain entre' in to the art world. It reminds of the TV show Mission Impossible. They knew exactly how the mark would react to certain situations.

[Dan E Kool]

Alfred is saying Bat Naphtha. Naphtha is a stain removing chemical. There is a laundry detergent that included naptha called Fels Naphtha

Darn.

[Dan E Kool]

I always wondered why the TV writers didn't have Batman face Poison Ivy. Now that I know our hero had Bat-Napalm at his disposal, I understand why they went with Marsha Queen of Diamonds, instead.

Sorry.

Anyway, Tim. When you're looking through the scripts, there's one question I have for 'He meets his match, the grisly ghoul.' That's a Joker episode, number 16. The Dynamic Duo is saved from electrical execution by a rolling blackout and they race to Police Headquarters. There they tell the Commissioner that the Batcave is unaffected by the blackout, thanks to anti-crime back-up power. But when we see them in the Batcave seconds later, Dozier narrates that it is now MORNING (Hallelujah!) and the city power is back online! Was this a mistake that no one caught, or something someone actually added in?

Thanks!

[BATWINGED HORNET]

About the final Joker story of season two:

Yikes. Eisner was correct about this episode marking the change in the Joker's portrayal; he's no more villainous than the "hoo-hoo-Haa-haa" animated version seen in The New Scooby-Doo Movies ("The Dynamic Scooby-Doo Affair" & "The Caped Crusader Caper") from 1972. In other words, cringe-wrothy in how childish the Joker is in this arc. Compare him to the laughing with a sinister edge / strangling Batman version from his season one appearances. That was a fantastic Joker brought to life, and if not for the fact Romero was the actor wearing the same make-up & costume, this final season two Joker could be a completely different character.

Sad for the series that THE Batman villain above all others was reduced to the kind of silly character some fans skip over whenever they watch the series (I'm looking at you, Archer, Puzzler, Marsha, Lulu Schultz, Chandell, Louie, Dr. Cassandra, Minerva, et al.).

A few things...

Robin's "red blood" declaration (and similar remarks by Batman throughout the series) must be seen for what it was: a continuing reference to / play on the TV Batman being a near stereotype of his comic book roots--a medium where the American hero often made grand proclamations about the integrity and granite-solid nature of his purpose, and/or entire being. The superhero genre had changed by the 1960s, but Dozier's Batman was still channeling influences from its early 20th century hero/comic foundation, where most creators meant exactly what the characters said regarding their identity, beliefs and purpose, with no hint of a double meaning.

That is one of the reasons the Dozier Batman felt like an unexpected, earth-shaking bolt of lightning on the TV and pop cultural landscape in 1966, because the characters and situations were so tied to a creative period considered dusty--long gone by 1966, but roared back--considered refreshing, in no small part due to the morally upright identity/beliefs of Batman/Wayne & Robin/Grayson, which were (and should be) taken at face value thanks to the characters' creative period origins.

Frankly, their allegedly "square" nature was one of the strongest draws to Dozier's series, as it was a great contrast to a mid 60s era already filled (if not littered) with morally/socially ambiguous protagonists, or "anti-hero." On that note, the "anti-hero" had arrived earlier than the oft-repeated and incorrect film historians' date of the decade's tail end, with Connery's James Bond, and others introduced at the beginning of the 60s.

For some, there's a modern day tendency to see a series like Batman as "subverting" all older character and story formats, but that's overreach, and considering the how and why the characters sold as presented touched a longing nerve, particularly in the American culture of 1966.

Oh, and about Marc Cushman's Star Trek books. Skip them, as they are filled with wild assumptions, omissions and long-disproven stories that were once sold as "fact." For a more accurate assessment of Star Trek, do yourself a BIG favor and browse Star Trek Fact Check, where the academic analysis of all things from that original series are supported with the hard, cold truth of quotes, documents, supportive evidence and (what would even make Mr. Spock smile) logic--which is quite enjoyable, whether you're a Star Trek fan or a serious TV historian.

[cammy85]

Had I seen this back in the 60's, I certainly might feel betrayed. Season 2 and even Season 3 Joker was nothing like Season 1 Joker. Even the Zodiac trilogy, sorry to say, drags on to the point where you can't wait for the Penguin to return to the story.

But... having seen the 1989 movie before learning of this show's existence, I appreciated the art defacing and art plot and was really glad to see Bruce Wayne getting in on the action for once after kicking butt in the movie. Easily my favorite full Joker appearance that season; though some of the earlier bits were great too.

[Dan E Kool]

Yikes. Eisner was correct about this episode marking the change in the Joker's portrayal; he's no more villainous than the "hoo-hoo-Haa-haa" animated version seen in The New Scooby-Doo Movies ("The Dynamic Scooby-Doo Affair" & "The Caped Crusader Caper") from 1972. In other words, cringe-wrothy in how childish the Joker is in this arc. Compare him to the laughing with a sinister edge / strangling Batman version from his season one appearances.

Is that the one where he tries to rig a high school basketball game with tricky milk machines? Or the one where he dresses up as a middle eastern dignitary to fool Batman into signing a phony check?

Joking aside, I do agree. The Joker is all jokes and very little criminal in this one, but the jokes are good, the story is well written, and it's still my favorite Joker arc of the second season.

[Dr. Shimel]

Some of the Joker's old menacing personality returns when he takes Baby Jane to Wayne Manor and holds a knife to her throat to get Alfred to give him money. Much like he poisoned Suzy in the high school caper.

[bat-rss]

Alfred is saying Bat Naphtha. Naphtha is a stain removing chemical. There is a laundry detergent that included napthacalled Fels Naphtha

I think the Joker knew what Muzzy's reaction would be and used it to gain entre' in to the art world. It reminds of the TV show Mission Impossible. They knew exactly how the mark would react to certain situations.

Interesting! Thanks. Maybe Naphtha would have been more familiar in '67?

[bat-rss]

I always wondered why the TV writers didn't have Batman face Poison Ivy. Now that I know our hero had Bat-Napalm at his disposal, I understand why they went with Marsha Queen of Diamonds, instead.

Sorry.

Anyway, Tim. When you're looking through the scripts, there's one question I have for 'He meets his match, the grisly ghoul.' That's a Joker episode, number 16. The Dynamic Duo is saved from electrical execution by a rolling blackout and they race to Police Headquarters. There they tell the Commissioner that the Batcave is unaffected by the blackout, thanks to anti-crime back-up power. But when we see them in the Batcave seconds later, Dozier narrates that it is now MORNING (Hallelujah!) and the city power is back online! Was this a mistake that no one caught, or something someone actually added in?

Thanks!

OK, I've added it to the list! Thanks

[Dan E Kool]

Some of the Joker's old menacing personality returns when he takes Baby Jane to Wayne Manor and holds a knife to her throat to get Alfred to give him money. Much like he poisoned Suzy in the high school caper.

A revolver, even!
[YouTube]https://youtu.be/sU8mj9lid0s[/YouTube]

[Jim Akin]

The Dynamic Duo is saved from electrical execution by a rolling blackout and they race to Police Headquarters. There they tell the Commissioner that the Batcave is unaffected by the blackout, thanks to anti-crime back-up power. But when we see them in the Batcave seconds later, Dozier narrates that it is now MORNING (Hallelujah!) and the city power is back online! Was this a mistake that no one caught, or something someone actually added in?

Please help me understand if I'm missing something, but I don't see a "blooper" in this sequence. There obviously had to have been some time interval between the meeting with Gordon and O'Hara and the scene in the Batcave. (Even at top speed, our heroes couldn't leave GCPD HQ and be at Wayne Manor "seconds later.") So as I see it, the the narration is just telling us in the audience how much time has passed between scenes: It's been hours (during which the Duo has been toiling), and now the sun is up and power has been restored. Or have I missed your point?

Cheers,

Jim

[Dr. Shimel]

Regarding what Diana Ivarson and the Baby Jane Holzer looked like, I found this online:

HolzerTowser.jpg (37.09 KiB) Viewed 9930 times

Her Batman appearances were just the second (according to IMDB) of Ivarson's mercifully brief career as an actress. Her first had come just three months earlier as the girlfriend of Charles Grodin on an episode of The Felony Squad--another ABC show.

The executive in charge of production for that show was William Self, who essentially held the same job on Batman. Maybe he figured her horrible acting would be a source of comedy, given the shift toward outright parody by that point.

Interestingly, that episode of The Felony Squad has Howard Duff's character being wounded in a shootout with Grodin's character. A year later on the show, Duff's character was also wounded in a shootout in the first scene. In the latter case, his absence ("to recover") allowed him to film his scenes as Cabala in the largely-reviled Dr. Cassandra episode.

Finally, IMDB notes that Ivarson ended up marrying actor Robert Tessier. The name might not ring a bell, but one role that he had stands out: Shokner, the killer in the original version of The Longest Yard, who is so menacing that "even the guards are afraid of him":

[Dan E Kool]

Please help me understand if I'm missing something, but I don't see a "blooper" in this sequence. There obviously had to have been some time interval between the meeting with Gordon and O'Hara and the scene in the Batcave. (Even at top speed, our heroes couldn't leave GCPD HQ and be at Wayne Manor "seconds later.")

No, but still minutes at legal speeds.

So as I see it, the the narration is just telling us in the audience how much time has passed between scenes: It's been hours (during which the Duo has been toiling), and now the sun is up and power has been restored. Or have I missed your point?

You haven't missed my point, Jim. In fact, I'm sort of second guessing myself now, but I'll argue my point for the fun of it.

We have the perfect set-up: In Part 1, we are told that Gotham City is suffering from recurring power failures, among other things, when Bruce is begged to run for Mayor. Then the Joker's electric-themed death trap fails thanks to that very problem. Commissioner Gordon points this out as a hiccup to Batman's plans, to which our hero replies with his cop-out: the Batcave is totally unaffected by power shortages.

And then, all of that build-up, wasted with Desmond Doomsday's line that the evening has passed and the power grid is working once again. It always struck me as odd.

If the Dynamic Duo has been working all night, why not mention it in the narration? Wouldn't those hours of sleepless work be worth a line from Doomsday? The way the line is, it sounds like the night passed and the Duo basically waited for power to return (Hallelujah and all). Had Doomsday said nothing at all, it would be obvious to the viewer that Batman is doing exactly what he said he would in the previous scene - working with the Batcave reserve power. With the line as-is, we have hours unaccounted for and a wasted joke. IMO.

My feeling is that the narration was changed when someone looked at the following scene with Dick Grayson undercover and said, "This is daytime, the previous scene should be daytime as well." I could be wrong, but it's something I've long wondered... The hours I lie awake, pondering Batman narration...