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

[Sandouras]

With all due respect Guard, i think you are wrong. I see where you are coming from, but i dont agree with your point that because we dont have more info about the joker pre-bath that he is shallow and level.
If you see the joker for what he is, meaning a force of nature, a twisted murderer, then there is so much to him. You dont need to know about his childhood to admire him in TKJ or in BTAS. He really is an absolute, evil incarnate, and thats why they dont want to give him a definite past. Its not like you need a big backstory to love Darkseid. Even without the new gods stories, just him f*** up superman is enough.

And what separates Darkseid and Joker from mindless villains like Doomsday are their plans and their intelligence. Doomsday is just a punch machine. Darkseid is so much more than that.

 

[nickyg641]

I find it all the more disturbing that he can remove the discoloring in Nolan's version. That it's a choice to "play up" his disfigurment in order to frighten others and look like a demon. It emphasizes that maniacal character.

I don't find it scarier that he needs to play up his ghoulish appearance. I much prefer the idea that he is like that, and he uses it to his advantage.

He shouldn't have to exaggerate himself. His outside is meant as a phsysical counterpart to his mental state. And, in his mind, he is the Joker, that's all he is, that's all he'll ever be. Should not his exterior reflect this dynamic? Is his mind that of a normal man's, and he simply puts himself in the mindset of the Joker? Is he just acting?

No. So I believe he shouldn't just be pretending when it comes to his outside. The Joker's body should be just as twisted as his mind.

 

[ultimatefan]

A lot of people have made an iteresting journey, or retreat, over the last few years.

It used to be commonly heard that The Joker was the greatest villain in comics, and that Chris Nolan would be the man to finally do the character justice by adapting him faithfully from the comics to screen.

When he failed to do that, the same posters lied that they never really thought that much of the original, and that it clearly needed to be altered, and thank goodness Nolan did so.

OR some fans like certain aspects of the comics or certain takes within them more than others, and think Nolan is doing a nice balance of doing justice to what commonly works best about the character and other approaches that not necessarily the ones used in the Burton/Nicholson version, while updating/adapting the stuff that´s more dated, less believable, etc. it´s not black and white, us versus them, good vs. evil.

 

[guitarkhero311]

That's exactly why I call it shallow. There's nothing to it. It's just an event that caused The Joker to become insane and evil. There's no thematic relevance to a chemical bath and what he later becomes, it's just that "mad scientist" vein of storytelling. And I find that shallow and relatively uninteresting in terms of character development and motivation.

It's the truth, if the Joker was just some sob story, good guy gone bad, that makes him like every other villain, but he isn't, he is the Joker, and that is why he has been around so long. Good post Guard.

 

[Banquet]

While I wouldn't want The Joker to become non-permawhite in the comics, more generally speaking, I wouldn't mind them tinkering with his look to make him fit the film more. I think updating The Joker's wardrobe into the more modern cut of clothing he wears in "The Dark Knight" could be a good change. And not one that's out of the question, as I've already seen certain artists do it.

Then we get this:

Which makes me giggle.

 

[ultimatefan]

That's part of the reason I don't buy "One bad day". There's nothing shown there beforehand.

Moore himself left an open door with Joker saying he remembers it different ways. Psychos and serial killers often develop self-delusions that theír acts are somehow justified or represent a form of "wisdom", such as Joker´s speeches about the bliss of insanity. It could simply be his mind playing tricks on him, justifying his bleak POV on the world.

 

[nickyg641]

With all due respect Guard, i think you are wrong. I see where you are coming from, but i dont agree with your point that because we dont have more info about the joker pre-bath that he is shallow and level.
If you see the joker for what he is, meaning a force of nature, a twisted murderer, then there is so much to him. You dont need to know about his childhood to admire him in TKJ or in BTAS. He really is an absolute, evil incarnate, and thats why they dont want to give him a definite past. Its not like you need a big backstory to love Darkseid. Even without the new gods stories, just him f*** up superman is enough.

And what separates Darkseid and Joker from mindless villains like Doomsday are their plans and their intelligence. Doomsday is just a punch machine. Darkseid is so much more than that.

I agree.

And I think I've finally come up with a way to describe my feeling of why permawhite is better fit for the Joker to be a force of nature, and an absolute.

A force of nature doesn't create itself. That's why it's a force of nature. It's organic, it's just put into the world and begins doing what it does.

With makeup, we don't see that. Makeup implies a more gradual change, no "birth". The human being is still there, just under a new persona. He's not thrust into the world, over time, he builds himself up. The person underneath isn't really gone, just changed a bit, and by his own hand. Which means it isn't really organic. He's not created by nature or fate, he slowly turns himself into the Joker, adopts the Joker.

With permawhite, there's a cataclysmic event which thrusts him into our world. The man who existed before dies and the Joker is generated, all at once. It's the universe that spat him out. He's not a man, but a part of nature, almost literally. So he's very much an "absolute".

 

[ultimatefan]

I agree.

And I think I've finally come up with a way to describe my feeling of why permawhite is better fit for the Joker to be a force of nature, and an absolute.

A force of nature doesn't create itself. That's why it's a force of nature. It's organic, it's just put into the world and begins doing what it does.

With makeup, we don't see that. Makeup implies a more gradual change, no "birth". The human being is still there, just under a new persona. He's not thrust into the world, over time, he builds himself up. The person underneath isn't really gone, just changed a bit, and by his own hand. Which means it isn't really organic. He's not created by nature or fate, he slowly turns himself into the Joker, adopts the Joker.

With permawhite, there's a cataclysmic event which thrusts him into our world. The man who existed before dies and the Joker is generated, all at once. It's the universe that spat him out. He's not a man, but a part of nature, almost literally. So he's very much an "absolute".

On the contrary, the force of nature doesn´t need external agents or any particular event, it defines itself, it´s put into the world at birth, but the literal birth, it is what it always was. The Joker putting make up is simply him defining outside what he already is inside. The idea that it is forced upon him by a sudden external event is what weakens the idea of the force of nature and absolute to me.

And he does have the scarring, which we don´t know how it came to be, so maybe something was "thrust", but the primary force is him.

 

[nickyg641]

While I wouldn't want The Joker to become non-permawhite in the comics, more generally speaking, I wouldn't mind them tinkering with his look to make him fit the film more. I think updating The Joker's wardrobe into the more modern cut of clothing he wears in "The Dark Knight" could be a good change. And not one that's out of the question, as I've already seen certain artists do it.

I'd like to see that, too.

I wouldn't mind seeng a bit more of grittier comic Joker, like TDK. A little grungier, with the dark circles around his eyes, as we've seen in other interpretation. Not losing his gentlemanly qualities that he presently has, but just a little grunge, I think makes the character cooler.

 

[Solidus]

I agree.

And I think I've finally come up with a way to describe my feeling of why permawhite is better fit for the Joker to be a force of nature, and an absolute.

A force of nature doesn't create itself. That's why it's a force of nature. It's organic, it's just put into the world and begins doing what it does.

With makeup, we don't see that. Makeup implies a more gradual change, no "birth". The human being is still there, just under a new persona. He's not thrust into the world, over time, he builds himself up. The person underneath isn't really gone, just changed a bit, and by his own hand. Which means it isn't really organic. He's not created by nature or fate, he slowly turns himself into the Joker, adopts the Joker.

With permawhite, there's a cataclysmic event which thrusts him into our world. The man who existed before dies and the Joker is generated, all at once. It's the universe that spat him out. He's not a man, but a part of nature, almost literally. So he's very much an "absolute".

Though its a very good post, as always. I kinda find it a contradiction though. To be a force of nature, they are what they are from birth. The Joker always thought the way he did. And to me, if that is the case, which is one way I see it, no matter what bleached or no, like I said in a previous post, he will be the Joker no matter what. Even if they found a cure for his skin burns and made him normal looking, which knowing science in the future that could be a possibility but besides the point, the Joker would still be the Joker. Being a force of nature he does not need something to make him a force of nature such as a chemical dip. To me it is more that no matter what, perma or makeup he sees himself as a clown, and he will do anything to be that, because it is his nature.

See to me what you said is just how I see the Joker in TDK, no matter what the man will be the Joker, even if he has to make the look, or the look is upon him. He is the Joker, he was born to be it. Chemical dip or no.

But good post. My fellow civil chum.

 

[Sandouras]

I agree.

And I think I've finally come up with a way to describe my feeling of why permawhite is better fit for the Joker to be a force of nature, and an absolute.

A force of nature doesn't create itself. That's why it's a force of nature. It's organic, it's just put into the world and begins doing what it does.

With makeup, we don't see that. Makeup implies a more gradual change, no "birth". The human being is still there, just under a new persona. He's not thrust into the world, over time, he builds himself up. The person underneath isn't really gone, just changed a bit, and by his own hand. Which means it isn't really organic. He's not created by nature or fate, he slowly turns himself into the Joker, adopts the Joker.

With permawhite, there's a cataclysmic event which thrusts him into our world. The man who existed before dies and the Joker is generated, all at once. It's the universe that spat him out. He's not a man, but a part of nature, almost literally. So he's very much an "absolute".

I disagree with that as well. Because it only takes 5 minutes to apply the makeup. Once he snapped, he put it on. It isnt gradual. Besides, when the joker came out of the chemicals, he had to look at himself first to see his new appearence and then take on the joker theme. This joker saw his scars instead of his pigmentation. And from what we know and have seen in the prologue, this joker takes gotham by storm. So he is still a force of nature.

Nonetheless you can still wipe his face clean. So what? I think people see too much into this thing when the only important thing is that he looks white.
For example i wouldnt characterise Heath's growls as jokeresque. I have never seen the joker growl like a lion, like a beast. And he seemed rather serious there. But i like it, even though its new. This makes him more of a force n'est ce pas?

 

[Banquet]

I don't find it scarier that he needs to play up his ghoulish appearance. I much prefer the idea that he is like that, and he uses it to his advantage.

He shouldn't have to exaggerate himself. His outside is meant as a phsysical counterpart to his mental state. And, in his mind, he is the Joker, that's all he is, that's all he'll ever be. Should not his exterior reflect this dynamic? Is his mind that of a normal man's, and he simply puts himself in the mindset of the Joker? Is he just acting?

No. So I believe he shouldn't just be pretending when it comes to his outside. The Joker's body should be just as twisted as his mind.

I'm not saying he's pretending. His exterior can reflect his mental state, but I don't believe it's totally necessary to be irreversable in this new "real" context. Not only do we see the Joker on film, but we hear him and watch him move... so the visual dramatics while complimentary don't necessarily have to be as over the top (permawhite, giant contorted grin) to make him feel like the Joker. He is human in this, and controls his appearence. Even though he protests often that he was a victim of fate, through his actions it's always been that he was in control of himself the whole time.

But that is my own interpretation of the character, I suppose.

 

[ultimatefan]

I'm not saying he's pretending. His exterior can reflect his mental state, but I don't believe it's totally necessary to be irreversable in this new "real" context. Not only do we see the Joker on film, but we hear him and watch him move... so the visual dramatics while complimentary don't necessarily have to be as over the top (permawhite, giant contorted grin) to make him feel like the Joker. He is human in this, and controls his appearence. Even though he protests often that he was a victim of fate, through his actions it's always been that he was in control of himself the whole time.

But that is my own interpretation of the character, I suppose.

Not to mention that, if he simply won´t remove the makeup, the element of irreversibility is still there. Just because we cause something to happen, doesn´t mean we´re free to control or reverse it, especially in the case of an insane man.

 

[nickyg641]

On the contrary, the force of nature doesn´t need any external agents or any particular event, it defines itself, it´s put into the world at birth, the literal birth, it is what it always was. The Joker putting make up is simply him defining outside what he already is inside. The idea that he is, in any way, "victim" of an external event is what weakens the idea of the force of nature and absolute to me.

I don't think the Joker can come into the world through a traditonal way, as in, not from a mother's womb. And, besides, in a technical sense, he can't always have been the Joker.

I think the Joker needs to be "born" in a much grander, symbolic way. That symbolism being both that the chemical bath is both reminiscent of some twisted baptism, and as if he's climbing out of the primordial ooze.

With makeup, the Joker is born out of a man simply deciding one day that he's going to slather on some makeup. I would imagine it takes a very long time for this man to fully become the Joker, to get into him, and, as I said, I prefer the idea that the Joker is simply spat into the world.

Not as fate's victim, though, because the Joker does not see himself as a victim. No sympathy is commanded from the situation, because the Joker feels privelaged to be the way he is. He's not a victim, he's a winner!

 

[Sandouras]

I dont mean to say that the makeup is the best choice. Not even close. What i am saying is that the joker's character is unchanged. And if anything, the growls look more out of place on him that the makeup. Because he looks the same. Does he act the same? (again: i liked the growls) So maybe we should overlook this thing. Or maybe its so well handled that we will applaud it then. Have you known that Rha's isnt really immortal and that he is Bruce's mentor wouldnt you have raged? But see? You liked that in the end didnt ya? And he was less the original Rha's than Ledger is gonna be the original joker

 

[Solidus]

I don't think the Joker can come into the world through a natural way, in a technical sense, he can't always have been the Joker.

I think the Joker needs to be "born" in a much grander, symbolic way. That symbolism being both that the chemical bath is both reminiscent of some twisted baptism, and as if he's climbing out of the primordial ooze.

With makeup, the Joker is born out of a man simply deciding one day that he's going to slather on some makeup. I would imagine it takes a very long time for this man to fully become the Joker, to get into him, and, as I said, I prefer the idea that the Joker is simply spat into the world.

Not as fate's victim, though, because the Joker does not see himself as a victim. No sympathy is commanded from the situation, because the Joker feels privelaged to be the way he is. He's not a victim, he's a winner!

Yet again that I don't see. He did not just decide to wear make up. If he is a force of nature, it was what he was born to do. Just as Hitler was born to be the person he was.

With the make up, he still had a deformation process, or a conversion as you put it. He may have been cut in the face by some one, and in a sense he was baptized in his own blood. Regardless of the deformation it does not just have to be a chemical bath.

Like I have said before with a chemical bath he could of gotten out and dressed up as a zebra and become the famous zebra killer. But in his twisted mind, he saw himself as a clown and emphasized it by taking on that persona.

Same with the scarring. After wards it changed him, he could of done nothing, gotten surgery or what have you. But he chose the clown persona, because he was born to see him self as such. His twisted mind saw himself as a clown. And that if we are to say a force of nature, nature had an intention on the Joker from the day he was born. Either it be scarring, chemical bath, or getting in a car wreck, he sees himself as a clown, and adjusts accordingly.

 

[deathfromabove]

sand and solid

i agree. i have seen nothing to assume the joker's character has been changed. the make up certainly does not change it, in and of itself.

 

[ultimatefan]

I don't think the Joker can come into the world through a natural way, in a technical sense, he can't always have been the Joker.

I think the Joker needs to be "born" in a much grander, symbolic way. That symbolism being both that the chemical bath is both reminiscent of some twisted baptism, and as if he's climbing out of the primordial ooze.

With makeup, the Joker is born out of a man simply deciding one day that he's going to slather on some makeup. I would imagine it takes a very long time for this man to fully become the Joker, to get into him, and, as I said, I prefer the idea that the Joker is simply spat into the world.

Not as fate's victim, though, because the Joker does not see himself as a victim. No sympathy is commanded from the situation, because the Joker feels privelaged to be the way he is. He's not a victim, he's a winner!

The Joker is a full-blown psychopath, that condition´s been known to come from birth or very likely childhood, not out of a sudden event in his adult age. Psychopaths and serial killers often take years to manifest their more extreme behavior, but the seeds were deeply planted long before. The "rebirth" metaphor implies a sudden transformation, and I just don´t think that works for that character. it implies he was a very different person before being The Joker, and the "one bad day" theory is in fact a stretch and more likely a self-delusional fantasy of the character in The Killing Joke.

 

[Solidus]

The Joker is a full-blown psychopath, that condition comes from birth or childhood, not out of a sudden event in his adult age. Psychopaths and serial killers often take years to manifest their more extreme behavior, but the seeds were deeply planted long before. The "rebirth" metaphor implies a sudden transformation, and I just don´t think that works for that character. it implies he was a very different person before being The Joker, and the "one bad day" theory is in fact a stretch and more likely a self-delusional fantasy of the character in The Killing Joke.

That and the one bad day theory was proven wrong even in TKJ. The Joker tried to recreate what he said happened to him, and what he blamed on what made him what he is.

He tried but Gordon did not change. And at the end when Batman is chasing him, Joker is confused because Gordon did not change, and Batman truly had "one bad day" yet he did not become a murdering psycho.

The Joker was a serial killer from the day he was born. The deformation just fully unleashed it to its max. And I agree with you ultimate. I think the TKJ story proves this. That the Joker was wrong, that one bad day did NOT create him. It was something very deep, something he may not understand. To me I think he finally understood that there is something more wrong with him then one bad day with my favorite line in the story:

"Why aren't you laughing?"

 

[nickyg641]

I dont mean to say that the makeup is the best choice. Not even close. What i am saying is that the joker's character is unchanged. And if anything, the growls look more out of place on him that the makeup. Because he looks the same. Does he act the same? (again: i liked the growls) So maybe we should overlook this thing. Or maybe its so well handled that we will applaud it then. Have you know that Rha's isnt really immortal and that he is Bruce's mentor wouldnt you have raged? But see? You liked that in the end didnt ya? And he was less the original Rha's than Ledger is gonna be the original joker

I guess you're right. Ledger's performance seems excellent.

But I think the reason it seems I'm "raging" about this is because it's the detail I'm focusing on, which is because, frankly, it's the only flaw I see in the way Nolan has done the character. A fairly important flaw, to me, but the only flaw nonetheless.

Which is what makes me mad, or, rather, sad. I'm sure you can understand the feeling of "Everything else is perfect, so why this?" Surely this was a foreseeable consequence of the change? 1000's of pages from fans about it?

Perhaps Nolan wanted to go in a new direction with the character, but I feel this is one direction it was unnecessary to embark upon.

 

[Sandouras]

I don't think the Joker can come into the world through a traditonal way, as in, not from a mother's womb. And, besides, in a technical sense, he can't always have been the Joker.

I think the Joker needs to be "born" in a much grander, symbolic way. That symbolism being both that the chemical bath is both reminiscent of some twisted baptism, and as if he's climbing out of the primordial ooze.

With makeup, the Joker is born out of a man simply deciding one day that he's going to slather on some makeup. I would imagine it takes a very long time for this man to fully become the Joker, to get into him, and, as I said, I prefer the idea that the Joker is simply spat into the world.

Not as fate's victim, though, because the Joker does not see himself as a victim. No sympathy is commanded from the situation, because the Joker feels privelaged to be the way he is. He's not a victim, he's a winner!

Why does the original joker instantly take on the joker motif when he looks himself in a mirror, while Heath's takes a longer time? Why cant he just look himself in the mirror, see the big carved smile and instantly become the joker?

Also, Bruce Wayne, in any comic or movie, seems to gradually become batman. Does that change anything? Does it change what batman stands for? Does it change his legendary, knightly, protector status? NO!

And in the end, i urge you all to see this joker as any normal, non-internet addicted fan, as a simple moviegoer who knows a thing or two about the joker. I bet that they would enjoy this film, and if Nolan has treated joker with respect and given him depth of character, i assure you that they would enjoy and love this joker. Because it is joker, as much Smallville Brainiac is Brainiac, even though he hasnt got the physical presence or drama of a robot/man/thing/whatever with the 3 holes on his head. The actor they chose is epic!

But i bet if you enjoy the comics and if you keep an open mind, you will not whine at that brainiac. If instead of "No he isnt a green robot with a wierd head and thats not powerful or threatening enough" you can accept the change, then you will embrace the rendering. The actor had the most evil and sneaky eyes, like he knew everything, he still became a black ooze and he was a part of that alien ship.

The same with Galactus in the F4 movie.

PS: i hate smallville but i when i learned that Brainiac and Zod were in it, i had to see. Still didnt like it but i liked Brainiac.

 

[nickyg641]

The Joker is a full-blown psychopath, that condition comes from birth or childhood, not out of a sudden event in his adult age. Psychopaths and serial killers often take years to manifest their more extreme behavior, but the seeds were deeply planted long before. The "rebirth" metaphor implies a sudden transformation, and I just don´t think that works for that character. it implies he was a very different person before being The Joker, and the "one bad day" theory is in fact a stretch and more likely a self-delusional fantasy of the character in The Killing Joke.

A sudden transformation physically, that brings about the Joker himself. But, my preferred idea was that the seeds had already been planted, long ago, and he'd always been rather unhinged. His "rebirth" just opened the floodgates, to allow him to rise to the true potential of his insanity.

 

[Solidus]

I guess you're right. Ledger's performance seems excellent.

But I think the reason it seems I'm "raging" about this is because it's the detail I'm focusing on, which is because, frankly, it's the only flaw I see in the way Nolan has done the character. A fairly important flaw, to me, but the only flaw nonetheless.

Which is what makes me mad, or, rather, sad. I'm sure you can understand the feeling of "Everything else is perfect, so why this?" Surely this was a foreseeable consequence of the change? 1000's of pages from fans about it?

Perhaps Nolan wanted to go in a new direction with the character, but I feel this is one direction it was unnecessary to embark upon.

Oh I'm sure they knew that people would get angry about this. And there is no problem with conversing about it one bit. You have your rights to believe what you believe and I bow to you for that.

To me though, I just ask this. Do you think maybe when you see the Joker in TDK in Nolan's context that your opinion might change and you may see it like a lot of us in here?

And I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just really wondering if we see the full version of what Nolan wanted to do with this Joker could your opinion change?

 

[Banquet]

The Joker is a full-blown psychopath, that condition comes from birth or childhood, not out of a sudden event in his adult age. Psychopaths and serial killers often take years to manifest their more extreme behavior, but the seeds were deeply planted long before. The "rebirth" metaphor implies a sudden transformation, and I just don´t think that works for that character. it implies he was a very different person before being The Joker, and the "one bad day" theory is in fact a stretch and more likely a self-delusional fantasy of the character in The Killing Joke.

As far the TKJ goes, I'm not so sure it was a complete delusion. He didn't really share the information with others, he just alluded to it. It seems to me that if he was being delusional and making excuses for his insanity, then he would have expressed the story openly instead of just "remembering" it. Though it's likely it was distorted, I don't think it was completely fabricated.

 

[Matchbox]

That and the one bad day theory was proven wrong even in TKJ. The Joker tried to recreate what he said happened to him, and what he blamed on what made him what he is.

He tried but Gordon did not change. And at the end when Batman is chasing him, Joker is confused because Gordon did not change, and Batman truly had "one bad day" yet he did not become a murdering psycho.

The Joker was a serial killer from the day he was born. The deformation just fully unleashed it to its max. And I agree with you ultimate. I think the TKJ story proves this. That the Joker was wrong, that one bad day did NOT create him. It was something very deep, something he may not understand. To me I think he finally understood that there is something more wrong with him then one bad day with my favorite line in the story:

"Why aren't you laughing?"

Excellent post. I very much agree with this.