The Dark Knight Why getting tone and feel right is more important than detail accuracy...

[ultimatefan]

Well, that's a new and rather radical reinvention.

Far from that. For instance, him trying to get copyrights for putting his smile on fish shows a very twisted view on how market and economics work. Saying that disfiguring his girlfriend and damaging classic paintings is the avan´t garde of a new aesthetics is a very twisted view on aesthetics. The way he trashes the ordinary man´s sense of optimism, morality and normalcy in The Killing Joke shows a pretty twisted view of these topics. I could go on and on.

 

[regwec]

Clearly not, since you have cited just three stories that are uncoincidentally the most commonly known. One of those is a film, and itself a reinvention. The Killing Joke wasn't intended to be taken into continuity, and in any case, the instance you allude to simply shows that The Joker is "cruel". Similarly, the Laughing Fish sees The Joker playing an elaborate joke, rather than having a "twisted view of market economics".

None of this adds weight to your original hypothesis that The Joker has an inverted view of morality and aesthetics. His humour and his menace would be entirely ineffective if he failed to understand the common position on such matters.

 

[Rynan]

None of this adds weight to your original hypothesis that The Joker has an inverted view of morality and aesthetics. His humour and his menace would be entirely ineffective if he failed to understand the common position on such matters.

I always thought The Joker's humor was like that of a high school bully. He laughs at people's misfortune and how they are not "Great" like him. In "The Joker's Utility Belt" and his first appearance, he's always making fun of how he thinks people are idiots and fools(his entire "Utility Belt" gimmick preys on this in a way, using simple jokes to get the best of even hardened cops). Even the in the famous "Laughing Fish", he laughs at people's panic and police's inability to stop his crimes(a running gag with him).

He understands the world around him quite well. If he didn't, he wouldn't be able to manipulate in the way he does.

 

[breyfogle_rules]

Clearly not, since you have cited just three stories that are uncoincidentally the most commonly known. One of those is a film, and itself a reinvention. The Killing Joke wasn't intended to be taken into continuity, and in any case, the instance you allude to simply shows that The Joker is "cruel". Similarly, the Laughing Fish sees The Joker playing an elaborate joke, rather than having a "twisted view of market economics".

None of this adds weight to your original hypothesis that The Joker has an inverted view of morality and aesthetics. His humour and his menace would be entirely ineffective if he failed to understand the common position on such matters.

Regwec, do you technically consider Joker a villain? Obviously he's not a hero. And I'm not up on my Joseph Campbell so I forget all the types he could be but he certainly doesnt strike me as "anti-hero" either (ie:han solo type).
But Villain? It doesnt seem you characterize him this way. It seems you like him, empathize with him and maybe even root for him from time to time.
Is that so?

 

[Rynan]

Is that so?

Niiiice try. Yes, obviously when somebody corrects someone on a villain's personality or motivations, they think he's a hero.

There's nothing wrong in destroying ignorance. What's the point of knowledge if you don't spread it?

 

[regwec]

No, not at all. But I think that his template is probably Satan rather than any number of interchangeable movie psychos. He needs to be hugely malevolent, callous and sardonic, but with lashings of dark charisma and intelligence as well. There has to be a reason that a man responsible for such dreadful employee health and safety still gets recruits to his cause, and a reason that he could seduce a therapist that was privy to insight into his darkest deeds.

I think the root of the misunderstanding is that I think he needs to be impressive in some way. Though insane by our terms, he has to have complete control over his own mind, and an uncanny ability to effect and manipulate others.

 

[Nepenthes]

None of this adds weight to your original hypothesis that The Joker has an inverted view of morality and aesthetics. His humour and his menace would be entirely ineffective if he failed to understand the common position on such matters.

You're splitting semantic hairs Regwec. The Joker understands common morality and aesthetics sure....but he's clearly not bound by them. In this way his views are inverted. He views them as not being important or valid like most people do.

 

[regwec]

That's completely obvious, so much so that it equates only to saying that "The Joker is a villain".

What ultimatefan was suggesting was a wholesale introversion of The Joker's perception as a cause for his bad behaviour.

If he thinks he looks nice in spite of having perennial chalk white skin and green hair - not to mention creepy smile and eyes - yes, I do think he has a twisted sense of beauty. To me his sense of humor is based on the idea that he sees everything in a twisted way, which includes beauty and morality.

 

[Phaser]

Well, that's a new and rather radical reinvention.

There is no single definitive interpretation of the Joker's psyche. Obviously ultimatefan is expressing his analysis of the character and so are you. Because it's a literary work of fiction, there is room for both of your opinions and both of them are valid. Ultimatefan cited very specific examples from the source material and in my estimation, it's quite an interesting and insightful take. It's exactly the ability to confirm to drastically different approaches yet still able to retain their core essence is what helped these characters outlast and outgrow their creators over the ages. In matters such such as these, fans should appreciate such diversity of views in that it helps us all in seeing characters and stories from fresh and unique perspectives.

Which is why all this dragged-out bickering over what is or is not "out-of-character" for the Joker is pointless. Every so called "fan" endlessly arguing over this topic is acting like he/she is Sigmund Freud of the comic book world and as such, is some kind of definite authority in such discussions. And I'm saying this to both camps - enough with this mindless pigeonholing, because there is nothing dumber than fighting over something can't be fully proved or disproved.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Present company excepted- I was actually more cross with the "I went to went to film school and I'm a director and I knew Hitchcock and I work for NASA and my dad could beat your dad so I"M RIGHT" type of stuff.

Gotcha

 

[regwec]

I wouldn't dissuade anyone from describing how they would like The Joker to be portrayed in film, or even lauding one particular interpretation above others. But I resent being fed erronous comicbook history to support fallicious claims that he has always been as we now see him.

And the character does have a consistent core in the mainstream- otherwise, he would not be a character at all, just a gimmick.

 

[itsthebatman]

I wouldn't dissuade anyone from describing how they would like The Joker to be portrayed in film, or even lauding one particular interpretation above others. But I resent being fed erronous comicbook history to support fallicious claims that he has always been as we now see him.

And the character does have a consistent core in the mainstream- otherwise, he would not be a character at all, just a gimmick.

I don't see where anyone implied this. Ultimatefan was talking about his take on Joker in the modern era, who has (I agree with you) had a common core. To me, Joker is a seductive, charismatic, vain, arrogant, flamboyant, publicity-seeking sociopath with a flair for the dramatic and a compulsion to play games with the Batman. These characteristics certainly differentiate him from both John Doe and Two-Face. There's nobody else quite like him!

 

[breyfogle_rules]

I wouldn't dissuade anyone from describing how they would like The Joker to be portrayed in film, or even lauding one particular interpretation above others. But I resent being fed erronous comicbook history to support fallicious claims that he has always been as we now see him.

And the character does have a consistent core in the mainstream- otherwise, he would not be a character at all, just a gimmick.

On the true characterization of Joker.
I think it is important to point out that the Joker is a genius par excellance. To me, this is his weapon. Scarecrow has his fear gas, Joker has his scheming genius.
There are many bums in alleyways throughout the world with unbridled psyches, no morality and a hankering to invite anarchy into the world. But they just throw a bottle at a telephone pole and get thrown in jail for the night. Joker pulls off the same M.O., but on a Donald Trump scale. This is his genius.
So what does Joker want? In the grand scheme, chaos it seems. Or better, the personal feeling of power he gets from being the person who orchestrated the sweet chaos. This feeling of power can also be shown in his individual personality, where in many instances it is clear he likes to remain perfectly unpredictable to all those around him (a Joker cliche is to blow ANYBODY away, even his own henchmen, at any whim).
So just like Scarecrow is a pathetic soul who finds power in preying on the fearful and innocent through his fear gas…
Joker is a pathetic soul who finds power through orchestrating chaos at the cost of the fearful and innocent. He “rock-stars” it up a little bit, which adds an attractive element. Plus, his knack for getting money helps keep the goons interested. In Morrisson’s Arkham, the therapist actually even says the Joker isn’t technically insane. I like to think this is true. I like to think he is a demon with very specific designs on chaos…very satanic as you said. I think his “madness” is that he comes up with extremely ambitious schemes and then compromises them with completely illogical twists and turns, showboating his genius. But it is all flawed from the beginning since it's all a sort of adolescent lashing-out style philosophy. This guys a little b**tch. What must be shown to prove that he is a real loser (a villain we are to hate) is his lack of adherence to his own ethos. I think this can be shown on film by making us see instances where he lowers himself to the power high of flat out murder. That for all his megalomaniacal schemes, he really just gets high from the feeling of taking human life. Pathetic. And this is why I see the John Wayne Gacy approach working in this film in tha respect. But also, visually, it just pops off screen. He needs to be more vibrant and freaky looking than Scarecrow in his mask to VISUALLY signify his order on the villain totem pole, which is A#1.
In BB, Ra's was an example of a criminal mastermind with a real world plan but not such an identifiably theatrical persona. Scarecrow was an example of a more theatrical supervillain but his motives were more selfish and on a smaller scope than Ra's. Now, with Ledgers Joker, we will show a supervillain with an even MORE theatrical persona than Scarecrow but ALSO with an ambitious world-scope "plan".
Dang, this is just turning into a stream of consciousness now.

Ps: Harley Quinn will NEVER be canon to me. Lame character.

 

[regwec]

On the true characterization of Joker.
I think it is important to point out that the Joker is a genius par excellance. To me, this is his weapon. Scarecrow has his fear gas, Joker has his scheming genius.
There are many bums in alleyways throughout the world with unbridled psyches, no morality and a hankering to invite anarchy into the world. But they just throw a bottle at a telephone pole and get thrown in jail for the night. Joker pulls off the same M.O., but on a Donald Trump scale. This is his genius.
So what does Joker want? In the grand scheme, chaos it seems. Or better, the personal feeling of power he gets from being the person who orchestrated the sweet chaos. This feeling of power can also be shown in his individual personality, where in many instances it is clear he likes to remain perfectly unpredictable to all those around him (a Joker cliche is to blow ANYBODY away, even his own henchmen, at any whim).
So just like Scarecrow is a pathetic soul who finds power in preying on the fearful and innocent through his fear gas…
Joker is a pathetic soul who finds power through orchestrating chaos at the cost of the fearful and innocent. He “rock-stars” it up a little bit, which adds an attractive element. Plus, his knack for getting money helps keep the goons interested. In Morrisson’s Arkham, the therapist actually even says the Joker isn’t technically insane. I like to think this is true. I like to think he is a demon with very specific designs on chaos…very satanic as you said. I think his “madness” is that he comes up with extremely ambitious schemes and then compromises them with completely illogical twists and turns, showboating his genius. But it is all flawed from the beginning since it's all a sort of adolescent lashing-out style philosophy. This guys a little b**tch. What must be shown to prove that he is a real loser (a villain we are to hate) is his lack of adherence to his own ethos. I think this can be shown on film by making us see instances where he lowers himself to the power high of flat out murder. That for all his megalomaniacal schemes, he really just gets high from the feeling of taking human life. Pathetic. And this is why I see the John Wayne Gacy approach working in this film in tha respect. But also, visually, it just pops off screen. He needs to be more vibrant and freaky looking than Scarecrow in his mask to VISUALLY signify his order on the villain totem pole, which is A#1.
In BB, Ra's was an example of a criminal mastermind with a real world plan but not such an identifiably theatrical persona. Scarecrow was an example of a more theatrical supervillain but his motives were more selfish and on a smaller scope than Ra's. Now, with Ledgers Joker, we will show a supervillain with an even MORE theatrical persona than Scarecrow but ALSO with an ambitious world-scope "plan".
Dang, this is just turning into a stream of consciousness now.

I like all of that and agree with much of it. I think the only crucial difference in my view is that The Joker needs to have a seductive element to be genuinely morally threatening. The clown iconography is central to that (children might trust him on first sight, others are likely to underestimate him), and the Satanic imagery is quite obvious even in his angular features and horn-like hair. I agree that The Joker needs to come "unstuck" occassionally- a pointless murder brings him to earth, and he can happily revert to a cackling lunatic when his best laid plans are foiled. These also produce a mild emotional disturbance in an audience who had hitherto been "entertained" by this clown, to some extent.

Ps: Harley Quinn will NEVER be canon to me. Lame character.

She is a pointless character, but she was a fantastic incident.

 

[ultimatefan]

Clearly not, since you have cited just three stories that are uncoincidentally the most commonly known. One of those is a film, and itself a reinvention. The Killing Joke wasn't intended to be taken into continuity, and in any case, the instance you allude to simply shows that The Joker is "cruel". Similarly, the Laughing Fish sees The Joker playing an elaborate joke, rather than having a "twisted view of market economics".

None of this adds weight to your original hypothesis that The Joker has an inverted view of morality and aesthetics. His humour and his menace would be entirely ineffective if he failed to understand the common position on such matters.

It doesn´t matter if they´re "reinventions" or "elseworlds" or whatever label you wanna use to dismiss them, they´re popular interpretations of the character and highly regarded by many fans, your affirmations really talk down to a lot of beloving Joker fans.

It shows that he refuses the traditional consensual views of beauty and art, therefore a twisted view of them.

He´s not only being cruel per se, he´s showing that he despises our society´s point of view over morality and sanity and that he praises insanity as a solution - The Joker being proud of his insanity is common to several comics - therefore he has a twisted point of view.

In his own mind, The Joker believes he has a right to those royalties for bringing his "unique" look to fish, so that also shows a twisted view of how the world works.

It

 

[breyfogle_rules]

It doesn´t matter if they´re "reinventions" or "elseworlds" or whatever label you wanna use to dismiss them, they´re popular interpretations of the character and highly regarded by many fans, your affirmations really talk down to a lot of beloving Joker fans.

Lets take another approach. Lets talk about some capers or character archs that we can all agree on being typically Joker. Straight from the comics. No Movies, no graphic novel breaks in continuity (dark knight returns, Killing Joke). I'm talking Joker stories straight from Batman and Detective. What are the types of things this Joker guy does?

And has Paul Dini's run in Detective had any Joker stories? I'd like to see his take.

 

[regwec]

And has Paul Dini's run in Detective had any Joker stories? I'd like to see his take.

Yes, and one of the best for years. The Joker kidnaps Robin in a stolen car and takes him on a prolonged hit-and-run massacre. Some of the humour is spot on. There is a sequence at a drive-thru that illustrates exactly what I mean by "morally troubling" entertainment.

 

[ultimatefan]

Lets take another approach. Lets talk about some capers or character archs that we can all agree on being typically Joker. Straight from the comics. No Movies, no graphic novel breaks in continuity (dark knight returns, Killing Joke). I'm talking Joker stories straight from Batman and Detective. What are the types of things this Joker guy does?

And has Paul Dini's run in Detective had any Joker stories? I'd like to see his take.

The graphic novels, the movies, the animated series, all that is part of the mythos and all have their value as interpretations of the character. It´s narrow-minded to say "only the Joker from the monthly comics counts" and even those had different takes over the years. Some monthly comics writers are more influenced by Alan Moore, some more by Steve Englehart, some take from Nicholson or the Animated Series, etc.

 

[breyfogle_rules]

The graphic novels, the movies, the animated series, all that is part of the mythos and all have their value as interpretations of the character. It´s narrow-minded to say "only the Joker from the monthly comics counts" and even those had different takes over the years. Some monthly comics writers are more influenced by Alan Moore, some more by Steve Englehart, some take from Nicholson or the Animated Series, etc.

I didn't say "only the Joker from the monthly comics counts".
I asked folks if they could fill me in on Joker threads from the monthlys. For my own personal interest. But also to help simplify our collective discussion of his character. It is there he has had the most consistent representation. I was thinking it would be a good starting point, and then we could move on to the more enterpising takes in one-offs, cartoons, paper plates...

 

[itsthebatman]

I didn't say "only the Joker from the monthly comics counts".
I asked folks if they could fill me in on Joker threads from the monthlys. For my own personal interest. But also to help simplify our collective discussion of his character. It is there he has had the most consistent representation. I was thinking it would be a good starting point, and then we could move on to the more enterpising takes in one-offs, cartoons, paper plates...

Cliche though it is, I think Batman #1 and the Englehart/Rogers run capture Joker at his best. I'll come back when I think of something better.
*suddenly remembers something*
No Man's Land. Shoots a henchman who is answering his questions correctly, asking him 'Do you think you should be the boss?'. Kidnaps all babies born in the NML to kill hope, then shoots Sarah Essen, and gives himself up. Captured his anarchic, psychopathic side perfectly.

 

[Nepenthes]

Yes, and one of the best for years. The Joker kidnaps Robin in a stolen car and takes him on a prolonged hit-and-run massacre. Some of the humour is spot on. There is a sequence at a drive-thru that illustrates exactly what I mean by "morally troubling" entertainment.

I love that issue :heart:. It's collected in the trade Breyfogle

Regwec Breyfogle and Ultimate Fan are all spot on here I think, each in there own way.

That for all his megalomaniacal schemes, he really just gets high from the feeling of taking human life. Pathetic.

This is particularly interesting.

 

[ultimatefan]

I love that issue :heart:. It's collected in the trade Breyfogle

Regwec Breyfogle and Ultimate Fan are all spot on here I think, each in there own way.




This is particularly interesting.

Thanks a lot, the great thing about any great character or work of art is they´re open to interpretation, look how many variations of the same basic concept of a character like Dracula or Dr. Jekyll there are, and many are great in their own way.

 

[Keyser Soze]

It's strange how people are willing to downplay the idea of The Joker as a crazed, terrifying, psychotic killer who views life and death as a joke, and try and reinvent The Joker as a guy who looks harmless, whose defining characteristic is being vain and caring about his appearance and "good looks", all to try and add credence to their reasoning for hating the movie look of The Joker.

In The Joker stories I've read, his vanity (at least as it alludes to his appearance) has never stood out to me as a crucial trait. But if others do, that's fine. Say you don't like Ledger's Joker, by all means, but don't twist your opinions into evidence to say its "wrong", and not true to the character. Lee Bermejo said it best in his recent interview:

"That's the beauty of these characters, though. They're so ripe for interpretation. That's one of the reasons they're still around and still so popular. Anybody who claims to “know” these characters just has an "idea" of what they want that character to be. This is their right, but it's not necessarily what they will always get."

 

[ultimatefan]

Cliche though it is, I think Batman #1 and the Englehart/Rogers run capture Joker at his best. I'll come back when I think of something better.
*suddenly remembers something*
No Man's Land. Shoots a henchman who is answering his questions correctly, asking him 'Do you think you should be the boss?'. Kidnaps all babies born in the NML to kill hope, then shoots Sarah Essen, and gives himself up. Captured his anarchic, psychopathic side perfectly.

The Laughing Fish is an amazing Joker story and if I remember, in it Batman says Joker´s actions "only make sense to him" or words to that effect, which is not too different from saying he has a twisted point of view on things.

 

[regwec]

It's strange how people are willing to downplay the idea of The Joker as a crazed, terrifying, psychotic killer who views life and death as a joke, and try and reinvent The Joker as a guy who looks harmless, whose defining characteristic is being vain and caring about his appearance and "good looks", all to try and add credence to their reasoning for hating the movie look of The Joker.

You seem to be confused. Those elements were stressed by us "haters", as you like to call us, to counter the false analysis by several "supporters" that a monstrous, mutilated Joker was in some way a better physical realisation of the character than the traditional depiction. We were just explaining an element of the character with which many seemed to be entirely unfamiliar. I certainly don't maintain that those traits are dominant, as such.