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

[KalMart]

But that's happened MANY of times in the comics and movies. The Cape and mask ISN'T a part of Batman, it's his disguise, sure, but it's not apart of his body.

Would you consider him Batman without it? Would he not find a way to somehow continue what he's doing, or achieving his goals, if for some reason he couldn't wear a cape and mask? I think he would,,,and that's what truly makes him Batman to the core. Same with the Joker...wether it's a cape/mask, bleached skin, or white makeup...it completes that character's picture, but it doesn't dictate what they do. That primarily comes from within. Both versions of Joker end up looking like a clown, with an irreversible physical affliction that lends itself to that, as the result of something (like the kind of life he was leading up to that point, most likely).

The Joker on the other hand, shouldn't be able to have his white skin complexion taken out. Batman's cape can be replaced, but Joker's skin is eternal, until he dies.....

And with Ledger's, it happens to be the scars that are eternal. It's a variation on the details, but serves the same character purpose as the permawhite....with the added bonus of the white being there as well, just in an different way.

That's taking it a little to far, now isn't it?

No farther than your 'throwing water' scenario.

Sure, hypothetically, he could, but he hasn't, nor has that EVER been a part of the mythos, which is what we're taking about.

So how was it portrayed or indicated that Batman would go straight for the makeup in TDK? You're projecting that because you prefer a different version, the story and presentation isn't.

Not the "what-ifs", but the "what-ares". Could Batman become Superman, and start to fly, etc? Sure, in the same, perfect world where hypotheticals can be exaggerated for debate, like this one.

Oooo-key-dokey, then....

Another thing....in a lot of ways, it makes the TDK Joker even more sinister and innately evil...in that instead of feeling forced or compelled by a permawhite skin condition, this Joker...who can at least have normal skin if he wanted to...CHOOSES to be this way. But again, in either depiction, we're probably talking about someone who was already a sick pup to begin with, and when something pretty irreversible happened to their body, it completed the picture for them. It's no longer about ehe nitty-gritty of what can be 'undone' and what can't....he's in it for keeps, and this is how he looks like.

But anyway...we get why you prefer a different Joker than TDK's....and I respect that. No-one's saying you're wrong for liking what you do. But in no way does it show or mean that the TDK Joker was universally/unequivocally less of a Joker potrayal. His function and M.O. were met just as well as any other in which his skin is permanently white, it's just personal preference as to how he got that way.

 

[Travesty]

Would you consider him Batman without it? Would he not find a way to somehow continue what he's doing, or achieving his goals, if for some reason he couldn't wear a cape and mask? I think he would,,,and that's what truly makes him Batman to the core. Same with the Joker...wether it's a cape/mask, bleached skin, or white makeup...it completes that character's picture, but it doesn't dictate what they do. That primarily comes from within.

So you're saying that if Batman doesn't wear a cape or cowl that portrays him as a bat, that he should still be called "Batman"? That's the whole point of the character! If he didn't wear the cape or cowl than he wouldn't be Batman, he would just be vigilante #1.

And with Ledger's, it happens to be the scars that are eternal. It's a variation on the details, but serves the same character purpose as the permawhite....with the added bonus of the white being there as well, just in an different way.

Oh, so 1/10th of what makes The Joker, is what 100% makes The Joker? So just having a utility belt, with a Man-Bat, is what makes a Batman?

No farther than your 'throwing water' scenario.

Throwing water on someone with makeup, in order to take that makeup off, is a little more likely than sitting someone down, and having a full body surgery, in order to not have permawhite skin in the entire body gone.

So how was it portrayed or indicated that Batman would go straight for the makeup in TDK? You're projecting that because you prefer a different version, the story and presentation isn't.

I'm a bit confused by this.....

Oooo-key-dokey, then....

Maybe I'm done with you now. You throw in more wild hypotheicals, and now I'm exaggerating the situation?

 

[KalMart]

So you're saying that if Batman doesn't wear a cape or cowl that portrays him as a bat, that he should still be called "Batman"? That's the whole point of the character! If he didn't wear the cape or cowl than he wouldn't be Batman, he would just be vigilante #1.

No, I'm saying that the cape/mask/permawhite/makeup is an extension of what's inside...whether they can be removed or not, or however they came to be as part of the end product.

In Joker's case...both versions have a permanent physical characteristic that makes them look clown-like. They're different in specifics, but in the end, they still look like twisted clowns. Big grin, white skin, green hair...the whole thing has been adopted by the character by now, so which parts are 'changeable' isn't as important any more in this case, since he probably has no desire to change any of it anyway.

Oh, so 1/10th of what makes The Joker, is what 100% makes The Joker? So just having a utility belt, with a Man-Bat, is what makes a Batman?

Nope...it's about the whole 100%...which is the sum of the parts....not which parts are bigger than others.

Throwing water on someone with makeup, in order to take that makeup off, is a little more likely than sitting someone down, and having a full body surgery, in order to not have permawhite skin in the entire body gone.

You'd make one heck of a writer. Read the part above again about looking at the whole.

Now read it once more...but slower.

I'm a bit confused by this.....

No, really?

Maybe I'm done with you now. You throw in more wild hypotheicals, and now I'm exaggerating the situation?

You pretty much exaggerated from the start, in case you didn't notice. Again....in this case, I think it's the effect of the end product as a whole that should be judged moreso than the particulars that make it up. But if the opposite matters more to you...that's cool too. Different strokes and all.

 

[ALP]

It was left ambiguous so we can't really say that the glasgow grin is what motivated him to become the Joker. We don't know if that's what 'sent him over the edge' as the bleaching did in the comics. For all we know, TDK Joker could be sick **** whose scars are self inflicted. The makeup is to make him look like a rogue clown.

I definitely prefer the perma-white because to me, it simply looks better. I don't have a long winded reason about how it is essential to the character, I just think it looks way cooler. But for the most part, Joker putting on makeup does not bother me. It is just another of many takes on the character. The only time I flat out don't like it is when he isn't wearinng the makeup. If he's got to put on makeup, then he should always have it on. That's why I would be bothered by seeing him in Arkham, that just wouldn't be Joker to me. The scene in TDK was fine, no big deal b/c he was only shown for a second or two. In A Death in the Family and Batman'89 Joker wore flesh colored makeup, but that was okay b/c you knew it wasn't his real color, it was a mask of makeup. That is the one big difference for me. For Joker in TDK to 'fit in' he only has to take off his makeup...nobody seemed to notice there was a cop with scars on his mouth that looked just like the ones Joker has lol

For the most part it's simply what I think looks better aesthetically and fits better as opposed to presenting a big argument for why Joker must be this or that way. But this here is simply NOT the Joker, just as Batman without his cape and cowl isn't Batman(it's Bruce Wayne):

Spoiler

 

[KalMart]

But this here is simply NOT the Joker, just as Batman without his cape and cowl isn't Batman(it's Bruce Wayne):

Spoiler

That's the Joker in disguise...in case you didn't get that in the movie. When his skin looks white, and his grin looks blood-red....that's him being him.

At least in this version.

 

[ALP]

^Yes, I know...it goes along with Rachel touching Bruce's face in Batman Begins and saying, "This isn't your real face Bruce, the mask...that is your real face!"


I get it, it's just cheesy. :/

 

[The Joker]

In A Death in the Family and Batman'89 Joker wore flesh colored makeup

That was a head scratcher. Why the heck did Nicholson's Joker keep wearing flesh toned make up over his white skin? He wasn't in disguise. It's not like anyone didn't know who he was.

Never really understood that.

 

[KalMart]

^Yes, I know...it goes along with Rachel touching Bruce's face in Batman Begins and saying, "This isn't your real face Bruce, the mask...that is your real face!"

I get it, it's just cheesy. :/

So's the whole concept of costumed superheroes and villains, really...but hey, you take the good with the bad.

I get what you mean, though. To be honest, I had more issues with the batman cowl...mostly the design of the ears...than I did with Joker wearing makeup. But that's another topic.

 

[ALP]

That was a head scratcher. Why the heck did Nicholson's Joker keep wearing flesh toned make up over his white skin? He wasn't in disguise. It's not like anyone didn't know who he was.

Never really understood that.

It made sense when he appeared on the television and when he was in the meeting with the mafia guys. The makeup was for him to fit in, look normal. Especially when he was on tv, most people would be more trusting of a guy dressed and looking normal than a clown dressed up like Liberace and Pierrot.

But the scene in the museum made no sense at all. Only thing I can think of is that he wanted to appear normal to Vickie Vale, especially if he was smitten. I doubt Burton put much thought behind it

 

[Anita18]

Another thing....in a lot of ways, it makes the TDK Joker even more sinister and innately evil...in that instead of feeling forced or compelled by a permawhite skin condition, this Joker...who can at least have normal skin if he wanted to...CHOOSES to be this way. But again, in either depiction, we're probably talking about someone who was already a sick pup to begin with, and when something pretty irreversible happened to their body, it completed the picture for them. It's no longer about ehe nitty-gritty of what can be 'undone' and what can't....he's in it for keeps, and this is how he looks like.

That's exactly what I thought, especially after seeing TDK for the first time. The Joker's not frightening because he can kill people (gosh knows every supervillain is able to do that 10x more than Joker can ), but because he embodies the evil we all can be if we chose that path. Anyone could be the Joker, especially after he rationalizes himself to Dent. He's messed up, but it's conceivable how someone could feel that way.

 

[Mr. Joker Risin']

^Yes, I know...it goes along with Rachel touching Bruce's face in Batman Begins and saying, "This isn't your real face Bruce, the mask...that is your real face!"


I get it, it's just cheesy. :/

I think Rachel was more referring to how Bruce is when he's in the Bat suit compared to how he is in public as Bruce Wayne, not literally referring to the cowl as his true face. On the other hand, it's the opposite for Joker, his true face to him is literally when he looks like a clown.

I'm not arguing, just chatting So how's that cheesy to you? It shows that he's even more of a sick **** because he feels out of place in his own skin.

Like someone else said, the make-up concept actually adds even more darkness to his already twisted psyche.

 

[Encore]

The question I pose is this. Two years later, now that the hype and excitement of the initial release is over, how do you feel about Heath Ledger's performance now? Do you still consider it Oscar-worthy (if you did in the first place)? Does it get better after each viewing? Or does it become more gimmicky after each viewing?

Absolutely. Of course the quality of the script helped, but the intensity with each he got into character is rarely ever seen in movies these days, specially movies of this kind. And he also seems to have made something completely unique out of an existing character, which is also an achievement in itself (hence why "Heath Ledger's Joker" will always be something separated from the Joker we all knew before). I never doubted that he deserved the Oscar and still think so.

 

[Daredevil]

Heaths Joker is one of the finest performances I have ever had the pleasure of watching. Absolutely amazing. I frequently watch both the movie or individual scenes with The Joker in it. I will never understand why some people hold it against Nolan or Ledger because he didnt do the chemically bleached skin. If you ask me that would have been quite stupid, as Heaths Joker was striving for realism and it reached that. And I prefer the creepy glasgow smile as well. But thats just me.

And Travesty I dunno if youre still here but I think that your argument about him not having permawhite skin is beyond ridiculous. That would not have fit in with the tone of Nolans Batman movies.

 

[Travesty]

And Travesty I dunno if youre still here but I think that your argument about him not having permawhite skin is beyond ridiculous. That would not have fit in with the tone of Nolans Batman movies.

No, I'm still here, but I disagree. It's all good, I'm fine with you wanting a more watered downed version of the character.

 

[Daredevil]

What? Its not that, its just I want consistency in movies. In the comics the perma white works really well but in Nolan's Batman films it really wouldnt make any sense to establish this real world version of Gotham and then make him have permanent white skin/permanent smile which is kinda impossible (?) in the real world. Id rather have a Joker consistent with the series tone that is awesome and works amazingly then one that has the same perma white skin and doesnt fit in at all with what goes on in the new Batman franchise.

 

[Travesty]

What? Its not that, its just I want consistency in movies. In the comics the perma white works really well but in Nolan's Batman films it really wouldnt make any sense to establish this real world version of Gotham and then make him have permanent white skin/permanent smile which is kinda impossible (?) in the real world. Id rather have a Joker consistent with the series tone that is awesome and works amazingly then one that has the same perma white skin and doesnt fit in at all with what goes on in the new Batman franchise.

Oh, so Two-Face can literally have half of his face burned off, and not only is he fine with no drugs, but he survives easily.

Come on. If you're going to break "reality", might as well be true to the source.

 

[Anita18]

What? Its not that, its just I want consistency in movies. In the comics the perma white works really well but in Nolan's Batman films it really wouldnt make any sense to establish this real world version of Gotham and then make him have permanent white skin/permanent smile which is kinda impossible (?) in the real world. Id rather have a Joker consistent with the series tone that is awesome and works amazingly then one that has the same perma white skin and doesnt fit in at all with what goes on in the new Batman franchise.

I don't think Nolan went with makeup for this reason. I think it's because he wanted to present Joker as someone that could be any of us. What's frightening about TDK isn't Joker's threats, but the fact the fear and terror he incites are so palpable. The fact that Nolan's Joker doesn't need his skin bleached to be insane is part of that - the dude is so crazy by himself that he puts his own makeup on.

 

[General Vulcun]

I believe that Nolan doesn't believe that permawhite skin defines who The Joker is at heart, nor do I believe the scars do that in TDK. It kind of goes back to what Alan Moore did in The Killing Joke and why I believe it to be a defining story for the character.

We know that in the story Joker tells of his "origin" and ends with being doused in chemicals & turned perma-white, that action being the specific one that drives Joker in the edge. But, as it ends, that story doesn't necessarily turn out to be true, and instead ends with Joker admitting he remembers his past in multiple different forms. But the thing is, while the stories may be different that doesn't automatically mean the end result is the same, ie the chemical bath/perma-white being the main action to push The Joker over the edge.

It's the same for The Joker in TDK. Once again, he tells multiple stories in which his scars take centre stage. In the first story it was the traumatizing action of his father slicing open his cheeks that was the trigger, but in the second story it was the irony behind the action of his cheeks getting cut open that was the trigger, not the action itself. Different story, but the end result wasn't necessarily the same. They both involved the scars, but they both had different triggers for The Joker's turn.

In both versions of the character their most defining physical characteristic takes centre stage, but who's to say that's the cause? They're the characteristics that Joker has the most fun building a story around, but who's to say that the perma-white or the scars have to be the trigger that sent him over the edge? That's the great thing about both stories is that The Joker's past is ambiguous and no matter what "clues" or details Joker leaves behind for us, or what characteristics look like the "sure thing" for what drove him insane, we simply don't know, and I don't think we ever will.

The Joker could've very well had been perma-white or had the scars & still gone on to live a normal life, only to have been pushed by something that no one would've expected, like watching a child play in the street or seeing a commercial. But it's not the point of exactly where he came from or what drove him insane. And it doesn't matter what visually striking characteristics Joker has, whether it being perma-white or the scars, because neither fully explain The Joker nor do they fully define who The Joker is.

The Joker as a character is a complete mystery in every aspect. Perhaps one of the greatest jokes The Joker's ever pulled was convincing people that a physical deformity had anything to do with how he sees the world. For all we know, these characteristics are just being incorporated into the ''act".

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

well said, general

 

[Mister H.]

Ledger was great. I don't think my opinion on that will ever change. The lip smacking thing didn't work for me, but I think I understand why Ledger included in his portrayal. One of my favorite performances of the last several years.

 

[Brother Jack]

The Joker as a character is a complete mystery in every aspect. Perhaps one of the greatest jokes The Joker's ever pulled was convincing people that a physical deformity had anything to do with how he sees the world. For all we know, these characteristics are just being incorporated into the ''act".

Great post.

 

[Daredevil]

Man am I sick of hearing this The Joker killed Heath Ledger crap. I dont think thats true, he said its the most fun hes ever had with a character and if Im not mistaken he had insomnia before the role.

 

[RustyCage]

Vulcun, that's the best post I've read in a long, long time.

 

[The Joker]

I believe that Nolan doesn't believe that permawhite skin defines who The Joker is at heart, nor do I believe the scars do that in TDK. It kind of goes back to what Alan Moore did in The Killing Joke and why I believe it to be a defining story for the character.

We know that in the story Joker tells of his "origin" and ends with being doused in chemicals & turned perma-white, that action being the specific one that drives Joker in the edge. But, as it ends, that story doesn't necessarily turn out to be true, and instead ends with Joker admitting he remembers his past in multiple different forms. But the thing is, while the stories may be different that doesn't automatically mean the end result is the same, ie the chemical bath/perma-white being the main action to push The Joker over the edge.

It's the same for The Joker in TDK. Once again, he tells multiple stories in which his scars take centre stage. In the first story it was the traumatizing action of his father slicing open his cheeks that was the trigger, but in the second story it was the irony behind the action of his cheeks getting cut open that was the trigger, not the action itself. Different story, but the end result wasn't necessarily the same. They both involved the scars, but they both had different triggers for The Joker's turn.

In both versions of the character their most defining physical characteristic takes centre stage, but who's to say that's the cause? They're the characteristics that Joker has the most fun building a story around, but who's to say that the perma-white or the scars have to be the trigger that sent him over the edge? That's the great thing about both stories is that The Joker's past is ambiguous and no matter what "clues" or details Joker leaves behind for us, or what characteristics look like the "sure thing" for what drove him insane, we simply don't know, and I don't think we ever will.

The Joker could've very well had been perma-white or had the scars & still gone on to live a normal life, only to have been pushed by something that no one would've expected, like watching a child play in the street or seeing a commercial. But it's not the point of exactly where he came from or what drove him insane. And it doesn't matter what visually striking characteristics Joker has, whether it being perma-white or the scars, because neither fully explain The Joker nor do they fully define who The Joker is.

The Joker as a character is a complete mystery in every aspect. Perhaps one of the greatest jokes The Joker's ever pulled was convincing people that a physical deformity had anything to do with how he sees the world. For all we know, these characteristics are just being incorporated into the ''act".

If the Hype had awards for best posts, this would deserve a nomination.

Excellent post

 

[Two-Face]

I believe that Nolan doesn't believe that permawhite skin defines who The Joker is at heart, nor do I believe the scars do that in TDK. It kind of goes back to what Alan Moore did in The Killing Joke and why I believe it to be a defining story for the character.

We know that in the story Joker tells of his "origin" and ends with being doused in chemicals & turned perma-white, that action being the specific one that drives Joker in the edge. But, as it ends, that story doesn't necessarily turn out to be true, and instead ends with Joker admitting he remembers his past in multiple different forms. But the thing is, while the stories may be different that doesn't automatically mean the end result is the same, ie the chemical bath/perma-white being the main action to push The Joker over the edge.

It's the same for The Joker in TDK. Once again, he tells multiple stories in which his scars take centre stage. In the first story it was the traumatizing action of his father slicing open his cheeks that was the trigger, but in the second story it was the irony behind the action of his cheeks getting cut open that was the trigger, not the action itself. Different story, but the end result wasn't necessarily the same. They both involved the scars, but they both had different triggers for The Joker's turn.

In both versions of the character their most defining physical characteristic takes centre stage, but who's to say that's the cause? They're the characteristics that Joker has the most fun building a story around, but who's to say that the perma-white or the scars have to be the trigger that sent him over the edge? That's the great thing about both stories is that The Joker's past is ambiguous and no matter what "clues" or details Joker leaves behind for us, or what characteristics look like the "sure thing" for what drove him insane, we simply don't know, and I don't think we ever will.

The Joker could've very well had been perma-white or had the scars & still gone on to live a normal life, only to have been pushed by something that no one would've expected, like watching a child play in the street or seeing a commercial. But it's not the point of exactly where he came from or what drove him insane. And it doesn't matter what visually striking characteristics Joker has, whether it being perma-white or the scars, because neither fully explain The Joker nor do they fully define who The Joker is.

The Joker as a character is a complete mystery in every aspect. Perhaps one of the greatest jokes The Joker's ever pulled was convincing people that a physical deformity had anything to do with how he sees the world. For all we know, these characteristics are just being incorporated into the ''act".

Wow! well said mate.