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

[The Guard]

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

Actually, it would make perfect sense thematically, and it would provide that thematic similarity that Nolan loves so much.

 

[Figs]

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.

Good point, we all know Nolan likes to explain things and all but as far as we know, he isn't explaining exactly what caused the scars.

That to me is enough justification to show that he could have been permawhite without Nolan needing to explain it. I know permawhite skin is way more of an extreme than a facial wound but if Nolan doesn't explain the scars...he didn't need to take out the permawhite aspect due to problems with explaining it. He didn't need to explain it all.

 

[Iridescent]

Actually, it would make perfect sense thematically, and it would provide that thematic similarity that Nolan loves so much.

That works in the likes of the Prestige and Insomnia, but the thrust of the batman villains is that each of them are meant to be incredibly unique characters with diverse backgrounds and stories.

 

[Saint]

That works in the likes of the Prestige and Insomnia, but the thrust of the batman villains is that each of them are meant to be incredibly unique characters with diverse backgrounds and stories.

Hardly. Two-Face and Joker have always been treated as representations of what Bruce Wayne could have become (or could still become), and according they are all linked with commonalities. Each has an extreme identity crisis as the result of suffering catastrophic trauma, and each resultant identity is a person Bruce Wayne could become. They are, each of them, a reaction to evil.

 

[TheBat812]

Hardly. Two-Face and Joker have always been treated as representations of what Bruce Wayne could have become (or could still become), and according they are all linked with commonalities. Each has an extreme identity crisis as the result of suffering catastrophic trauma, and each resultant identity is a person Bruce Wayne could become. They are, each of them, a reaction to evil.

So, (and i'm not saying you specifically said this) why does the catalyst have to be him becoming permawhite? I love the idea of his scar being the catalyst, and his persona becomes his reaction to that.

 

[memo]

i believe that its a good thing if we see a joker to not be perma white. i mean think about it. i guy falls into some acid, and his skin perfectly changes white and his hair green and now he's got some gnarly grin? i'm sorry i dont buy it. i've been along time fan of the character, but i like what nolan and crew are doing. they're taking a great icon in the world of villans(one of the best and biggest in my opinion) and making it fit into a real world. it has to make sense in order to believe it and in order to make an affect on the viewer. i think its the right move if he isn't perma white and he wears make up.

 

[CaptainClown]

That works in the likes of the Prestige and Insomnia, but the thrust of the batman villains is that each of them are meant to be incredibly unique characters with diverse backgrounds and stories.

Not every villain is that amazing. Example would be Poison Ivy. She could not carry her own movie if you introduce her as is.

 

[nickyg641]

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!

It's not like the two are that thematically the same. The Joker was the product of a vat of unknown chemicals, resulting in him having the appearance of a clown.

Harvey Dent had acid thrown at his face.

Do the scenarios really sound that similar?

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.

Not necessarily. You don't need to show an origin. All you need is a few brief, vague comments and speculations from various characters in the film, as well as maybe one or two more "Whatever doesn't kill you"-type hints from the Joker, and you could get an audience to buy permawhite. And, because you've kept it vague, your audience gets to think "I wonder what really happened", and can form the rest in their imgainations.

So, (and i'm not saying you specifically said this) why does the catalyst have to be him becoming permawhite? I love the idea of his scar being the catalyst, and his persona becomes his reaction to that.

I think it's because, for some, the scars simply don't match up to permawhite. As I put it before, permawhite, you would see from across the room, you would notice it in a crowd. It's visually striking, as well as a full-body affliction, and they're totally unique. A man with the complexion of a corpse would surely stand out. It's the type of thing you'd see in Ripley's Believe it Or Not.

Would you be able to notice the scars without coming very close to him? They're not like Two-Face's burns, which encompass half of his head. I think the fact that he's able to stand in a crowd of police without even being noticed says something.

Plus, the nature of the scars is not really unique. Not necessarily in the shape of them, but that same sort of scar tissue isn't uncommon.

Also, where the scars are sort of down-to-earth, permawhite is something that's so weird and out there, it seems illogical. It's weird, it's visually jarring, and it seems impossible, but here he is, the Joker, a walking testament to the absurd nature of the Universe. In that respect, I find it fits the Joker better as a deformity.

 

[Damiean Dark]

Not Nicholson they should insult. Why not try criticising the fool who thought it was a good idea to cover up his damn face with some stupid grin. The mouth holds the key to a variety of expressions! Actors act by expressing themselves!

So Jacks smile destroyed his performance? i dont think it took anything away jacks joker was amazingly emotive in B89 imo he is one of the best actors around who can use his facial features to great effect in movies one example is in the museum scene where vicki says "you must be joking" the smile slips but at the same time because it is frozen in place it still stays on his face but his eyes are sparking with anger another is when he is talking to Rotellis charred body (my favourite scene) where he emotes he is talking

joker: your friends, there not bad people perhaps we should give them time to think it over?

(acts like he listening to a responce then shocked look on his face as he hears a terrible alternative)

joker:grease em now?....well okay

(straightens corpses tie)

joker: you where a visious bastard roteli im glad your dead!

(cue gut busting echoeing laughter as joker walks of screen)

how anyone thinks jack wasnt amazing at expressing himself in B89 IS BEYOND ME.

 

[CaptainClown]

then why don't you just leave?

 

[Damiean Dark]

i believe that its a good thing if we see a joker to not be perma white. i mean think about it. i guy falls into some acid, and his skin perfectly changes white and his hair green and now he's got some gnarly grin? i'm sorry i dont buy it. i've been along time fan of the character, but i like what nolan and crew are doing. they're taking a great icon in the world of villans(one of the best and biggest in my opinion) and making it fit into a real world. it has to make sense in order to believe it and in order to make an affect on the viewer. i think its the right move if he isn't perma white and he wears make up.

BUT ITS A COMIC BOOK ADAPTION stop basing real life scientific knowlegde as an excuse for not putting these types of things in TDK this is what ruined BB for me the stupid realism angle dit diluted the characters somehow.

 

[cjblair]

Hardly. Two-Face and Joker have always been treated as representations of what Bruce Wayne could have become (or could still become), and according they are all linked with commonalities. Each has an extreme identity crisis as the result of suffering catastrophic trauma, and each resultant identity is a person Bruce Wayne could become. They are, each of them, a reaction to evil.

Why are you always typing exactly the points I want to make? The only disagreement I would make is about 2Face, he isn't evil he's 50/50. The coin is the device for controlling that dual personality.

 

[Nightwing1977]

The Joker is still the Joker without being Permawhite...Im not bothered by it...lol...Of course Ive said this several times on the old thread...thought Id just throw it out there

Same here. It not about his skins: it's about who he is. What he does is what make him the Joker, not being perma-white. I can understand some not liking it, but we already got that with B89. Why not go in a new direction? It still the Joker we all know & love from his personality. And the fact his makeup still has the Joker's look with green hair, white skins, & green hair. That is enough for me.

 

[Solidus]

BUT ITS A COMIC BOOK ADAPTION stop basing real life scientific knowlegde as an excuse for not putting these types of things in TDK this is what ruined BB for me the stupid realism angle dit diluted the characters somehow.

Exactly. Does not mean it is a comic book. It bases it self off of the director/writers interpretation, which if you were reading above everyone has their own beliefs and interpretations. So nothing was ruined, just a different interpretation. And that stinks you don't like it, but most love it, but its true you can't please em all.

 

[Nightmare]

then why don't you just leave?

Kinda harsh.

 

[CaptainClown]

Kinda harsh.

I'm sorry

Why don't you leave, please.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

I'm sorry

Why don't you leave, please.

I love you.

 

[ronny]

One example is in the museum scene where vicki says "you must be joking" the smile slips but at the same time because it is frozen in place it still stays on his face but his eyes are sparking with anger.

There are parts of the movie like that, where his eyes are so emotive but that damn prosthetic they had him wearing does not allow the moment to be as powerful as possible. What sticks in my mind most is the "Wait until they get a load of me" scene. After he says it the camera lingers on him, and what do we see? In his eyes there is a vindictive bitterness, you can tell something bad is about to go down. But then you see that stupid smile and Jack's performance is robbed of its edge. And considering how superbly he delivered questionable lines ("never rub another mans rhubarb") it is a real shame that he was handicapped in this way.
Just another example of what happens when you get it into your head that The Joker smiles all the time. *cough*Tim Sale*cough*

 

[The Battousai]

There are parts of the movie like that, where his eyes are so emotive but that damn prosthetic they had him wearing does not allow the moment to be as powerful as possible. What sticks in my mind most is the "Wait until they get a load of me" scene. After he says it the camera lingers on him, and what do we see? In his eyes there is a vindictive bitterness, you can tell something bad is about to go down. But then you see that stupid smile and Jack's performance is robbed of its edge. And considering how superbly he delivered questionable lines ("never rub another mans rhubarb") it is a real shame that he was handicapped in this way.
Just another example of what happens when you get it into your head that The Joker smiles all the time. *cough*Tim Sale*cough*

Yeah - cause one of the main panels in TLH isn't a page of him frowning

Spoiler

The idea for the prosthetic came from the decades of seeing Joker smiling - not a small (yet amazing) series from Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale that hardly has Joker in it at all.

 

[Octoberist]

Tim Sale is an acquired taste, thought I do like his art.

 

[Crook]

What sticks in my mind most is the "Wait until they get a load of me" scene. After he says it the camera lingers on him, and what do we see? In his eyes there is a vindictive bitterness, you can tell something bad is about to go down. But then you see that stupid smile and Jack's performance is robbed of its edge.

First I've heard anyone comment that way on the scene. Most people have said that was Nicholson's Joker at it's finest.

While the permasmile is evident, I still think he managed to get off a very menacing expression:

It's really only the corners of the mouth that make it less serious-looking. It's a creepy smile nonetheless.

'Sides, we're essentially getting the same exact thing with Heath anyway. The scars and exaggerated lipstick are going to be forming that wide ruby smile at all times.

 

[ronny]

Yeah - cause one of the main panels in TLH isn't a page of him frowning

Yes, I'm aware of that. Doesn't change the fact that he smiles too often and that in future works the smile grows annoyingly out of proportion.

 

[Kaizer]

BUT ITS A COMIC BOOK ADAPTION stop basing real life scientific knowlegde as an excuse for not putting these types of things in TDK this is what ruined BB for me the stupid realism angle dit diluted the characters somehow.

And it's the Comic-angle that ruined the Batman-movie-franchise for the general public back in '97. It's time to accept the compromise here, even though there are a lot of us geeks out there, we do not make up most of the movie-going public and therefore do not generate the most money at the box-office. In a world of Fantastic Four and it's likes, we needed Batman Begins done in the way it was to say to people "Batman is back and he's done with the bull*****". If you need anything else, you'll always have the comics, Batman TAS, Justice Leage etc... The movies are just another interpretation of the story, an elseworlds tale and should be treated as such, it won't do anything to the canon.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.

That´s already pretty much the Jack Nicholson version, and there´s no reason to bring Joker back if you don´t bring some kind of new approach to the table. If Nolan tries to please all fanboys preferences, he´ll go insane.

And who´s to say Joker DIDN´T have such an event anyway? Maybe it was the cut-smile. If you´re gonna go psychopath over bleached skin and green hair, you might as well get it from an unusual scar.

 

[Keyser Soze]

It's not been so bad on more recent pages of the thread, but I just want to say...why do some people feel the need to bash Jack Nicholson's Joker to praise Heath Ledger's Joker?

If, like many believe, Heath Ledger is going to set the new benchmark for comic book movie villains, then its the benchmark set by Nicholson 19 years ago he has to top.