The Dark Knight Joker Hype!

[Keyser Soze]

It's a fine line, I'd argue. But if we have a Joker with bleached skin, green hair, red lips and a horrible smile, with no origin, we are left saying 'Dear God, what happened to this guy to make him such a monster, and drive him totally insane? How did he get like this?'. If we just have an insane psycho who is naturally flesh-coloured and dark -haired, but likes to give himself the appearance of a clown, it makes it seem like that's just his gimmick, something he likes to do to scare people - it's not who he is. it would be a as big a change as if Two-Face just painted the left side of his face purple, or Mr Freeze just liked his suit, but didn't need it to survive. It makes him a criminal, not a freak.

See, this is the same concern I had. At his best, The Joker is something elemental, almost inhuman. When people see this...ghoul, with white skin, and a hideous smile, they should be terrified. And part of that is a fear of unknown. Part of why The Joker is Batman's greatest foe is his total inability to understand him.

But if The Joker has normal skin, and paints it white, then suddenly there's a link there. A link to humanity. You can trace the steps - he got scarred, and hides the scar under facepaint. You get an inkling of motive, of what drives him. It's not much, but it's a first step towards understanding.

And so it cheapens him, because it removes some of that mystique.

 

[Citadel30]

Another good question is going to be:

Is the Joker's cut smile and white appearance going to be a result from the same incident or different accidents?

 

[DeaDheaD]

It looked the joker was shot in the side of his face.

 

[Keyser Soze]

But do you think Nolan will just do that??? I don't think that Nolan will allow a Joker character to just show up and not have some reasoning behind his appearance. Even the Scarcrow briefly mentioned how his mask was developed from his tests with the inmates at Arkhem. Although it was a small detail- it was an explanation.

Remember, though, that Nolan is apparently drawing heavy inspiration from The Joker's first appearance back in 1941. And it was 10 years before The Joker was given ANY kind of origin.

Consider this: in his first appearance, with his white skin, and black-shadowy eyes, and his graveyard lair, I have heard that many readers at the time debated about whether he was even human. At the time, he bore connotations not only to a clown, but to the undead...

But back on-topic, yes, I do think Nolan would do that. It's perfect. "Batman Begins" was all about delving into Batman's origins, his motivations, his reason for being. Surely the perfect nemesis for him would be someone who has none of that? Surely that's the definition of total chaos, pure insanity?

I can just imagine the scene now. He's in police custody, where Gordon has just discovered his "make-up" is his skin. He's becoming increasingly desperate, screaming at The Joker:

"What happened to you to make you like this?"
"Why have you killed all these people?"
"WHO ARE YOU!?"

And The Joker just laughs, and laughs, and laughs...

 

[itsthebatman]

But do you think Nolan will just do that??? I don't think that Nolan will allow a Joker character to just show up and not have some reasoning behind his appearance. Even the Scarcrow briefly mentioned how his mask was developed from his tests with the inmates at Arkhem. Although it was a small detail- it was an explanation.

Why not? I don't see a need to have his background explained.

See, this is the same concern I had. At his best, The Joker is something elemental, almost inhuman. When people see this...ghoul, with white skin, and a hideous smile, they should be terrified. And part of that is a fear of unknown. Part of why The Joker is Batman's greatest foe is his total inability to understand him.

But if The Joker has normal skin, and paints it white, then suddenly there's a link there. A link to humanity. You can trace the steps - he got scarred, and hides the scar under facepaint. You get an inkling of motive, of what drives him. It's not much, but it's a first step towards understanding.

And so it cheapens him, because it removes some of that mystique.

I agree mostly, except for the motive part. Joker does have motives. They may seem insane (and largely they are), but he does what he does for a reason. For instance, in The Man Who Laughs, he is not just randomly killing people. That's how it initially appears, but in the end, it transpires he is taking revenge. One, very specifically, against the men who owned the chemical factory where his accident occurred, and two, against the people of Gotham, to try and make them feel how he does. Now, these are understandable motives, but I don't think it makes him more human, or less of a monster, indeed his desire to take revenge on the whole of Gotham is definitely mad. And our last sight of him is locked away in Arkham, with no idea of who he really is.
So, Joker can have motive, and remain a monster.

 

[Citadel30]

See, this is the same concern I had. At his best, The Joker is something elemental, almost inhuman. When people see this...ghoul, with white skin, and a hideous smile, they should be terrified. And part of that is a fear of unknown. Part of why The Joker is Batman's greatest foe is his total inability to understand him.

But if The Joker has normal skin, and paints it white, then suddenly there's a link there. A link to humanity. You can trace the steps - he got scarred, and hides the scar under facepaint. You get an inkling of motive, of what drives him. It's not much, but it's a first step towards understanding.

And so it cheapens him, because it removes some of that mystique.

So you think that just because Scarecrow revealed why and how he developed his "mask"- that it cheapened his character? You would have rather had this guy just show up in a potato sack on his head and that would have make his character more frightening and mysterious? I think that Nolan will use flashbacks of some sort to tell the path that led Mr. J to the point of his madness and i don't think that will take away from Joker's characterization. I do believe that Joker should be terrifying and should act without reason- but some explanations of how and why he became the monster he is should be told.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Yeah we are gonna need some type of reason for a man with white skin dressing up like a purple clown.

 

[Keyser Soze]

So you think that just because Scarecrow revealed why and how he developed his "mask"- that it cheapened his character? You would have rather had this guy just show up in a potato sack on his head and that would have make his character more frightening and mysterious? I think that Nolan will use flashbacks of some sort to tell the path that led Mr. J to the point of his madness and i don't think that will take away from Joker's characterization. I do believe that Joker should be terrifying and should act without reason- but some explanations of how and why he became the monster he is should be told.

Scarecrow's different. He DID benefit from an explanation. Explaining his fascination with fear was important. And Cillian Murphy did a fantastic job of making the Dr. Crane alter ego a chilling character before he puts the mask on.

But The Joker HAS no alter ego. The Joker is different from the rest of Batman's rogues gallery in that way, in that there isn't a Jonathan Crane, or an Edward Nigma, or a Harvey Dent behind the white skin and green hair. Whoever he was before is long gone, never to be found again. He is only The Joker.

 

[Keyser Soze]

mostly, except for the motive part. Joker does have motives. They may seem insane (and largely they are), but he does what he does for a reason. For instance, in The Man Who Laughs, he is not just rabdonly killing people. That's how it initially appears, but in the end, it trasnpires he is taking revenge. One, very specifically, against the men who owned the chemical factory where his accident occurred, and two, against the people of Gotha, to try and make them feel how he does. Now, these are understandable mtives, but I don't think it makes him more human, or less of a monster, indeed his desire to take erevenge on the whole of Gotham is definitely mad. And our last sight of him is locked away in Arkham, with no idea of who he really is.
So, Joker can have motive, and remain a monster.

Excellent point, actually. I don't know why I overlooked this. I always liked the argument that The Joker's crimes only APPEAR random, and that they make perfect sense to him in his own crazed mind. So yes, we can say he has motive.

But I still don't like him having an origin. Unless they screw us around with his origin, have him set one up throughout the film that turns out to be a work of complete fiction.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Maybe thats the big "TWIST" in the end the joker really doesnt have an origin and batman goes all heston "damn you no origins ppl"

hahahaha, sorry i had to

 

[Carmine Falcone]

I'm completely and utterly pumped to see the Joker on the white screen.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'm completely and utterly pumped to see the Joker on the white screen.

Freudian slip there, Mr. Falcone? t:

 

[Citadel30]

Scarecrow's different. He DID benefit from an explanation. Explaining his fascination with fear was important. And Cillian Murphy did a fantastic job of making the Dr. Crane alter ego a chilling character before he puts the mask on.

But The Joker HAS no alter ego. The Joker is different from the rest of Batman's rogues gallery in that way, in that there isn't a Jonathan Crane, or an Edward Nigma, or a Harvey Dent behind the white skin and green hair. Whoever he was before is long gone, never to be found again. He is only The Joker.

Very good point, Scarecrow was Crane's alter ego and Joker isn't going to be Jack or Joe on some occaisions. But you are forgetting that Joker did have origins like every other freak. Enigma turned INTO a full riddler; Harvey Dent turned INTO Two Face, and Nolan left to the audience at teh end of BB that Crane did in fact turn into a FULL Scarecrow...

I do wonder though- will we see Ledger in this film without the scarring or joker appearance? Will we just see plain old Heath Ledger acting as a guy who becomes joker? hhmmmm... that would be a little odd.

 

[itsthebatman]

Scarecrow's different. He DID benefit from an explanation. Explaining his fascination with fear was important. And Cillian Murphy did a fantastic job of making the Dr. Crane alter ego a chilling character before he puts the mask on.

But The Joker HAS no alter ego. The Joker is different from the rest of Batman's rogues gallery in that way, in that there isn't a Jonathan Crane, or an Edward Nigma, or a Harvey Dent behind the white skin and green hair. Whoever he was before is long gone, never to be found again. He is only The Joker.

Yep.

Excellent point, actually. I don't know why I overlooked this. I always liked the argument that The Joker's crimes only APPEAR random, and that they make perfect sense to him in his own crazed mind. So yes, we can say he has motive.

But I still don't like him having an origin. Unless they screw us around with his origin, have him set one up throughout the film that turns out to be a work of complete fiction.

That would be very Nolanesque, similar to Memento, where what we were led to believe turned out to be untrue. In this aspect, less is more - giving a character a background tends to make them more sympathetic, less evil which is why it works for Two-Face, a truly tragic villain, and not for Joker. It would lessen Joker in the way that all the post-Silence of the Lambs work has taken away from Hannibal Lecter. Similarly, learning that John Doe's sister has been killed by a fat, lazy lawyer when he was a kid would have lessened the impact of that character, by giving mundane, everyday explanations and motivation for someone who should be enigmatic and unknowable.

 

[DeaDheaD]

I hope we get to see a progression of Heath throughout, a real developement of the character

 

[itsthebatman]

Very good point, Scarecrow was Crane's alter ego and Joker isn't going to be Jack or Joe on some occaisions. But you are forgetting that Joker did have origins like every other freak. Enigma turned INTO a full riddler; Harvey Dent turned INTO Two Face, and Nolan left to the audience at teh end of BB that Crane did in fact turn into a FULL Scarecrow...

I do wonder though- will we see Ledger in this film without the scarring or joker appearance? Will we just see plain old Heath Ledger acting as a guy who becomes joker? hhmmmm... that would be a little odd.

I think we're onlly goig to see Joker, possibly with flashbacks for an origin, or (hopefully) a fake origin. Joker's origins are still unclear - remember the multiple choice quote from The Killing Joker? And Dick Grayson said he'd heard Joker was a criminal before his accident as many times as he's heard that he was a failed comedian. For me, part of Joker's origin, is that he has no origin. If you see what I mean.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Very good point, Scarecrow was Crane's alter ego and Joker isn't going to be Jack or Joe on some occaisions. But you are forgetting that Joker did have origins like every other freak. Enigma turned INTO a full riddler; Harvey Dent turned INTO Two Face, and Nolan left to the audience at teh end of BB that Crane did in fact turn into a FULL Scarecrow...

I do wonder though- will we see Ledger in this film without the scarring or joker appearance? Will we just see plain old Heath Ledger acting as a guy who becomes joker? hhmmmm... that would be a little odd.

But what exactly is The Joker's origin? Was he a tragic figure, a failed comedian grieving the death of his wife and unborn child, who fell into a chemical vat largely through bad luck and circumstance. Did his disfigurement finally make him totally snap, go completely insane, seeing the whole world as nothing more than a cruel joke?

Or was he always a monster? Did he view the disfigurement from the chemical bath as merely an opportunity to escalate his own inherent evil? Going by this line of thought, The Joker isn't even mad. He just pretends to be mad, the insanity as much a mask as his grinning face, hiding the pure evil beneath.

There have been conflicting origins on The Joker, and one of the most fascinating aspects of the character is that nobody knows who he really is for sure. For that reason, I think it would be best if Nolan went a different route from Burton, and never showed The Joker before he was The Joker (except for MAYBE in vague, quick-cut flashbacks).

 

[Citadel30]

I think we're onlly goig to see Joker, possibly with flashbacks for an origin, or (hopefully) a fake origin. Joker's origins are still unclear - remember the multiple choice quote from The Killing Joker? And Dick Grayson said he'd heard Joker was a criminal before his accident as many times as he's heard that he was a failed comedian. For me, part of Joker's origin, is that he has no origin. If you see what I mean.

I understand where you are coming from- but the 200 million dollar question is going to be.......

wait for it...........

how will NOLAN want HIS Joker's origins revealed? what origins will NOLAN choose for HIS Joker? I can't wait to see what he and his team come up with. I am sure he won't disapoint.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yep.

That would be very Nolanesque, similar to Memento, where what we were led to believe turned out to be untrue. In this aspect, less is more - giving a character a background tends to make them more sympathetic, less evil which is why it works for Two-Face, a truly tragic villain, and not for Joker. It would lessen Joker in the way that all the post-Silence of the Lambs work has taken away from Hannibal Lecter. Similarly, learning that John Doe's sister has been killed by a fat, lazy lawyer when he was a kid would have lessened the impact of that character, by giving mundane, everyday explanations and motivation for someone who should be enigmatic and unknowable.

I think you're forgetting the most glaring example of this "loss of mystique" in villains...

 

[DeaDheaD]

I think you're forgetting the most glaring example of this "loss of mystique" in villains...

I dont think this hurt him at all

 

[Citadel30]

I think you're forgetting the most glaring example of this "loss of mystique" in villains...

HAHA- yeah, although I will say that in Episode III, Anakin sure was down on his luck... I could see how that would drive him to be completely evil and not give a .... haha

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Freudian slip there, Mr. Falcone? t:

In The Netherlands we call it ''het witte doek'' which translates into the white screen. I forgot it's called silver screen in English.



I think i got away with it now.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I understand where you are coming from- but the 200 million dollar question is going to be.......

wait for it...........

how will NOLAN want HIS Joker's origins revealed? what origins will NOLAN choose for HIS Joker? I can't wait to see what he and his team come up with. I am sure he won't disapoint.

I think that what itsthebatman is trying to say that for HIS Joker, Nolan would be best to draw inspiration from the comics.

 

[itsthebatman]

I think you're forgetting the most glaring example of this "loss of mystique" in villains...

Don't remind me.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

That would be very Nolanesque, similar to Memento, where what we were led to believe turned out to be untrue. In this aspect, less is more - giving a character a background tends to make them more sympathetic, less evil which is why it works for Two-Face, a truly tragic villain, and not for Joker. It would lessen Joker in the way that all the post-Silence of the Lambs work has taken away from Hannibal Lecter. Similarly, learning that John Doe's sister has been killed by a fat, lazy lawyer when he was a kid would have lessened the impact of that character, by giving mundane, everyday explanations and motivation for someone who should be enigmatic and unknowable.

Wow. Excellent post. Especially agree with the Hannibal part.