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

[nickyg641]

Forget realism, forget Nolan. The Joker has been a character that has lasted decades. The Joker I have come to know and love is the one that is truly a menace to Batman. The golden age, silly Joker is not the one I relate to. I like my Joker to be a fanatic, serial killing clown, the anti-Batman. The one who tries to undo Batman rather than the one who robs banks for personal gain. Thats what makes him his arch-nemesis, not because hes a criminal, but because he is out to destroy Batman and everything he believes in. To me the character comes first. If Oprah were cast in this movie as the Joker, and she had no make up,just the costume and the character, and if she nailed character like the comics and made it kick ass, I would not have a problem. If she captured the Joker's essence, then she would be the Joker. So I have no problem with Heath's Joker. He seems to have become the Joker, and since he at least tried to resemble the Joker i.e. green hair, white face, red lips, I have absolutely no problem with him not being perma-white. The character is true, crazy, and just plain bad-ass from what I have seen. Sure the accident made the Joker in the comics, but what makes the Joker for me is the character, that insane, zero empathy that makes the Joker such an icon.

 

[guitarkhero311]

I'm sorry, the Joker is more to me than perma-white, thats why he is called a character, not a look.

 

[capt. slaughter]

Nolan is trying to achieve believability in these movies, not realism.

I would imagine that Nolan simply decided that a Joker that wears makeup would be a lot more believable than one bleached by mysteries chemicals, especially to the general audience.

I feel that a makeup wearing Joker works best with the Batman and world Nolan has created. Otherwise, it's pretty much a non-issue for me.

i have to say i agree with ya on that.

 

[nickyg641]

I'm sorry, the Joker is more to me than perma-white, thats why he is called a character, not a look.

I suppose he's also more to you than an ethnicity and a penis?

 

[guitarkhero311]

I suppose he's also more to you than an ethnicity and a penis?

Those two things have nothing to do with the character. As I said, if she nails the character and does the comics justice, like Nicholson and Heath, then I am all for it.

 

[nickyg641]

Nolan is trying to achieve believability in these movies, not realism.

I would imagine that Nolan simply decided that a Joker that wears makeup would be a lot more believable than one bleached by mysteries chemicals, especially to the general audience.

I feel that a makeup wearing Joker works best with the Batman and world Nolan has created. Otherwise, it's pretty much a non-issue for me.

I hardly think that the audience would have complained. Especially after the events that took place in Batman Begins. Microwave emitter? Fear Gas? The idea that someone's appearance has been altered by chemicals is hardly outside of the realm of what an audience will believe. After all, :

Those two things have nothing to do with the character. As I said, if she nails the character and does the comics justice, like Nicholson and Heath, then I am all for it.

By that logic, Harley Quinn is also the Joker.

 

[Manosman]

I hardly think that the audience would have complained. Especially after the events that took place in Batman Begins. Microwave emitter? Fear Gas? The idea that someone's appearance has been altered by chemicals is hardly outside of the realm of what an audience will believe. After all, :

Thats Ignorant.....um chi bony hee heee!

 

[guitarkhero311]

I hardly think that the audience would have complained. Especially after the events that took place in Batman Begins. Microwave emitter? Fear Gas? The idea that someone's appearance has been altered by chemicals is hardly outside of the realm of what an audience will believe. After all, :

By that logic, Harley Quinn is also the Joker.

It's true that bleaching is not out of the realm of possibility, especially with the events of Begins, but so far Batman's enemies have not been accident victims on par with Spider-Man's, but rather regular humans with no special powers, only the drive and tools to be evil. When you put the Joker into that vat, it takes the humanism away from him, which is what Nolan is trying not to do. Batman is a man fighting evil in a world of men, so Nolan is trying to humanize the Joker as best as possible, to not out-weigh Batman and his mortality.

 

[nickyg641]

It's true that bleaching is not out of the realm of possibility, especially with the events of Begins, but so far Batman's enemies have not been accident victims on par with Spider-Man's, but rather regular humans with no special powers, only the drive and tools to be evil. When you put the Joker into that vat, it takes the humanism away from him, which is what Nolan is trying not to do. Batman is a man fighting evil in a world of men, so Nolan is trying to humanize the Joker as best as possible, to not out-weigh Batman and his mortality.

ONCE AGAIN:

 

[guitarkhero311]

ONCE AGAIN:

I'm just giving you my reasoning. I know that a perma-white Joker would be awesome, especially if the character was captured as well, but we aren't getting it. But I am not settling. I think that Heath's Joker is bad ass in his own way.

 

[Crook]

I'm sorry, the Joker is more to me than perma-white, thats why he is called a character, not a look.

Do you fail to realize that a look may also partly define the character?

That Oprah analogy is beyond ridiculous.

 

[guitarkhero311]

By that logic, Harley Quinn is also the Joker.

Harley is a character all in her own. She is more reserved than the Joker and has ethics, as portrayed in BTAS and the comics. She is also subservient, a characteristic that the Joker doesn't share.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Do you fail to realize that a look may also partly define the character?

That Oprah analogy is beyond ridiculous.

To you ,I am sure, it is, but it makes sense to me. Sure a character's looks are of some importance, but I see no problem with the Joker's characteristics and mental traits coming first, and having the looks come in second. Nolan and crew aren't looking past his looks as blatantly as most people are describing, the essentials are there, the character is there, so I see the Joker.

 

[nickyg641]

I'm just giving you my reasoning. I know that a perma-white Joker would be awesome, especially if the character was captured as well, but we aren't getting it. But I am not settling. I think that Heath's Joker is bad ass in his own way.

Of course. I myself don't really care much about it any more. I just think you're missing the point.

A)As Crook said, the Oprah analogy is beyond ridiculous.
B)Nolan is intentionally de-humanizing the Joker.

 

[Crook]

To you ,I am sure, it is, but it makes sense to me. Sure a character's looks are of some importance, but I see no problem with the Joker's characteristics and mental traits coming first, and having the looks come in second.

There's a difference between giving it a secondary role, and discounting it completely. Which is exactly what your Oprah analogy suggested.

Frankly, I think both looks and characterization should be of importance, split 50/50. I don't see why any one has to take precedent over the other.

 

[Boom]

This Joker is:

"A shark."

"A car wreck that never stops."

"A force of nature."

How does that sound any bit "humanized" to you?

 

[guitarkhero311]

Of course. I myself don't really care much about it any more. I just think you're missing the point.

A)As Crook said, the Oprah analogy is beyond ridiculous.
B)Nolan is intentionally de-humanizing the Joker.

I acknowledge both of those points. But I think Nolan is doing the exact opposite, I think he is humanizing the Joker and the Batman universe as a whole. I think the word super should not be in ones vocabulary when talking about Batman. Yes, he is a great character, but he has no super powers, which sets him apart from all the other characters nowadays. If the character is being adapted in a more human aspect, you do not want his arch villain to be super. Although the accident doesn't affect the Joker physically when it comes to fighting, strength, etc. it makes him less human, and thus refutes Nolan's vision on Batman. Being a man who not only embraces the clown inside of him and the anarchy and chaos inside of him, but chooses to bring that out with the make up and costume, fits into Noaln's world better.

 

[Boom]

Any man who gets amusement out of killing countless people just for the hell of it is anything BUT human.

Psychologically, personality, and character-wise, The Joker is a monster. That's all there is to it.

 

[guitarkhero311]

There's a difference between giving it a secondary role, and discounting it completely. Which is exactly what your Oprah analogy suggested.

Frankly, I think both looks and characterization should be of importance, split 50/50. I don't see why any one has to take precedent over the other.

The Oprah analogy is my personal opinion, and I agree with you on the 50/50 split. But Nolan isn't giving us that. Sure we can be upset about it and gripe, but it won't change a thing. But I am not settling for a diminished character, I think that Heath IS THE JOKER in this movie, so him not being perma-white doesn't upset me.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Any man who gets amusement out of killing countless people just for the hell of it is anything BUT human.

Psychologically, personality, and character-wise, The Joker is a monster. That's all there is to it.

Happiness is a human emotion, the Joker's happiness comes from killing. Sure his actions are monstrous, but he is a man.

 

[Boom]

Happiness is a human emotion, the Joker's happiness comes from killing. Sure his actions are monstrous, but he is a man.

My dogs get happy when I take them for walks.

The bleached skin signifies his dehumanization. It reflects his personality. I.e., a monster.

 

[nickyg641]

Happiness is a human emotion, the Joker's happiness comes from killing. Sure his actions are monstrous, but he is a man.

Of course he's a man, in the most literal sense. But, so is a permanently white Joker. He still has the same bodily functions, still has the same amount of cells.

But, here's where you're wrong about Nolan:

"Our Joker, Heath's interpretation of The Joker, has always been the absolute extreme of anarchy and chaos. (And) what makes him terrifying is not to humanize him in narrative terms. We didn't want to show what made him do the things he's doing, because then he becomes less threatening."-Chris Nolan

 

[guitarkhero311]

My dogs get happy when I take them for walks.

The bleached skin signifies his dehumanization. It reflects his personality. I.e., a monster.

But if you shoot him in the head he dies.

 

[Boom]

But if you shoot him in the head he dies.

You shoot ANY living thing in the head and it dies .

And, yeah, see the quote above. Nolan has no intention of humanizing the character.

 

[guitarkhero311]

Of course he's a man, in the most literal sense. But, so is a permanently white Joker. He still has the same bodily functions, still has the same amount of cells.

But, here's where you're wrong about Nolan:

You're right, but when you look at him and he's perma-white, he seems more( or less) than human.

IN NARRATIVE TERMS. He still has the human aspect, they just don't want to show you the man before the Joker.