The Dark Knight Two years later: Heath Ledger's performance

[jb007]

His performance was stunning.

 

[ALP]

I'll start by saying that compared to how I would have liked to have seen The Joker, there were things left to be desired. If anything, I sort of feel that TDK Joker was a little too precise. Like he said, "it's all part of the plan." Instead of killing someone for sick thrills, he instead killed because it was a part of his masterplan to run Gotham to the ground. I simply didn't get much that the Joker in TDK was as sick and twisted as Joker has been portrayed in the comics.

But there were terrific moments that made up for that. I loved the pencil trick, the bazooka, the nurse outfit, etc. So there was still some 'fun' there. Purely in actions, Jack Nicholson was more like the comic book Joker. He used the joy buzzer, talked to corpses, had an acid flower, used joker venom, and all of the other Joker toys. But on the other hand Nicholson did not come across as menacing or terrifying the way that Ledger did.(Which is why the best Joker portrayal is Mark Hamill in Arkham Asylum and I dare anyone who has played the game to argue otherwise!)

But I am afraid that most of what I have said has little to do with the actual topic in a specific manner. I loved Ledger's performance. Judging the Joker character for what it was as opposed to what I wanted, I must happily say that Ledger went beyond what I expected! He no doubt deserved the academy award. He totally became the character and understanding your character is the key. Ledger hit all of the right marks, and as I said, I loved how his Joker was terrifying. I would be horrified to even get near that guy.

 

[doormouse]

I think Heath Ledger's Joker is vastly overrated, it was well acted and had some cool bits like the pencil trick, bazooka, don't give a s**t about the Oscar win but he played a pretty good film terrorist (Sorry, but Heath died a drug junkie to me not some legend, no offense) but overall I didn't enjoy/like it as much as the Jack Nicholson portrayal or the unbeatable voice-over of Mark Hamill in BTAS plus the TDK Joker just didn't feel like The Joker to me.

No offense, it's my opinion, nothing will change it and don't argue with me about it because I have done that in another thread already. End of story, that's all I got to say.

He was not a drug user. He was on prescription drugs. BIG difference!!

Let me guess.. your hero is Spider Pig? Radio Active Man?

Leave our Heath alone!!

 

[u_complete_me]

Ledger was an outstanding young actor. Ledger's version of the Joker is iconic, and will never be topped.
"He liked his job- He liked it!"

But whats really tragic is all the potentially great roles H.L may have had, that we all as fans, will never see.

 

[Travesty]

He was not a drug user. He was on prescription drugs. BIG difference!!

Look, I'm not trying to knock on Ledger, but even if he just used prescription drugs, which he wasn't, you can still abuse prescritpion drugs. They're still called drugs for a reason. I mean, talk to Elvis about not being a druggy. The man died ****ting himself on the toilet because he abused prescription drugs. There isn't a "big difference" when you have an addictive personality. The only difference between coke and adderall, is that addreall is in pill form and legal. Both are still methamphetamines, and both are HIGHLY addictive.

I don't need adderall, nor do I take it, but do you have ANY clue how easy it is to get it from my doctor?

 

[KalMart]

He was the definitive on screen Joker.

Definitive? The most un-funny Joker we've seen, and you think that's "definitive"? When I look up who The Joker is, I don't think it should say, "a villainous combatant of Batman, who looks like a heroin addict, with scars on his face, doesn't tell that many jokes, and doesn't use any gadgets as jokes".

I don't think any portrayal of these characters in any of the films have to be THE universal definitive one....just A version that fits the approach to that particular film version. If any part of these movies was that definitive...there'd be no reason to make any more of the movies...ever again...or to even attempt different perspectives/versions. Nolan/Ledger's Joker was a very unique and alternative take on the character that carried an equally unique version of a Batman story extremely well.

 

[Travesty]

I don't think any portrayal of these characters in any of the films have to be THE universal definitive one....just A version that fits the approach to that particular film version. If any part of these movies was that definitive...there'd be no reason to make any more of the movies...ever again...or to even attempt different perspectives/versions. Nolan/Ledger's Joker was a very unique and alternative take on the character that carried an equally unique version of a Batman story extremely well.

Dude, I responded to someone who thought it was THE most definitive version of The Joker. I disagreed. What's your point? YOu seem to be on my side, yet, you're trying to argue with my point?

 

[KalMart]

Dude, I responded to someone who thought it was THE most definitive version of The Joker. I disagreed. What's your point?

Just what I said....there can be different versions of the Joker for different stories, and what matters most is how well he works in that particular story, not so much how he compares to other versions. So I don't think he was or had to be defintive in TDK, and I don't think the fact that he had scars and no gadget-jokes made him any less Joker-like.


Dude.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Coming from a fan of ledger before TDK, I can say this is easily (and sadly his *technically last*) his best preformance. Literally, If it wasn't for that scene without the makeup, or a credit to him, you could not tell it was him. The voice, the darkness within his character, hell, even the way he looks - basically a reinvention in and of himself. I love his turn as the joker, and I would put his performance in Candy afterword, then brokeback after. Now, I loved him as the joker, but although I do not want a return, until the series is inevitably rebooted, I don't feel as if he should be the final joker ever on screen. But as for right now? Heath=Joker.

 

[Travesty]

Just what I said....there can be different versions of the Joker for different stories, and what matters most is how well he works in that particular story, not so much how he compares to other versions. So I don't think he was or had to be defintive in TDK, and I don't think the fact that he had scars and no gadget-jokes made him any less Joker-like.

Ahhhh, but I did, in fact, that's what makes The Joker-The Joker. But hell, what do I know? So if there's a movie where Batman doesn't need a mask, and has no gadgets or Batmobile, yet it works for that story, then it should be fine?

Dude.

Yeah, you're in a comicbook forum, and above the word "dude". Thanks.

 

[Amber]

not to add any more gasoline to this roaring bon fire but can we please stop knocking Heath Ledger? please its getting me a little upset well frankly im starting to cry here and if you really really hate him and think hes a so called "crack head" or a "Junkie" just keep it to yourself

thank you in advance

 

[KalMart]

I remember back when he was announced...although I felt he was a very good actor, I just didn't see him as having the right kid of facial features. i thought someone like Adrien Brody was a better choice, physically. But based on BB, I was confident that Nolan would do a pretty unique version and probably surprise us, so I looked forward to it with a small grain of salt. Then when the first pictures came out, I thought the makeup looked really bad and I got a bit apprehensive. But I also told myself that they're just stills, and it may all work when we see everything moving...so again, I kept myself open.

Then I saw the movie, and he was better than I could have expected. His cadence, body language, and the way he really used that makeup to his advantage. You were seeing the Joker (at least a very interesting albeit different version), but you were also seeing a characterization that we hadn't seen before from Ledger or anyone for that matter. So the fact that I had some small reservations earlier probably made the delivery even that much more impressive....and I really like when a film does that.

 

[The Joker]

Coming from a fan of ledger before TDK, I can say this is easily (and sadly his *technically last*) his best preformance. Literally, If it wasn't for that scene without the makeup, or a credit to him, you could not tell it was him. The voice, the darkness within his character, hell, even the way he looks - basically a reinvention in and of himself. I love his turn as the joker, and I would put his performance in Candy afterword, then brokeback after. Now, I loved him as the joker, but although I do not want a return, until the series is inevitably rebooted, I don't feel as if he should be the final joker ever on screen. But as for right now? Heath=Joker.

Well said

Heath is the Joker

 

[KalMart]

Ahhhh, but I did, in fact, that's what makes The Joker-The Joker.

To you. That's what I mean...to each their own. And in that light...definitive or not shouldn't really be relevant. But if Ledger's Joker was, in fact, definitive TO SOMEONE...well, so be it. How about.....'favorite'....?

But hell, what do I know? So if there's a movie where Batman doesn't need a mask, and has no gadgets or Batmobile, yet it works for that story, then it should be fine?

Some don't see it as that drastic a reinterpretation as you're attempting to describe. Maybe if you weren't so exclusive in that outlook, you could have enjoyed the portrayal better. Maybe not.

Yeah, you're in a comicbook forum, and above the word "dude". Thanks.

Another interesting interpretation. Cheers...'bro'.

 

[Travesty]

Some don't see it as that drastic a reinterpretation as you're attempting to describe. Maybe if you weren't so exclusive in that outlook, you could have enjoyed the portrayal better. Maybe not.

When a character has ALWAYS been portrayed as having perma white skin and uses gadgets to defeat his enemies, to a version that uses makeup and uses no gadgets, then yeah, to me , that kinda takes away from the original version. Sure, it kinda works, but you can kinda work in a version of Batman that doesn't have a mask or uses gadgets. Would it be the same? To me, no it wouldn't.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

The Joker still had a white face in TDK. Using makeup is not the same thing as Batman going maskless.

 

[Travesty]

The Joker still had a white face in TDK. Using makeup is not the same thing as Batman going maskless.

It's a loose analogy to try to get you to see what I'm talking about. Fine, it would be like if Batman had to use makeup to disguise his identity, while he always used a mask before.

I mean, do you get what I'm trying to say?

 

[The Joker]

The Joker still had a white face in TDK. Using makeup is not the same thing as Batman going maskless.

Exactly.

Might as well criticize Batman for not having grey spandex with blue underwear on the outside like he always has in the comics. Or Ra's Al Ghul not being a 700 year old immortal, who is an eco terrorist, who dips himself in the Lazarus Pit, wears green robes and cloaks, and has a sexy daughter, Talia, by his side.

 

[Travesty]

Exactly.

Might as well criticize Batman for not having grey spandex with blue underwear on the outside like he always has in the comics. Or Ra's Al Ghul not being a 700 year old immortal, who is an eco terrorist, who dips himself in the Lazarus Pit, wears green robes and cloaks, and has a sexy daughter, Talia, by his side.

I do, as I never thought Ra's in Begins was the best interpretation of him, either. I'm not trying to deny that.

 

[KalMart]

When a character has ALWAYS been portrayed as having perma white skin and uses gadgets to defeat his enemies, to a version that uses makeup and uses no gadgets, then yeah, to me , that kinda takes away from the original version.

But he was doing an alternative version. I don't think there's a law against that.

Sure, it kinda works, but you can kinda work in a version of Batman that doesn't have a mask or uses gadgets. Would it be the same? To me, no it wouldn't.

Well, if you view comic-accuracy to that extent as a virtue, then yeah...you're gonna be disappointed. But these films are based on the comic, not obligated to mirror them in every detail. I think the effect and overall function of the Joker, as a character, was well-maintained with more than enough hallmark details/qualities translated over to make it him, albeit with a particular perspective.

So I don't think comic-accuracy is an altruistic law or what have you...and I certainly don't think they went against it so much to invalidate their presentation. I don't think it's the radical injustice that you're making it out to be. The fact that the skin was still white (makeup or bleached skin), he looked like an evil clown, wore purple, had green hair (dyed or permanent), and was the kind of psychotic villain/criminal that he was still made him the Joker.....just like this Batman who still had his ears and gadgets, but didn't wear tights or have have permanently white-lensed eyeholes on his mask was still very much Batman. So in that light...we're left with the performance and characterization...which was excellent.

Nolan's Batman movies are A version of the Batman world that doesn't have to be THE version, so to speak, and maintains enough of the identifying features and traits...visually and personally...of the characters while making adjustments to some of the fine details for the sake of their creative interpretation.

But I understand how you feel. It's just that I see these alternative interpretations as a compliment to the entire mythos, instead of a dishonor.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I feel the same way about Heath's performance as I did on first viewing, only moreso. You can say that something is iconic and memorable when you see it the first time, but the true test is time. It's only been 2 years, but I can't see my feeling that this characterization is those things changing. I absolutely still feel it's an Oscar-worthy turn; he does disappear into the character, but this was the first film I saw him in and there wasn't really a Heath Ledger persona the way there was a Jack Nicholson persona - no comedians were doing Heath Ledger impressions. So I just put it more simply and say he's completely fascinating to observe. It's a fresh take, and yet, I think he feels like The Joker at the core.

 

[Travesty]

So I don't think comic-accuracy is an altruistic law or what have you...and I certainly don't think they went against it so much to invalidate their presentation. I don't think it's the radical injustice that you're making it out to be. The fact that the skin was still white (makeup or bleached skin), he looked like an evil clown, wore purple, had green hair (dyed or permanent), and was the kind of psychotic villain/criminal that he was still made him the Joker.....just like this Batman who still had his ears and gadgets, but didn't wear tights or have have permanently white-lensed eyeholes on his mask was still very much Batman. So in that light...we're left with the performance and characterization...which was excellent.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE, it's not just visual aesthetics of TDK-Joker that I don't like, there's MUCH more that I wasn't fond of, but I've done these debates so many times now. And yes, perma-white skin should be the "injustice I'm making it out to be". Joker isn't supposed to be able to take of his "mask"(escape his persona), it's supposed to be with him forever, while Batman is able to.

Anyways, I'm not going into every detail as to why I don't like it. Just know, that while Heath played a great villain, that villain didn't feel like The Joker to me for many reasons.

 

[KalMart]

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE, it's not just visual aesthetics of TDK-Joker that I don't like, there's MUCH more that I wasn't fond of, but I've done these debates so many times now. And yes, perma-white skin should be the "injustice I'm making it out to be". Joker isn't supposed to be able to take of his "mask"(escape his persona), it's supposed to be with him forever, while Batman is able to.

Anyways, I'm not going into every detail as to why I don't like it. Just know, that while Heath played a great villain, that villain didn't feel like The Joker to me for many reasons.

Well, that's too bad, because I think you could have enjoyed it even more if you loosened up a bit on the comic-accuracy part. I'm kinda' with you in that I wouldn't want the Joker in comics to be portrayed like Ledger's one.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

It's not his appearance that makes the Joker who he is, it's what's on the inside. We get a scene of him sans-makeup and he's still that psychotic killer. He can't escape the insanity he fell into. He doesn't use the typical hand buzzer or any other lethal toy, just like how Batman doesn't have smoke bombs, a rebreather, a first-aid kit, a kryptonite ring, or lots of other stuff that's almost expected to be on his utility belt in the comics. That doesn't make Bale's Batman or Ledger's Joker any less of the characters their based off of.

 

[ALP]

Exactly.

Might as well criticize Batman for not having grey spandex with blue underwear on the outside like he always has in the comics. Or Ra's Al Ghul not being a 700 year old immortal, who is an eco terrorist, who dips himself in the Lazarus Pit, wears green robes and cloaks, and has a sexy daughter, Talia, by his side.

Well technically Ra's could be all of those things as Nolan's version never explicitly stated he wasn't immoral or an eco terrorist or uses the Lazarus Pit or not have a daughter. But I will grant you the green robes