Jack on Heath

[The Laughing Fish]

^ Agreed with just about everything you said. But I'll add another thing about the Joker's psychological profile that I've noticed not just in Batman '89, but also in the animated series and some of the comics I've read. He has an enormous ego. Generally, I've always seen him as someone who takes great pride of himself, and enjoys to get all the attention. He gets violently jealous if somebody else steals his spotlight in the media and attacks anyone who becomes more successful than he is at trying to kill Batman. And of course, he gets upset if nobody gets his "jokes" to the point he kills them because of it.

I don't see much of that in Ledger's Joker. He doesn't give a damn about his own appearance, and the film never really shows us his egotistical side. People say that he stays true that he doesn't really want to kill Batman, but I find that very hard to believe because he looks like he is trying his hardest every time the two of them fight each other.

* Heath's performance (though likeable) is one we've seen a million times before. People sh*t all over Jack for "playing himself" - & to some degree, they're right; after watching something like The Shining, i don't think Jack's Joker was all that it could have been. But when it comes down to it, the Joker he played was one-of-a-kind, done as only Jack could do him; Heath's Joker is just about everywhere when you go back & look. Alex Delarge, Hannibal Lector, Brad Dourif's character in Exorcist 3... i needn't mention the now-famous Tom Waits interview. Hell, the facials and hairdo were straight up Jack Torrance material.

For all the talk about how "scary" Ledger's Joker is, I don't find him anywhere near as compelling as Hannibal Lector or John Doe in Seven. Look at John Doe for instance. He is a serial killer who targets his victims based on the seven deadly sins. Now like Ledger's Joker, we don't know anything much about him i.e. his past, his real name. But unlike Ledger's Joker. we have an understanding why he is committing atrocious murders - he is a delusional, self-righteous lunatic who believes he is killing in the name of God and he believes it's his duty to make a statement against society's tolerance of sinful behavior. That's what makes John Doe an intriguing and scary character, in my opinion, and in comparison that's why I can't take Ledger's Joker seriously. His Joker talks a lot, but I find everything he says as rather shallow because of the contradictory script. He would've been a lot more believable and interesting if he actually was depicted as a realistic serial killer without the ridiculously convoluted planning. It might have made the film a more violent experience, and may have come closer at getting an R18 rating, but at least it would've been more successful at trying to achieve a more "realistic" Batman movie.

"JACKS JOKER WAS TOO CAMPY" - TDK fanatics - People seem unable to distinguish his dark humor from "camp". And

If they thought Nicholson's Joker was campy, then I wonder what do they think of Hamill's Joker? I'm not saying Hamill was campy (whatever the hell that means), but surely his take has much more in common with Nicholson than Ledger's.

[The Dark Knight]

It's a different take and all that - but Ledger's Joker is not the clown prince of crime. He just does not fit that description at all. And that is a very important aspect of the character right there. Sure, Joker is a killer, but he's not just a cold assassin wearing a purple jacket and makeup taking on the image of a clown. He *is* a clown.

I don't believe for a second Ledger's Joker is a totally unhinged guy or an unreliable narrator. Everything he does in the movie, no matter how impossible, is all planned out. Nothing is off the cuff. He's relatively unemotional, and as a result, he doesn't flip out randomly ala Nicholson's shooting of Bob in B89. Chatting to a burnt corpse, or drifting off into madness while sitting alone in the dark - in the chair of the guy he just gunned down.

Tonally, TDK's Joker is all one way. He may live for chaos, but he's simply not "doing things" as he suggests. Sure, The Joker is a liar, as in the comics, but there's zero ambiguity as far as his motives are concerned. Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too here, but it just didn't work.

People these days are frightfully afraid of 'camp', even with characters like The Joker. It must automatically equal terrible. Well, that's just rubbish. The Joker is a flamboyant showman - loud and proud. The laughter, gadgets and brightness, when emphasised, just make the murder and mayhem seem all the more darker.

[Edd Grayson]

It's a different take and all that - but Ledger's Joker is not the clown prince of crime. He just does not fit that description at all. And that is a very important aspect of the character right there. Sure, Joker is a killer, but he's not just a cold assassin wearing a purple jacket and makeup taking on the image of a clown. He *is* a clown.

I don't believe for a second Ledger's Joker is a totally unhinged guy or an unreliable narrator. Everything he does in the movie, no matter how impossible, is all planned out. Nothing is off the cuff. He's relatively unemotional, and as a result, he doesn't flip out randomly ala Nicholson's shooting of Bob in B89. Chatting to a burnt corpse, or drifting off into madness while sitting alone in the dark - in the chair of the guy he just gunned down.

Tonally, TDK's Joker is all one way. He may live for chaos, but he's simply not "doing things" as he suggests. Sure, The Joker is a liar, as in the comics, but there's zero ambiguity as far as his motives are concerned. Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too here, but it just didn't work.

People these days are frightfully afraid of 'camp', even with characters like The Joker. It must automatically equal terrible. Well, that's just rubbish. The Joker is a flamboyant showman - loud and proud. The laughter, gadgets and brightness, when emphasised, just make the murder and mayhem seem all the more darker.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

[riddler]

One thing I didn't like about Ledger was the police station scene with Batman in which he acts like he and Batman are the same. They're not, They're supposed to be polar opposites; one is a direct contrast to the other. Batman is all business, Joker is a clown.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's a different take and all that - but Ledger's Joker is not the clown prince of crime. He just does not fit that description at all. And that is a very important aspect of the character right there. Sure, Joker is a killer, but he's not just a cold assassin wearing a purple jacket and makeup taking on the image of a clown. He *is* a clown.

I don't believe for a second Ledger's Joker is a totally unhinged guy or an unreliable narrator. Everything he does in the movie, no matter how impossible, is all planned out. Nothing is off the cuff. He's relatively unemotional, and as a result, he doesn't flip out randomly ala Nicholson's shooting of Bob in B89. Chatting to a burnt corpse, or drifting off into madness while sitting alone in the dark - in the chair of the guy he just gunned down.

Tonally, TDK's Joker is all one way. He may live for chaos, but he's simply not "doing things" as he suggests. Sure, The Joker is a liar, as in the comics, but there's zero ambiguity as far as his motives are concerned. Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too here, but it just didn't work.

People these days are frightfully afraid of 'camp', even with characters like The Joker. It must automatically equal terrible. Well, that's just rubbish. The Joker is a flamboyant showman - loud and proud. The laughter, gadgets and brightness, when emphasised, just make the murder and mayhem seem all the more darker.

A very perceptive post as always TDK. I couldn't agree more.

If you don't mind me asking, I couldn't help but notice how you used to have a very high regard for Ledger's Joker judging by the very first few comments you made years ago in this thread. Now that your stance has since changed, is it obvious to say that while you still admire Ledger's performance to an extent, the film in general didn't hold up for you after multiple viewings?

One thing I didn't like about Ledger was the police station scene with Batman in which he acts like he and Batman are the same. They're not, They're supposed to be polar opposites; one is a direct contrast to the other. Batman is all business, Joker is a clown.

True. I also thought that Joker dressed up as a nurse as he leaves the exploding hospital to be a big missed opportunity for him to do something clownish. I could always imagine the traditional Joker singing or doing an outrageous dance while making his way to safety, probably to the tune of something like "What a Wonderful World" or something. 

Instead, Joker just walks his way out of there, slaps the detonator a little bit to get the bombs to continue working and then leaves with a dead set (no pun intended) serious expression on his face. Underwhelming. 

Off topic, one of the first few things I had problems with the way Joker looked in this movie was how he looked like one of those heavy metal singers who used to wear makeup back in the early 2000s, like this one below. I remember when I saw the first picture of Ledger in makeup that I confused him for someone like this:



I'm not saying that Nolan was inspired by this look, but I'm pointing out that the Joker's new look didn't look anything clownish, in my opinion.

[riddler]

If you don't mind me asking, I couldn't help but notice how you used to have a very high regard for Ledger's Joker judging by the very first few comments you made years ago in this thread. Now that your stance has since changed, is it obvious to say that while you still admire Ledger's performance to an extent, the film in general didn't hold up for you after multiple viewings?

I know the question wasn't directed at me but I'll give my perspective. I was blown away by the dark knight when I first saw it. At first I thought it beat the burton films and then some. But once you see a film more than once, the flaws become more apparent; the action scenes were poorly shot, Bale is weak in his role, plot holes add up (for instance the Jokers break into wayne manor abruptly ending or his unfeasable plan to ensure either Rachel or Dent die), the Joker was too invincible, the fact that there were many aspects which were not true to the source material and scenes dragged on. Especially after seeing the Dark Knight rises the weak points to Nolans film making were exposed, I tend to notice the negatives more when seeing this film. Especially with batman 89, you really need to nitpick to find flaws there, they aren't apparent.

[Edd Grayson]

I rememeber when I was arguing with a Nolan fan. I told him/her that I liked Jack better mainly because Heath was too bland and serious about anarchy and chaos. The reply: "You think the Joker's supposed to be funny?"

I stopped at that point. Of course the Joker's supposed to be funny as well as a cruel killer, that's what makes him the Clown Prince of Crime... 

[riddler]

With respect to the joker and the hospital scene, I prefer when he's either clowning around while making serious crimes or simply taking it in as another day at the office. It should have been done one of two ways

1) have Ledger dancing around or motioning/miming maybe singing "London bridge is falling down"
2) have ledger act natural, ie. whistling to himself, perhaps eating or drinking, maybe ask a casual question to a bystander ie "do you think it will rain later?", heck even ask someone for marshmallows but Ledger basically did nothing but cringe.

[The Dark Knight]

If you don't mind me asking, I couldn't help but notice how you used to have a very high regard for Ledger's Joker judging by the very first few comments you made years ago in this thread. Now that your stance has since changed, is it obvious to say that while you still admire Ledger's performance to an extent, the film in general didn't hold up for you after multiple viewings?

Yes. The performance itself is good, but the characterisation itself is not my cup of tea. 2005-2008 marked a Batman revival not just for the brand, but for me. Nolan's are not completely abysmal films, per se, but taking a step back made me see the forest for the trees.

[Travesty]

I know people will roll their eyes for what I'm about to say(maybe not here, but I do get it all the time), is the makeup/perma white still bugs me so much. And let me just say, as far as aesthetics go, I actually like the look of Heath's Joker, even though I feel he's out of place in Nolan's Gotham. I remember the first pic we got of Heath in the virals, I was stoked about the direction they were going in....and then we found out he wears makeup to become The Joker.

To me, this is one of the worst decisions they could have made. And what was the idea around it? Because it's more "realistic"? One of the key aspects of The Joker, is that he can't escape who he is. You always hear the comparisons of Batman and The Joker as having a "ying yang" relationship, and it's absolutely true. And in this case, the makeup completely throws that aspect of their relationship out the window. Like I said, The Joker can't escape looking like a clown. He would so desperately love to be normal, but he can't, and it's one of the driving forces around his insanity. Whereas on the flip side of things, Batman can easily escape who he is and become normal, but he chooses not to. Basically, The Joker can't take off his mask, even though he would love to, while Batman can take off his mask, but chooses not to. Hence, the "ying yang" relationship.

*but in Nolan's movies, Batman does seek a normal life by "taking off his mask", so I guess that aspect of Batman is wrong, too? Bah, so many fumbled characterizations with these movies.