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

[Bat-Mite]

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.

But is it a man under there? Obviously, it would definitely appear that is the case. But I was listening to the interview that Jonathan Nolan did recently and he stated something like he likes to think that when we first see the Joker standing at that street corner, he could have just appeared there out of thin air. I thought that was a very interesting statement to make about this interpretation of the character.

If we would have gotten a permawhite Joker in this movie (which I admit I was wanting at first and a part of me still would have wanted to see it), then it would have actually taken away some of the mystery. It's true that no explanation would have to be given for the condition, but anyone who has knowledge of the comics, or even anyone who has seen Batman '89 would automatically come to the conclusion that chemicals were involved. Or if it didn't look like something caused by chemicals, they could come to the conclusion that he was an albino of sorts. You lose the mystery that way. As it is, nobody has any clue whatsoever as to how this Joker came to be. He simply is. As others have pointed out, this may be the most mysterious version of the Joker we've ever gotten, and I like this Joker all the more for that very reason.

Also, I think Nolan did a good job of showing that the clown face was the Joker's true face. We only see him for two seconds in the film without it, and during those two seconds he's using his lack of makeup as a disguise. To me, that made up for him not being permawhite.

 

[EddieNashton]

I was for the make-up idea from the get go. It holds up.

 

[regwec]

We don't really see The Joker without makeup. When he is disguised as a policeman, the hue of his face and eyes are quite irregular. He is recognisable enough as The Joker for the audience to know who he is, instantly.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

yea he is pale in complexion anyway, and the eyes...........the eyes!!! ****ing creepy as hell!!

 

[regwec]

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.

Batman partly shredded The Joker's face during their final confrontation, and I picture the SWAT guys beating the crap out of the murdering freak after that. I can imagine him being revealed in the third movie as tufts of greasey green hair sprouting through a mass of filthy bandages. He could be in a narcotic stupour, having undergone reconstructive surgery on his face once in custordy. (This would explain the change of actors). He could appear to have lost his mind somewhat, but have moments of disturbing clarity at times. His makeup could have bled into his cuts and grafts, and have become genuinely a part of his face.

There are ways of doing it. I would just like it to be demonstrated that The Joker is still a precense in Batman's world.

 

[Nightmare]

yea he is pale in complexion anyway, and the eyes...........the eyes!!! ****ing creepy as hell!!

This is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. I hope to have an avy of his face once the dvd comes out.

 

[Beanjuice]

i have to ask, did regwec like the movie? lol

 

[regwec]

Of course- I always said I would.

 

[Saint]

Batman partly shredded The Joker's face during their final confrontation, and I picture the SWAT guys beating the crap out of the murdering freak after that. I can imagine him being revealed in the third movie as tufts of greasey green hair sprouting through a mass of filthy bandages. He could be in a narcotic stupour, having undergone reconstructive surgery on his face once in custordy. (This would explain the change of actors). He could appear to have lost his mind somewhat, but have moments of disturbing clarity at times. His makeup could have bled into his cuts and grafts, and have become genuinely a part of his face.

There are ways of doing it. I would just like it to be demonstrated that The Joker is still a precense in Batman's world.

I don't know about reconstructive surgery; unless the cops really did a number on him, it wouldn't be necessary.

There's always the option of him having a small role in Arkham--a Hannibal-type thing, as has so frequently been suggested--that would see him mostly in shadow. The problem is that it can't be some throwaway thing, otherwise it's cheap and there's no point. If Joker has a purpose to serve, great--but you need both: a purpose to serve and an intelligent way to do it.

 

[Nepenthes]

that's a pretty damn good idea about the Joker needing surgery to recover from cops beatings. I don't think it matters how severe the beatings need to be, the audience would readily believe that cops and guards would be ready to unleash on him, so lets just see the effects. It adds to the Joker is a nice way, getting pummeled almost every day of his life, still smiling, still terrifying his captors, still having the upper hand

 

[Doc Samson]

Batman partly shredded The Joker's face during their final confrontation, and I picture the SWAT guys beating the crap out of the murdering freak after that. I can imagine him being revealed in the third movie as tufts of greasey green hair sprouting through a mass of filthy bandages. He could be in a narcotic stupour, having undergone reconstructive surgery on his face once in custordy. (This would explain the change of actors). He could appear to have lost his mind somewhat, but have moments of disturbing clarity at times. His makeup could have bled into his cuts and grafts, and have become genuinely a part of his face.

There are ways of doing it. I would just like it to be demonstrated that The Joker is still a precense in Batman's world.

And that is the single, most important reason to even consider a recast. Everyone thinks it's disrespectful to Ledger, while I humbly disagree. The whole point of their conflict, Bats & the Joker that is, is the point that however stoic & noble Batman is in his moral code, it's because of that code that he is responsible (in a way) for everything the Joker does. Batman knows Arkham can never hold the Joker any longer than a few days at a time, if that, and ultimately the only thing that can stop the madman is death, something Bruce can't hand down. If it was that easy to get rid of the Joker, than everything they built up in TDK would be for nothing. They wouldn't be "destined to do this forever" if the Joker gets locked up and that's it. The whole dichotomy boils down to Bruce not committing murder, which inadvertently allows Mr. J to run wild year, after year, after year....

 

[Ace of Knaves]

yea the joker is just important to the batman mythos and batverse as batman himself is IMO

 

[Dirt Like Me]

And that is the single, most important reason to even consider a recast. Everyone thinks it's disrespectful to Ledger, while I humbly disagree. The whole point of their conflict, Bats & the Joker that is, is the point that however stoic & noble Batman is in his moral code, it's because of that code that he is responsible (in a way) for everything the Joker does. Batman knows Arkham can never hold the Joker any longer than a few days at a time, if that, and ultimately the only thing that can stop the madman is death, something Bruce can't hand down. If it was that easy to get rid of the Joker, than everything they built up in TDK would be for nothing. They wouldn't be "destined to do this forever" if the Joker gets locked up and that's it. The whole dichotomy boils down to Bruce not committing murder, which inadvertently allows Mr. J to run wild year, after year, after year....

I agree completely. I don't think it's at all disrespectful to Ledger to conclude the story that he worked so hard to tell onscreen.

Furthermore, I might go so far as to say that I don't want a third movie if the Joker isn't somehow involved. The way things were left at the end of TDK, the Joker had--in some respects--won. While he was never able to get Batman to kill, he had a had in getting Gotham City to think Batman was a killer. To Gotham, Batman now really is just a freak like the Joker: they've both adopted a theatrical persona, they both operate outside the law, and they're both murderers. And the Joker is one of only a few people who knew about Two-Face. It seems to me that if there's going to be any sense of continutiy between TDK and a third movie, the Joker would have to have a role. A third movie without him could seem tacked-on.

That said, I don't know how you would go about recasting after such a great, well-received performance. Those are some mighty big knife-enhanced shoes to fill. I can't imagine too many actors would want to take on that scrutiny. (Then again, money talks. And The Dark Knight has made a little bit of money, in case anybody hasn't heard).

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i still think paul bettany could do it, maybe not aswell as ledger because that performance is near enough unbeatable.

 

[Infinity9999x]

i still think paul bettany could do it, maybe not aswell as ledger because that performance is near enough unbeatable.

Bettany and Depp are two actors I think could pull off reprising the Joker role, but if Nolan does recast, I'd almost rather it be a relative unknown, or something that would surprise people.

When Heath was cast, everyone was thinking somewhere along the lines of "wtf?" but he ended up being great. If Nolan cast another guy that made me go "wtf?" I'd almost be more reassured then if he cast one of the actors I'd mentioned, because I trust Nolan's judgment, and I think he picks the right people for the job.

 

[jackjack924]

Apparently Heath was at the top of a very short list so...I wonder who else was on that list.

 

[PamelaLIsley]

If we would have gotten a permawhite Joker in this movie (which I admit I was wanting at first and a part of me still would have wanted to see it), then it would have actually taken away some of the mystery. It's true that no explanation would have to be given for the condition, but anyone who has knowledge of the comics, or even anyone who has seen Batman '89 would automatically come to the conclusion that chemicals were involved. Or if it didn't look like something caused by chemicals, they could come to the conclusion that he was an albino of sorts. You lose the mystery that way. As it is, nobody has any clue whatsoever as to how this Joker came to be. He simply is. As others have pointed out, this may be the most mysterious version of the Joker we've ever gotten, and I like this Joker all the more for that very reason.

I completely 110% agree here. The route that the Nolans took was best fitted for the movie. After seeing it twice you wonder- does Joker sleep? Where? What does he eat? When? What the hell is he doing when we don't see him? He seems to be everywhere he needs to be all the time. How creepy is that? I believe that some of it was in the beauty of Ledger's performance, but I also credit the Nolans for that, too.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

^lol yea i dont think this joker has regular sleeping patterns!! that is a good point you brought up though, like ive said before this joker has a sorta supernatural quality to him almost like a wraith. he does what he wants when he wants how he wants, there seems to be no way he can be stopped from achieving his goals or appearing when you least expect it.

 

[Crook]

Am I missing something, or are the various questions you two have posted, have nothing to do with Joker's skin condition?

 

[Phsycology]

I prefer the Joker with makeup, rather than acidized lol. Makes him seem even more weird and seems much more realistic.

 

[Serious_?]

I like the idea of it being make-up, it's more realistic like many people have said.

As for a re-cast, I wouldn't do it. I think the character has served his purpose in The Dark Knight, roll on the next villian.

 

[Crook]

Just curious, for all the people toting realism as one of the factors in supporting the make-up, how do you guys feel about the Two-Face design in TDK?

Yay or nay? And did the very unrealistic concept deter your opinion on the character?

 

[Phsycology]

Just curious, for all the people toting realism as one of the factors in supporting the make-up, how do you guys feel about the Two-Face design in TDK?

Yay or nay? And did the very unrealistic concept deter your opinion on the character?

I was impressed with the effects, though thought that they could have made it more realistic; I mean, how can that guy blink in his left eye, with no eye lids??

Though this didn't make a difference..............at all.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i didnt see him blink. but yea it was a bit silly that he could even move that eye, he had no muscles around it!

 

[Crook]

I was impressed with the effects, though thought that they could have made it more realistic; I mean, how can that guy blink in his left eye, with no eye lids??

He didn't blink.

Though this didn't make a difference..............at all.

I figured as such. I can only assume the same sentiment would have been shared with Joker and bleached skin.

i didnt see him blink. but yea it was a bit silly that he could even move that eye, he had no muscles around it!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the muscles that control eye movement are directly connected behind the eyeball. Not that it makes a difference, however. The design in general is still "out there".