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

[Iridescent]

I was speaking of his walk? Before he is unmasked?

Don't worry, I was kidding, i wasn't getting all up yo face!

 

[ultimatefan]

I find this whole bleach argument so funny cuz for the longest time I didn´t even know about the bleach thing, I just assumed his skin was painted white the same way his hair is green and his lips are bright red.

 

[The Shape]

Don't worry, I was kidding, i wasn't getting all up yo face!

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!1111

 

[sglass03]

It took me a while, but I finally found out how to describe Joker's walk - it's basically like a monkey's. He has that kind of sway, where his arms and shoulders move back and forth. It's difficult to describe, but overall his walk is very animal-like.

For example, take a look at the prologue: when he first enters the bank, he runs and looks around almost like a primate would. And at the end, after he shoots the bus driver and looks for that last bag of cash (right before the manager talks to him), he walks around like a gorilla would inside a zoo exhibit.

Just like everything else with this Joker, it's terrifying and bizarre all at once.

 

[Solidus]

Thanks.

It's just one of those things that's subjective. But I think there's a difference between your comparison of an albino, and someone with facial scars. Imagine someone chalk white, all over. Like a living corpse. Albinos are pale, I'm imagining someone plain white.

A full-body deformity like that, in my opinion, it isn't equal, visually, to the scars on his cheeks. Which, you must admist, in some images, are barely visible. For example, here:

I'll put it this way. Permawhite, you would notice that from across a room, in a crowd, what have you. Can you really say the same for the cut smile? I think the fact that the cops don't even notice him right in front of them at the funeral says something about their noticeability.

And, again, thanks for being civil about all this. Sometimes it seems we're the only ones

Yea, if it was truly like a dead corpse white, you would notice it more so possibly then a scar. Though in some pics the scaring does not look as servere, while in other pics it looks very bubbly. Honestly I think both are freakish physical stains that would be with that person for ever.

Yet I do agree it is true that the corpse white you described would stand out more so then the scaring, I will agree with that. And to me though what is important is how the Joker sees himself. To him, its always there and always visible, whether it be a scar or bleached skin, its always with him and reminds him of a clown visage. With the bleached skin like TDKR Joker adds the rest of his persona, to make him the Joker, and to really really make him stand out. I believe that permawhite would stand out more, but I believe that the physical deformation is more of an effect on the Joker's self-reflection upon himself then what others around him think. I mean some people are depressed and think they are losers, when technically they may not be. Regardless of anything Joker alway sees himself as a freak scaring or permawhite. In my eyes of course.

But with these deformities they add the suit, and all the other goodies that make the Joker the Joker, and that really makes him stand out in a crowd, whether it be permawhite or scaring. But yet again thats just how I view it.

 

[The Battousai]

Oh, but why does he have to "crack" and suddenly become evil? It's just shallow to go nuts because suddenly you're ugly. Batman Black and White made it slightly more tolerable but I still cannot get over how stupid it is.
It's all an accident, everything he does is basically to compensate for the fact that he had a bad day and now dresses in purple and uses stupid gag weapons. With Batman I could understand it, he has the funds to learn how to exact his revenge and, more imporantly, he didn't suffer the trite "Big industrial accident creates superhero/villain". He choses to be Batman and over time Batman filled the void that was left when his parents got shot up.
But The Joker apparently had no choice, he goes from family man to crazed psycho in one day. And it stinks. It humanises him, makes him weak, makes him almost sympathetic (Or perhaps more worthy of contempt, I can never figure that one out) and basically tells the reader that he is only around because he took a tumble into some peculiar bubbling liquid. Whilst dressed in a costume that is utterly absurd. And running from a man who, later on, he will show no fear of whatsoever. It doesn't add up. Because it basically tries to convince you that evil on that level is pcked up suddenly and without warning. No, that's called "temporary insanity". There's a difference between being upset that you look like a bowl of cocaine and being so vile that most people in the world fear you. That level of sickness and violence does not just come to any old person when their wife dies or they're forced into a robbery or they have a sudden skin complaint.
Basically, the idea that The Joker is an absolute works fine. I believe we will be getting some bleached skin and (because of that) maybe even see him poison a few people.
Just keep that damn Red Hood nonsense out of it. If The Ledger Joker fell in, fine, I'd love that. The Joker builds himself up and then takes the ultimate step, fully becoming this monster. He lures Batman and the cops to this obvious robbery and then with a smile and a laugh jumps right into the chemicals.
If they were to portray the bleaching as part of an evolution that would be fine, it's not that whole thing I've got the problem with. It's the idea that he was upset by the results or that he suddenly snapped. Or maybe I just despise the ludicrous costume they had him wear.

Did I talk about the pre-accident Joker at all?

I understand enough psychology to know that "insanity" can come about either gradually, randomly, or from birth.

I decided not to discuss pre-accident Joker because I'm going to assume anything I don't have enough info about to begin with - especially since we aren't going to know exactly what either the pre-accident Joker in the comic-books was like before his Red Hood persona, or what TDK Joker was like during or before whatever caused his deformity(ies).

EDIT: While we see a fairly decent picture of the Joker's pre-accident persona through the Red Hood, it isn't enough of one to truly get to the core of his sanity at that point in his life.

 

[boroboro]

Nah, the purists can't get over how he looks. Generally people seem to be very pleased.

Im just saying, we dont know the complete work yet. We know some, but not the complete picture... I remember when someone first saw the trailer, he said on these boards that Batman says "youre gonna love me"... Everyone was like what the hell??!! He didnt have that much detail and didnt explain the whole concept because he only had one look at the trailer and we couldnt really understand the context. now that we've all seen the scene it doesnt look that bad does it? All im saying is I have trust in Nolan to make it work without pissing off too many people. Not that I need convincing either way...

 

[The Joker_1000]

No it wasn't...it was Joker dancing to a Prince song on the soundtrack.



Except for when he danced while he shot Grissom. Danced with Vicki's picture...etc, etc, etc...



He wasn't actually cultured and refined. That was the joke. He was a twisted version of an artist. Cultured men don't destroy other art.

That Joker was good for its time and helped spawn the greatest version ever that we saw in TAS so I have no qualms with how he was portrayed in B89.

 

[ultimatefan]

Did I talk about the pre-accident Joker at all?

I understand enough psychology to know that "insanity" can come about either gradually, randomly, or from birth.

I decided not to discuss pre-accident Joker because I'm going to assume anything I don't have enough info about to begin with - especially since we aren't going to know exactly what either the pre-accident Joker in the comic-books was like before his Red Hood persona, or what TDK Joker was like during or before whatever caused his deformity(ies).

I understand enough psychology to know The Joker qualifies as a classic psychopath, someone with no empathy, remorse or compassion, and incredibly self-absorbed. Even though this form of insanity isn´t yet fully understood by psychology, it´s primarily a birth condition or usually connected to early childhood traumas. I never, EVER heard of someone becoming a full-blown psychopath simply due to a facial deformity accident. Especially something like having your skin painted an usual color, which could be satisfyingly disguised with make-up. Whatever made The Joker what he is, it has to be something much deeper than falling into a vat of chemicals and having his face painted like a clown.

 

[Iridescent]

Guys what do you think of this....


Imagine if you were in Nolan's shoes, whereby you're making a film about a subject engrained in popular culture... TDK has two of arguably the most famous comic book villains, at definitely the two best in the batman mythology.

Two face is a character created when a man gets completely transformed by an acid disfigurement.

Joker is a character who gets completely transformed (in the comics) by an acid/chemical disfigurement.

As a director, it would be cinematically imprudent to have the two main villains in your film follow the exact same plot device.

I think Nolan decided that dent's disfigurement can't be explained by any means other than an acid attack, but that joker's white skin wasn't necessitated by an acid bath.

He had to make a decision, and I think he made the right one. It's the price we have to pay to see the introduction of two face and joker in the same film!

 

[nickyg641]

Yea, if it was truly like a dead corpse white, you would notice it more so possibly then a scar. Though in some pics the scaring does not look as servere, while in other pics it looks very bubbly. Honestly I think both are freakish physical stains that would be with that person for ever.

Yet I do agree it is true that the corpse white you described would stand out more so then the scaring, I will agree with that. And to me though what is important is how the Joker sees himself. To him, its always there and always visible, whether it be a scar or bleached skin, its always with him and reminds him of a clown visage. With the bleached skin like TDKR Joker adds the rest of his persona, to make him the Joker, and to really really make him stand out. I believe that permawhite would stand out more, but I believe that the physical deformation is more of an effect on the Joker's self-reflection upon himself then what others around him think. I mean some people are depressed and think they are losers, when technically they may not be. Regardless of anything Joker alway sees himself as a freak scaring or permawhite. In my eyes of course.

But with these deformities they add the suit, and all the other goodies that make the Joker the Joker, and that really makes him stand out in a crowd, whether it be permawhite or scaring. But yet again thats just how I view it.

I agree, it's important how he thinks he looks. But I still think that the Joker's exterior must physically match his interior. It can't be all in his mind. To me, that makes the Joker seem, in an almost pathetic way, delusional.

I made a comparison a few days ago, about the angle you're describing. That was of Francis Dolarhyde, the "Tooth Fairy" killer from Red Dragon. In his mind he is "becoming" the Great Red Dragon, an image he aspires to, admires. He's exaggerating himself in his own mind, giving himself qualities that aren't there. This is an angle that, frankly, I just wouldn't like to see explored with the Joker. As I said, I see it as almost pathetic.

Plus, I just think it's rather weak that that's what his entire persona is based on. That's what the Joker stems from. Simply some vertical scars, visually, I just don't find them that altering. They're barely visible, and I just don't think they're an extreme enough representation of the Joker as he is on the inside.

 

[Figs]

edit

 

[nickyg641]

I understand enough psychology to know The Joker qualifies as a classic psychopath, someone with no empathy, remorse or compassion, and incredibly self-absorbed. Even though this form of insanity isn´t yet fully understood by psychology, it´s primarily a birth condition or usually connected to early childhood traumas. I never, EVER heard of someone becoming a full-blown psychopath simply due to a facial deformity accident. Especially something like having your skin painted an usual color, which could be satisfyingly disguised with make-up. Whatever made The Joker what he is, it has to be something much deeper than falling into a vat of chemicals and having his face painted like a clown.

Who says the Joker has to be a completely normal man before his accident? Many prefer the idea that he was already unstable before his accident, albeit repressed, and his "rebirth" as the Joker released his psychosis to elevate him to something entirely inhuman.

 

[Figs]

Guys what do you think of this....


Imagine if you were in Nolan's shoes, whereby you're making a film about a subject engrained in popular culture... TDK has two of arguably the most famous comic book villains, at definitely the two best in the batman mythology.

Two face is a character created when a man gets completely transformed by an acid disfigurement.

Joker is a character who gets completely transformed (in the comics) by an acid/chemical disfigurement.

As a director, it would be cinematically imprudent to have the two main villains in your film follow the exact same plot device.

I think Nolan decided that dent's disfigurement can't be explained by any means other than an acid attack, but that joker's white skin wasn't necessitated by an acid bath.

He had to make a decision, and I think he made the right one. It's the price we have to pay to see the introduction of two face and joker in the same film!

While I agree that it would be considered by a lot possibly, too coincedental that both villains in the film were affected by some type of acid.

I do have to say, since Nolan said he didn't want to do Joker's origin again we could have still had a permawhite Joker but just not go down the whole falling in chemicals/acid.

People by now should know that Joker should be all white, primarily after seeing Batman '89 and the animated series.

 

[Solidus]

I agree, it's important how he thinks he looks. But I still think that the Joker's exterior must physically match his interior. It can't be all in his mind. To me, that makes the Joker seem, in an almost pathetic way, delusional.

I made a comparison a few days ago, about the angle you're describing. That was of Francis Dolarhyde, the "Tooth Fairy" killer from Red Dragon. In his mind he is "becoming" the Great Red Dragon, an image he aspires to, admires. He's exaggerating himself in his own mind, giving himself qualities that aren't there. This is an angle that, frankly, I just wouldn't like to see explored with the Joker. As I said, I see it as almost pathetic.

Plus, I just think it's rather weak that that's what his entire persona is based on. That's what the Joker stems from. Simply some vertical scars, visually, I just don't find them that altering. They're barely visible, and I just don't think they're an extreme enough representation of the Joker as he is on the inside.

What I'm trying to say though is that, the "bad day" that consists of either physical deformation scarred him mentally, but as well, will physically be with him forever.

I'm trying to think of a good example so forgive me my friend.

To me the physical deformation process of the Joker was painful, and either way he will always remember it, and he himself will always want to stand out with his deformity. Because either way make up or no, both Joker's dress like they do, and both of them would equally stand out. I see what you're saying I'm just having problems finding the words on how I see this. But as always good points.

I just believe the scars are what make him stand out in the sense that he sees himself as a clown, so he always dresses as such, and with that sense he always stands out in a crowd. Perma or no. Sorry if that does not make full sense, I'm running on low sleep lol.

 

[deathfromabove]

You're correct. He, and everyone else for that matter, is entitled to express their opinion, regardless of how far removed it is from minority opinion. However, what he is not entitled is to enter various forums in a transparent attempt to tick people off, in some ridiculous pursuit of 'internet kewl' or to simply just be an ass.

Singular remarks along the lines of "this sucks", "he's not very intelligent" and 'this is overrated' don't indicate support of an unpopular opinion. They indicate someone simply looking to cause trouble, realizing what the reaction will be from other posters. Consequently, he's gone; in no small part due to his having another user name, which has drawn probation as well. The things some people do when they get bored are puzzling.

Enough of that foolishness and back to The Great Makeup Debate.

Amen.

and hallelujah!

I really think his limp walk in only truly evident after the truck flip, in which he was probably injured. He doesn't have it in the prologue, although he does have these Jokerish movements.

he has a bit of a shuffle in his walk though. maybe he is hiding his limp a bit or maybe its not as evident for the same reason his hair suddenly turns greener. cinematic misdirection. (tangent: i think its funny how same actually think this and his makeup are a mistake)

and he does have something approaching a limp when he is walking up to rachel at the party. so everytime we have seen him walking it has had an affectation to some degree.

i do agree it does seem he was injured in the crash.

No it wasn't...it was Joker dancing to a Prince song on the soundtrack.



Except for when he danced while he shot Grissom. Danced with Vicki's picture...etc, etc, etc...



He wasn't actually cultured and refined. That was the joke. He was a twisted version of an artist. Cultured men don't destroy other art.

at least he had good taste and napier also had "aptitudes" in art. and in is own self image i think he thought he was cultured and refined. the worlds's first homicidal artist who represented " the avant garde of the new aesthetic".

I understand enough psychology to know The Joker qualifies as a classic psychopath, someone with no empathy, remorse or compassion, and incredibly self-absorbed. Even though this form of insanity isn´t yet fully understood by psychology, it´s primarily a birth condition or usually connected to early childhood traumas. I never, EVER heard of someone becoming a full-blown psychopath simply due to a facial deformity accident. Especially something like having your skin painted an usual color, which could be satisfyingly disguised with make-up. Whatever made The Joker what he is, it has to be something much deeper than falling into a vat of chemicals and having his face painted like a clown.

interesting.

i think the best part of these characters (and this art form known as comics in general) is how personal and different they are to everyone.
what i mean, is that, like a book, they are read while alone. you form a deep bond with these images, characters, and stories. but even though the words and art are on the page the story really takes place in your head. this is one of the many things that really seperates it other media, specifically film. so even though both regwec and solidus have both read the exact same thing we can have two totally different (and personal) experiences.

that is why it really drives me to nuts when people say "you just dont get the character" or some such bullpucky.

some think he went nuts when he the events of one day snapped his psyche, others prefer to think of him as always not quite right and again through some series of events embraces what has always lurked below, and still others prefer to think of him as a supersane criminal who uses his disfigurement to point out the inate absurdity of order.

and there are all manner of variables and interpretations on the above. point is try to keep in mind that while you understandably think your opinion is the best one, its not the only one.

 

[ultimatefan]

and hallelujah!



he has a bit of a shuffle in his walk though. maybe he is hiding his limp a bit or maybe its not as evident for the same reason his hair suddenly turns greener. cinematic misdirection. (tangent: i think its funny how same actually think this and his makeup are a mistake)

and he does have something approaching a limp when he is walking up to rachel at the party. so everytime we have seen him walking it has had an affectation to some degree.

i do agree it does seem he was injured in the crash.




at least he had good taste and napier also had "aptitudes" in art. and in is own self image i think he thought he was cultured and refined. the worlds's first homicidal artist who represented " the avant garde of the new aesthetic".



interesting.

i think the best part of these characters (and this art form known as comics in general) is how personal and different they are to everyone.
what i mean, is that, like a book, they are read while alone. you form a deep bond with these images, characters, and stories. but even though the words and art are on the page the story really takes place in your head. this is one of the many things that really seperates it other media, specifically film. so even though both regwec and solidus have both read the exact same thing we can have two totally different (and personal) experiences.

that is why it really drives me to nuts when people say "you just dont get the character" or some such bullpucky.

some think he went nuts when he the events of one day snapped his psyche, others prefer to think of him as always not quite right and again through some series of events embraces what has always lurked below, and still others prefer to think of him as a supersane criminal who uses his disfigurement to point out the inate absurdity of order.

and there are all manner of variables and interpretations on the above. point is try to keep in mind that while you understandably think your opinion is the best one, its not the only one.

And a number of these different interpretations come from different comics stories. Paul Dini, for instance, wrote a brilliant story where it´s implied that Joker´s insanity could be all part of an incredibly elaborate scheme by a masterful gangster. He also wrote Mad Love, where it´s established that Joker makes up stories about his tragic childhood to win sympathy and favors from psychologists. Even Alan Moore´s KJ origin leaves the door open with "multiple choice past". Which is why the whole "Nolan betrayed comics Joker" kinda thing really annoys me, like there´s some absolute book of law as to how to portray Joker. Of course there are certain common elements to most versions, but he´s also a very flexible character and open to interpretation, as is Batman, which is part of what makes them so interesting and enduring. Nolan´s Joker clearly borrows a lot from the early Bill Finger/Bob Kane Joker as well as some modern stuff like The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum and The Man Who Laughs.

 

[nickyg641]

What I'm trying to say though is that, the "bad day" that consists of either physical deformation scarred him mentally, but as well, will physically be with him forever.

I'm trying to think of a good example so forgive me my friend.

To me the physical deformation process of the Joker was painful, and either way he will always remember it, and he himself will always want to stand out with his deformity. Because either way make up or no, both Joker's dress like they do, and both of them would equally stand out. I see what you're saying I'm just having problems finding the words on how I see this. But as always good points.

I just believe the scars are what make him stand out in the sense that he sees himself as a clown, so he always dresses as such, and with that sense he always stands out in a crowd. Perma or no. Sorry if that does not make full sense, I'm running on low sleep lol.

I see where the difference in opinions is, now. To me, the clothes are simply accessories to the Joker's clown persona. Yes, they further the clown persona, they add to it, but in my mind, most of it comes from the Joker himself, in both his body and his personality.

In TDK, if you take away the clothes and the makeup, you get an insane man with scars. You're taking away a lot of what makes the Joker the Joker. With permawhite, you take away his purple suit, and you're still left with the Joker, all Joker, and nothing but the Joker.

 

[The Joker_1000]

While I agree that it would be considered by a lot possibly, too coincedental that both villains in the film were affected by some type of acid.

I do have to say, since Nolan said he didn't want to do Joker's origin again we could have still had a permawhite Joker but just not go down the whole falling in chemicals/acid.

People by now should know that Joker should be all white, primarily after seeing Batman '89 and the animated series.

I still don't think he has to have permawhite skin but how do you think Nolan could make his skin permawhite without using chemicals?

 

[Solidus]

I see where the difference in opinions is, now. To me, the clothes are simply accessories to the Joker's clown persona. Yes, they further the clown persona, they add to it, but in my mind, most of it comes from the Joker himself, in both his body and his personality.

In TDK, if you take away the clothes and the makeup, you get an insane man with scars. You're taking away a lot of what makes the Joker the Joker. With permawhite, you take away his purple suit, and you're still left with the Joker, all Joker, and nothing but the Joker.

And I understand what you mean. It truly is a matter of interpretation as they were saying above us. I see it if you take away everything else of the Joker in the comics except his bleached skin, he's a freak, but just a Michael Jackson, a guy with a skin disease. So to me, I see it that so much more creates the Joker, not just one thing.

But I do see where you are coming from and understand your point of view.

 

[Figs]

I still don't think he has to have permawhite skin but how do you think Nolan could make his skin permawhite without using chemicals?

Neither do I, I personally can't wait to see him in this film.

As Nolan said he is an absolute. He's just there and causing chaos.

Since Batman '89 and the animated series I think enough general audience members get the idea that Joker is supposed to have bleached skin.

He wouldn't need to explain it again, just have him in the film permawhite messing s*** up.

 

[The Joker_1000]

That'd be good enough but even if we don't get permawhite, I'll still be happy just because Heath Ledger gave it his all.

 

[Iridescent]

Guys what do you think of this....


Imagine if you were in Nolan's shoes, whereby you're making a film about a subject engrained in popular culture... TDK has two of arguably the most famous comic book villains, at definitely the two best in the batman mythology.

Two face is a character created when a man gets completely transformed by an acid disfigurement.

Joker is a character who gets completely transformed (in the comics) by an acid/chemical disfigurement.

As a director, it would be cinematically imprudent to have the two main villains in your film follow the exact same plot device.

I think Nolan decided that dent's disfigurement can't be explained by any means other than an acid attack, but that joker's white skin wasn't necessitated by an acid bath.

He had to make a decision, and I think he made the right one. It's the price we have to pay to see the introduction of two face and joker in the same film!

 

[Figs]

Guys what do you think of this....


Imagine if you were in Nolan's shoes, whereby you're making a film about a subject engrained in popular culture... TDK has two of arguably the most famous comic book villains, at definitely the two best in the batman mythology.

Two face is a character created when a man gets completely transformed by an acid disfigurement.

Joker is a character who gets completely transformed (in the comics) by an acid/chemical disfigurement.

As a director, it would be cinematically imprudent to have the two main villains in your film follow the exact same plot device.

I think Nolan decided that dent's disfigurement can't be explained by any means other than an acid attack, but that joker's white skin wasn't necessitated by an acid bath.

He had to make a decision, and I think he made the right one. It's the price we have to pay to see the introduction of two face and joker in the same film!

I see what your saying but again, Nolan said he wasn't going to do Joker's origin again. I believe he said something along the lines of "this isn't going to be Joker Begins".

Since his origin wouldn't be shown(acid bath, which would make two characters showing that problem in the same film) he could have just been permawhite without the explanation.

 

[Iridescent]

I see what your saying but again, Nolan said he wasn't going to do Joker's origin again. I believe he said something along the lines of "this isn't going to be Joker Begins".

Since his origin wouldn't be shown(acid bath, which would make two characters showing that problem in the same film) he could have just been permawhite without the explanation.

That's another point, I'm quite well aware that "the joker is an absolute" in TDK, but in nolan's "reality" you can't really have someone walking around Gotham like the bastard child of Marcel Macreau and a tin of whitewash. For someone to be that white, you'd need an origin story, which nolan doesn't want to do.