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

I'm a little disappointed that nothing was done thematically about the fact that he wears "makeup" other than "you know, like war paint". Not much was made of the fact that The Joker and Batman "created" themselves in the context of their relationship.
 
I'm a little disappointed that nothing was done thematically about the fact that he wears "makeup" other than "you know, like war paint". Not much was made of the fact that The Joker and Batman "created" themselves in the context of their relationship.
MARONI: "Just some guy, wears a purple suit and makeup."

:huh:
 
I'm not talking about the fact that he wears makeup. I'm talking about it having some significance.
 
Well I got this vibe that before Joker was bored doing what he does daily and Batman was the reason he slapped on some make up and acted like The Joker. Just goes to show how crazy the character is. If anything the scars on his face were the equivalent to the bleached skin.
 
I'm not talking about the fact that he wears makeup. I'm talking about it having some significance.
Oh. I thought you meant you wish there was something else said about his makeup other than the war paint line.
 
I watched Hellboy 2 right before watching TDK. One thing that struck me is that Prince Nuada's face looked damn close to what I want for the Joker. Cut his hair, dye it green, remove the lines under his eyes, make his lips red, and that's the Joker.

prince_nuada.jpg
 
I still would have preferred him being permawhite, but the make-up thing was surprisingly well done. Even when you see him without the make-up, you can see The Joker.
 
Well I got this vibe that before Joker was bored doing what he does daily and Batman was the reason he slapped on some make up and acted like The Joker. Just goes to show how crazy the character is. If anything the scars on his face were the equivalent to the bleached skin.

Not really. And simply because we're given no definitive reasoning for the scars. The scars could have drove him nuts(like a drop into a chemical bath), but we don't know. Equally, he could have been insane and given himself the scars because he thought they looked pretty.

Guard is right, the makeup and scars might possibly hold a significance to this Joker. But those elements don't hold a significance in this film, they're simply there with no explanation. I look at it this way, the comic book Joker is a guy who became insane and completely nuts after an accidental skin disfigure. The Dark Knight Joker is an insane maniac whose scars may or may not hold a significance to his insanity.

By not giving any explanations as to how or why this man is here, Nolan has created the most mysterious Joker to date. It would be nearly impossible to analyze that man.
 
Not really. And simply because we're given no definitive reasoning for the scars. The scars could have drove him nuts(like a drop into a chemical bath), but we don't know. Equally, he could have been insane and given himself the scars because he thought they looked pretty.

Guard is right, the makeup and scars might possibly hold a significance to this Joker. But those elements don't hold a significance in this film, they're simply there with no explanation. I look at it this way, the comic book Joker is a guy who became insane and completely nuts after an accidental skin disfigure. The Dark Knight Joker is an insane maniac whose scars may or may not hold a significance to his insanity.

By not giving any explanations as to how or why this man is here, Nolan has created the most mysterious Joker to date. It would be nearly impossible to analyze that man.
I am not talking about the thing that makes him insane. I am talking about the smile serving as the the permanent marker that makes the joker stand out while in arkham. In that sense it is equal.
 
I am not talking about the thing that makes him insane. I am talking about the smile serving as the the permanent marker that makes the joker stand out while in arkham. In that sense it is equal.

Oh I see. Pay no attention to that then.:bow:
 
I watched Hellboy 2 right before watching TDK. One thing that struck me is that Prince Nuada's face looked damn close to what I want for the Joker. Cut his hair, dye it green, remove the lines under his eyes, make his lips red, and that's the Joker.

so a perma white joker...???
 
Actually, The Joker have make up in Arkham Asylum.

Normal skin can clearly be seen on his forehead, similar to the interrogation scene:

iyodhz.jpg


Same goes for his fingers:

3522a77.jpg
 
I prefer The Joker with makeup. The whole "falling into chemicals, turning white, and going crazy" idea is very ridiculous.

The Joker obviously doesn't like his normal self, so he changes himself into someone that's very brutal, very talented, but drives himself nuts in the process. His makeup is to disguise himself from himself.

The Joker is the kind of guy who's sick and tired of everyone. He wants to see things burn. Him having no origin makes him creepy because you have no idea why he's the way he is. He's just there. Like Nolan said, "he's like Jaws. He's just there."
 
He can be "just there" with white skin and no scars too.
 
If you can accept major changes to the nature of Batman, you should be able to accept a change to the nature of The Joker. Otherwise you're something of a hypocrite.
Sometimes films re-invent things for the better, as you've stated. It's not a departure of the Joker character at all. They based it off the character of Batman #1, and there is no explanation for his skin whether it's makeup or bleached skin. And he's seen with normal skin as well. It makes no difference. In fact, I think it creates a much more gruesome image as makeup and not bleach. Makes the Joker alittle more whacky too for the fact he's so insane he wants to wear creepy clown war paint.
 
I'm not talking about the fact that he wears makeup. I'm talking about it having some significance.
Why does it need to be explained? He recieved a mouth scar which is the tragic physical disfigurement equivelent to falling into acid and going crazy from that. He picks the name Joker for himself, has a taste for theatrics, and accentuates a physical disfigurement by putting clown makeup on ... it didn't need to be explained, it was blatantly obvious.
 
Actually, The Joker have make up in Arkham Asylum.

Normal skin can clearly be seen on his forehead, similar to the interrogation scene:

iyodhz.jpg


Same goes for his fingers:

3522a77.jpg
I see no indication that would be make-up. Neither the writer or artist have suggested that, in all the years they've been interviewed about the book.

That's simply the artist's way of depicting a more realistic take on the bleached skin concept. Which I think looks pretty good actually.
 
Yeah, but you forget Nolan's interpretation was for a more realistic feel.

Also, I find the scars a nice touch. There his battle scars.


"It's more realistic" isn't a good excuse - it really isn't. This was an aesthetic choice by the director, not in lieu of any sort of veer towards realism, but to highlight some sort of subtext that he was aiming at between Batman and the Joker, and just one of many.

Bleached skin can be portrayed realistically (and dear god, am I starting to hate that word) - and in fact, with the theme that Nolan was going for, with the Joker, that he's someone out of nowhere, a force of nature, it makes far more sense.

This didn't ruin the film for me, at all, and I love the other visual elements of the Joker's look, but I still have my thoughts on this.
 
At the end of the day the Joker is as Nolan said before, a force of nature. The story was great with good character arcs which all weaved together great, esspecially Harvey's. Now if this film were to go and explain the scars or makeup, or even a permawhite Joker if we had got one chances are the story would have been very different or would not have been as tight as what we got.

Im happy with the make up, I dont think a pristine looking joker would have fit into this movie, im not against the concept in anyway, I just feel this DIY look serves this lone villain the best.
 
Not really. And simply because we're given no definitive reasoning for the scars. The scars could have drove him nuts(like a drop into a chemical bath), but we don't know. Equally, he could have been insane and given himself the scars because he thought they looked pretty.

Actually, in that way, the scars are basically the same as the chemical bath. It's never explained fully if it was the chemical bath was what drove Joker insane. Maybe he was already insane before that, or maybe the chemical bath was the final straw in a series of horrible events that culminated to drive him insane, or maybe it was the actual chemicals in the bath that drove him insane. We just don't know.

The scars work pretty much the same way. Maybe the scars drove him insane, maybe he was already insane and gave himself the scars, or maybe they were the tipping point that drove him insane.
 
man how times change... these days so many people need to know the reasons for things... have them explained in some way... imagine..
jerry robinson came up with the joker.. working as an assistant to bob kane... in 1940.. they didn't even think about explaining his origins till 1953... with the first red hood story... and even then... most people involved thought to explain him will diminish him..
even these days.... Brian Bolland states that that was one of the things he really didn't like about the killing joke script... he didn't think the joker needed an orgin.. he and alan moore figured they were just drawing one of the "multiple choice" pasts from the jokers head...
make-up, perma-white, origin or not... he is what he is... a great villain.... i thought heath was just that...
 
There are alternatives to the ellipsis, Dr. Crane.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,273
Messages
22,078,333
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"