Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Joker vs. Joker vs. Joker: Apples, oranges, and nuts

For anyone growing up in the nineties, there were two figures you saw as the Joker: The Jack Nicholson Joker from Batman in 1989, and the Mark Hamil Joker from the animated Batman series. Now, as far as interpretation goes, the two are fairly similar: Joker is the classic psychopathic clown from the comics. With the animated Joker, it actually seemed a little darker, since Batman TAS was an overall dark and adult show. Hamil's Joker is usually left by the wayside in favor of the live action interpretations, but it's a valid, creepy, and ultimately faithful version.

Comparing Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger is usually assumed to be a pointless endeavor. The two films are so different in tone, style, and script that its almost a completely different character by necessity. The only real basis you can use is the comicbooks, and even that's tough as Joker's been all over the map from campy sixties clown to uncompromising killer. But, here goes.

Upon recently re-viewing the 1989 Batman and reading some of the comics starring Joker, I came to a conclusion: Nicholson's Joker is superior, because it IS the Joker. Ledger took the character places it hadn't gone before, even in the comics, but by doing so, he made it into something that wasn't the Joker. In The Dark Knight, the Joker really wasn't a psychopathic clown anymore. He was a psychopath who happened to use clown makeup (or 'war paint' if you listen to his henchmen). Compare that to Nicholson, who even when he wasn't wearing the clown makeup (or covered it over), was still every in a psychopathic clown, laughing and joking his way through some incredibly dark crimes. Ledger's Joker shot a lot of people, and his big finish was going to be blowing up the tugboats full of innocent people and hardened criminals. Nicholson's Joker shot a lot of people, but his big finish was to kill everyone with Smylex gas--make 'em die laughing. That's what the Joker is supposed to do: JOKE.

Everyone remembers the Pencil Trick and the Bomb in the stomach, but as far as Jokes go, that's about it. Part of the reason the Joker is so dark is that he mixes humor with his crime. Nicholson does that beautifully, while Ledger's Joker falls somewhat short in the humor department.

The question of where the character will go in the next film is hotly debated. I don't think abandoning the character because Ledger died is the right move: another actor can fill the role, now that it's been set. My preferred method: use another villain in the third installment (Catwoman is a hot contender, but I'd like to see any female villain, really), while having little things happen in the background--sort of like the beginning of TDK, where Joker was playing 2nd fiddle to the mafia storyline. There are flashes of a woman committing the crimes, and taking orders from someone we never see, but hear in a cell. At the end of the movie, Batman finishes the main villain, but the secondary woman, one Dr. Harlene Quinzel, escapes back to Arkham asylum, and reveals the new Joker, setting up for the 4th movie. By the time THAT comes out some of the Ledger hype will have settled, and people will be receptive to a new actor in the role. Not to mention Batman fans have named Harley Quinn as their top pick for the next villain they want to see on screen. Let's hope we get the chance before the franchise dies and needs to be rebooted--again.

No comments:

Post a Comment