View Single Post
Old 01-28-2012, 09:34 PM   #377
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
No, they are both serious approaches to the Joker done with different styles. But serious nonetheless.

Romero is different in every way from tone, to style, to approach.
Jack's take was more dramatic and had blood, charred corpses and sex innuendos attached to it. But it wasn't supposed to be 100% serious (glasses joke, toy denture, etc). Ledger was.

In Burton's take, chemical waste can deform your face and bleach your skin white and hair green. In Nolan's that's implausible.

If you label Romero = comedy, Jack = tragedy I could label Jack = fantasy, Ledger = reality.

But I myself have pointed out many similarities among both versions, even when the tones were quite different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
You're arguing semantics.
I'm arguing that we could find about the same distance between Jack and Romero than Jack and Ledger.

I have heard in this very forum people saying that Jack's Joker was Romero's Joker hyped up. As you say, it's really subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Along with changing his voice and his whole acting style and mannerisms. Every facet of him vanished into that role.

I can't say the same for Jack which is why I find Heath a more impressive Joker.
The change's impressive. But big part of that was make-up alone. And big actor-character change doesn't mean anything by itself regarding the peformance. Next actor to play Joker better be a short fat woman. If she manage to look, sound and act like a tall male Joker, then it'll be more impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Re-read my comments that you quoted and you'll see the answer to your question.

I never said once that the make up didn't help transform him. I said I didn't know how such a simple make up application caused such an effective transformation.
I misunderstood your words then. It sounded like you really didn't know that make-up can change your appearance in such a way that a pretty boy can look like a psycho. And he can become unrecognizable even if he doesn't move a muscle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Part of it, yes. Voice and performance also included.
The whole character, yes.

But if you're talking about unrecognizable like in how you cannot distinguish Ledger's face, that's make-up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Obviously I know they applied make up onto Heath. I said I don't know how such simple make up application was so effective in transforming him completely to look completely unrecognizable.
Because it was all smeared, had black messy circles around the eyes and that alone can make you look any face sinister. Plus we all have seen or imagined the classic psycho-clown ala John Wayne Gacy with the smeared make-up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Thanks for clarifying that Jack looking like Jack was done on purpose. It would be worse if they attempted to make him feel different and had failed.
I thought that was pretty well known.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
No, Jack had a Joker persona they wanted. Meaning similar style that he had done in previous movies like The Shining or The Witches of Eastwick. That kind of crazy quirky character you could see in his Joker performance.
You basically said the same as I did, but added "no" at the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Darn right. All credit to Will for physically altering himself and selling the performance, too. That is a mark of great acting than someone who supposedly already "had it inside them".
Physically altering himself and selling the performance are two completely different things. This other hypotetical beefed up actor I mentioned could have delivered a great acting. But, of course, we couldn't have admired how much he trained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Nevertheless what? Uma Thurman looked identical to comic book Ivy. The look alone doesn't make it right.
It's also a well known fact that Nicholson's performance was light years above Thurman's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
So they hired him based on his smile then?
I think I have mentioned many other factors they saw in Nicholson too many times in this very page to start mentioning them again.

All I said was that the make-up was designed to make the most of Nicholson's face, not to try to distort it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
His methods and energy level was different, but you could still see and hear Jack.
Which was the whole purpose of hiring him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Semantics. You're talking about a costume, not a performance.
I meant to talk about the whole thing actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
I never said they were against the rules, and citing previous pointless happenings doesn't negate the question of why someone would do it.
Plausible theory: The poster joined the forum back in November 2011. He probably wanted to say something about the subject and he looked for an already open thread about it before startying a new one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Eh I think you're easily fascinated lol
As I remember it was you who has gotten highly interested as to why this thread was bumped after so many years, not me. But then, this is like the umpteenth time this happens here at SHH, so I thought it was one of those things that wouldn't surprise anyone anymore no matter how odd could it look.


******************



Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack View Post
I've always thought Nicholson essentially played a heightened version of himself long before I saw TDK.
It's like what Dustin Hoffman said in the Actor's Studio interview. Something like "In the end, the only thing we actors gave is ourselves. There is nothing else."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack View Post
It was and is a very entertaining and appropriate performance but it wasn't the type of role in which the actor really transforms.
Nor it was meant to be. Jack was hired because he and the Joker's approach had many things in common, not because he was so different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack View Post
That's what Ledger did, regardless of the specific characterization. And the relatively minimal makeup used with Ledger I think is a great testament to that, because Nicholson was covered in makeup and still looked like himself (which again, isn't a bad thing).
I'm not sure what do you refer to as 'minimal,' but Ledger's make-up was not simple, as it might appear.

El Payaso is offline   Reply With Quote