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

[ronny]

How does it define him? All it does is show that the storytellers of old had to rely on a big ominous vat of chemicals to create this guy.

 

[bkey]

I was not complaining about Spider-Man's organic webshooters because that does not define the character.

Perma-white skin defines the Joker's character. Everyone I've showed the trailer to says "It looks good, I liked Batman Begins...but I don't like the Joker's look, it looks like smeared make-up."

Really, all of my friends who I've shown pics of the Joker or the trailer to love the look of Heath's Joker.

 

[Closerframe]

I was not complaining about Spider-Man's organic webshooters because that does not define the character.

Perma-white skin defines the Joker's character. Everyone I've showed the trailer to says "It looks good, I liked Batman Begins...but I don't like the Joker's look, it looks like smeared make-up."

And everyone I show the trailer to, says the Joker looks scary and amazing. The bleached skin only defined the character when writers came along and added this perspective. Now Nolan is doing the same thing, he's putting his ideas of the character along with the foundations of what makes the Joker the Joker.

 

[The Joker_1000]

Really, all of my friends who I've shown pics of the Joker or the trailer to love the look of Heath's Joker.

Everyone I know personally like the new look of the Joker because it's new and it's more gritty. That's the same reason I like the new look, he looks like he can kick ass.

 

[MillsOfGod]

How does it define him? All it does is show that the storytellers of old had to rely on a big ominous vat of chemicals to create this guy.

Because it goes further than just a regular madman in make-up and it really makes the Joker "more than just a man". I mean, the Joker, however persistent he is in this movie, isn't above your average serial killer. But the Joker from the comics is a supernatural character, a highly intelligent killer with no semblance of humanity...it's something that can't go away with a wet cloth.

 

[bkey]

Everyone I know personally like the new look of the Joker because it's new and it's more gritty. That's the same reason I like the new look, he looks like he can kick ass.

Same here.

 

[ultimatefan]

I was not complaining about Spider-Man's organic webshooters because that does not define the character.

Perma-white skin defines the Joker's character. Everyone I've showed the trailer to says "It looks good, I liked Batman Begins...but I don't like the Joker's look, it looks like smeared make-up."

The Joker is defined by being a creepy clown, by being a ruthless, merciless psychopath with a twisted sense of comedy and theatricality. He isn´t tragic in the sense Harvey Dent, his makeup being imposed to him doesn´t define him in the sense that he embraces his deformity and his insanity. If he doesn´t remove his makeup, as has been stated, except as a disguise, and the comics Joker disguises himself as well, it IS perma-white, in a psychological way - which makes perfect sense for such an insane character.

It´s funny, cuz the trailer and the new Joker get huge praise everywhere else - including its rating on these boards, where you have the most hardcore comics geeks -, except the people the Nolan´s Joker´s critics show it to...

 

[bkey]

Because it goes further than just a regular madman in make-up and it really makes the Joker "more than just a man". I mean, the Joker, however persistent he is in this movie, isn't above your average serial killer. But the Joker from the comics is a supernatural character, a highly intelligent killer with no semblance of humanity...it's something that can't go away with a wet cloth.

While this Joker's make up can be removed, he is still a sick killer, and a madman. His personality, his maliciousness, his lack of "humanity" is still there. He is still the Joker, even though his skin is not permawhite.

 

[MillsOfGod]

The Joker is defined by being a creepy clown, by being a ruthless, merciless psychopath with a twisted sense of comedy and theatricality. He isn´t tragic in the sense Harvey Dent, his makeup being imposed to him doesn´t define him in the sense that he embraces his deformity and his insanity. If he doesn´t remove his makeup, except as a disguise, and the comics Joker disguises himself as well, it IS perma-white, in a psychological way - which makes perfect sense for such an insane character.

You've brought up an interesting element that I think is a difference between the Joker of this movie and the Joker in the comics.

We DO NOT KNOW who the Joker was before he fell into the chemical bath. He could've been a psycho before he fell in the chemicals, the chemicals could've triggered some dormant insanity in his brain, or he could've just been a regular guy whose mind was destroyed by the stressful situation he was in combined with the chemicals.

But this man went through some intense pain, and instead of going to the hospital, he decides to put lipstick on the wound and dye his hair green and paint his face white and go around killing people. That's not the Joker.

Matter of fact, the comic-book Joker was shocked and frightened when he saw the changes to his appearance, but he went with it because it drove him completely insane. It was something that he couldn't make disappear. It was HIM and, when he came to grips with that, he became the Joker.

 

[ronny]

He could have been a psycho, you're right. I think of it in that way. There was a story about The Joker which showed him as a child, he used to torture the neighbours pets and had a graveyard in his back garden or something. But what really struck out was this one moment, he was in his room and heard his mother being beaten up and all he does is grin at the sound of her sobbing.
Great image, great origin of sorts.
How do we even know that the pain bothered him? That sick son of a ***** probably enjoyed swimming around in there, perhaps becoming a permanent clown was just a convenient twist of fate, perhaps he even obsessed over Batman before and goaded him into that situation. I like the ambiguity but I'd like it a lot more if even the chemical vat incident was under doubt. Because I kind of like the idea of The Joker pouring bottle after bottle of bleach on himself and laughing away as the flesh sizzles.

 

[The Joker]

There was a story about The Joker which showed him as a child, he used to torture the neighbours pets and had a graveyard in his back garden or something. But what really struck out was this one moment, he was in his room and heard his mother being beaten up and all he does is grin at the sound of her sobbing.

Never heard of this. Where was this story done?

 

[Keyser Soze]

Never heard of this. Where was this story done?

"On A Beautiful Summer's Day, He Was". One of my all-time favourite Joker stories. Certainly the most terrifying. It's prose, though. Its in "The Further Adventures of The Joker".

 

[Keyser Soze]

You've brought up an interesting element that I think is a difference between the Joker of this movie and the Joker in the comics.

We DO NOT KNOW who the Joker was before he fell into the chemical bath. He could've been a psycho before he fell in the chemicals, the chemicals could've triggered some dormant insanity in his brain, or he could've just been a regular guy whose mind was destroyed by the stressful situation he was in combined with the chemicals.

But this man went through some intense pain, and instead of going to the hospital, he decides to put lipstick on the wound and dye his hair green and paint his face white and go around killing people. That's not the Joker.

Matter of fact, the comic-book Joker was shocked and frightened when he saw the changes to his appearance, but he went with it because it drove him completely insane. It was something that he couldn't make disappear. It was HIM and, when he came to grips with that, he became the Joker.

Your argument is rather self-defeating here. That last paragraph could be just as easily describing the disfigurement of a "cut-smile" as it could be describing permawhite skin bleaching.

 

[xero1186]

He could have been a psycho, you're right. I think of it in that way. There was a story about The Joker which showed him as a child, he used to torture the neighbours pets and had a graveyard in his back garden or something. But what really struck out was this one moment, he was in his room and heard his mother being beaten up and all he does is grin at the sound of her sobbing.
Great image, great origin of sorts.
How do we even know that the pain bothered him? That sick son of a ***** probably enjoyed swimming around in there, perhaps becoming a permanent clown was just a convenient twist of fate, perhaps he even obsessed over Batman before and goaded him into that situation. I like the ambiguity but I'd like it a lot more if even the chemical vat incident was under doubt. Because I kind of like the idea of The Joker pouring bottle after bottle of bleach on himself and laughing away as the flesh sizzles.

Are you suggesting Michael Jackson is the Joker?

 

[Keyser Soze]

I was not complaining about Spider-Man's organic webshooters because that does not define the character.

Perma-white skin defines the Joker's character. Everyone I've showed the trailer to says "It looks good, I liked Batman Begins...but I don't like the Joker's look, it looks like smeared make-up."

This goes back to the old discussion from way back. How with everyone who likes The Joker in TDK, all their friends like him too. And with everyone who DOESN'T like The Joker in TDK, all their friends dislike him too.

But let's look beyond "my friend say..." for a second. Let's look at the press coverage of this Joker. How do they weigh in on the non-permawhite issue? Well....they don't.

In the vast majority of mainstream media stories on this Joker that I've encountered, they don't even deem this so-called "character-defining change" as significant enough to even mention. They are far more interested in the performance, and whether or not it can top Nicholson. THAT will be the real hurdle Ledger's Joker has to overcome. Make-up? Cut-smile? Small potatoes by comparison.

 

[ronny]

Are you suggesting Michael Jackson is the Joker?

Not really.
The Joker may kill children but I don't reckon he'd touch them. And if he did he wouldn't spend his vast funds on paying off the witnesses would he?
The fact that he pays so well is the only reason why anyone works for him.

 

[xero1186]

Not really.
The Joker may kill children but I don't reckon he'd touch them. And if he did he wouldn't spend his vast funds on paying off the witnesses would he?

lol, no. Afraid not.

 

[Keyser Soze]

How do we even know that the pain bothered him? That sick son of a ***** probably enjoyed swimming around in there, perhaps becoming a permanent clown was just a convenient twist of fate, perhaps he even obsessed over Batman before and goaded him into that situation. I like the ambiguity but I'd like it a lot more if even the chemical vat incident was under doubt. Because I kind of like the idea of The Joker pouring bottle after bottle of bleach on himself and laughing away as the flesh sizzles.

Sorry, fourth consecutive post. I'm too lazy to multi-quote. You bring up two interesting points here.

1. While MillsofGod dwelled on how crucial it is that The Joker is driven insane by his skin being bleached, this isn't the case with all his origins. Some people (most notably Alex Ross) instead go with the theory that he was always pure evil, and in fact was never driven insane by the chemical bath. Instead, he exploited his disfigurement, and used it to reinvent himself as the zany, theatrical, "insane" Joker. Basically, the theory his insanity is a mask, which he uses to avoid punishment for his crimes. He's not crazy, he's pure evil. Not sure if I believe that line of thought or not, but it just shows there are other ways of looking at The Joker.

2. I too would be interested in someone being more experimental with the "multiple choice" aspect of Joker's past, and telling an origin story where his skin is bleached via a different method than the chemical bath.

 

[JL Unlimited]

I can't believe this debate has been going on for this long. Permawhite does not define the Joker's character. If it was, then here are some Jokers for you:

So by the permawhite criteria, all of the above characters would be perfect Jokers. Seriously, the main concern should be the spirit of the character. Did Nolan capture that with what we've seen so far? YES. His looks should be secondary in importance. I wouldn't care for a permawhite Joker if the character wasn't a psychopathic serial killer.

 

[guitarkhero311]

I can't believe this debate has been going on for this long. Permawhite does not define the Joker's character. If it was, then here are some Jokers for you:

So by the permawhite criteria, all of the above characters would be perfect Jokers. Seriously, the main concern should be the spirit of the character. Did Nolan capture that with what we've seen so far? YES. His looks should be secondary in importance. I wouldn't care for a permawhite Joker if the character wasn't a psychopathic serial killer.

Great post

 

[The Guard]

The Joker's "permanent grin" was found in the comics for years. Whenever The Joker wasn't frowning, he was usually smiling. The filmmakers of BATMAN obviously went for a similar dynamic.

I don't think he was handicapped at all. Without that extreme grin, the moments where he was supposed to be grinning impossibly widely probably wouldn't have looked that good. His eyes did a lot of the emoting, and did it well. The creepy moments are creepy. The scary moments are scary. Etc.

While I can appreciate it on a fantasy level, I have grown to dislike the comic book origin of The Joker. It's a bit shallow, it's too convenient a transformation without being thematically relevant, and it robs the character of so much potential to tie him to that kind of a genesis. Overall, I guess I just don't feel that it is relevant to the kind of character he is anymore. I don't really mind the idea of a normal man going insane or losing himself to his actions, but I do think that going insane because of a dip in chemicals that also happens to transform your appearance so specifically is a bit too much to swallow sometimes.

I can understand that making The Joker permawhite makes him into more of a freak...but wouldn't someone who CHOOSES to look the way he does and lets it affect him so deeply be considered a freak anyway?

 

[Mr. Superhero]

While I can appreciate it on a fantasy level, I have grown to dislike the comic book origin of The Joker. It's a bit shallow, it's too convenient a transformation without being thematically relevant, and it robs the character of so much potential to tie him to that kind of a genesis. Overall, I guess I just don't feel that it is relevant to the kind of character he is anymore.

I can understand that making The Joker permawhite makes him into more of a freak...but wouldn't someone who CHOOSES to look the way he does and lets it affect him so deeply be considered a freak anyway?

Agreed.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

Agreed.

Double Agreed. Exactly how I feel about it, Guard.

I didn't not realize the flaws with the origin until Nolan came through with this new Joker.

 

[Solidus]

The Joker's "permanent grin" was found in the comics for years. Whenever The Joker wasn't frowning, he was usually smiling. The filmmakers of BATMAN obviously went for a similar dynamic.

I don't think he was handicapped at all. Without that extreme grin, the moments where he was supposed to be grinning impossibly widely probably wouldn't have looked that good. His eyes did a lot of the emoting, and did it well. The creepy moments are creepy. The scary moments are scary. Etc.

While I can appreciate it on a fantasy level, I have grown to dislike the comic book origin of The Joker. It's a bit shallow, it's too convenient a transformation without being thematically relevant, and it robs the character of so much potential to tie him to that kind of a genesis. Overall, I guess I just don't feel that it is relevant to the kind of character he is anymore. I don't really mind the idea of a normal man going insane or losing himself to his actions, but I do think that going insane because of a dip in chemicals that also happens to transform your appearance so specifically is a bit too much to swallow sometimes.

I can understand that making The Joker permawhite makes him into more of a freak...but wouldn't someone who CHOOSES to look the way he does and lets it affect him so deeply be considered a freak anyway?

Very nice post, but that is a common thing from you TG. I just read TKJ a lot this weekend, and reading it, to me still he chooses his insanity, its in between the lines, but I see it as the physical deformation whether it be scaring or permawhite, is such a small thing. Truly what makes the Joker the Joker is his choices, and his intelligence, and just the insanity that he allows his mind to wander in. His "emergency exit".

I just think that it really looks deep into each person themselves as well, how dark man can become, and how much pure evil we are capable of.

 

[Matchbox]

While I can appreciate it on a fantasy level, I have grown to dislike the comic book origin of The Joker. It's a bit shallow, it's too convenient a transformation without being thematically relevant, and it robs the character of so much potential to tie him to that kind of a genesis. Overall, I guess I just don't feel that it is relevant to the kind of character he is anymore. I don't really mind the idea of a normal man going insane or losing himself to his actions, but I do think that going insane because of a dip in chemicals that also happens to transform your appearance so specifically is a bit too much to swallow sometimes.

I can understand that making The Joker permawhite makes him into more of a freak...but wouldn't someone who CHOOSES to look the way he does and lets it affect him so deeply be considered a freak anyway?

My sentiments exactly.