The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[The Joker_1000]

I hate when people troll, it's so damn annoying. It also shows you what kind of life those people have. There's no doubt that guy will be back in with a different name.

 

[ronny]

In terms of the make-up, does anybody think that The Joker will undergo a metamorphisis? Meaning that by the films end he may actually bleach his face in a last bid to avoid detection? Then there'd be no difference between him and his character, you couldn't just wash the stuff off him and have a normal guy sitting there.
Hell, beats the big convenient vat of chemicals that he falls into.
Although, if The Joker were like the Ledger version before the accident then that origin wouldn't bother me.

 

[Joker]

You dont like the vat of chemicals because it was too convinient...but you wouldnt mind if a man who already paints himself up like a clown falls into a vat of chemicals that then just happens ot make him look like a clown? What the f**k? That's even MORE of a huge coincidence than "man with one gimmick falls into chemicals and ends up with a totally unrelated condition due to it" that you dont like because it's too convineint. Are you like...special?

 

[ronny]

Let me put it this way, if the guy who fell into the chemicals was already trying to become The Joker I would like it a lot more. That way one could argue that he was playing with Batman even then, goading him into the climatic confrontation that would lead to his swan dive into the bleach. But the whole notion that he was a family man who became evil incarnate after "one bad day" is for the birds.
And can you not insult me please? That kind of talk is just going to make people hostile and comic books and movies are too trivial to start getting impolite over.

 

[Joker]

Uh...the "one bad day" thing isnt even official. It's discounted in the same book it's from. "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes I remember it others. If I'm going to have a past, I preffer it to be multiple choice!" Even though that's like saying "Bruce Wayne becoming justice incarnate after his one bad day is for the birds!" But regardless, not his official origin.

So, if in your head, you want to believe he goaded Batman into that confronation, then that's how it happened. The ONLY thing that we know about the Joker in the comics for sure is Red Hood+Chemical Bath=Joker.

 

[ronny]

Here's what I don't get. The Red Hood thing. I mean, The Killing Joke was made in the 1980's right? Back then did they think that the phallic red dome look worked?
And hey, Bruce didn't become Batman overnight. The death of his parents started something for sure. But didn't he travel the world? Learning all his skills? I mean, he had to grow into the role. Virtue, like evil, is not easily aquired. It has to have some pre-existing base for growth surely?

 

[Figs]

The original Red Hood story was done back in the 40's or 50's. I forget which decade.

 

[Mister J]

1951.

 

[ronny]

The original Red Hood story was done back in the 40's or 50's. I forget which decade.

True but The Killing Joke kept that look for the character. If The Red Hood looked truly intimidating you could see why they kept with that gimmick. But what group of robbers is going to use a red condom as their trademark?

 

[Figs]

True but The Killing Joke kept that look for the character. If The Red Hood looked truly intimidating you could see why they kept with that gimmick. But what group of robbers is going to use a red condom as their trademark?

Some small time low lifes?

I see what your saying but were talking about fictional comics here.

1951.

Thanks

 

[Joker]

Yeah...They were small time, they saw that gimmicks were the new thing, so they made one on the cheap. A glass helmet. And who's to say that Joker wasnt evil before then? If you want that, look at the Lovers and Madmen arc of Batman Confidential, that one even gets rid of the Red Hood part, or the Alex Ross origin from Black & White Vol. 2. There's your already on his way Joker. But, neither of them are official either.

 

[Crook]

I'm pretty sure Confidential is, up until they retcon it.

 

[Joker]

No it isnt. They did the "official" one in Countdown. It was multiple choice, keeping only the red hood and chemical bath aspects...saying before it he could have been "a failed comedian" or "a hitman named Napier"

 

[Crook]

Didn't Countdown appear before Confidential?

 

[Joker]

It actually appeared during...lol. Way to keep it consistent there, DC...But as they took place at the same time, I'm gonna assume there official line is still "multiple choice." I'm really waiting for them to do a mini-series, with a different team on each issue, for like 6 issues, all of different Joker origins.

 

[CaptainClown]

They should have more takes at the Joker origin or even one graphic novel to the creation of the Joker and just have people giving their view of how Joker came about.

 

[sglass03]

From what I've read (various cast and crew quotes, etc.), it seems as though the permawhite vs. makeup thing has become a moot point.

Why? I found one of Nolan's quotes to be particularly telling - he states that Joker's face has become like a permanent "Francis Bacon portrait," which makes perfect sense (just Google Francis Bacon.)

In other words, Nolan's/Heath's Joker treats his face much like a canvas - one that is never truly wiped away. Despite the fact that we've seen many shots with Joker having varying states of makeup - clean, greasy, smeared, etc. - I don't think we'll ever see him without it on.

In other words, the makeup might as well be permawhite. It's as though he's used strong enough material (not some cheap store-bought makeup) and left it on long enough that it's almost impossible to wipe away completely - kind of like that stubborn spaghetti stain on a white shirt. He's been like this for years and has accepted it as part of his "face," treating the makeup clown face as his own. I can actually see a conversation taking place between Gordon and some officer during the incarceration scene, with Gordon asking "Why haven't you washed his makeup off?" and the officer replying, "It won't come off!"

So my point is that, while technically it isn't permawhite, it's being treated as such. Actually, it's all the more horrifying, if you ask me: the Joker's face can become more and more ghoulish depending on the situation - streaking and smearing and then appearing clean again in a later scene - whereas a permawhite Joker would have the same face no matter what the circumstance. It gets treated almost like an evolving prop.

 

[jmc]

^ Interesting way of looking at it.

 

[deathfromabove]

From what I've read (various cast and crew quotes, etc.), it seems as though the permawhite vs. makeup thing has become a moot point.

Why? I found one of Nolan's quotes to be particularly telling - he states that Joker's face has become like a permanent "Francis Bacon portrait," which makes perfect sense (just Google Francis Bacon.)

In other words, Nolan's/Heath's Joker treats his face much like a canvas - one that is never truly wiped away. Despite the fact that we've seen many shots with Joker having varying states of makeup - clean, greasy, smeared, etc. - I don't think we'll ever see him without it on.

In other words, the makeup might as well be permawhite. It's as though he's used strong enough material (not some cheap store-bought makeup) and left it on long enough that it's almost impossible to wipe away completely - kind of like that stubborn spaghetti stain on a white shirt. He's been like this for years and has accepted it as part of his "face," treating the makeup clown face as his own. I can actually see a conversation taking place between Gordon and some officer during the incarceration scene, with Gordon asking "Why haven't you washed his makeup off?" and the officer replying, "It won't come off!"

So my point is that, while technically it isn't permawhite, it's being treated as such. Actually, it's all the more horrifying, if you ask me: the Joker's face can become more and more ghoulish depending on the situation - streaking and smearing and then appearing clean again in a later scene - whereas a permawhite Joker would have the same face no matter what the circumstance. It gets treated almost like an evolving prop.

 

[Carnotaur3]

From what I've read (various cast and crew quotes, etc.), it seems as though the permawhite vs. makeup thing has become a moot point.

Why? I found one of Nolan's quotes to be particularly telling - he states that Joker's face has become like a permanent "Francis Bacon portrait," which makes perfect sense (just Google Francis Bacon.)

In other words, Nolan's/Heath's Joker treats his face much like a canvas - one that is never truly wiped away. Despite the fact that we've seen many shots with Joker having varying states of makeup - clean, greasy, smeared, etc. - I don't think we'll ever see him without it on.

In other words, the makeup might as well be permawhite. It's as though he's used strong enough material (not some cheap store-bought makeup) and left it on long enough that it's almost impossible to wipe away completely - kind of like that stubborn spaghetti stain on a white shirt. He's been like this for years and has accepted it as part of his "face," treating the makeup clown face as his own. I can actually see a conversation taking place between Gordon and some officer during the incarceration scene, with Gordon asking "Why haven't you washed his makeup off?" and the officer replying, "It won't come off!"

So my point is that, while technically it isn't permawhite, it's being treated as such. Actually, it's all the more horrifying, if you ask me: the Joker's face can become more and more ghoulish depending on the situation - streaking and smearing and then appearing clean again in a later scene - whereas a permawhite Joker would have the same face no matter what the circumstance. It gets treated almost like an evolving prop.

Excellent post, and further demonstrates that Nolan has more ideas that help his make-up decision than the perma-white angle could have ever done.

As the make-up slowly cracks, hardens, and gets darker on his face, the more demented and less of a man Joker becomes. It works on a symbolic level and not just physical.

 

[Sandouras]

Excellent post, and further demonstrates that Nolan has more ideas that help his make-up decision than the perma-white angle could have ever done.

As the make-up slowly cracks, hardens, and gets darker on his face, the more demented and less of a man Joker becomes. It works on a symbolic level and not just physical.

he is also really freaking awesome to look at, if i might add. I just love the way he looks in that pic where batman is standing behind him. His face structure is that of a normal man's, doesnt even remind us of the classic jokeresque elongated face and yet he is the joker. And those washed up wrinkles and those black rotting eyes are perfect!

For the first time i love how joker looks. I can now take him more seriously and all that because of the normal facial structure. Yeah, yeah there are people that look like that and there are comics where he looks good, but he always looked a bit ridiculous to me. I can see all that threat, madness and death on his face now. And its not because of heath, nolan or whatever. He just looks awesome to me!

 

[-Crusher-]

From what I've read (various cast and crew quotes, etc.), it seems as though the permawhite vs. makeup thing has become a moot point.

Why? I found one of Nolan's quotes to be particularly telling - he states that Joker's face has become like a permanent "Francis Bacon portrait," which makes perfect sense (just Google Francis Bacon.)

In other words, Nolan's/Heath's Joker treats his face much like a canvas - one that is never truly wiped away. Despite the fact that we've seen many shots with Joker having varying states of makeup - clean, greasy, smeared, etc. - I don't think we'll ever see him without it on.

In other words, the makeup might as well be permawhite. It's as though he's used strong enough material (not some cheap store-bought makeup) and left it on long enough that it's almost impossible to wipe away completely - kind of like that stubborn spaghetti stain on a white shirt. He's been like this for years and has accepted it as part of his "face," treating the makeup clown face as his own. I can actually see a conversation taking place between Gordon and some officer during the incarceration scene, with Gordon asking "Why haven't you washed his makeup off?" and the officer replying, "It won't come off!"

So my point is that, while technically it isn't permawhite, it's being treated as such. Actually, it's all the more horrifying, if you ask me: the Joker's face can become more and more ghoulish depending on the situation - streaking and smearing and then appearing clean again in a later scene - whereas a permawhite Joker would have the same face no matter what the circumstance. It gets treated almost like an evolving prop.

QFT


well said, very nice.

 

[StorminNorman]

Excellent post, and further demonstrates that Nolan has more ideas that help his make-up decision than the perma-white angle could have ever done.

As the make-up slowly cracks, hardens, and gets darker on his face, the more demented and less of a man Joker becomes. It works on a symbolic level and not just physical.

There is nothing done with make-up that could not of been done with the more faithful perma-white acid.

 

[Closerframe]

From what I've read (various cast and crew quotes, etc.), it seems as though the permawhite vs. makeup thing has become a moot point.

Why? I found one of Nolan's quotes to be particularly telling - he states that Joker's face has become like a permanent "Francis Bacon portrait," which makes perfect sense (just Google Francis Bacon.)

In other words, Nolan's/Heath's Joker treats his face much like a canvas - one that is never truly wiped away. Despite the fact that we've seen many shots with Joker having varying states of makeup - clean, greasy, smeared, etc. - I don't think we'll ever see him without it on.

In other words, the makeup might as well be permawhite. It's as though he's used strong enough material (not some cheap store-bought makeup) and left it on long enough that it's almost impossible to wipe away completely - kind of like that stubborn spaghetti stain on a white shirt. He's been like this for years and has accepted it as part of his "face," treating the makeup clown face as his own. I can actually see a conversation taking place between Gordon and some officer during the incarceration scene, with Gordon asking "Why haven't you washed his makeup off?" and the officer replying, "It won't come off!"

So my point is that, while technically it isn't permawhite, it's being treated as such. Actually, it's all the more horrifying, if you ask me: the Joker's face can become more and more ghoulish depending on the situation - streaking and smearing and then appearing clean again in a later scene - whereas a permawhite Joker would have the same face no matter what the circumstance. It gets treated almost like an evolving prop.

It's funny how you compare Heath Ledger to a Francis Bacon portrait, when if anyone remembers it was a Francis Bacon painting that Jack's Joker left alone in Batman 89. When he tells Bob to "leave it" because he likes it...

Heres the painting

 

[ronny]

"Image hosted by tripod"?
Erm...that's not much of a picture. Is it supposed to be ironic or something?