AlexdeParis said:

All this cutting talk brings me back to Joker's mouth. I don't think the comics had a version where Joker's smile was due to huge cut scars running up the sides of his mouth. It's just sick.

Heath Ledger was at his finest in this role.
He managed to transcend his personality and "become" the character.

Outstanding!!!

You know how the 1960s Joker would just go "ahoo hoo hoooo!" and jump around.

I could have used more of that.

AlexdeParis said:

Agreed. On it's own, the movie was good. But as far as replicating the comics and actual spirit of The Joker (and the Batman mythos in general), it fell somewhat short. I still feel that the Batman from '89 was THE Joker. He was kooky, but at the same time could kill you a second later. And when he killed you, it would be in a cartoony fashion. That's how he ws in the comics. He was never a full blown maniac. He bnalanced his crazyness with genuine irony/funniness. Heath's Joker was twisted and he thought it was funny (pencil scene). The '89 Joker made the jokes deadly. Ledger's just made/found the death in general funny.

On the other hand, Heath delivered the line's very seriously. The lines were proper, but lacked the humor in his speech/tone that Mark Hamill or Jack Nicholson brought into it.
[Edited 8/4/08 19:55pm]

Volitan I agree most with what you said about the Joker character. I think it has more to do with the script for Dark Knight rather than Heath's performance.

There weren't many jokes.

I was impressed with Nolan's take on the Joker. It might have gone beyond the clownish levity that people perceive as the comic book Joker, but why would you want a rehash of the 89 Batman? I think Nolan tapped into contemporary fears of terrorism and produced something part Joker and part Jason Vorheeves for adults: a villian who might kill you by whim, or track you down for certain if you're on his shit list. The public hysteria was much more palpable in this movie.

As to what Heath Ledger put into the role? There were so many nuances; his vocal delivery was chilling; the sucking of the inside of his cheeks...in terms of portraying a comic book character that no one can agree on how should be portrayed, he at least produced something frighteningly memorable.

I can't even begin to compare it to Jack Nicholson, since his take is closer to Cesar Romero's than it is to Heath's / Nolan's.

On the contrary, I thought a lot of Heath's maniacal lip-licking/heavy nose breathing/leaning/lurching owed a lot to Nicholson's. Even the voice.

i thought it was utterly brilliant

however




i still think tim burtons is pretty definitive-that was done before any of this zeitgeist superhero reneasaicance

sometimes i think "gritty" is the easy way out

me and my 4 year old watched the 1966 film and HE LOVED IT!!!

Cinnie said:

Oh, you're going to actually make me go back and watch the '89 Batman?

I guess I'm just operating from memory, but outside of a few shrill laughs, it was Nicholson's doing a slight stretch outside what Nicholson does...

But I have to admit, I only say Brokeback Mt. for the first time, a couple days before seing TDK. I was in awe at the contrast.

MarkThrust said:

I watched the `89 Batman about a kajillion times, as well as the old Batman TV shows and movie. I don't know what else Heath could have studied for the "live" role of The Joker so using that frame of reference, yeah I saw a lot of Jack in it.

Heath's performance was pretty darn Prince-like: He gave several nods to several great actors (Brando, Nicholson, McDowell, for example), and he still made it his own.

A chilling performance. The fact that his origins are never fleshed out and that he appears fully formed just adds to what will be heralded as a fairly singular performance for years to come.

It's too bad Heath died too. Joker didn't die, so possibly they were tihking of bringing him back in a future film.

Cinnie said:

You know he made those stories up right?

Cinnie said:

Nicholson's Joker's smile was due to a BULLET THROUGH THE FACE.

Even Prince as "Gemini" in the Partyman video was more convincing than Nicholson playing Nicholson again. Heath Ledger´s interpretation of the Joker brought a fresh, updated and very timely approach to the Joker character, and Nolan´s version of Batman is far superior than any other incarnation , in my opinion, because he´s come as close as possible to Dennis O´Neill´s and Neal Adams´ version of Batman, or later Frank Miller´s interpretation, and these are my favorite versions of Batman. I guess everybody has their own favorite interpretation, some like the campy Batman of the 1960s, some prefer O´Neill/Adams, some like Miller´s work ( and his much more brutal version of the Joker).
Over the last decades, there have been huge differences between the various interpretations of the Batman persona.

KoolEaze said:

Even the more brutal versions of the Joker had a cartoony aspect to him. Read Death In The Family. He wears those big oversized plastic sunglasses and an oversized blue and yellow bowtie. The new Joker had very little funniness to him

Volitan said:

The Killing Joke

The Joker shoots Barbara Gordon in the spine, strips her naked and photographs her broken body. He then shows those photos of a naked, bleeding, and shattered Gordon to her father in an attempt to drive him insane.


The Dark Knight Returns

After repeatedly stabbing Batman in an attempt to kill him after slaughtering an entire studio audience the Joker has his spine broken by Batman in an attempt to put an end to the Joker without killing him. The paralyzed Joker, manically laughing, uses the last bit of strength left in his body to twist and finish severing his spine laughing manically as he dies.


Very cartoony.

Mars23 said:

Yeah. But Death In The Family he brutally beats Robin to death and blows him up. That doesn't mean there isn't a cartoony aspect to him.

Volitan said:

I thought the new Joker was hilarious.

SPOILERS, NATURALLY.

3:25 for the best bit

Sure, he's still creepy and evil but he has a great sense of humour (plus Heath's comedic acting was underrated).

purplesweat said:

Yeah yeah. I just think Jack acted it way more comedic. Like it was a comedic role with darkness. Not a dark role with some comedy.

Volitan said:

I enjoyed all of those stories to some degree, but I also think they're the source of many of the problems comics have today. This "grim and gritty" thing has gone overboard. I still can't believe so many people called in to have Jason killed. Sure, he was an annoying brat, but damn!

purplesweat said:

My point was that they were written into the SCRIPT in the first place. I was talking about how dark this movie was compared to previous Joker-related motion pictures.

Mars23 said:

According to Bob Kane??

AlexdeParis said:

I was one of those people. The fans have spoken!

"Grim and gritty" is what made me a hardcore fan again. Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" was a godsend, because it brought Batman back to his dark roots. Happy, gay & colorful doesn't fit a man who saw his parents murdered in front of him.

uPtoWnNY said:

You keep saying that like the '60s series is the only alternative. It isn't. And Batman's roots were never that dark. When Frank Castle's family was killed, he got some big guns and started killing people. That Bruce Wayne decided to use his detective skills while dressed up as a bat is what makes him more interesting than someone like the Punisher. Most importantly, there's Robin. Without him, there's something missing.

AlexdeParis said:

The gay undertones?
[Edited 8/5/08 7:06am]

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Sure, along with other things

FuNkeNsteiN said:

The menacing codpiece? Moulded nipples on the body armour?

Cinnie said:

the joker gives another account of the scars later. to please his own wife or something like that.
so every account is then put into question, like maybe it's all bullcrap.

HiinEnkelte said:

Yeah I picked up on that...I think he gave like 3 different accounts of how he got the scars.

Obviously he's a pathological liar...comes with the package.

...and did it seem to you that at certain points his scars seemed to be bleeding? ...as if he is doing it to himself on a recurring basis?