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

[StylishHokie21]

The Joker having bleached skin isn't "more faithful" than him wearing makeup. It just isn't.

I stopped reading after this sentence. Since when is the bleached skin not as faithful?

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Dude, really? Where did I say any of that. Once again you've miraculously misunderstood what I was saying, when all you had to do was follow the commas:

That or maybe you're not making it clear enough, or communicating it correctly.

Let me highlight key words that made what you said not make a lick of sense when comparing Joker of the comics look to the one of TDK.

"a man scorned by a permanent disfigurement that affects his entire appearance forever"

"and one who extends a disfigurement"

If you don't see how one could take a different meaning from what you said, then you need to seriously re-read what you write. It was almost as if you were saying one's disfigurement isn't permanent, and won't affect him forever.

But you said the visage of the Joker can be removed with the character in TDK. It can't. The makeup can be removed, yes. But he's still going to look like a smiling disfigured "Joker" of a man.

I'm not concerned with what's more frightening and more realistic.

I am because a more frightening and realistic take on the character has more impact on an audience believing in a threat.

Have you seen the original concept designs for TDK Joker? Was that not INFINITELY more frightening than what we got? Yes.

I wouldn't say infinitely more frightening. In many ways they were very similar. It seemed that they didn't even have white makeup or bleached skin. Just pale face dude with green hair and a vicious mouth scar. We got the green hair, and vicious mouth scar, and Nolan gave use the clown look of the white makeup on the face with red lipstick pronouncing the scar. They are both frightening in completely different ways. With that said, both versions are way more terrifying than what we see in the comic book.

Joker in the comics is already terrifying, scary, and downright evil in his own right. There's no "need" to try and amp it even more, though people are free to try.

Well as you said in reference to why I feel Nolan shouldn't make a 3rd film, that wouldn't be having a back bone there now would it?

Nolan did amp it up, and did make him more evil, believable, terrifying, and frightening then what he is on the comic book pages. Thank god, he did ... as opposed to have no artistic fortitiude to take something we're familar with and add something fresh and new to it. Instead just do a copy and paste job, he re-invented the character for the better. And alas we got the most terrifying version of the character, yet ... that made all the world of difference story wise in making you even more frightened of a character we should have already felt real comfortable watching, given every audience member has such a history and knowledge of the character.

I'm gonna be honest, the comic book Joker looks and acts tame, predictable and boring compared to this Joker.= from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight.

Besides, I didn't realize I had to "justify" a more faithful adaptation of the source material.

And like I said, the character is faithful ... while still being its own thing and creating something different. Variety and different looks on these character is why they end up sticking around so long, buddy. That's why I don't get the desire for this change or explanation for a "permawhite" Joker. They get re-invented, and re-imagined. Having this Joker be permawhite would have added nothing other than to a few rigid fans perception of a character, and would definetely have compromised a superior talent's vision of something. If you want permawhite, turn the page of your favorite Joker comicbook. This was an adaptation and re-inventing of a mythos. And in alot of ways it's being perceived as being better then even what you read and see in the comics.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I stopped reading after this sentence. Since when is the bleached skin not as faithful?

Why is it more faithful than the makeup? Just as the 1st story that presented the Joker HAVING bleached skin was some years after his 1st appearance, these are all just re-tellings of stories in different ways. The Dark Knight Joker was based on the Batman #1 telling. In that story there is no explantion whether he's wearing makeup or not.

 

[nickyg641]

Why is it more faithful than the makeup? Just as the 1st story that presented the Joker HAVING bleached skin was some years after his 1st appearance, these are all just re-tellings of stories in different ways. The Dark Knight Joker was based on the Batman #1 telling. In that story there is no explantion whether he's wearing makeup or not.

Did you see the panel I posted?

It was quite clear from the final panel of Batman #1 that there was more going on than simple makeup.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Being rather abrasive, aren't you?

I'm only defending myself against 3-4 people, right? I don't have the time to be nice to when talking to that many people while defending my position.

 

[Saint]

Well you can't please them all.

Correct: and because you got what you wanted, you've foolishly decided that the people who didn't get what they wanted are being "unhealthy" when they talk about it.

The character of the Joke rin TDK was accurate,

And, again: not to the degree desired by some, apparently. It's amazing how you managed to quote my statement while completely ignoring what it actually said.

Grin: "He was faithful."
Saint: "Not to the degree desired by some."
Grin: "He was faithful and then some!"
Saint: "..."

Nolan was faithful to the essentials

Not to those who consider traditional elements of his history or appearance essential. Like the "faithfulness" issue above, I have already explained this.

The really hilarious part is that you keep talking about these fans who are supposedly still demanding white skin. For the most part, people are saying that they loved the Joker, and then going on to talk about how it would be nice if he also had white skin. Then you come in and complain about these fans who "won't budge" and are making an unhealthy issue of it.

I'd love to see you at the dinner table.

Guest: "You know what would go well with this steak? Wine."

Grin: "YOU'RE AN ALCOHOLIC! THAT'S SO UNHEALTHY! WHY CAN'T YOU APPRECIATE THE GREATNESS OF THIS STEAK! GOD, YOU WINE FANBOYS ARE SO RIDICULOUS! GRR! THIS STEAK IS THE BEST STEAK EVER! WINE WOULD NEVER WORK! STOP MAKING IT AN ISSUE!"

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Did you see the panel I posted?

It was quite clear from the final panel of Batman #1 that there was more going on than simple makeup.

But it's not stated. You can say that now in the context of history. You read the story after having known the Joker has bleached skin. That may not have been the intent originally. Somewhere a story teller noticed he was always appearing with white skin and then YEARS later wrote a story defining that the skin was bleached.

 

[The Joker]

But it's not stated. You can say that now in the context of history. You read the story after having known the Joker has bleached skin. That may not have been the intent originally. Somewhere a story teller noticed he was always appearing with white skin and then YEARS later wrote a story defining that the skin was bleached.

It wasn't years later. It was shown in his 2nd or 3rd appearance. Can't remember which one. A doctor removes his shirt, and they see that his whole chest and stomach is white, too.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

But that's the point, this vision is what it is ... what would the Joker being permawhite add to the story or the character? Nothing besides the subjectivity of being more "faithful" to a source material that has had multiple interpretations of a character. As I said, you can be faithful to the ESSENCE of a character that has appeared in many forms. But faithfulness in small minute details isn't possible because they have always been different.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

It wasn't years later. It was shown in his 2nd or 3rd appearance. Can't remember which one. A doctor removes his shirt, and they see that his whole chest and stomach is white, too.

Ok. Then we'll just say it what I guess everyone wants to say or get at. Chris Nolan and co. was unfaithful to the look of the Joker, correct?

But the "un-faithfulness" ultimately created something different, yet still totally recognizably "the Joker" even given the terrible lack of "faithfulness" and we got a product that was better than much of what the character is in the source material.

BEAUTIFUL.

t:

 

[Saint]

Why is it more faithful than the makeup?

I already explained this. You conveniently (and deliberately, I imagine) ignored it. Let's try it again: it is more faithful because it is true to the definitive version of the character, as developed over the decades, as opposed to the early version appearing in Batman #1.

Also, stop kidding yourself: makeup is not faithful to Batman #1, Batman #1 left an ambiguous mystery as to why the Joker's entire body was white. TDk presents it as makeup, period, which is not faithful to that story.

 

[nickyg641]

But that's the point, this vision is what it is ... what would the Joker being permawhite add to the story or the character? Nothing besides the subjectivity of being more "faithful" to a source material that has had multiple interpretations of a character. As I said, you can be faithful to the ESSENCE of a character that has appeared in many forms. But faithfulness in small minute details isn't possible because they have always been different.

Of course permawhite and makeup have differing effects on the character. Don't act as if it's a purely asthetic thing; there are certainly levels to both that can be explored more deeply than they were in TDK.

Which is one reason I'd like to see the Joker return in the sequel: to delve even deeper into the psyche of a fascinating character.

 

[nickyg641]

Ok. Then we'll just say it what I guess everyone wants to say or get at. Chris Nolan and co. was unfaithful to the look of the Joker, correct?

But the "un-faithfulness" ultimately created something different, yet still totally recognizably "the Joker" even given the terrible lack of "faithfulness"

Correct.

and we got a product that was better than much of what the character is in the source material.

BEAUTIFUL.

t:

Entirely your opinion.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I already explained this. You conveniently (and deliberately, I imagine) ignored it.

No, Saint. Don't worry buddy, you're not being ignored. You're not the only one I'm talking with in this thread. Don't worry you're not being ignored. I have to selectively choose what I respond to given everyone who is talking with me at this time.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Correct.

Then that doesn't make sense at all. How can one not be faithful yet create something entirely recognizable given the character's rich history?

Entirely your opinion.

Of course, did you even need to re-iterate that?

I have however seen many people agree with me. Even hardcore fans of the comic book. Which I am as well, but I don't let it be the end all be all for me. I think what we got was superior in many ways.

 

[Saint]

But it's not stated. You can say that now in the context of history. You read the story after having known the Joker has bleached skin. That may not have been the intent originally. Somewhere a story teller noticed he was always appearing with white skin and then YEARS later wrote a story defining that the skin was bleached.

Wrong again. Bill Finger, who wrote Batman #1, also wrote the later story where his bleached origin was revealed. Whether it's what Finger originally intended or not, it was not simply some other writer coming along and changing things. It was Finger developing the character he helped create.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Why is it more faithful than the makeup? Just as the 1st story that presented the Joker HAVING bleached skin was some years after his 1st appearance, these are all just re-tellings of stories in different ways. The Dark Knight Joker was based on the Batman #1 telling. In that story there is no explantion whether he's wearing makeup or not.

You already have three posters explaining why. I'll leave it up to them.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Oh ok, nice ... I didn't realize that. Ok, so Nolan's Joker wasn't as faithful in the looks department as some would like, evidently. But his character was about as faithful as you could get. I prefer Nolan's Joker aesthetically for story reasons that some of you may or may not agree with.

 

[Saint]

Now, back to discussion that isn't ridiculous:

I agree. Giving him white skin now would really be a cop-out. Personally, I don't mind it any more.

I think it'd be dangerous, at best. As I've said before, my feelings on bleaching him aren't strong. I love the visual quality the makeup gives him, and there's something appealing about the fact that he invests himself in this Joker persona with less overt coaxing than in the comics. Not as accurate, certainly, and I wouldn't describe it as better or worse, but I appreciate the feeling it gives him.

If they were to bleach him, it would absolutely have to be his decision to do it to himself. As far as I'm concerned, there is no alternative. It happening accidentally would be a cheat. We know this Joker has absolutely abandoned his humanity, we know he's completely given himself over to this face he's invented. I think it would make sense for him to take it one step further and make it permanent--especially in response to an atmosphere where the doctors are trying to eliminate the Joker persona, wiping away his makeup and trying to cultivate normalcy in him.

If it's to be done, it has to serve a purpose and it has to be relevant. I think that's one way to do it: it's Joker's response to attempts to rehabilitate him. He completely submerges himself in the Joker personality, carving it in stone. Like a baptism.

 

[Saint]

An addendum to my previous post:

Another requirement would be to retain the visual uneveness of the makeup. Like i was talking about in an earlier post, all white, but of an unhealthy, uneven texture and some variance in tone. It could be that the skin was somewhat damaged by the chemicals. The problem is that if you take it too far, he looks like a zombie or like he has a disease, and that's bad. Just enough would have to be done that he has an interesting texture.

Something like this is how I envision permawhite in Nolan's universe:

Yeah, that's along the lines of what I'm thinking.

 

[Crook]

That or maybe you're not making it clear enough, or communicating it correctly.

Let me highlight key words that made what you said not make a lick of sense when comparing Joker of the comics look to the one of TDK.

"a man scorned by a permanent disfigurement that affects his entire appearance forever"

"and one who extends a disfigurement"

*sigh* Let's try this one more time:

- The comic book Joker's disfigurement IS the face/appearance of a clown
- The movie Joker's disfigurement (scar) is merely a vague resemblance to a smile, and the clown image is formed by his own creation

But you said the visage of the Joker can be removed with the character in TDK. It can't. The makeup can be removed, yes. But he's still going to look like a smiling disfigured "Joker" of a man.

Joker is characterized by his clownlike appearance and tendency to smile. This is always the case in his "natural" form.

Heath's Joker in his natural state gives a vague resemblance to a man with a "permanent smile".

I am because a more frightening and realistic take on the character has more impact on an audience believing in a threat.

No, because there's always a point in which some might consider too far. Joker, like most characters, has a degree of his own type of frightening characteristics. Making it more frightening doesn't inherently make it better for him.

I wouldn't say infinitely more frightening. In many ways they were very similar. It seemed that they didn't even have white makeup or bleached skin. Just pale face dude with green hair and a vicious mouth scar. We got the green hair, and vicious mouth scar, and Nolan gave use the clown look of the white makeup on the face with red lipstick pronouncing the scar. They are both frightening in completely different ways.

And the comic book Joker has his own brand of scare factor and psychotic madness. There really isn't such a case of scariER in this case when they are all valid forms of menace.

Well as you said in reference to why I feel Nolan shouldn't make a 3rd film, that wouldn't be having a back bone there now would it?

Read above.

Nolan did amp it up, and did make him more evil, believable, terrifying, and frightening then what he is on the comic book pages. Thank god, he did ... as opposed to have no artistic fortitiude to take something we're familar with and add something fresh and new to it. Instead just do a copy and paste job, he re-invented the character for the better. And alas we got the most terrifying version of the character, yet ... that made all the world of difference story wise in making you even more frightened of a character we should have already felt real comfortable watching, given every audience member has such a history and knowledge of the character.

I'm gonna be honest, the comic book Joker looks and acts tame, predictable and boring compared to this Joker.= from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight.

That is quite hilarious. Either you've not read many Joker comics or you're unaware that many of TDK Joker's traits borrow heavily from the source material itself.

I'll even go as far to say TDK Joker hasn't even reached the notoriety Joker has in the comics. Heath's take has done NOTHING in comparison to shooting a teenage girl and paralyzing her, then taking nude pictures of her as she lay motionless on the floor. An extreme form of violation if I ever heard one. Not to mention beating a child with a crowbar, into a bloody pulp. But just enough so he's not dead and can witness him and his mother being blown up in a building.

You call that TAME?! I cannot take that seriously in the least.

 

[nickyg641]

Now, back to discussion that isn't ridiculous:



I think it'd be dangerous, at best. As I've said before, my feelings on bleaching him aren't strong. I love the visual quality the makeup gives him, and there's something appealing about the fact that he invests himself in this Joker persona with less overt coaxing than in the comics. Not as accurate, certainly, and I wouldn't describe it as better or worse, but I appreciate the feeling it gives him.

If they were to bleach him, it would absolutely have to be his decision to do it to himself. As far as I'm concerned, there is no alternative. It happening accidentally would be a cheat. We know this Joker has absolutely abandoned his humanity, we know he's completely given himself over to this face he's invented. I think it would make sense for him to take it one step further and make it permanent--especially in response to an atmosphere where the doctors are trying to eliminate the Joker persona, wiping away his makeup and trying to cultivate normalcy in him.

If it's to be done, it has to serve a purpose and it has to be relevant. I think that's one way to do it: it's Joker's response to attempts to rehabilitate him. He completely submerges himself in the Joker personality, carving it in stone. Like a baptism.

I agree. It would be an interesting point were he to bleach himself--if a little contrived. Or, at least, it would seem that way to me, because I've argued for it for two years. But, while watching the movie, I'm sure it would work, if it did, as you said, serve a purpose.

 

[regwec]

TDk's Joker was permawhite, within the bounds of the movie, because the Nolans simply chose not to explore any of the issues that would be raised by the removal of the makeup. The effect is smeared but not diminished once he is arrested, and the his appearance is perverted to a degree that makes him look vaguely inhuman when he is in disguise. The momentum of the narrative in TDK allows these minor contrivences to fleet by without further scrutiny, but they would not survive another movie without some further extrapolation.

It is also an issue of pragmatism. If The Joker had to appear in a sequel, sans makeup, than the actor that was revealed would not be Heath Ledger, and visibly so. Much easier to wed his permenant metamorphosis to the theme of escalation, and his eternal vonflict with The Batman.

 

[regwec]

And I agree about the unhealthy-looking, unsettling permawhite. That would have been interesting to see.

You do see it, when The Joker is dressed as a policeman. He is very pale, with dark, sunken eyes and a scarred mouth. That is effectively what some of the other concepts represented. "Our" Joker from TDK wears a more traditional costume and makeup job over the top of that, however.

 

[dark_b]

No. Scars such as those can be repaired via plastic surgery, and that would certainly be something the doctors at Akrham would be pushing for if they ever figured out that they were significant to his psychological make up.

Furthermore, even if the scars were not repairable, desiring faithfulness to execution (not only purpose) is a reasonable request. In any case, permanence isn't the only issue. The cleaner, more traditional clown visage is significant, and hell, even his more refined dress is significant. This has all been discussed in this thread. Again: go look if you are so inclined.


Or they can talk about what they would have preferred in the film. Once again, I am baffled as to how this is unreasonable or undesirable, or "unehalthy" (because you are absolutely incapable of providing a legitimate reason explaining this).


No we don't. The existence of concept art depicting the Joker as having white skin seems to suggest the choice wasn't about realism.


By what criteria? Chemicals that can bleach skin exist. I don't know about the survivability of being submerged in them, but the fact that Two-Face was able to speak normally, that he did not lose his eye, that sheer pain did not render him unable to function (patients with burns that severe are kept unconscious for that reason, I believe), and that he was not suffering from massive infections suggests that a man surviving a chemical dump is not outside Nolan's realm of realism.

actually two face in TDK is a 100% example that nolan doesnt care for realism when it comes to hes characters. two face is a character that can not be done faitfully with 100% realism. two face in TDK is not possible in the real world.
everything that you wrotte is not jsut opinion it is a fact. those kind of skin,muscle and eye damage would never work. but it is a movie.

so joker doesnt have paint because its realistic. its nolans personal choice and because of batman.