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

[The Joker]

You can argue about how many mainstream fans know The Joker's skin always used to be white. But I think what's more pertinent is how many care.

Oh I'm not talking about whether they will care or not. I'm talking about how many know that the Joker character is normally permawhite.

 

[magus]

You can argue about how many mainstream fans know The Joker's skin always used to be white. But I think what's more pertinent is how many care.

Sure, the whole permawhite VS facepaint issue has been huge here on the Hype. But in all the mainstream articles on the film I've read in Empire, Total Film, Entertainment Weekly, IGN, all the newspaper articles from around the world, etc etc, you want to know the number of times I've seen the issue of The Joker not being permawhite raised?

Zero.

Agreed, and that is ultimately my point. If the Joker is convincing enough and close enough to their perceptions, the general audience will like it. Regardless of what knowledge they may or may not have, the Joker's natural skin color and thus, any type of twist revealing said color, is a pretty moot point.

 

[Crook]

For the umpteenth time, I don't know what twist it would serve. I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen. But I'm not discounting the poss

For all the thematic and symbolic meanings people have conjured up FOR make-up, you'd think it'd be easy for those same people to realize the implications of it all being a fallacy, in the context of the movie and Joker's character.

 

[Mandalore464]

Posters still dreaming about a permawhite Joker kind of remind me of those Star Wars fans who, just prior to the release of the last opus, were still arguing that Chancellor Palpatine could not be Darth Sidious. One of their argument was "George Lucas is famous for his ground-breaking plot twists ala "I am your father". They were coming up with those strange theories that Sidious and Palpatine could be clones, or cousins, or whatever. But in the end, Palpatine was Darth Sidious indeed.

Now guess what, Nolan may be famous for his plot twists, but the Joker is not permawhite and won't be permawhite at all. Ever. Not in this realm, this is not happening. All the comments, all the interviews of Nolan, or Hemming and co, all the pictures clearly depict a Joker wearing make-up. Nolan has even defended this choice countless times as the way he wanted to portray the character, the way it gave something new to our beloved Mr. J.

Now I'm not telling anyone to stop believing, or crossing their fingers, or even praying as a divine intervention is in my opinion the only thing that could change the way things are. What I'm saying is : There won't be a permawhite Joker in TDK. At all. Not in this film.

 

[sasquatchs]

This debate will go on for a long time after the movie is on $2 DVD racks, and rightfully so.

It won't ruin the movie for me since everything is so spot on, however, if I see Batman fire a single bullet from that Bat-Pod, I will walk right the hell out. That's my one and only deal breaker on this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIamtaDUkbc

 

[magus]

For all the thematic and symbolic meanings people have conjured up FOR make-up, you'd think it'd be easy for those same people to realize the implications of it all being a fallacy, in the context of the movie and Joker's character.

If that's intended for me, I don't defend make-up or permawhite. None of those arguments that you mentioned, nor any arguments for permawhite, have been very convincing to me. I just don't find it that important to the aspects of the character I respond to.

I also really don't see how, in a movie that supposedly doesn't acknowledge the origin of the Joker, showing said origin to be a fallacy would accomplish anything worthwhile.

I invite you to convince me otherwise, I am very open to the possibility that this could be something worth seeing, but the "obvious" implications you speak of are not so obvious.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Posters still dreaming about a permawhite Joker kind of remind me of those Star Wars fans who, just prior to the release of the last opus, were still arguing that Chancellor Palpatine could not be Darth Sidious. One of their argument was "George Lucas is famous for his ground-breaking plot twists ala "I am your father". They were coming up with those strange theories that Sidious and Palpatine could be clones, or cousins, or whatever. But in the end, Palpatine was Darth Sidious indeed.

Now guess what, Nolan may be famous for his plot twists, but the Joker is not permawhite and won't be permawhite at all. Ever. Not in this realm, this is not happening. All the comments, all the interviews of Nolan, or Hemming and co, all the pictures clearly depict a Joker wearing make-up. Nolan has even defended this choice countless times as the way he wanted to portray the character, the way it gave something new to our beloved Mr. J.

Now I'm not telling anyone to stop believing, or crossing their fingers, or even praying as a divine intervention is in my opinion the only thing that could change the way things are. What I'm saying is : There won't be a permawhite Joker in TDK. At all. Not in this film.

I really just wish someone would have taken the initiative to just outright ask Nolan, "So is The Joker not going to have bleached white skin in this film?" Then Nolan could have just said "No" and brought any last remnants of speculation to a halt.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a permawhite revelation, at this stage it's about as likely as Poison Ivy showing up in the film's last scene. It'd be cool if it happened, but it probably won't.

 

[nickyg641]

I really just wish someone would have taken the initiative to just outright ask Nolan, "So is The Joker not going to have bleached white skin in this film?" Then Nolan could have just said "No" and brought any last remnants of speculation to a halt.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a permawhite revelation, at this stage it's about as likely as Poison Ivy showing up in the film's last scene. It'd be cool if it happened, but it probably won't.

Agreed. And I concur about someone outright asking Nolan about it--the one time that they did, they phrased it in such a way so as to allow him to completely side-step the question.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

He wouldn't have answered that question, he'd have skirted around the issue I bet.

 

[nickyg641]

He wouldn't have answered that question, he'd have skirted around the issue I bet.

I really don't see why he did. Why can't he justify his own idea?

 

[Crook]

If that's intended for me, I don't defend make-up or permawhite. None of those arguments that you mentioned, nor any arguments for permawhite, have been very convincing to me. I just don't find it that important to the aspects of the character I respond to.

I also really don't see how, in a movie that supposedly doesn't acknowledge the origin of the Joker, showing said origin to be a fallacy would accomplish anything worthwhile.

I invite you to convince me otherwise, I am very open to the possibility that this could be something worth seeing, but the "obvious" implications you speak of are not so obvious.

It was a general statement not meant for anyone in particular. As for your invitation, I'd love to write up a detailed explanation of it, but I know someone has written it better somewhere buried in these threads. I'll post if I can find it again. But the general sense is that the fallacy brings a twist to Joker's philosophy, if it doesn't represent his true self. A lie within a lie, or a hypocrisy, if you will.

I really just wish someone would have taken the initiative to just outright ask Nolan, "So is The Joker not going to have bleached white skin in this film?" Then Nolan could have just said "No" and brought any last remnants of speculation to a halt.

It was asked, actually. Nolan averted the question however. Which can be interpreted in some interesting ways.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

He doesn't need to justify it, the end result in the film will justify the change.

 

[ForestAflame]

Nolan averted the question, which means there could quite possibly be a twist.

And here's one thing I don't get: people who support this change to make-up act like the only thing the mainstream audience knows about the Joker is that he looks like a clown. We have had graphic novels, cheesy 60's TV Shows, 20-year-old blockbusters, animated series, and direct-to-DVD films FOCUSED on the character. The mainstream audience knows a lot about him. It wasn't just diehard fans that were excited at the end of BB. All of the friends and relatives that have shown the trailer have said in one variation or another "I don't like the way the Joker is made up. He looks too dirty. I would've been fine with his look, but it's blotchy in places. The Joker's usually a clean white, right?" A lot of the mainstream audience are disappointed. Some aren't, but a LOT are. This mainstream audience doesn't go into detail WHY Joker should be perma-white like some diehard fans do, but they know he should.

 

[Mandalore464]

Why can't he justify his own alteration?

Well, you know, I think he did. I'm sure SHH is full of interviews of Nolan in which he clearly explains what the make-up means in terms of characterization and how it opens a new angle from which to look at the Joker, and how it all makes sense with the way Heath is playing him.

It's only the fact that Nolan never said "yes he will permanently be non-perma-white Joker" that made you guys assume he maybe meant the opposite, but it was all contrary to everything he said from the very get-go.

Everything so far points to a Joker with make-up. Images, interviews, trailers... Nothing else but your hopes left any room to a perma-white Joker in this film.

And in all honesty, if we were seeing Heath with clown make-up for 2 hours on screen and suddenly in the last 1/2 hour a chemical bath conveniently turned him into a clown-looking freak with white skin, green hair and nails, a horribly deformed mouth looking like a grin, most people would find it ridiculous and it would ruin it all. I know it would for me anyway. I mean, think about it, there's no way you can make that happen in your movie and claim you want to give a realistic feel to the franchise.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

Possibly a twist, more likely he doesn't think it matters

It's not so much that I support the change, it's just I don't care. For me, how he acts is more important, but, horses for courses.

 

[Crook]

Well, you know, I think he did. I'm sure SHH is full of interviews of Nolan in which he clearly explains what the make-up means in terms of characterization and how it opens a new angle from which to look at the Joker, and how it all makes sense with the way Heath is playing him.

Well....there aren't. He hasn't addressed the make-up at all, really.

It's only the fact that Nolan never said "yes he will permanently be non-perma-white Joker" that made you guys assume he maybe meant the opposite, but it was all contrary to everything he said from the very get-go.

What did he say from the get-go? We're not saying Joker will be permawhite, more than likely he won't be. But I'm certainly not discounting that there could possibly be something up with his skin in general, which would be a different, but similar approach to the bleaching incident. Several pics have shown him with noticeable white blotches all over his arms.

 

[ForestAflame]

Well, you know, I think he did. I'm sure SHH is full of interviews of Nolan in which he clearly explains what the make-up means in terms of characterization and how it opens a new angle from which to look at the Joker, and how it all makes sense with the way Heath is playing him.

It's only the fact that Nolan never said "yes he will permanently be non-perma-white Joker" that made you guys assume he maybe meant the opposite, but it was all contrary to everything he said from the very get-go.

Everything so far points to a Joker with make-up. Images, interviews, trailers... Nothing else but your hopes left any room to a perma-white Joker in this film.

And in all honesty, if we were seeing Heath with clown make-up for 2 hours on screen and suddenly in the last 1/2 hour a chemical bath conveniently turned him into a clown-looking freak with white skin, green hair and nails, a horribly deformed mouth looking like a grin, most people would find it ridiculous and it would ruin it all. I know it would for me anyway. I mean, think about it, there's no way you can make that happen in your movie and claim you want to give a realistic feel to the franchise.

If it was pulled off well, most people (yes, the mainstream audience) would probably enjoy the twist since it fits into their own ideas of who the Joker is. Of course, in 2005, Nolan made people accept a giant microwave emitter that could evaporate the water supply of a giant metropolis so anything is possible.

 

[magus]

Well....there aren't. He hasn't addressed the make-up at all, really.


What did he say from the get-go? We're not saying Joker will be permawhite, more than likely he won't be. But I'm certainly not discounting that there could possibly be something up with his skin in general, which would be a different, but similar approach to the bleaching incident. Several pics have shown him with noticeable white blotches all over his arms.

It's possible. I won't discount that it could happen, but I wouldn't really care either way and I don't think many others would. It sure as hell wouldn't make for a good ending if that was the case. I would much rather see the ending be Two-Face related.

 

[JayTee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIamtaDUkbc

Please.... PLEASE tell me that's the Joker firing at Batman, or at least "B-Roll" shots.

 

[Saint]

Given that in Batman '89 you rarely see any skin besides his face, I doubt many people are going to notice or care that this Joker's neck and hands are not white.

I didn't say a word about anyone caring, so I'm not sure why you're saying this.

Memory only applies to things that are worth remembering,

Patently false. People remember whatever they remember, whether it's worth it or not.

It is laughable that you expect the general audience to remember the details of a 20 year old summer blockbuster that was more or less a film people brought their kids to. I am not old enough to say that I can't remember a film 20 years ago (I was 2), but I can contest that I have seen plenty of summer blockbuster films that were fun when I saw them but I remember very little about: I can't tell you every scene of Con-Air, The Rock, Independence Day, E.T., Jurassic Park, and many others that I say I liked, but I liked them.

I didn't say they had to remember everything about the film--they just have to live in North America. Whether it comes from the film or from somewhere else, the "general audience" knows the Joker's skin is white, by the same token that everybody knew in 1999 that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father. They didn't walk into The Phantom Menace thinking "Oh, who is this guy?"

And, of course, there's no reason for them not to remember. This "Oh, they don't remember some blockbuster!" line is silly. They remember details about a million other blockbusters, why not Batman? Batman is more culturally saturated than, say, Indiana Jones, and nobody has trouble remembering comparable details in those films. I haven't seen The Last Crusade in fifteen years, but I still remember that Indiana was the dog's name. And, unlike Joker's skin, that was an obscure detail, unimportant to the film. The only people who might not remember are those who were very young at the time (and even that's a long shot), and even if they forgot, they eventually would have figured it out simply by virtue of living in North America, where you can find the movie playing on cable every month, along with a constant line of cartoons, comics, games, toys, and millions of people who will tell you the fact of the matter. If you know who the Joker is, you know his skin is white, in the same way that anyone who knows of Batman knows his parents were killed, and anyone who knows Darth Vader knows he's Luke's father. People who have never seen the film will know it, by the same token that I know how from Planet of the Apes ends without having ever seen it.

I remember the Batman films because I identify with the character but not everyone does; many consider the Batman films no different than any other blockbuster

Again, this is patently false. Batman is not just "another blockbuster." Batman is a cultural icon that's become a part of the cultural fabric of the entire continent--and whether a person likes, hates, or doesn't give a damn about Batman, everyone recognizes the the saturation of the icon, and there are things that pretty much everyone knows. They don't have to care in order to be familiar with it, just as a million people who don't care about Star Trek can still give you general information on Mr. Spock.

There will always be people who fall through the cracks, and by some miracle don't know the things that everyone else does. But they in no way make up a majority of the general audience, and I would bet they don't make up even a significant portion of it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Nolan averted the question, which means there could quite possibly be a twist.

And here's one thing I don't get: people who support this change to make-up act like the only thing the mainstream audience knows about the Joker is that he looks like a clown. We have had graphic novels, cheesy 60's TV Shows, 20-year-old blockbusters, animated series, and direct-to-DVD films FOCUSED on the character. The mainstream audience knows a lot about him. It wasn't just diehard fans that were excited at the end of BB. All of the friends and relatives that have shown the trailer have said in one variation or another "I don't like the way the Joker is made up. He looks too dirty. I would've been fine with his look, but it's blotchy in places. The Joker's usually a clean white, right?" A lot of the mainstream audience are disappointed. Some aren't, but a LOT are. This mainstream audience doesn't go into detail WHY Joker should be perma-white like some diehard fans do, but they know he should.

This is the familiar phenomenom that has been discussed many times on here. You know, everyone who likes the look has a bunch of friends who all like the look too. And everyone who hates the look has a bunch of friends who all hate the look too.

I'm not going to buck the trend. All the non-comic-fan friends I've shown pics and clips of The Joker too think he looks great. They appreciate how sinister and creepy he looks, and how it looks/sounds nothing like Heath Ledger. Not a single one even mentioned anything like "I thought he was supposed to have white skin?" I was talking to one of my friends on MSN, and mentioned the whole permawhite VS make-up controversy to him, and his response was:

"Hasn't The Joker always worn white facepaint?"

 

[Mandalore464]

Well....there aren't. He hasn't addressed the make-up at all, really.

I'll look into it... tomorrow cause it's getting late here and I don't have 1 hour or more in front of me. I'm pretty sure, with all the things he said about the Joker, he addressed the make-up issue at least once.

If it was pulled off well, most people (yes, the mainstream audience) would probably enjoy the twist since it fits into their own ideas of who the Joker is. Of course, in 2005, Nolan made people accept a giant microwave emitter that could evaporate the water supply of a giant metropolis so anything is possible.

This is not comparable. Making people believe that a certain weapon exists, and making the same people believe that a chemical accident CONVENIENTLY turned a psychopath into a clown-looking freak when the guy was already wearing clown make-up in the first 2 hours of the movie is different, at least to me.

The first thing may look unbelievable. But the second one would definitely look like a big joke played on the audience.

 

[Ibn]

Nolan averted the question, which means there could quite possibly be a twist.

And here's one thing I don't get: people who support this change to make-up act like the only thing the mainstream audience knows about the Joker is that he looks like a clown. We have had graphic novels, cheesy 60's TV Shows, 20-year-old blockbusters, animated series, and direct-to-DVD films FOCUSED on the character. The mainstream audience knows a lot about him. It wasn't just diehard fans that were excited at the end of BB. All of the friends and relatives that have shown the trailer have said in one variation or another "I don't like the way the Joker is made up. He looks too dirty. I would've been fine with his look, but it's blotchy in places. The Joker's usually a clean white, right?" A lot of the mainstream audience are disappointed. Some aren't, but a LOT are. This mainstream audience doesn't go into detail WHY Joker should be perma-white like some diehard fans do, but they know he should.

Right! Batman89 wasn't a success because only fanboys went to see it. The general audience and casual batfans, especially the ones who've seen the movie and the tv series, are well aware that the Joker doesn't put on makeup.

 

[The Shape]

Please.... PLEASE tell me that's the Joker firing at Batman, or at least "B-Roll" shots.

Dude, the Batpot fires bullets and it also has a one-shot cannon. Then again, all the Batmobiles have shot heavy-duty rockets, and the 1989 Batmobile also had machines guns.

He doesn't use them to kill people, so what's the problem?

 

[Dirt Like Me]

If that's intended for me, I don't defend make-up or permawhite. None of those arguments that you mentioned, nor any arguments for permawhite, have been very convincing to me. I just don't find it that important to the aspects of the character I respond to.

I also really don't see how, in a movie that supposedly doesn't acknowledge the origin of the Joker, showing said origin to be a fallacy would accomplish anything worthwhile.

I invite you to convince me otherwise, I am very open to the possibility that this could be something worth seeing, but the "obvious" implications you speak of are not so obvious.

Well, so far we've heard of two references to the makeup in the movie's dialogue. The prologue has a line about "warpaint", and now we have Jim Gordon wondering what the Joker is "hiding" under the makeup. Those are both attempts to graft some kind of outside rationale onto the Joker's appearance and methods. They think that he goes with the clown face to scare people or to hide something-- in short, they think that they can understand his way of thinking.

Off the top of my head: I could imagine it being very cool to see Batman somehow discover that the Joker's skin is actually white. (Maybe during the interrogation scene). Suddenly, everything that Gordon, Batman, the mob and the audience thought they knew about the Joker goes out the window. He really is the freak he claims to be, he's not hiding some secret identity and it's not just warpaint. He painted his face because he thought it would be funny, and he can't be understood. If Batman thought his job was temporary, then the fact that he's drawn out criminals who defy everything he thought he knew would be a big jolt to his system.

I don't think it would be a "Tesla's machine actually works" type of Nolan reveal that marks the culmination of the movie. But I do think it could be very cool if handled the right way, and could add a new wrinkle to the story.