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

[Bat-Mite]

Yeah, that made me think of the post as being typed by William Shatner.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Shatner does a mean cover of "Mister...Tambourine Man".

While I would have preferred to see the Joker in TDK have white skin like his comic counterpart, I really can't complain about the way he was depicted. The character incorporated enough of my favorite elements to retain some familiarity and was entertaining as all hell. My knee-jerk reaction is that he was one of my favorite movie villains ever. (Only time, and repeated viewings, will see if that holds up).

In a perfect Dirt-world, Harvey would have been scarred in a courtroom and Joker would have had white skin. In Nolan's world, neither thing happened. But the rest of the movie was so good, and so well-done that I'm not bothered by either omission.

 

[Superhobo]

Shatner does a mean cover of "Mister...Tambourine Man".

While I would have preferred to see the Joker in TDK have white skin like his comic counterpart, I really can't complain about the way he was depicted. The character incorporated enough of my favorite elements to retain some familiarity and was entertaining as all hell. My knee-jerk reaction is that he was one of my favorite movie villains ever. (Only time, and repeated viewings, will see if that holds up).

In a perfect Dirt-world, Harvey would have been scarred in a courtroom and Joker would have had white skin. In Nolan's world, neither thing happened. But the rest of the movie was so good, and so well-done that I'm not bothered by either omission.

This is true - and what changes they did make, while not necessarily improvements, worked well for the most part.

 

[DACrowe]

Not really. And simply because we're given no definitive reasoning for the scars. The scars could have drove him nuts(like a drop into a chemical bath), but we don't know. Equally, he could have been insane and given himself the scars because he thought they looked pretty.

Guard is right, the makeup and scars might possibly hold a significance to this Joker. But those elements don't hold a significance in this film, they're simply there with no explanation. I look at it this way, the comic book Joker is a guy who became insane and completely nuts after an accidental skin disfigure. The Dark Knight Joker is an insane maniac whose scars may or may not hold a significance to his insanity.

By not giving any explanations as to how or why this man is here, Nolan has created the most mysterious Joker to date. It would be nearly impossible to analyze that man.

That is the point, I think. The Joker put on the make-up because he's nuts and thought they complimented his scars, but we have no idea where those scars came from. The Joker is very proud of them and shows them off and loves to lick them, but to the audience and film it only helps establish that he is a freak. It is what came first the madness or the scars, the freak or the appearance?

We don't know, but it really doesn't matter because he's a symbol. He is an idea and not a character. Jonah Nolan said that he feels like the JOker has been there since the beginning of time and will be there until the end. He is anarchy and existentialist cynicism personified. He is disorder and Nolan also siad he'd like to imagine as if this incarnation of that force magically appeared into thin air before the movie started.

This is figurative of course. But the Joker is as much a symbol as Batman and for that symbol to be effective to the audience as well as his victims and enemies, he needs to be a creature without a past or motive. Sure he has one in reality (the reality of the movie anyway), but at this point he doesn't care and the movie knows he is best when we don't know.

The scars and reasons are important to the character, but not to the audience or the movie. Rather they are more of a hinderance.

 

[Marx]

People are so rooted in "the way things were" or are supposed to be...I'm beginning to feel like this is a debate without an end.

Canon vs. Realism

Does one really have to be superior? That's really what this all boils down to. Just because the Joker has always been perma-white, doesn't mean that a painted Joker cannot be just as good. If not better. If Nolan had chosen to do the Joker as he's always been done, people would be screaming from the rooftops that it isn't original and would demand Nolan's head on a platter. But he didn't do that. He instead, chose to give us a new interpretation. (Which is what all of us really wanted, or claimed to want.) But the new version of the Joker isn't good enough either because it isn't the way he is supposed to be.

Jack Nicholson gave us an iconic Joker.

Heath Ledger gave us an iconic Joker.

I think we should appreciate them both. It may be a very long time before we see either take on the character done this well.

 

[The Game]

Ahh jeez is this thread still going?

 

[Superhobo]

Does one really have to be superior? That's really what this all boils down to. Just because the Joker has always been perma-white, doesn't mean that a painted Joker cannot be just as good. If not better. If Nolan had chosen to do the Joker as he's always been done, people would be screaming from the rooftops that it isn't original and would demand Nolan's head on a platter.

Probably not.

Just because the concept has been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done again, in another, original, way. Most of the original concept art that we've seen thus far has the Joker with something akin to bleached skin, so it was obviously considered.

But he didn't do that. He instead, chose to give us a new interpretation. (Which is what all of us really wanted, or claimed to want.) But the new version of the Joker isn't good enough either because it isn't the way he is supposed to be.

Who said that? I've heard nothing but praise for Ledger's Joker on these boards.

Jack Nicholson gave us an iconic Joker.

Heath Ledger gave us an iconic Joker.

I think we should appreciate them both. It may be a very long time before we see either take on the character done this well.

Would I be correct in assuming that your knowledge of the character extends mainly to the two interpretations done in the last twenty years on film?

 

[Marx]

Probably not.

Just because the concept has been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done again, in another, original, way. Most of the original concept art that we've seen thus far has the Joker with something akin to bleached skin, so it was obviously considered.

I've never said that another different take could not be done well.

Who said that? I've heard nothing but praise for Ledger's Joker on these boards.

There are a few vocal minorites who discredit the entire performance because he isn't perma-white. (And yes, some on this board.)

Would I be correct in assuming that your knowledge of the character extends mainly to the two interpretations done in the last twenty years on film?

No, you would not be correct.

 

[Marx]

Ahh jeez is this thread still going?

Unfortunately, yes.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

That's really what this all boils down to. Just because the Joker has always been perma-white, doesn't mean that a painted Joker cannot be just as good. If not better. If Nolan had chosen to do the Joker as he's always been done, people would be screaming from the rooftops that it isn't original and would demand Nolan's head on a platter.

I think it's all contextual. I don't know that a painted Joker would be at all effective sitting behind the glass in a straightjacket at Arkham. But at the same time, for Nolan's purposes, I don't know that the Joker would have been as intriguing asking Gambol and Rachel if they knew why his skin was white, either.

But I disagree with the idea that people would have felt somehow short-changed if the Joker was presented in TDK with white skin. The attitude they brought to the character had never been shown on the big screen, and Ledger's performance was (obviously) special. It would have been 'different' even if his skin was white without explanantion. And I don't think anybody would have complained.

Jack Nicholson gave us an iconic Joker.

Heath Ledger gave us an iconic Joker.

I think we should appreciate them both. It may be a very long time before we see either take on the character done this well.

That's the truth. It says a lot about the versatility of the Joker as a character when you see that two great actors can turn in two great takes on the same role, yet have their respective works be so completely different.

Ahh jeez is this thread still going?

Yes it is.

And I'm happy about that, because I think some of the best discussion I've seen on SHH was in this thread and its predecessor.

The thread tourists don't seem to realize that, at its best, this discussion was all about what elements make the Joker who he is, and at what point a different depiction would cease to capture the essence of the character. In spite of the fact that it added "permawhite" to my vocabulary, I really enjoyed this thread in the ramp-up to The Dark Knight.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i think the fact that joker puts makeup on is more crazy. but im not sure he likes his scars like someone said. i think he hates them and they are one of the reasons for his obvious pain, i think thats his whole motive. if i'm in this much pain and torture why cant everyone share it with me!!!?!?! and if nolan wanted him to be permawhite i think a good way to do that is not in the chemical bath but maybe he himself poured bleach all over himself in a moment of madness, or maybe he could just be really pale like he hasnt seen sunlight for years?

 

["V"]

At first I was disappointed that he put on make- up, but I felt that if the performance and character was right, then it wouldn't matter so much. When I saw the first official shot (I believe in Harvey Dent too) I wondered if they had maybe gone TDKR route and had him apply lipstick and eyeshadow over his naturally white skin; but then the "knife" shot was released and it was obvious that everything was make-up.

But when the first interrogation shot leaked of him with the running and decaying make-up, I was sold.

To be honest, I'm surprised Nolan didn't make him suffer from some kind of skin disease (Vitiligo, I think it's called?) where you lose the pigment in parts of your skin and they turn white - like Michael Jackson 'suffers' from.

 

[regwec]

I remain a perma-white supremacist, but I did think that the visual quality of Ledger's Joker worked very well for that interpretation. I still see TDK's Joker as a slightly different entity from the comics counterpart, but I like them both (if 'like' is the right word) in their own way.

In a way, TDK's Joker was "permawhite", in the sense that the makeup always remained in some way (even when The Joker was disguised as a policeman, he seemed to have traces of it). If the character is recast (as I hope he will be), then I hope a way is found to communicate to the audience that the effect is permanent. The Joker needs to be The Joker while he is incarcerated in Arkham, rather than just using that monicker and makeup as a tool once he escapes to cause havoc.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Well the reality of the Joker created for The Dark Knight is more frightening and a threat then the fantasy world and character given to us in the comics and Batman 1989. The realistic take on this character has such a disturbing feel to it.

 

[Saint]

I disapprove of recasting. No actor would be interested in in replicating Ledger's performance (whether they are able or not), and frankly, I am wary of seeing a different sort of Joker in Nolan's films--Ledger's performance was sufficiently awesome that it is burned into my brain as the Joker of these films, and anything different would seem out of place.

That said, if there is a way to make it work... cool. I just don't see it. Perhaps a Morissona (yes, that's right: Morissona) approach would work, where the Joker's tendency to completely reinvent himself is suggested.

 

[FoJacob]

I disapprove of recasting. No actor would be interested in in replicating Ledger's performance (whether they are able or not), and frankly, I am wary of seeing a different sort of Joker in Nolan's films--Ledger's performance was sufficiently awesome that it is burned into my brain as the Joker of these films, and anything different would seem out of place.

Amen.

Just my two cents on the whole "look" debate. Not being a diehard comics fan, I didn't come to the film with any staunch notions about what kind of appearance is best for the Joker. I just remember seeing the first pictures of Heath's Joker and being blown away by it, because of how different it was from Nicholson's and how infinitely more... creepy.

I don't think the whole "falling into a vat of acid" thing would fit in Nolan's more realistic universe, and personally I think it is much more telling that this Joker - except for his scars, of course - chooses to look like a deranged clown. His choice to put that make-up on every day speaks very clearly as to his mental state and his absolute disregard for what people think of him - or, perhaps, his absolute joy in being able to scare the crap out of everyone he runs into. The Joker from the comics has to look that way - he's got no choice really. This Joker has created the look for himself and that's just... frightening.

I especially like the make-up because of the way it degrades over time. It's thick and pristine and startling in the meeting with the criminals, but by the interrogation scene it's starting to slide off his face and the red and the black is getting mixed in with the white and it just looks dirty and disturbing. I've read that Nolan wanted that sort of look of decay and it really suits the character well. And you've got to wonder what the other hardened criminals in the jail were thinking about that guy!

 

[Marx]

Welcome to the boards FoJacob!

 

[FoJacob]

Welcome to the boards FoJacob!

Hey, thanks! I'm very glad to be here! I haven't been this thrilled and excited about a movie in a very long time. It's nice to chat with other fans.

 

[ForestAflame]

The attitude and personality of the Joker was PERFECT. I'll say that right now. But the look was not. If it had been a perma-white Joker with irregular patterns concerning the burns, I could've lived with that. But knowing that there is an actual man (however twisted and scarred he may be) underneath that make-up adds NOTHING to the legend of the Joker as far as character design. The character in itself DID add to the legend of the Joker, the design didn't. If he was indeed perma-white (with scars or without), Ledger would've been the definitive Joker.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I disapprove of recasting. No actor would be interested in in replicating Ledger's performance (whether they are able or not), and frankly, I am wary of seeing a different sort of Joker in Nolan's films--Ledger's performance was sufficiently awesome that it is burned into my brain as the Joker of these films, and anything different would seem out of place.

That said, if there is a way to make it work... cool. I just don't see it. Perhaps a Morissona (yes, that's right: Morissona) approach would work, where the Joker's tendency to completely reinvent himself is suggested.

QFT

 

[acemahl]

But knowing that there is an actual man (however twisted and scarred he may be) underneath that make-up adds NOTHING to the legend of the Joker as far as character design.

I have a question about this statement. Now if he had makeup or is permawhite it's still an actual man underneath. How does the above statement make any sense? Either way scars or permawhite the situation would have been the same within the movies he just would have told stories about how he is permawhite instead of scarred.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Hey, thanks! I'm very glad to be here! I haven't been this thrilled and excited about a movie in a very long time. It's nice to chat with other fans.

Prepare to be "boarded"

 

[ForestAflame]

I have a question about this statement. Now if he had makeup or is permawhite it's still an actual man underneath. How does the above statement make any sense? Either way scars or permawhite the situation would have been the same within the movies he just would have told stories about how he is permawhite instead of scarred.

The perma-white makes him more than just a man...it makes him an ideal.

Batman is a legend. The Joker is a legend. The only difference is that Batman is human, Joker is not. Batman is the ONLY normal human with the capabilities to become more than just a man. The Joker may have been a human at one point or another or he could just be the personification of chaos and evil. We do know that no human can replicate the comic-book Joker's look no matter how hard they try because his make-up can't come off. He is a clown, not a human with clown make-up.

 

[acemahl]

The perma-white makes him more than just a man...it makes him an ideal.

Batman is a legend. The Joker is a legend. The only difference is that Batman is human, Joker is not. Batman is the ONLY normal human with the capabilities to become more than just a man. The Joker may have been a human at one point or another or he could just be the personification of chaos and evil. We do know that no human can replicate the comic-book Joker's look no matter how hard they try because his make-up can't come off. He is a clown, not a human with clown make-up.

What makes him the ideal is the embracing of what happened to him and how he used it to become the Joker. It's the same deal with the scars or with Batman's parents murder. I'm just trying to say (and it's been said a lot) that they used the scars instead of the permawhite to be the deformity. He still had to accept it and use it to form the persona in either case. I see no difference between the two.

 

[66 Face]

The attitude and personality of the Joker was PERFECT. I'll say that right now. But the look was not. If it had been a perma-white Joker with irregular patterns concerning the burns, I could've lived with that. But knowing that there is an actual man (however twisted and scarred he may be) underneath that make-up adds NOTHING to the legend of the Joker as far as character design. The character in itself DID add to the legend of the Joker, the design didn't. If he was indeed perma-white (with scars or without), Ledger would've been the definitive Joker.

I really have to disagree with that. To me its like why monster movies are fun and why serial killer movies freak me out. Seeing him more as a psychological freak more than anything else makes him so much more scarier and interesting.

IMO the perma-white makes him more of a cartoony figure even if he's played the same. He loses that Charles Manson effect of being the completely crazy guy that could be out on the streets.