But how are knives old school against the traditional Joker arsenal. Knives are cool but any criminal in the world uses them. And Joker has been traditionally a man that looks, dresses and act with particularities. Dancing Joker as seen in The Killing Joke is traditional, the one throwing acid through a flower or having toys that can kill you. That is old school. That is tradition.
Put knives in the end of a psychotic clown (with a certain creepy panache)and you get a very interesting character imo, and not just any criminal. And I never said that what you're talking about wasn't tradition, I just stated my personal preference which are Joker's first two appearances, but the rest is just as traditional.
And I also love TKJ (besides the fact that I prefer the character's past to be a mystery), but I see Heath in there, much more than I see Jack.
From the notable (in a few beautiful panels) absence of permasmile, to the thin silhouette, from his particular relationship with Batman (The way they complete each other), to Gordon's descent into Madness (Dent in TDK), we get a Joker who wants to prove his twisted, anarchic point, as opposed to just poison Gotham with giant balloons (also tradition, I don't deny that, but not my preference like I stated before.) Taking cues from B #1 and # 2, to TKJ, for me the Nolans (totally respectful and coherent with what came before)boiled down the character to its purest essence and took him to another level at the same time, bringing him with maestria into the 21st century, and I'm really grateful for that, because I got to see a Joker like this one on the big screen in my lifetime.
But it's really a matter of taste and opinion and I understand that some people prefer a Joker they feel is closer to the character they know, acid bath, deadly toys, no clown make-up etc... For me it's more about capturing the essence of the character (which I believe the Nolans did superbly)as opposed to just stay on the surface.
Oh absolutely. But in every scene you mention there are words backing the acting up. It's not the "actions instead of words" situation. While showing those "layers" he was also talking about the layers; he showed pain when talking about traumatic situations (about the scars) and he showed that he really thought he wasn't crazy when he was literally saying "I'm not [crazy]." Nicholson did the same; you could see how hurt he was when he was blaming Batman for his actual condition of deformation. In both cases it was words and acting. Now show me one in-between moment where we see any of that with no words describing the same he's feeling.
Just look at Heath's face when he realizes the good citizens of Gotham didn't blow up the ferry. The surprise, the disappointment, the incomprehension etc...
Look at his face when he is in the precinct, looking directly in the camera: Pure Chaos and weirdness.
The superb scene when he has his head out of the cop car, like a dog: The freedom, the madness...
The way he takes off his wig in the hospital etc... There are really too many non-verbal moments where I learn things about the character to mention them all.
It takes more than make-up, sure. But without the make-up you don't have the character.
When Nicholson said "you let the mask act" is not like you're doing nothing as an actor. But the mask is what tells you the way the character is. That is an inherent condition of the masks. People who have worked with masks from, for example, commedia dell'arte can tell you how powerful a mask is. You don't fight it or subdue it; you listen to it. For your own good. That doesn't take any merit out of any acting job. On the contrary.
I'm sure Ledger found out the tongue thing for the Joker once he felt those scars around his mouth.
I agree. Interestingly, you can totally tell it's Heath in the bank at the beginning of the film, under the mask. The way he moves, holds himself, we are already in the presence of the Joker and we can see it's not just a body double.
I heard actors say that masks were freeing in a way, i felt it more with Heath than with Jack, granted he was not helped by a very constrictive, ancient make-up, as opposed to Heath's lighter (and more intelligent approach imo) which allowed for more freedom and facial expressions.
Put any of those impersonators doing nothing buty staring with the makeup on and you'll have the essence of the Joker, no matter if they're not acting or feeling anything at all.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement, but I don't want to repeat myself, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.
Well, there are lots of actors who immerse themselves into the characters.
To that level, not that many, we're talking DeNiro as Travis Bickle or Jake La Motta level here. But it doesn't matter, like that anecdote about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hofmann on Marathon Man, whatever gets you there, it doesn't really matter as long as you get there.
It’s enough to watch TDK and Brokeback to see Ledger’s amazing range. But it’s merely an onanistic exercise to re-tell what he felt he needed to do in order to prepare himself. In the enbd the results are on screen. I could say Ledger needed 2 months in a hotel whereas Nicholson needed the make-up only and it sounds like Jack is a bigger talent, but that’d be just misleading.
Whatever took him there, it feels to me that Ledger's performance was legendary, where Jack was just average. If I want legendary Jack, I will probably look around Cuckoo's nest or the Shining or a bunch of others. But it's a matter of taste and opinion, so once again hard to debate. To each their own.
El Payaso17602237 said:
You’re really mixing up Nicholson and Brando.
Lol. Well they were good friends, weren't they? Once again, for my own taste I like a thinner (and younger) Joker, like in TKJ. Just my opinion but everybody is free to prefer a fuller figure, more mature Joker.
t:
El Payaso17602237 said:
My point is he could be motivated by fear or by the paycheck and it’s the same. Results are results. He could have been locked in a hotel room or spent two weeks in Disneyland and again, it’s the same as for what he achieved.
And my point was that sometimes it's better to be the young hungry gunslinger coming to town, than the old king resting on his laurels with nothing to prove anymore.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
El Payaso17602237 said:
[FONT="]And a metter of fact also. Brando was worldwide known because he would refuse to memorize his lines because he knew he would still give a brilliant performance in every shot so directors wouldn’t fire him.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
You're talking about later days Brando, the one acting with a headset in his ear, once again an old king resting on his laurels. I prefer earlier Brando. And yes I don't really care for him in Apocalypse Now
, a movie I love, up until the point he shows up on screen but that's the subject for another discussion.
[/FONT]
, really stayed on the surface (as opposed to Keaton imo, who gave us a richer, deeper and more committed performance).
)
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/m/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
