View Single Post
Old 01-29-2012, 12:11 AM   #393
The Joker
The Clown Prince of Crime
The Joker's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Arkham Asylum
Posts: 49,271
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Originally Posted by El Payaso View Post
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.

And many more great comedy touches like that. He didn't need the likes of squirting flowers and charred corpses to show the dark comedy side to him.

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.
Again you're arguing semantics. This is equally as implausible:

But Nolan had it in his world. He chose a less fantastical approach with Joker, but it doesn't alter that both Jokers were treated seriously. Saying how they presented their clowny appearance is just the semantics again. They were both psychopaths in purple suits who embraced their clown appearance and called themselves Joker.

I'm arguing that we could find about the same distance between Jack and Romero than Jack and Ledger.
I don't think you can. Romero's Joker was as child friendly in just about every way you can imagine.

Cannot say the same for Jack and Heath.

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.
I'd love to hear their reasoning behind that one.

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.
Of course the make up really makes it complete, no denying that. But without the performance to compliment it, you're just yourself in a mask, or in this case make up.

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.
Physically yes, but if he started talking in his regular voice or behaved like he did normally then the illusion is shattered. That's why I say both compliment each other. You need the character altering acting to go with the make up to really transform.

The whole character, yes.

But if you're talking about unrecognizable like in how you cannot distinguish Ledger's face, that's make-up.
No argument there.

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.
That's rubbish though. Gacy never killed anyone dressed as a clown. He just used to dress as a clown for birthday parties. He didn't go stalking his victims or murdering his victims in his clown attire.

The media just pooled around pics of him when he dressed as a clown for these birthday parties and somehow he got this phony rep as a killer clown.

They took an evil man and just promoted his image with a clown picture.

I thought that was pretty well known.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't know it. I thought he was hired purely for the fact he was a high caliber actor who had previous quirky psycho characters on his acting resume.

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.
That's my point. It shows real chameleon acting to be able to do both. Make yourself look different from the norm and sell it with an acting performance.

It's also a well known fact that Nicholson's performance was light years above Thurman's.
Of course, but you're missing the point. Looking like the comic book character doesn't automatically mean you were born to play it, or perfect for it.

Which was the whole purpose of hiring him.
I know. That's the point being made here. Jack was essentially hired to be Jack in Joker attire.

Heath was hired to be the Joker. Not to sound like a broken record but that's why I was more impressed by Ledger and enjoy Ledger more.

He felt like the Joker. It was a character never seen before on screen. With Jack I saw shades of other roles he'd done in his career, not to mention I could see Jack himself.

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.
I think a new thread would have been easier to make or just post in one of the Joker related threads of Batman 1989 thread instead of digging through 5 years worth of archives just make one simple post.

I just can't get my head around it. I get the feeling there was ulterior motives.

As I remember it was you who has gotten highly interested as to why this thread was bumped after so many years, not me.
Yes, but I never called it fascinating, just curious.

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.
Weird things happen all the time. We still don't stop questioning why they are weird

"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote