Is there a difference between Jack Napier and the Joker?

[johnnygobbs]

I think the difference is that, like Jim Carrey putting on the Mask in the eponymous 1994 movie, Jack's transformation liberates his id.  He's always been unhinged, but whilst he was still taking orders from Grissom and trying to make his way up the criminal ladder, he had to control his crazier instincts to some extent.

You see that in the early scene where he meets Lieutenant Eckhart in the alleyway.  Eckhart makes a crack about Jack being an 'A-1 nut-boy', and one can see by the Jack is doing all he can to control his urge to go psycho on the corrupt cop.  He demonstrates a slight nervous twitch, and is clearly rattled by the insult.  The Joker by contrast wouldn't have hesitated to lodge a bullet in Eckhart's fat belly there and then.

[thecolorsblend]

I think the difference is that, like Jim Carrey putting on the Mask in the eponymous 1994 movie, Jack's transformation liberates his id.  He's always been unhinged, but whilst he was still taking orders from Grissom and trying to make his way up the criminal ladder, he had to control his crazier instincts to some extent.

You see that in the early scene where he meets Lieutenant Eckhart in the alleyway.  Eckhart makes a crack about Jack being an 'A-1 nut-boy', and one can see by the Jack is doing all he can to control his urge to go psycho on the corrupt cop.  He demonstrates a slight nervous twitch, and is clearly rattled by the insult.  The Joker by contrast wouldn't have hesitated to lodge a bullet in Eckhart's fat belly there and then.

In fairness, Jack didn't hesitate to lodge a bullet in Eckhart's fat belly before he took his acid bath.

[Slash Man]

Yes, but that was after Jack had nothing to lose after he knew he had been set-up by Grissom. Before, Eckhart was still a valuable asset to Grissom.

[johnnygobbs]

Yes, but that was after Jack had nothing to lose after he knew he had been set-up by Grissom. Before, Eckhart was still a valuable asset to Grissom.

Exactly.

Jack was killing people aplenty before his acid bath.  That was his job.  But for the most part it was either because he was hired to do so, or it was a tactical, relatively cool-headed move.  Even when he killed the Waynes, he was doing so in a practically abandoned alley-way with only a scared lackey/sidekick, and a child, who he was about to kill anyway, to bear witness.  It was also possibly a hired hit (even if it appears his partner-in-crime wasn't aware of it), which is how Sam Hamm retconned the sequence in his script for 'Batman 2'.

After he fell into the acid, he had nothing to lose.  He was 'liberated', and thus able to kill with reckless abandon for nothing more than a whim.

When he killed Eckhart he was still operating on a vague sense of logic.  Eckhart had set him up and he was going to get revenge, and he no longer had any even ostensible allegiance to Grissom.