The Dark Knight To Bleach or Not to Bleach? That is the Question

[Infinity9999x]

Hey Reg, I'm just curious, but how do you feel on the Joker's non-perma whiteness now in lieu of the new trailers and descriptions of Ledger's performance?

 

[kid bosco]

And giving him makeup tells you that he bought some face-paint. And giving him a scarred smile tells you that, somewhere down the line, he was cut. For what reason and by whom are the mysteries. Same with the chemical bath. It's not how he came to look like he does, because logic takes care of that.

It's the circumstances surrounding his fateful drop into the vat that is the mystery, as it's always been.

I don't agree with that because the whole chemical bath theory would have (as it did in the '89 Batman) given the audience an explaination as to why the Joker is crazy.
"Those toxic chemicals made him crazy!"

We don't need that again.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't agree with that because the whole chemical bath theory would have (as it did in the '89 Batman) given the audience an explaination as to why the Joker is crazy.
"Those toxic chemicals made him crazy!"

We don't need that again.

The chemical bath origin can easily be incorporated without it being the reason that he becomes crazy.

Personally, I would have thought that it would have been interesting to simply have him appear perma-white in the movie, and leave it a mystery as to why he was the way he was.

 

[sandmjuggalos]

The chemical bath origin can easily be incorporated without it being the reason that he becomes crazy.

Personally, I would have thought that it would have been interesting to simply have him appear perma-white in the movie, and leave it a mystery as to why he was the way he was.

Absolutely. The explanation is not important. IMO, I would say that if he was perma-white, that alone would not make him crazy. I would say that BEING perma-white and having the face disfiguration, (if that is the case) would start the crazyness. If you had to suddenly look at yourself in the mirror and you were now all white and screwed-up in the facial area, I could see how that would begin a chain of events that thrust that particular person into insanity. After all, Gotham or Real-Life, Vanity seems to be the "Almighty" nowadays. And if you are quickly shoved into a disfiguring situation when most of the world relies on looks, it is easy to see yourself as a "freak" and lead you to shun society. In essence, this behavior could quickly turn a person inward, thus provoking a very anti-social way of thinking, which could definately turn into something very psychotic.

I guess in the end, it all boils down to how you interpret the story. I for one am partial to the perma-white, but Ledger's Joker seems to have what it takes to be able to avoid that and delve into the characters deeper traits...what makes Joker what he is.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Absolutely. The explanation is not important. IMO, I would say that if he was perma-white, that alone would not make him crazy. I would say that BEING perma-white and having the face disfiguration, (if that is the case) would start the crazyness. If you had to suddenly look at yourself in the mirror and you were now all white and screwed-up in the facial area, I could see how that would begin a chain of events that thrust that particular person into insanity. After all, Gotham or Real-Life, Vanity seems to be the "Almighty" nowadays.

There's multiple ways to look at it. If I had redone the movie, I would not have shown him fall into the vat of chemicals. I'd have Batman eventually trace it back to a chemical companies like in TMWL. That way you can draw your own conclusions about how the Joker really went off the deep end.

In the comics, there are multiple explanations of why Joker went crazy. In some stories he was a sociopath from birth, just a bad egg. In others he was a failed comedian who had multiple bad things happen to him in his life and the chemical bath was simply the breaking point, and in others he was already an established criminal with problems and the chemicals in the vat drove him further insane.

I'd have Joker make references to multiple origins for himself as well to keep the mystery (which I've heard he does in this movie, and I'm happy about that).

 

[Crook]

no, because with the chemicalbath, you can easily take a reference out of the comics and "know" what happened, that doesn't work with the make-up.

You don't "know" what happened with the comic book Joker either. Yes, the chemical bath is one fact, but other than that you do not know the history of the character in the least.

as i said, movie goers wil reference to burtons interpretation of the joker origin

No, they wouldn't. Did audiences relate Bale to Burton's take on Batman because they had the same alley-way murder? That's ridiculous. The characterization is what sets both of them apart.

comicfans will have at least 3 different origins to chose. there is no real mystery with that. but the makeup and scarred smile is new, fresh and the different origins you will kinda hear about in the movie will tease you enough to create your own origin. i think it works.

Lol, where do you think Nolan took the "multiple origin" thing from? He ripped that straight out of the comics. You don't sacrifice that element just because he's bleached.

 

[kid bosco]

The chemical bath origin can easily be incorporated without it being the reason that he becomes crazy.

Personally, I would have thought that it would have been interesting to simply have him appear perma-white in the movie, and leave it a mystery as to why he was the way he was.

But then you would have to seperate the two from one another and try to further explain why he's perma-white and how it had nothing with making him crazy....Or how he's crazy but it had nothing with him accidently becoming perma-white.

The two go hand in hand, and if it's not explained as to how he got perm-white skin, audiences are gonna be left with their heads scratching "How on earth did that have nothing to do with deteriating his sanity?? How did that mysterious freak accident NOT make him crazy??"
Which, naturally, leads to ppl thinking that such an accidental freak accident is infact what made him crazy.

If the anti-makeup fanboys are to share any backstory of the Joker from all the comics, it would be as we all know, The Killing Joke. This is what they consider the definitive orgin for this character.
But what a lot of ppl don't get is that that is the Joker's orgin from his own point of view -- and the Joker is a pathological LIAR.
He says so himself in the comic he wants to believe it happened multiple ways....Isn't the Chemical bath theory just one of the many multiple ways he remembers it?

 

[Crook]

Wait, why exactly is it wrong for the chemical bath being a factor in making him crazy? Since when was that considered to be bad or detrimental to the character...in any interpretation of his psyche?

 

[kid bosco]

Wait, why exactly is it wrong for the chemical bath being a factor in making him crazy? Since when was that considered to be bad or detrimental to the character...in any interpretation of his psyche?

Why is it always the chemical bath theory that needs to display this?
Why can't the Joker be ****ing nuts without having that chemical bath thrown in?
In turn, why exactly is it wrong for the chemical bath to be absent in making the Joker crazy?

 

[itsthebatman]

Why is it always the chemical bath theory that needs to display this?
Why can't the Joker be ****ing nuts without having that chemical bath thrown in?
In turn, why exactly is it wrong for the chemical bath to be absent in making the Joker crazy?

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's comics-faithful, and as comics fans, we like to see faithful translations on screen.
Though, having read all the great reviews for this film, and knowing the many deviations from comics lore that occur, I don't find literal translation to be that important, personally, anymore. I guess I just don't care as much as I thought I would, about the suit, or the Joker's physical appearance, or just how Harvey gets scarred, being different from the comics.

 

[Crook]

I never said any of those things couldn't happen. But I don't see why it's wrong for the bath to be a cause for Joker's madness.

I'm actually a fan of pre-Joker being a self-made sicko already, and the bath just exponentially amplifying his psychotic personality.

 

[Infinity9999x]

But then you would have to seperate the two from one another and try to further explain why he's perma-white and how it had nothing with making him crazy....Or how he's crazy but it had nothing with him accidently becoming perma-white.

The two go hand in hand, and if it's not explained as to how he got perm-white skin, audiences are gonna be left with their heads scratching "How on earth did that have nothing to do with deteriating his sanity?? How did that mysterious freak accident NOT make him crazy??"
Which, naturally, leads to ppl thinking that such an accidental freak accident is infact what made him crazy.

You don't have to separate anything. You can easily incorporate the chemical bath without making ANY references to how it affected his sanity.

You have Batman researching the Joker and trying to find out more about him. His investigation leads him to a chemical plant where he finds that a chemical there can bleach skin white. (which is how it happened in TMWL). Bingo, we have an explanation for why his skin is white, and you leave it to the audience to decide if that was what put Joker over the edge, or maybe something else.

If the anti-makeup fanboys are to share any backstory of the Joker from all the comics, it would be as we all know, The Killing Joke. This is what they consider the definitive orgin for this character.
But what a lot of ppl don't get is that that is the Joker's orgin from his own point of view -- and the Joker is a pathological LIAR.
He says so himself in the comic he wants to believe it happened multiple ways....Isn't the Chemical bath theory just one of the many multiple ways he remembers it?

Actually no, the chemical bath is a fact for the character. In TMWL, Batman connects Joker to the chemical company where he took the dive into the chemicals.

What is still ambiguous is what happened to Joker before that. In some stories he's portrayed as being a sociopath from birth, in others he was a guy down on his luck, and yet in others he was an established criminal. There's simply no way of knowing. All we know for sure is that he dove into a vat of chemicals, got his skin bleached, and became a criminal sociopath. Did the chemicals drive him insane? Was he already insane? Did the chemical bath contribute to his sanity in any way at all? We don't know.

 

[nickyg641]

But then you would have to seperate the two from one another and try to further explain why he's perma-white and how it had nothing with making him crazy....Or how he's crazy but it had nothing with him accidently becoming perma-white.

The two go hand in hand, and if it's not explained as to how he got perm-white skin, audiences are gonna be left with their heads scratching "How on earth did that have nothing to do with deteriating his sanity?? How did that mysterious freak accident NOT make him crazy??"
Which, naturally, leads to ppl thinking that such an accidental freak accident is infact what made him crazy.

But doesn't the cut smile lead the audience to believe the same thing? As it's implied that it happened to him as a result of some outside force, doesn't this deformity also leave the impression that it was a contributing factor to his madness?

If the anti-makeup fanboys are to share any backstory of the Joker from all the comics, it would be as we all know, The Killing Joke. This is what they consider the definitive orgin for this character.
But what a lot of ppl don't get is that that is the Joker's orgin from his own point of view -- and the Joker is a pathological LIAR. He says so himself in the comic he wants to believe it happened multiple ways....Isn't the Chemical bath theory just one of the many multiple ways he remembers it?

No, the "Red Hood" is. As I said, it's the events leading up to and the circumstances surrounding his fall (or was it a leap? or a push?) into the vat. Just as, in TDK, it's not exactly hard to figure out what was used to cut the smile into his face: something sharp, obviously. But who, and why, gave him these scars?

The chemicals simply provide an explanation for how his skin is white. The rest is up for you to decide.

 

[kid bosco]

See, I would find it hard to believe that the Joker was crazy before falling into a vat of toxic chemicals.

That would just prove that the only thing that changed the Joker in any way was his physical appearance; his SKIN.
I mean, that's it?
Red-Hood is the BEST this criminally insane psychopath could come up with before having his skin turn a different colour??

The Joker is showing you an example of one of the many versions of his orgin.
He's ****ing with you, the reader.
Everyone has one bad day.
But was it his failing career that drove him mad?
The murder ( or accidental deaths ) of his wife and unborn child?
Or falling into a toxic waste that bleached his skin white and ****ed up his brain?
Everyone claims to know, when the ironic thing is, Joker himself doesn't even know.
If the chemical bath orgin should be the be-all that ends-all of Joker orgins (as I've read many posters on here claim it is or should be) then one would have to wonder why many other comics and stories haven't followed this root.....
Or more obviously, why it took until 1988 to create an orgin for the Joker?
The Killing Joke = 1988.
The Man Who Laughs = 2005.
Where before that or inbetween that or after that has there been anyone else to stand up and say "HEY! I got it! This is how the Joker came to be!!"

 

[kid bosco]

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's comics-faithful, and as comics fans, we like to see faithful translations on screen.
Though, having read all the great reviews for this film, and knowing the many deviations from comics lore that occur, I don't find literal translation to be that important, personally, anymore. I guess I just don't care as much as I thought I would, about the suit, or the Joker's physical appearance, or just how Harvey gets scarred, being different from the comics.

But we already got that in Batman '89.

 

[Judson Caspian]

See, I would find it hard to believe that the Joker was crazy before falling into a vat of toxic chemicals.

That would just prove that the only thing that changed the Joker in any way was his physical appearance; his SKIN.
I mean, that's it?
Red-Hood is the BEST this criminally insane psychopath could come up with before having his skin turn a different colour??

The Joker is showing you an example of one of the many versions of his orgin.
He's ****ing with you, the reader.
Everyone has one bad day.
But was it his failing career that drove him mad?
The murder ( or accidental deaths ) of his wife and unborn child?
Or falling into a toxic waste that bleached his skin white and ****ed up his brain?
Everyone claims to know, when the ironic thing is, Joker himself doesn't even know.
If the chemical bath orgin should be the be-all that ends-all of Joker orgins (as I've read many posters on here claim it is or should be) then one would have to wonder why many other comics and stories haven't followed this root.....
Or more obviously, why it took until 1988 to create an orgin for the Joker?
The Killing Joke = 1988.
The Man Who Laughs = 2005.
Where before that or inbetween that or after that has there been anyone else to stand up and say "HEY! I got it! This is how the Joker came to be!!"

Before and after his origin stories in comic books, they all have one thing in common: He's white all over.

 

[regwec]

Hey Reg, I'm just curious, but how do you feel on the Joker's non-perma whiteness now in lieu of the new trailers and descriptions of Ledger's performance?

I don't like it. Ledger's performance is strong (as I predicted), and the visual works on its own terms, but both are divorced from The Joker that I recognise, which is a disappointment for me if no one else.

 

[Infinity9999x]

See, I would find it hard to believe that the Joker was crazy before falling into a vat of toxic chemicals.

That would just prove that the only thing that changed the Joker in any way was his physical appearance; his SKIN.
I mean, that's it?
Red-Hood is the BEST this criminally insane psychopath could come up with before having his skin turn a different colour??

I don't find it hard to believe really. I think that the Joker had some form of mental problems or had events in his life that set the groundwork for him to become what he eventually became. The chemical bath alone doesn't seem enough to trigger a complete transformation. Even in TKJ, it was more about all the crap that happened to him that drove him mad, the chemical bath was simply the tipping point.

And we really have no idea how involved in the Red Hood gang he was before turning into the Joker, so we can't really judge him on that.

The Joker is showing you an example of one of the many versions of his orgin.
He's ****ing with you, the reader.
Everyone has one bad day.
But was it his failing career that drove him mad?
The murder ( or accidental deaths ) of his wife and unborn child?
Or falling into a toxic waste that bleached his skin white and ****ed up his brain?
Everyone claims to know, when the ironic thing is, Joker himself doesn't even know.
If the chemical bath orgin should be the be-all that ends-all of Joker orgins (as I've read many posters on here claim it is or should be) then one would have to wonder why many other comics and stories haven't followed this root.....
Or more obviously, why it took until 1988 to create an orgin for the Joker?
The Killing Joke = 1988.
The Man Who Laughs = 2005.
Where before that or inbetween that or after that has there been anyone else to stand up and say "HEY! I got it! This is how the Joker came to be!!"

The chemical bath/Red Hood origin was actually introduced in the 50's or 60's if I recall right. That's the first time they ever gave a reason for Joker's perma-white skin. TKJ and TMWL simply expanded on that origin.

 

[The Shape]

I don't like it. Ledger's performance is strong (as I predicted), and the visual works on its own terms, but both are divorced from The Joker that I recognise, which is a disappointment for me if no one else.

I feel for you, man. I really do.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't like it. Ledger's performance is strong (as I predicted), and the visual works on its own terms, but both are divorced from The Joker that I recognise, which is a disappointment for me if no one else.

That's more or less the same way I feel, and it's a bit of a disappointment, because it seems that they've captured virtually every other aspect of the character that I could hope for.

What really made me annoyed was that in a few reviews they talk about how Joker gives multiple stories of origins for his scars, and the whole time I was thinking WHY couldn't you do that with perma-white skin?

If done right perma-white skin could look very errie and frightening too, and actually fit with Nolan's more dirty approach for the character. Have the perma-white resemble the splochy white that a corpse displays when drained of blood, and I think it would make him look even more gruesome then the dirty makeup and scars.

 

[kid bosco]

Like it's been said before; we got perma-white in '89.
And it seems that didn't stop anybody from complaining about everything else.

I like the idea of Joker applying make-up...."Warpaint", as it's stated in the beginning....
To think this mad man is at war; at war with an entire city and the innocents who reside in it. This makeup is his tribal markings, so to speak.

 

[Crook]

Like it's been said before; we got perma-white in '89.

That's utterly stupid reasoning. That's like having Bruce's parents be killed at a costume party in BB, and justifying it by saying "we already got the alley-way murder in the previous franchise twice, and a billion times in the comics. It's time for something new."

These character traits aren't exclusive to Burton or anyone else. They're exclusive to the character. Considering they are adapting said character, it's not unfounded to believe they'd translate facets of their background straight from the comics.

 

[Boom]

Like it's been said before; we got perma-white in '89.
And it seems that didn't stop anybody from complaining about everything else.

I like the idea of Joker applying make-up...."Warpaint", as it's stated in the beginning....
To think this mad man is at war; at war with an entire city and the innocents who reside in it. This makeup is his tribal markings, so to speak.

Batman 89 also had a rubber batsuit. Didn't seem to stop Nolan from treading old territory.

 

[nickyg641]

See, I would find it hard to believe that the Joker was crazy before falling into a vat of toxic chemicals.

That would just prove that the only thing that changed the Joker in any way was his physical appearance; his SKIN.
I mean, that's it?
Red-Hood is the BEST this criminally insane psychopath could come up with before having his skin turn a different colour??

True. That's why the Red Hood is only one of many of the Joker's own ideas. Personally, I believe he was unhinged and ready to crack before his accident. Insane, but not yet the true force of anarchy. The white skin was his inspiration for the Joker persona--it focused his madness into a symbol. Of course, thet's simply my own interpretation.

The Joker is showing you an example of one of the many versions of his orgin.
He's ****ing with you, the reader.
Everyone has one bad day.
But was it his failing career that drove him mad?
The murder ( or accidental deaths ) of his wife and unborn child?
Or falling into a toxic waste that bleached his skin white and ****ed up his brain?
Everyone claims to know, when the ironic thing is, Joker himself doesn't even know.
If the chemical bath orgin should be the be-all that ends-all of Joker orgins (as I've read many posters on here claim it is or should be) then one would have to wonder why many other comics and stories haven't followed this root.....
Or more obviously, why it took until 1988 to create an orgin for the Joker?
The Killing Joke = 1988.
The Man Who Laughs = 2005.
Where before that or inbetween that or after that has there been anyone else to stand up and say "HEY! I got it! This is how the Joker came to be!!"

There's nothing really set in stone about his origin except that it involved bleaching chemical of some sort, and it ended up with his body being white. The rest is up to you. Hell, I think it would be interesting if, instead of a tumble into a vat, during a shootout with the police, a stray bullet strikes a tank, which explodes, releasing chemicals and destroying half the factory. The criminal is presumed dead, although no body is ever found.

 

[The Shape]

True. That's why the Red Hood is only one of many of the Joker's own ideas. Personally, I believe he was unhinged and ready to crack before his accident. Insane, but not yet the true force of anarchy. The white skin was his inspiration for the Joker persona--it focused his madness into a symbol. Of course, thet's simply my own interpretation.

Pretty much the same could be said for TDK Joker, but substitue the white skin for his facial scarring, which was the inspiration for his Joker persona. There are tons of way TDK Joker could have been created, just as there are in the comics.

The two versions are actually not very different, aside from each having a different disfigurement. Everything else, including their appearances, are very similar, but some have problems getting over the fact that TDK Joker isn't "permawhite".