Is there a difference between Jack Napier and the Joker?

[The Laughing Fish]

I've heard a couple of strange criticisms towards Nicholson's Joker in terms of characterization and backstory. Basically, some people are saying that the characterization doesn't distinguish Jack Napier and Joker as two different people. I've got no evidence to show who is saying this, I'm just going by anecdotes.

"Jack Nicholson is just playing himself in clown paint."

This is the most popular remark I see online. Sure, Nicholson doesn't do anything physically drastic like changing his voice, but why should he? The whole point about the Joker in this movie was that he was accused as nuts when he was Jack Napier, but he didn't really fulfill his psychotic potential until he fell in that vat at Axis Chemicals. Besides, not every actor who has played a villain or a hero transforms themselves to be completely unrecognizable. Does that make their performance less legitimate? Of course not.

And on a separate point, doesn't Nicholson play the Joker as he's supposed to - a cheerful, darkly comedic psychopath?

"The origin story doesn't make him more interesting, or develop him as a character"

This particular criticism isn't common, but it does exist. And it's one that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Repeating from the previous point, I don't believe it's necessary for actors to transform themselves physically, as long as the characterization allows them to distinguish from what they became compared to when we see them at the start of the film. And in my opinion, this film does a fine job in delivering Joker's character development. Seriously, you can't compare anything that Jack Napier did in the first twenty minutes of the film to the mayhem he committed as the Joker afterwards e.g. poisoning everyone at Flugelheim Museum to death or hijacking live TV after poisoning a new presenter to death. That alone should tell how much he has changed over the course of the film.

Finally, this is one criticism I haven't heard before until recently...

The backstory doesn't explore why he's crazy

My rebuttal is - so what? Se7en never explored why John Doe was a religious nutjob, but we still know why he murdered people based on the Seven Deadly Sins - he was fed up with society tolerating sinful behavior. In Joker's case here, we know that he commits crimes because he wants to steal the media limelight from Batman. Which is in line with Jack's vanity and ego as we saw at the start of the film. I'd say B89 does more than enough in explaining why Joker does things.

Eager to hear everybody else's comments.

[thecolorsblend]

"Jack Nicholson is just playing himself in clown paint."

I believe it was Harry Knowles, that fat tub of goo who runs Ain't It Cool, who created this little meme. It's idiotic.

Napier committed murder for money.
The Joker committed murder as a means of artistic expression.

Napier was just another mob thug.
The Joker was a criminal mastermind.

Napier followed Grissom's orders.
The Joker dictated terms to the mayor.

Napier was a cold bastard.
The Joker thought it was hilarious when people died.

Napier had a taste for femme fatale gun molls; he would use 'em and lose 'em. A cheap lay.
The Joker preferred classier women; he was about as committed to Vicki as he's capable of. Totally from the heart.

So on and so forth.

[Edd Grayson]

I don't think any of those points are solid, and they sound pretty subjective to me. I never got why people have to hate on Jack's version if they like Heath Ledger more, or because Joker wasn't "different" from Jack Napier, and so on...

I love Jack Nicholson in this role, and he undoubtedly played a big part in the film's success. Why Batman (1989) still works so well to me is because all the main actors feel so lively.

[Dagenspear]

I've heard a couple of strange criticisms towards Nicholson's Joker in terms of characterization and backstory. Basically, some people are saying that the characterization doesn't distinguish Jack Napier and Joker as two different people. I've got no evidence to show who is saying this, I'm just going by anecdotes.

"Jack Nicholson is just playing himself in clown paint."

I wouldn't say that.

"The origin story doesn't make him more interesting, or develop him as a character"

This particular criticism isn't common, but it does exist. And it's one that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Repeating from the previous point, I don't believe it's necessary for actors to transform themselves physically, as long as the characterization allows them to distinguish from what they became compared to when we see them at the start of the film. And in my opinion, this film does a fine job in delivering Joker's character development. Seriously, you can't compare anything that Jack Napier did in the first twenty minutes of the film to the mayhem he committed as the Joker afterwards e.g. poisoning everyone at Flugelheim Museum to death or hijacking live TV after poisoning a new presenter to death. That alone should tell how much he has changed over the course of the film.

I like the idea of the origin fine, but I don't really fully take to how it's done. It's not really that drastic of a character development though.

The backstory doesn't explore why he's crazy

My rebuttal is - so what? Se7en never explored why John Doe was a religious nutjob, but we still know why he murdered people based on the Seven Deadly Sins - he was fed up with society tolerating sinful behavior. In Joker's case here, we know that he commits crimes because he wants to steal the media limelight from Batman. Which is in line with Jack's vanity and ego as we saw at the start of the film. I'd say B89 does more than enough in explaining why Joker does things.

Eager to hear everybody else's comments.

His backstory not exploring why he's crazy isn't really that important. But that doesn't develop the character really or explain his characterization.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[eledoremassis02]

I think his back story explains is perfectly. He gets joy from killing people. The reaction of the other mobster (was it supposed to be bob?) gave me the impression that this was supposed to be scare for the Waynes rather then a killing but Jack saw the opportunity to do so and the look on his face showed that he got a kick out of it.

If that's not crazy, I don't know what is.

Joker is Jack on acid (sorry for the pun but I just thought of it)

[Edd Grayson]

Joker is not Jack, but Jack is a damn fine Joker.

[Dagenspear]

I think his back story explains is perfectly. He gets joy from killing people. The reaction of the other mobster (was it supposed to be bob?) gave me the impression that this was supposed to be scare for the Waynes rather then a killing but Jack saw the opportunity to do so and the look on his face showed that he got a kick out of it.

If that's not crazy, I don't know what is.

Joker is Jack on acid (sorry for the pun but I just thought of it)

That doesn't explain his character. It shows more of what we know about his character.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Dark Knight]

The Joker is Jack unchained. Flamboyant and out in the open.

Perhaps Jack simply grew tired of slinking around behind Grissom's back, eg. cheating on his wife. I'd say it's clear Jack desired power but had to keep it in check. He was high up in the gang but still second fiddle.

When Grissom flipped out over his secret life, that was it. It was dog eat dog and the town wasn't big enough for the both of them. And that then applied to Batmas as well. Jack/Joker wanted to be the number one guy.

[eledoremassis02]

I think his back story explains is perfectly. He gets joy from killing people. The reaction of the other mobster (was it supposed to be bob?) gave me the impression that this was supposed to be scare for the Waynes rather then a killing but Jack saw the opportunity to do so and the look on his face showed that he got a kick out of it.

If that's not crazy, I don't know what is.

Joker is Jack on acid (sorry for the pun but I just thought of it)

That doesn't explain his character. It shows more of what we know about his character.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

It establishes what we know of Joker. There wasn't much of that side of Jack, just the in for himself number one guy thing.  So it does give you a look into Jack pre-joker. Older jack was rather reserved and in a way hid his craziness. Younger Jack was in a sense more like the Joker and actually seemed more nuts than his pre-joker counterpart.

[Dagenspear]

It establishes what we know of Joker. There wasn't much of that side of Jack, just the in for himself number one guy thing.  So it does give you a look into Jack pre-joker. Older jack was rather reserved and in a way hid his craziness. Younger Jack was in a sense more like the Joker and actually seemed more nuts than his pre-joker counterpart.

It doesn't establish what hasn't already been established though. But young Jack I doubt would gased the whole city.

God bless you! God bless everyone!