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

[Crook]

I don't see a big deal with the whole permawhite/makeup thing. Seriously, Ledger gave a classic performance that will be remembered....for.....ever. Makeup or not.

Then it's very fortunate no one really associates the two then.

 

[ManofmyWord]

One thing that does occur to me is that, if The Joker is recast in a future movie, a method will have to be found to suggest that the makeup has become permanent. Otherwise we have a guy in a cell without his warpaint, which would bring the whole daemonic house of cards constructed as the character's icore in TDK tumbling down.

Just Another reason to Not show him in BB3.

Only a Mention at most.

 

[Saint]

That is an issue, but I can think of a few ways around it. An idea that occured to me is, if they got the Hannibal Lecter route (which I really hope they do), they can show the makeup-less Joker in shadow in his cell for the first few scenes that we see him. When the time comes that the police request information from him on Gotham's newest villain, he could cooperate on the conditon that he be allowed his makeup.

Or find some other reason that Arkham would allow him to wear his makeup. Perhaps he threatens to kill other inmates unless they provide him with a supply of facepaint?

Just not some really obvious, gimmicky thing, like he gets plastic surgery or something.

In Denny O'Neil's novelization of Knightfall, Jeremiah Arkham is depicted as an incompetent loon of a doctor, who allows Two-Face to keep his coin as it provides Harvey "focus, and should hasten his progress," despite the disapproval of the other doctors.

I'm not sure how well such an explanation would fly in a film, but a similar poorly-conceived decision on the part of a doctor could be an option.

 

[nickyg641]

In Denny O'Neil's novelization of Knightfall, Jeremiah Arkham is depicted as an incompetent loon of a doctor, who allows Two-Face to keep his coin as it provides Harvey "focus, and should hasten his progress," despite the disapproval of the other doctors.

I'm not sure how well such an explanation would fly in a film, but a similar poorly-conceived decision on the part of a doctor could be an option.

Yeah, I thought about that, too. The doctors in Arkham may be so incompetent that they'd just let him have it.

 

[Saint]

I would imagine that Joker would become completely unresponsive if they removed his makeup--not because he would go catatonic or anything like that, but because he would recognize that they're meant to rehabilitate him, and that they can't to that if he absolutely refuses to cooperate--or eat, or sleep, or do anything. Most couldn't pull it off, but Joker could. It wouldn't be a bluff for him. It would just be a game: cave and give him the makeup, or he starves himself to death. They're obligated to look after his well-being. Maybe they knock him out and he wakes up being fed intravenously (this may not be legal to do against someone's will, though?), but then he'd just try something different until they cave.

 

[ronny]

I don't think they'd force-feed him. Joker seems like the kind of guy who could hire a really good lawyer.

 

[nickyg641]

Looking at the TDK production book, it's interesting to note that all of the preliminary pictures, all of the painintgs and computer manipulations, feature the Joker with all white skin.

It makes you wonder whether or not makeup was always the intention. I like to think that it wasn't, that some thought did go into it and it wasn't simply "Well, obviusly, white skin is never going to work, what will his makeup be like?"

 

[Dark Spidey]

Just throwing my two cents in...

I don't think this interpretation would really care if they removed his make-up! Like when he's at the funeral scene without it on. I know that was to try to blend in or whatever. But my point is, that he doesn't seem like he would be self-concious without it. Like he would actaully mind people seeing his scars. If anything, he's probably get a kick out of people being disconcerted/repulsed by his appearence.

 

[regwec]

I don't agree with that. Even if it is possible for this Joker to remove his clown-face, I still think that it needs to be represented as his true idiom.

Two options for a make-upped Joker sitting in a padded cell in Arkham:

Jim Gordon: Has no one thought to scrub that crap off his face?

Doctor: They tried. Soap, water. Spirit. Everything. Wouldn't budge.

-or-

Jim Gordon: Has no one thought to scrub that crap off his face?

Doctor: He bit three fingers off the nurse who tried.

 

[The Joker]

Jim Gordon: Has no one thought to scrub that crap off his face?

Doctor: He bit three fingers off the nurse who tried.

LOL! Well, that wouldn't work really. If he was violent about it, then all they'd have to do is sedate him and then wash it off.

With this Joker, it's just best not to see him incarcerated sans make up.

 

[ronny]

LOL! Well, that wouldn't work really. If he was violent about it, then all they'd have to do is sedate him and then wash it off.

Don't overanalyse it. Regwec's idea sounds brilliant, a line I could imagine being in the movie. If you had a prisoner like that would choice woud you have? Either play ball and give him something trivial (Make up) or continue to let your staff get maimed.

 

[The Joker]

Don't overanalyse it. Regwec's idea sounds brilliant, a line I could imagine being in the movie. If you had a prisoner like that would choice woud you have? Either play ball and give him something trivial (Make up) or continue to let your staff get maimed.

That's not over analysing it. It's simple obvious logic.

Of course they'd have a choice. You think they couldn't force the Joker to have that make up washed off if they wanted to? Lets not be absurd here. Of course they could.

 

[ronny]

That's not over analysing it.

Of course they'd have a choice. You think they couldn't force the Joker to have that make up washed off if they wanted to? Lets not be absurd here. Of course they could.

Not if he had a good lawyer. Which he could probably afford. One of those shrill feminist types who'd argue that forcing off his make-up was a violation of his human rights or something.

 

[Crook]

Now who's over analyzing it?

 

[The Joker]

Not if he had a good lawyer. Which he could probably afford.

Now who's over analysing it?

What legal right has a mass murdering psychotic terrorist got to wearing make up in a padded cell?

 

[ronny]

Now who's over analyzing it?

The Joker's loaded. They even say so in the comics. That's why people work for him, because he pays so well.
Lots of money means he can afford a good, high priced lawyer!

 

[regwec]

I think the line stands up well enough on its own. Someone decided they should remove The Joker warpaint, and they lost three fingers. Nobody bothered to try again. He is a psychiatric patient rather than a prisoner if he is in Arkham, and his carers would have every right to let him be in some respects, if it is easier on everyone involved.

 

[The Shape]

I'm shocked that so many of you want to see the Joker come back in a 3rd film. It's one thing to wish for the return of an iconic character, but things have changed now. The actor who played this Joker, and gave what is nearly unanimously considered the performance of a lifetime, is no longer with us. Are we that selfish that we need to have another actor recast in the same role because we "didn't get enough Joker this time around"?

It's not as if Heath gave his performance and declined to be in a sequel. If that was the case, it would be acceptable to consider having the role recast. But now it would just be unnecessary and in poor taste to do so. Imagine the backlash it would cause with the general public. This isn't just a little comic book film that barely warrants a sequel. It will likely become one of the most successful and critically praised films of all time. Why even bother with this when we already have such a great Joker that can be seen in all his glory in TDK?

 

[The Shape]

I think the line stands up well enough on its own. Someone decided they should remove The Joker warpaint, and they lost three fingers. Nobody bothered to try again. He is a psychiatric patient rather than a prisoner if he is in Arkham, and his carers would have every right to let him be in some respects, if it is easier on everyone involved.

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. In fact, it would work against the objective of rehabiliation. If the Joker is allowed to keep his persona alive by wearing make-up in his cell, wouldn't Scarecrow be allowed to wear his mask "if it was easier on those involved"? I know you are one of those against the realistic realm Nolan has created, but in this day and age, when patients can be so easily sedated and controlled, it just doesn't seem plausible.

 

[regwec]

I'm shocked that so many of you want to see the Joker come back in a 3rd film. It's one thing to wish for the return of an iconic character, but things have changed now. The actor who played this Joker, and gave what is nearly unanimously considered the performance of a lifetime, is no longer with us. Are we that selfish that we need to have another actor recast in the same role because we "didn't get enough Joker this time around"?

Conversely, it's fairly selfish to say that no one else can play the character because Heath died. People always like to ascribe their own small-mindedness to the dead, but we have no reason to think that Heath would have objected to another actor giving it their best shot.

Imagine the backlash it would cause with the general public.

I don't think it would cause any, actually. Most people are rational enough to understand that Heath was unable to reprise the role, due to his being dead.

Why even bother with this when we already have such a great Joker that can be seen in all his glory in TDK?

Because that Joker has made such an impact that a portrayal of a Gotham City in which he didn't visibly or at least implicitly continue to exist would be stylistically and thematically at odds with that represented in TDK. Actually, it would be a bit of a cop-out.

 

[Street Vendor]

Jim Gordon: Has no one thought to scrub that crap off his face?

Doctor: They tried. Soap, water. Spirit. Everything. Wouldn't budge.

I like that. I also like to think that they tried to rub the makeup off his face when they had him in jail, but it wouldn't completely come off. Which is why it's so messed up in that scene, but still not off.

 

[regwec]

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. In fact, it would work against the objective of rehabiliation. If the Joker is allowed to keep his persona alive by wearing make-up in his cell, wouldn't Scarecrow be allowed to wear his mask "if it was easier on those involved"? I know you are one of those against the realistic realm Nolan has created, but in this day and age, when patients can be so easily sedated and controlled, it just doesn't seem plausible.

Who says that Crane's mask would be confiscated?``Or Dent's coin, or The Joker's facepaint? Their carers may prefer to try to rehabilitate them to an extent that they feel able to give up their own props voluntarily, rather than tearing them away, possibly causing further trauma. I actually envision the initial attempt to clean The Joker up as a compassionate rather than an assertive act.

I am against the concept of realism as it is often ascribed to Nolan by those who fail to understand him but try to speak for him. I do concede that these films need to be grounded to some extent in order to have the tension that they do. There are elements of the movies that I find perhaps a bit too unrealistic (the whole sonar-map visuals issue), whilst there are others that I think are toned down unnecessarily (why can't The Scarecrow wear a hat?)

 

[The Shape]

Conversely, it's fairly selfish to say that no one else can play the character because Heath died. People always like to ascribe their own small-mindedness to the dead, but we have no reason to think that Heath would have objected to another actor giving it their best shot.

I'm not suggesting that no one else can play the character. However, within the continuity of this current Batman series, it's not needed or necessary. This is different than Holmes being replaced by Maggie, simply because Holmes was forgettable and the recast wasn't a big deal. Heath's role, however, is much more iconic and memorable and I don't think we need the stigma of a recast when it's not necessary.

I don't think it would cause any, actually. Most people are rational enough to understand that Heath was unable to reprise the role, due to his being dead.

It's not about understanding Heath not being able to reprise the role, but about what the public would want. So far, people seem to be pretty damn content with Heath's portrayal and the film in general. I haven't heard anyone (aside from some of the crazed fanboys) clamoring for a recast. "Depp should play Joker in the next one!" "Daniel Day-Lewis could do it!"

When Heath took on the role, there were instantly comparisons to Nicholson. "How will Heath stack up?" "Which Joker is better?" But there was the benefit of having 20 years between the two films, and being apart of their own respective series. Can you imagine what it would be like if the role was recast in the next film, a mere three of four years after this one, in the same continuity?

Because that Joker has made such an impact that a portrayal of a Gotham City in which he didn't visibly or at least implicitly continue to exist would be stylistically and thematically at odds with that represented in TDK. Actually, it would be a bit of a cop-out.

I'd rather have Nolan show us how the Joker has changed things in Gotham, and how there is now a sense of dread that lingers of the city. Batman is now a murderer in the eyes of Gotham. Harvey Dent is dead. The Joker has left behind a boy count of dozens and has deconstructed the hope that Gotham citizens once had.

I don't think we need to see the Joker in a padded cell to understand the impact he has had on the city.

 

[nickyg641]

Conversely, it's fairly selfish to say that no one else can play the character because Heath died. People always like to ascribe their own small-mindedness to the dead, but we have no reason to think that Heath would have objected to another actor giving it their best shot.


I don't think it would cause any, actually. Most people are rational enough to understand that Heath was unable to reprise the role, due to his being dead.


Because that Joker has made such an impact that a portrayal of a Gotham City in which he didn't visibly or at least implicitly continue to exist would be stylistically and thematically at odds with that represented in TDK. Actually, it would be a bit of a cop-out.

I agree completely.Gary Oldman himself said he sees no reason not to recast, as Heath was a professional, and wouldn't have been so selfish as to not want another actor to continue his legacy.

And you're entirely right about the second point, as well. After it was so clearly set up in TDK, a Gotham devoid of the Joker would feel strange.

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. In fact, it would work against the objective of rehabiliation. If the Joker is allowed to keep his persona alive by wearing make-up in his cell, wouldn't Scarecrow be allowed to wear his mask "if it was easier on those involved"? I know you are one of those against the realistic realm Nolan has created, but in this day and age, when patients can be so easily sedated and controlled, it just doesn't seem plausible.

Since when was Arkham Asylum the shining beacon in the field of psychological rehabilitation? After all, it was formerly run by a terrorist.

 

[Saint]

I'm shocked that so many of you want to see the Joker come back in a 3rd film. It's one thing to wish for the return of an iconic character, but things have changed now. The actor who played this Joker, and gave what is nearly unanimously considered the performance of a lifetime, is no longer with us. Are we that selfish that we need to have another actor recast in the same role because we "didn't get enough Joker this time around"?

Explain how it is "selfish."