| Leo656 |
04-29-2020 12:25 AM |
You don't know that he gave himself the scars, that's just one of several conflicting stories he told in the film (in another story he says his father cut him), establishing that this Joker, like all of them in every universe, is an unreliable narrator. He's also a liar, as he calls himself an "agent of chaos" yet the entire film centers around his meticulously micro-managed plan, which ultimately more or less succeeds because he creates a scenario that forces Batman to kill Harvey Dent, thus completing Joker's ruination of Harvey and getting Batman to break his "One Rule", which Joker promised he would do. These are both consistent character traits of the Joker regardless of universe. Ledger's Joker simply leans more into psychological than theatrical methods, but the Joker has always utilized a combination of both. There's no one "correct" established balance in representing the Joker, and frankly the fact that they didn't have him stopping the movie to hit people with poison pies or whatever was incredibly refreshing.
Also, anyone who doubts the theatricality and comedic timing of Ledger's Joker perhaps missed the "Pencil Scene", but really that entire scene with him and the gangsters, not just the one gag. Classic, classic Joker, straight out of the comics. Bits like that which were somewhat more humorous simply wouldn't have played so well if they weren't counter-balanced with strong depictions of what a monster the guy is. And that, at the end of the day, is what the Joker is: A remorseless killer. Obviously there's shades of how you can play it, but he still ultimately needs to be an irredeemable scumbag you're not really supposed to root for. There's a very thin line when portraying villains where it becomes easy to make them into a babyface just because they're so much fun, but it also fundamentally breaks the story when you do that because you're not supposed to root for the bad guy, otherwise they're the babyface by default. Ledger's Joker was a perfectly executed villain who walked the line between being fun to watch but also reminded you why he's a sh*theel. Which is tough to pull off with that character.
Part of why I've never taken the animated version as my favorite is simply because he's too likeable. It's a good Joker, but he's literally a cartoon. There's only so much you can do within a kids' cartoon and this is a guy who crippled Barbara Gordon and shot Commissioner Gordon's wife in the face after threatening to kill a truckload of babies. I never, ever felt that sense of menace from the animated Joker, and you should ALWAYS feel uncomfortable when Joker shows up. The "safe danger" inherent in a kids' cartoon simply neuters villains like Joker by promising that they won't ever do anything TOO horrific, that this is all a lark and you can laugh at these bad guys. But in the comics, Joker isn't a "funny" character, he's dangerous. People speak of him in hushed tones because they're afraid he might be listening, afraid of what he'll do. He's a "performance artist" whose performance art is killing people (something I felt the Nicholson version did a good job with). To me, you can't remove virtually all the danger from a villain and then call that the definitive version of that villain. That's why although I love the show, like the portrayal just fine for what it is, but it can never be the "definitive" Joker to me, simply because he's more clown than menace due to Standards & Practices. Unavoidable, sure, but still a flaw, points taken off.
Ultimately, though, all the various Jokers across all media have some strong merits to them. Even Leto's version which is so fun to hate on had a LOT that was reminiscent from the comic books, aside from the visual flair of tattoos and "grill", that was a bit too much. Pretty much every scene he was in made me think, "That reminds me of that thing in Issue ___ of ________" which always makes me forgive a lot. I would have gone more traditional with some of the "flair" but nothing about the portrayal felt particularly off. I can see why people comparing him to the other films' Jokers, or a cartoon show, might be pretty unhappy but as I've said elsewhere, my primary source is always the books and Leto's version still fits in line pretty well overall. I just don't think the film itself did his version of the character too many favors, but that's a whole other conversation.
At the end of the day, though, like I said, I find them all pretty valid. Romero's Joker was worlds away from what came later (or before), but was almost 1:1 with how the Joker character was depicted in the 1950s and 60s. It's not my preference but it was pretty much identical to what was on the printed page at the time. Nicholson's take was mostly just him being himself but it still took a lot from the comics. Ledger, I think, is still my overall favorite because it strongly reminds me not just of the more ruthless Joker of the 80s up through now, but also of the original story in Batman #1; like if you read the original Joker story and then watch Dark Knight, there's so much that feels the same even though the details are different. Like him having set traps to kill people without him being present or anyone ever knowing he was there. It was incredibly obvious, to me, where the various inspiration for that version came from, predominantly Batman #1 and a few scenes from Killing Joke, among others. Details were changed, but the spirit was the same, and that's always what impresses me. No other version to me so far has felt quite as authentic about getting the important details right about who this guy is and how he behaves.
Phoenix's version is interesting to me because while I felt like he did a great job with the script he was given, I agree with those who say there's still something "missing" in between the Arthur Fleck we see at the end of the film, and the fully-formed "Joker" of almost every other medium. I can see him becoming that guy but there's still some missing information. Like he was a very convincing crazy person and they did a good job with executing what they wrote, but aside from being a murderous lunatic Joker's also a criminal mastermind, usually, and Arthur's still too much of a washout by the end of the film to really "sell" me as a guy who could one day go on to hold Gotham City hostage or outsmart Batman. Again, that's not entirely a knock, I can still see him "evolve" into that but he's definitely not that guy yet at the end of his "origin" movie. I expect the inevitable sequel will fill in some of that data, and I'd be perfectly fine seeing him play the "real" Joker and not just Larval Stage Joker because I thought he did a good job with the material that was actually in the film and I'd be happy with more. But when people say, "He still wasn't 'THE Joker' by the end of the film," I kinda have to agree. But I don't think it would take a very long bridge to get him there, either, and it would be fun to see.
The only Joker I've seen a fair bit of and don't like much at all, would be the one from "The Batman" animated series that came out after Batman Begins. And I fully admit that I was probably hung up on the visuals, but I definitely did not dig the barefoot and straightjacket look, nor his super-long hair and apelike posture. That whole thing to me reeked so much of "Let's be different for the sake of being different" that I completely checked out and probably didn't give the performance a fair shake. But I'm not terribly inclined to go back and see if I was fair, either. But yeah, other than that one, all the Jokers we've seen have various degrees of strong merit, to me. And I think that speaks a lot to the character itself, that you can have a Cesar Romero and Heath Ledger version and both of them are perfectly "correct" from entirely different directions. I really can't think of too many characters in all of fiction that have that sort of range, and it's probably why it's such an enduring character.
|
