Here´s a little piece I wrote a while ago (now updated)...
WHO HAS THE LAST LAUGH? - A TAKE ON JOKER´S PORTRAYAL
What all fans have in their minds regarding the portrayal of Joker in The Dark Knight is if this is going to be the “true Joker”.
And what the hell is that supposed to be again?
Okay, the question may be a bit hyperbolic, but the matter is relevant: the character has had about as many different takes and interpretations in his decades of existence as Batman himself. Some of those are almost entirely opposite to each other, some have subtler differences. What some fans may call a perfect portrayal of the character may leave others angry to no end. What can we consider to be the essence of the character?
Looking at his history, there´s a rich variety and yet some quite “definitive” takes in their own right. Of course there´s the original approach where Joker´s a mastermind spree thief and murderer that resembled, in some ways, the zodiac killer – decades before the REAL zodiac killer existed! He´d announce his crimes to the world, go ahead and commit them anyway in very ingenious ways, leaving the police and even Batman puzzled. Then there´s the increasingly lighter approach of the late forties and fifties, where the character became almost the complete opposite of that – a goofy, very clownesque, harmless prankster that would commit preposterous “evil deeds”. Then of course Dennis O´Neil and Neal Adams brought back the homicidal maniac Joker, always two steps ahead, in “Joker´s Five-Way Revenge”.
One can argue that Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers somehow found a perfect mix between the prankster and the homicidal maniac in the story “The Laughing Fish”. The Joker comes up with a preposterous plan – he wants royalties for putting his trademark hideous smile on fish! But, as soon as his proposal is refused, he goes out on an elaborate and gruesome killing spree. It can be also argued that this was a major inspiration not only for many Batman comics but also the 1989 feature film, where Joker proposes to be a “homicidal artist” and puts beauty products poisoned with his Joker venom in the market.
The psychological elements of the Batman comics became more and more present through the eighties and Alan Moore and Brian Bolland took a major step in that direction with “The Killing Joke”. In this story, the character is neither a goofy clown nor an entirely soulless psycho – he can be described as a “philosopher of chaos”, someone who deems humankind so hopeless the only solution is insanity and him and Batman are nothing but two sides of the same coin. Putting a twist on the character´s original background, where he was already a criminal known as Red Hood, Moore makes him a frustrated comedian who decided to commit a crime to help support his pregnant wife and everything goes to hell from there on, the wife dies, Batman stops the crime and the once comedian falls into the chemicals that seal his destiny. This background indeed adds humanity and drama to the character, but it also seems a bit implausible – at least I hope it is - that someone who was for all effects a decent man and a loving husband turns almost overnight into a maniac who kills people with a smile on his face, even after so much tragedy and supposedly immerging completely into some kind of schizophrenic persona. Moore himself never proposed it to be a “definitive” origin, leaving the door open with Joker saying he remembers it in different ways. Because of this, many fans think the character´s origin should always remain an unsolved mystery, and it has been treated this way by many writers. In the 89 movie, the pre-accident Joker not only was already an established gangster, but his head was already kinda screwed up.
After Moore´s story, in recent years a trend that has become sort of common is Joker causing personal damage to Batman and commissioner Jim Gordon. Starting with crippling Gordon´s daughter Barbara, who was also Batman´s sidekick Batgirl, then he also “killed” the second Robin, Jason Todd – well, it appeared so at the time – and later Gordon´s second wife Sarah Essen. It has also become sort of a repetitive crutch for Batman writers.
And don´t even get me started on insinuations of Joker having a sort of “crush” on Batman, as implied in “The Dark Knight Returns”, among other stories.
As weird as that sounds, there IS an essential character element that goes through all those incarnations – yes, even the goofy prankster. And it´s not chalk white skin or a purple suit. The Joker lives in a reality of his own. He doesn´t care for our society´s definitions of normal behavior. He knows he´s insane and he takes pride in being insane. And yet there´s method in his madness. He likes his plans to be elaborate and unusual.
In terms of his looks, even though his basic facial features have remained more or less the same – the huge grin, pale skin, greenish hair – the way each artist portrays his look has been different, from Kane´s take where his face has relatively normal proportions, to the Neal Adams´ more extreme take on the size of chin and smile, to the smile being perennial in Jack Nicholson´s face in 89 – not to mention his “chubby” physique, pretty different from the skinny comics character – to Brian Bolland´s spin-chilling gaze of insanity to Dave McKean´s nearly monsterish look.
Looking at everything we read and heard and saw about THE DARK KNIGHT, so far I don´t see any real reason for concern. Particularly, Ledger´s definition of the character as a “pure anarchist” is one that fits the essence of the character, whatever your particular favorite take on him is.
As much as I love Nicholson as The Joker in the 89 movie, if there´s gonna be a Joker in the new Batman movie, it has to be a fresh take, otherwise, either artistically or commercially, there´s no point to it. It definitely won´t be the goofy clown, which couldn´t be further away from Nolan´s vision for the bat-world. So the question that the fans need to ask themselves isn´t whether it will be the Joker from the comics, even because it´s one with multiple possible answers, but what´s an interesting take on the character from comics that hasn´t been used in a live-action film yet?
Nolan himself provides an answer, when he mentions the first two Joker appearances and to some extent The Killing Joke as influences. These quotes lead to the “zodiac killer” Joker, which is a villain that isn´t just into mass murder, but into killing a victim right under police´s and Batman´s nose, with protection and counter measures and everything. That would be the material for an amazing cat-and-mouse, battle of wits game. The TKJ and“pure anarchist” statement and the comparison with the movie “The Clockwork Orange” also seems to point to the “philosopher of chaos”, something that´s sort of hinted at in the first movie, but not nearly as explored as it is in TKJ or “Arkham Asylum”. Also lines like "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules" sound very Killing Joke-like.
In terms of his looks, we can see most of the characters´trademarks are there, including the white face, green hair and strong lipstick. The makeup around the eyes seems like a homage to the movie The Man Who Laughs, which inspired the creation of Joker, and also his first appearance in comics. As for the makeup being permanent or not, this seems to be still kind of an open debate, and remember, this Joker still will be accidentaly disfigured in a way - the smile scarring -, and I myself think it´s an interesting way to emphasize his insanity if Joker indeed does it to himself. Not to mention Joker embraces his insanity, he doesn´t quite struggle with his disfiguration the way Harvey does, even though he likes to accuse Batman for it - and he may still do it in TDK.
So, from all we know, yes, it can be said Nolan´s Joker will be the “true” Joker. He may not be your own particular “true” Joker, whatever that is - maybe Nicholson´s Joker, for instance, is pitch-perfect in your book, which is fine too. But he´s likely to retain core elements that have made him special and such an enduring character, in spite of so many different interpretations. To answer my own question from the title, in the end of the day, who has the last laugh?
The clown prince of crime, of course!
t:
I usually don't take the time to read things that long on internet forums, but that one was able to keep my interest long enough for me to read the whole thing.
