Heath Ledgers Joker

[Joker81]

So can someone please answer me a question?

What era is Ledgers Joker based on?

I have read the original, as in 1940's (which I find if it is to be wrong, because I have read them and from what I have seen isn't the same.)
I have also heard 'The killing Joke'?

Or is he a new carnation?

And for those that think Nicholson was a 'prankster Joker' which I have read as well I want to do an exercise and list his killings in Batman that we know).

(As Jack Napier)

Thomas Wayne
Martha Wayne
Lt. Eckhardt

(As the Joker)

Carl Grissom
Rotelli
Vinnie (Gangster - also the cops and other gangsters killed at the City Hall)
Kelly Walker
Amanda Keller
"3 Mysterious Deaths at a beauty parlour"
Becky (News Reader)
'Joker Claims 13 Lives'
"6 new deaths"
People in Muesem?
Alicia (Did she jump or was she pushed? I ythink the Joker pused her out the window. He lied in Vicki's apartment)
Bob

So 34 visible people kiled by the Joker/Napier in Batman. And thats not counting all the people killed at the city hall or in the muesem or at the 200th Anniversary festival. Also god knows how many more killed by smylex in the beauty products.

So my question is, how was Burton's Joker not a mass murderer!!!??? And why are people saying he was portrayed as a harmless prankster?

Of course he had a flamboyant dark funny side to him, thats why he is the Joker. My fear is that in TDK, that the humor is completley removed from him. If this is the case, then he's just another psycho killer we've seen in so many thrillers already.

[BurtonBatman]

I have heard that Ledger's Joker is influenced by his first appearance in Batman #1, in that the Joker has no origin story and he "just is."  Now I'm not sure what other influences Batman #1 (or any other GN's) had on Ledger,  but I am currently rereading my Batman Chronicles #1 (1939-40)so that I can better judge his peformance in TDK when I see it.

If you haven't read the thesis posted on this site under the "Features" tab you should, its very informative about how B89 and BR came into being.  In it, the author states that Jack Nicholson met personally with Bob Kane so that he could get the Joker right.  I'm paraphrasing here, but Kane told him not to play him with any camp (i.e. not like Romero in the Batman TV show) and more like he was in Batman #1, so I don't get the "harmless prankster" notion (That's Romero in a nutshell).  By the way, who is saying this?

Nicholson's Joker WAS heavily influenced by Batman #1 and The Killing Joke, Ledger's Joker apparently also by Batman #1.  This is one of those rare instances in the Batman movie franchise that a direct comparison can be made between two portrayals as they were influenced by the same material of the same comics era.  Personally, I am open to Ledger's performance and I may end up prefering it over Nicholson's, but only time, my reread of Batman #1, and my viewing of TDK will tell.   

[Joker81]

Thanks for the reply 

Yes I am considering re-reading the original comics myself, because there is a lot of unfounded comments being made about Joker performances, and I want to fimilarise myself with the original character.

I cant remember wher I read the 'harmless prankster' stuff, in various places. One I do remember was January edition of Empire magazine, which I felt so strongly against I considered writting to them about the comment! Theres a lot of people saying, which I dont agree with by the way, Nicholsons was more the 50's 60's era Joker. Now this is ridiculas if you ask me.

Its great Jack met with Bob. I dont see campness in Jacks Joker to be honest. Flamboynce yes, campness no. There is a difference, isnt there?
But that was suposed to be the point of Jacks Joker, vanity?

By the way, One great shot in Batman #1 is when we see the Joker sitting in his layer, at a desk with his hands under his chin. I always think of Joker sitting at Grissoms desk as the camera pans into Jacks face "Wait'll they get a loada me". Its definatley influenced by that drawing in that comic.

To me Nicholson got it right. I'm not saying Ledger wont be good, as a matter of fact I think he will make TDK! And I do appreciate a different type of Joker. But to me the Joker is a high energetic fun character, but also a dangerous criminal. As i've said, I just hope they dont take the humour completely out of the character as it defys the purpose and being of 'JOKER'.

He shouldnt be called Joker because he wears make-up (where I come from if your a man who wore make-up you'd be called Sissy, not Joker lol)

[BatmAngelus]

Nicholson was hardly a "harmless prankster."
That label fits Romero and the mid-40s-60s Joker a little more closely, though Romero did have elaborate death traps and a desire to kill Batman & Robin.  He was harmless, 'cause he never succeeded.

The only major similarity, I find, between the lighter Joker in that era and Nicholson's Joker in the movie is the look- I really think Nicholson looked like a dead-ringer for Dick Sprang's illustrated Joker.

Anyways, BurtonBatman brings up an interesting point that Batman #1 and The Killing Joke were sources for both portrayals of Joker.  Joker81 has a good comparison between the "Wait till they get a load of me" scene to the comic book panel of Joker plotting in his lair in Batman #1.

One influence I'd add to 1989 Joker is Steve Englehart's work, The Laughing Fish/Sign of the Joker, from the 1970s.  It was Englehart's work that influenced Michael Uslan to start pitching a Batman movie to studios and Englehart himself wrote two script treatments for the film.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Joker character in Batman #1.  Other than the look and his methods of killing people through the Joker Venom, he pretty much felt like a common pulp murderer to me- simply motivated by greed and with a rather stereotypical pulp villain personality.

When the tone of the comics got lighter and the comics code came in, Joker became the "harmless prankster" that people say- he'd be humorous and attempted outlandish crimes.

To me, the Joker didn't really come to form until the 1970s when guys like O'Neill and Englehart got their hands on him.  They essentially combined the cold-hearted killer from Batman #1 with the humorous one from the following era and created a very special character - one whose actions would both frighten you and humor you.  He'd make jokes as he committed horrific crimes.  This, to me, is the ideal Joker.  One who was clearly insane.

I think the best way to see this evolution is to read Batman #1 and compare it to Englehart's Laughing Fish/Sign of the Joker.  They essentially have the same plot- The Joker announces his murders for the night and ends up committing them right under the police's noses.
In the former, he mainly does it out of greed (and in one case, revenge).  These motivations are rather common.
But Laughing Fish/Sign of the Joker?  He kills people because they won't give him copyright over his poisoned Joker fish!  It's ridiculous, it's absurd, it makes sense only to him.  This guy's clearly a lunatic.  Since what he wants isn't possibly attainable, he'll just keep gleefully killing.  Either way, in his mind, he wins out.  And that's what makes him so much more frightening, in my opinion, than the original Joker.

[Sandman]

so I don't get the "harmless prankster" notion (That's Romero in a nutshell).  By the way, who is saying this?

I take it you haven't been on many other boards lol. Really it's nothing to be taken to heart it mostly come from failed and pathetic attempts from Crazed fan's trying to find anything at all to make the Nolan movies sound better. Everyone knows Jack's Joker is one of the reasons this movie was so HUGH in 1989 and is a classic in 2008.

And just wondering a couple of you have said that you have read or are going to read Batman#1 just wondering where you got it?

[Joker81]

Well said Sandman, I totally agree with you. You can get Batman #1 in a colection graphic novel called Batman Chronicales Volume 1. Checkout forbiddenplanet on the net. I'm pretty sure they will have it.

BatmAnegles, some good points there. Funny you mentioned the poisoned fish novel, I have read that too, some good artwork in it, and its funny you mentioned how the look of Nicholsons Joker was influenced on it, cos I have always thought the same thing! Theres a drawing in that comic of that Joker walking through a door taking his hat off and again there is similarities of Jacks Joker walking into Vicki's apartment!

I also think Jacks look was based on Rameros look too. The suits are the same only of course Jacks is of more quality, and more colour. But it was true the Joker wore tailcoats mainly in the comics. But the 1940's/tuxedo/ bib waistecoat Nicholson wore is the same as Rameros. The only difference is the Plaid trousers Nicholson wore.

To me the Joker in the original Batman #1 didnt kill for fun. He killed for financial gain. He did it for riches.
Nicholson's Joker was already top of his tree. He was the top gangster running Gotham. So thats what makes him frightening to me. Why was he doing it? He didnt need the money! (Of course I have already wrote in another post it was because he wanted to punish Gotham for his accident/deformity).

Burton's Batman is nightmarish to me. A city with no law and order, a top top gangster being driven insane and begins mass murdering innocent citizens through chemical warfare and getting away with it. Probably wouldnt happen, but what if???

[Paul (ral)]

some great stuff here guys 

[BurtonBatman]

I take it you haven't been on many other boards lol. Really it's nothing to be taken to heart it mostly come from failed and pathetic attempts from Crazed fan's trying to find anything at all to make the Nolan movies sound better.

That explains it  .  I usually stick to the Burton/Shumacher & Batman General boards at BOF these days, and of course, these boards as well.

@BatmAngelus:  Thanks for the history lesson, I enjoy learning about the influences that comics had on the Batman film franchise.  I'll have to pick up the Laughing Fish/Sign of the Joker in the future. 

You also make an interesting point, the insanity of the modern Joker brings an unexpected and uncontrollable element to Gotham that Batman tries to reconcile with his mission.  It does make a much more complex and nuanced story, as it often takes Batman to his limits.  Now, I'm not sure which interpretation I like better, the original or the modern.  I'll get back to you after the TDK 

Another thing I found interesting was your sig stating the little known fact that had the Joker been created in 1939, Bob Kane said the Joker would have killed Thomas and Martha Wayne leading to Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman.  That was one of the sore spots among fans when B89 was released, as it was not faithful to the Batman mythos.  I always thought that it added rather than detracted to the film, but have recently become concerned with its faithfulness, so I'm glad to see that Batman's creator didn't have a problem with it.  It helps remove that issue for me completely. 

Coincidentally, I've noticed how much the "fans" of Batman have quickly dismissed things as "heresy" that may have not been exactly faithful to the comics (Keaton's casting, Joker killing Bruce's parents) but have been supported by the very man who brought Batman into existence.  It's like Kane lost control over his own creation...more like intellectual hijacking.   

[Joker81]

Another thing to remember is Kane suggested Nicholson for the Joker. He said and I quote "He is the Joker".

[BatmAngelus]

BurtonBatman, you can pick up Laughing Fish/Sign of the Joker in the collection called Batman: Strange Apparitions.  According to Englehart, his characters from those stories- Rupert Thorne and Silver St. Cloud-eventually became Carl Grissom and Vicki Vale (of course, Vale was a comic book character for awhile, but I think the love subplot in Burton's film is closer to Englehart's story of the Silver-Bruce relationship than any of the Vicki Vale stories I've read in the comics).

In terms of elements that Kane had approved of- the film, in a way, kind of reflects the creative choices he didn't get to do in the comics.  Aesthetically, Batman's suit in the comics was always supposed to be black (according to Bob Ringwood in talking to Kane) and Vicki Vale was supposed to be blonde (according to the documentary on the Gotham Knight DVD- she was based off Marilyn Monroe). 
As for the Joker, he was originally supposed to die in Batman #1 in a scene somewhat like the Burton film in which he was determined to get the last laugh and died with a smile on his face.  At the last minute, though, they decided to keep the character and added a panel with a doctor saying he survived.

As for The Joker in The Dark Knight, I noticed in the Comcast trailer that Joker says something along the lines of, "When the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other.  You'll see, I'll show ya." 

That gives me an indication that this new Joker could have the same agenda as The Killing Joke one. 
In that comic, the Joker wants to "prove a point" that any sane person, when pushed the right way, can become just as warped and insane as he is.  With The Dark Knight, I predict that he'll want to push every citizen in Gotham into becoming psychopaths like him (perhaps he'll play a role in Harvey Dent's psychological journey to becoming Two-Face).

Personally, I think a Joker whose actions are to "prove a point" is different from a Joker who kills for the fun of it and makes nonsensical excuses for him to do so (i.e. copyright rights for his Joker fish or "one of my gang betrayed me.  I may as well just kill off the whole gang then and be done with it!" from Joker's Five-Way Revenge).
The former seems a bit more rational, but that may just be me.