Jared Leto IS The Joker - - - - - - - - Part 17

lol agreed. I think Jared Joker as annoying and bad as Eisenberg Lex but Eisenberg give worst acting.

 

The Chemical Wedding outfit wasn't terrible...it was just a grey suit with a red dress shirt. Pretty basic, actually. I'd wear that myself (minus the jewelry).

But yeah, the tuxedo was his best attire. To be honest, that attire best sold the aesthetic they were going for with this version. Also feel the same about the attire worn when Johnny first tells him where Harley is.

 

I believe this happened as well.
Not that they were against dark scenes, but they would just choose the wrong takes. The teaser trailer's "really really bad" delivery was the best one. Why not use it?

I also think Ayer was letting Leto experiment so much that when they were editing they didn't choose a consistent "Joker"
Thats why his Joker, to me, is GREAT in moments. However, then it edits/cut to where he's still trying to figure out the character.

If he is in the Gotham Sirens movie I hope Ayer/Leto have a clear vision of the character now.

 

Excellent. Can you now stop using the inane strawman that people hate Leto's Joker because he is 'over the top'?

Because as you pointed out, people love Jack's Joker and he is over the top. People adore Ledger's Joker and he is over the top. And fanboys worship at the alter of Mark Hamill who was very over the top.

It's almost like being over the top is something people are fine with in a Joker performance. That oughta be the first thought that should occupy your mind, not trying to wrap some sort of misguided 'check mate' on Leto's detractors.

I thought you weren't into conspiracy theories?

 

Yeah. Remember all the outrage when Leto was cast? All the gay cowboy jokes. All the rampant homophobia.

Oh wait! That was someone else. Someone whose last name also started with an L. Someone who shut up those hyperbolic detractors with excellent acting. Something Leto didn't do.

 

Leto isn't horrible. He was mediocre. Which in itself is horrible because it's following an excellent (Nicholson) and a breathtaking (Ledger) performance. He had big shoes to fill and he came up massively short.

 

Tacit said it all right there.

Speaking of Nicholson... look at that beauty.

 

Nicholson has an uncanny ability to make over the top gestures look believable and scary. Ledger gave us his own brand of very animated but also very naturalistic physical performance.

Leto was honestly closer to those amateur youtubers who try to be the Joker. Who think simply copying Mark Hamill's mannerisms in front of a camera makes for a good live action Joker, not caring that one is made for 2D animation and the other is for a three dimensional world of deeper textures and more varied colors.

 

What is your problem? I saw a whole bunch of articles dissing Leto even before the movie was released

 

People hated his look and stupid behavior. But most agreed that he was a capable actor who fit the part and would probably deliver a solid performance.

If you want true hate, go back and look at the reactions to Ledger's casting.

 

^ Been there, done that. Found that (at the time) to be just as off the wall as (some) of the hate Leto gets.

I'm not saying Leto can do no wrong or anyone against him is wrong for sharing that view. It's just, even looking at the performance objectively, I don't see it as "terrible." I can buy mediocre, but outright horrendous? I firmly disagree with that assessment.

Also, there's nothing inane about me pointing out the "over the top" bit when I've seen people draw it as a main criticism. And no, I'm not just referring to my fellow Hypesters here.

 

Here's what happened: Nicholson went all out as the character and it worked. Leto went all out(?) and it didn't. Just because both interpretations could be seen as over the top doesn't mean one's sins trickle down to the other.

 

The thing is, you can't look at it objectively. No one can. It is all subjective because you bring your own knowledge and experiences to it.

And yeah, I'd call him outright terrible. It is all extreme pantomiming without a cent of nuance, danger or character. He matched the bad look and his attempts at coming off edgy while filming perfectly. All show, no substance.

 

Jack has been playing "crazy" for how long? He has shown countless times he knows not only how to do it, but make it different. It seems really odd to even compare Leto to Jack, one of the all time great. Of course he knew how to make it work.

One thing I have always loved about Jack and Ledger's look is the way the make up emphasized the lines in their face. Gave them age, like they have been around the block. Also showed every little emotion they tried to deliver with their facial expressions.

 

Both Jack and Heath had 100% top notch make-up and wardrobe. They're a treat to look at, whereas Leto... well... he looks cool in the tux and that's about it.

 

My point is that it's not a double standard at all. Leto and Nicholson aren't on equal footing at all in terms of the approach they used for the character, or the way it was written.

 

It is not a double standard. Quality is quality. You can get away with anything if you do it well. Leto didn't in many people's opinion.

And no you can't. Unless you believe people don't bring any prior knowledge to a judgment. It is like the difference between a court ruling with a mandatory sentence (objective) and one where the judge or jury decides (subjective).

Unless you think you can remove all your our bias, which is of course ridiculous and just shows an obviously subjective view one is not aware of. Hence why they think they are being "objective".

 

Not to call out Hulk specifically here, but I really do enjoy when a superhero fan on a superhero message board tries to say something "objective" about a superhero film. I'll never forget someone telling me I was wrong for not liking BvS because it was an "objectively" good movie

 

Things you can say objectively about a movie:

- The title.
- The length.
- Whose in it.
- Who composed the music.
- Who edited.
- The company producing it.

That kind of stuff.

 

Jared ain't mediocre because he is over the top. His over the topness sticks out in a bad way because he is mediocre.

 

This sounds like an oxymoron, but Nicholson and Ledger brought a certain charisma to the over-the-top nature of their performances. Even when they were being goofy, they commanded attention.

Leto's performance was kind of built around this over-the-top, "Look at me!" shtick, but with zero charisma behind it. He was basically that attention ****e at a party who thinks he's funny, but is anything but. It's just awkward and weird for everyone around him.

 

A thing I loved about Ledger's makeup is that despite how minimalist it was, Ledger never looked like himself. The character came through the haphazard greasepaint and chelsea grin prosthetics, not the other way around. It was an internal thing that was manifested externally. The texture all came from the performance.

Jack's makeup was just an exaggeration of his preexisting Joker-esque features. He was buried under a lot but he was still Jack. Leto on the other hand just looks like Leto more or less. He's not creating a living character as much as he's trying to do that and not finding his way. Like an impression of the character instead of the real thing.

 

I actually remember that.

 

Leto's look worked in some places, like the helicopter scene. In the scenes where his mouth is closed he looks like himself because there is nothing external that gives him the Joker grin. He just looks like a pale Leto with lipstick on.

Jack had prosthetics on his nose, chin and cheeks. He also naturally had those Joker eyebrows.
Heath's make-up had a lot of texture to it. The lines in his face were emphasized, the chelsea grin prosthetics distorted his face a bit. Beyond that, his facial expressions do a lot of the work. There are some behind the scenes pictures where his face "rests" because they're applying make-up and whatnot. In the movie, his face is NEVER neutral. He's always doing something with it.

There was definitely some thought put into Leto's make-up. They had to get the shading right, in some lights the dark circles around the eyes make him look tired and weary. Sadly, the way the movie was shot and colored afterwards, his pale skin looks almost yellow in a lot of his scenes.

 

The iteration had many problems, but Joker desperately needed the wilkinson treatment, no major DC characters should go without it