MovieChat Forums > The Dark Knight (2008) Discussion > Joker doesn't wear makeup

Joker doesn't wear makeup

posted 8 years ago by gohomezoo
27 replies | jump to latest

Maybe I am eight years too late on this, and maybe it has already been discussed, penalized, scrutinized, and criticized, but this version of the Joker bothered me on the one small fact that he doesnt wear makeup. Don't get me wrong, I think Heath Ledger did a fantastic job as the joker, and was really the only thing that kept me fully entranced in this movie, but those scenes when his makeup was wearing off just seemed stupid, along with all the scenes when his arms, hands, and legs were all visible with a normal (please don't call me a racist) skin tone. To me, it completely changes the character, almost like a different villain. If he doesn't bear the same "key" characteristics of the Joker, is it still the Joker? I have the same problem with Jared Leto's version of the Joker and how he has no wide mouth/lip scars, and all anybody can't shut up about is his tattoos, but that's another story.

Anyways, am I just too late on this, and missed all the scrutiny and fuss over it, or is everybody just fine with it because, in his defense, he brought his own vision and energy to the character to make it his own?

"Steve Holt!"

[–] Chris-Au 8 years ago

I find it odd that the make-up deviation bothers you and you then criticize the Leto Joker for not having mouth/lip scars with the implication that the lack of mouth/lip scars is also a deviation.

The comic book Joker didn't have mouth or lip scars. His smile was all natural. In that respect Leto's Joker was completely source faithful.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg

Chris

[–] gohomezoo 8 years ago

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding of the joker is he fell in the vat of chemicals, and all that goes with that, and that sourced the colors of him. I guess the wide smile could be just based off a drawing, and Heath's allegations of what happened to him earlier. I know the Joker's past is a mystery, so okay, I'll overlook that one/admit I'm wrong. But having his makeup fade the whole movie and even that very quick shot of the Joker with 'no makeup' to me just seemed like a stretch. Like I said. it's almost like two different characters. One who looks this way for real, and that's possibly what drove him to this lifestyle. And one who wants this lifestyle, and is basing his appearance on the lifestyle he desires. Not to mention, and I know this is stupid, stress on "I know this is stupid" but why didnt the cops then just strip his makeup away.

P.S. Ignore that last sentence if it doesn't apply to the original statement, I know it wouldn't solve anything, but still, the cops would've stripped the makeup away just to get a better look. When it is his "true look", That's just him and there's nothing he ( or them) could do

"Steve Holt!"

[–] Chris-Au 8 years ago

The vat of chemicals dyed his skin white and turned his hair green.

The smile is his natural smile.

As far as Ledger and the makeup.

I think it was a choice that wasn't needed because it did nothing to improve the character. That being said it didn't hurt the character. He still looked like the Joker and he still behaved like the Joker. In this interpretation the slice cheshire grin replaces the bleached skin as the permanent disfigurement.

Each live action interpretation has in some way violated the source material. Of those live action interpretations Ledger's was the closest the most faithful.

As to why the police didn't wipe the makeup off;

Maybe they tried and what was there wouldn't come off.

Maybe they just didn't have the time.

Although there are example of criminals in the real world being held in custody while wearing a disguise it is most likely that in the real world the makeup would have been washed off.

But in the real world a billionaire dressed in a bat costume who goes out and night and beats the crap out of criminals wouldn't happen either. It's fiction and with fiction comes the all powerful gift of creative license.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg

Chris

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

As to why the police didn't wipe the makeup off;

Maybe they tried and what was there wouldn't come off.

Maybe they just didn't have the time.

Although there are example of criminals in the real world being held in custody while wearing a disguise it is most likely that in the real world the makeup would have been washed off.

We should all feel extremely fortunate to be living in a moment in time when people are being arrested for the very act of wearing clown makeup. Booking photos available on the interwebz.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

How many of them have been arrested for multiple bank robberies, murders, kidnapping and terrorism?

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

Wow, you really nailed me, there. Solid, solid point.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

It wasn't that difficult. Your kind always makes such weak, ignorant points while grasping at straws that it is pretty easy to show how wrong and stupid you are.

I also notice how you didn't even try to dispute my point. That is always a sure sign that a person knows they cannot dispute the point. So, instead, they throw out insults or muddy the waters or such.

But, at least you aren't one of the d!ck eating morons who know they are on ignore and yet still choose to reply to me. 

[–] Chris-Au 8 years ago

Re: Joker doesn't wear makeup
by justanicknamed » 1 hour ago (Wed Oct 19 2016 08:50:14)
IMDb member since March 2014

It wasn't that difficult. Your kind always makes such weak, ignorant points while grasping at straws that it is pretty easy to show how wrong and stupid you are.

I also notice how you didn't even try to dispute my point. That is always a sure sign that a person knows they cannot dispute the point. So, instead, they throw out insults or muddy the waters or such.

Of all the dumb ƒucks who have ever posted on this board...

You seem to think that Harold was actually conceding that you had made a good point when, in fact, you were being mocked for making no point at all.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg

Chris

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

It's the highest of high comedy though. He's a walking caricature of an ignoramus. If you prove him wrong, he'll just put you on ignore so he can remain in his bubble of stupidity.

His political commentary was a hoot. I'm no Hillary fan in particular, but he wrote entire paragraphs on Hillary 'lusting after power,' as if no other presidential candidate is trying to further their career. His stupidity got Fish's debate thread deleted by an administrator, that's no small feat on this board. It's a shame because it made me laugh every time I read it.

I'm trying to imagine his daily routine. Do you think he has a job? A family? Friends? Can you imagine conversing with him in real life? If you prove him wrong does he just shout, "Ignored," and walk away? (I hope it's that easy to get rid of him in real life, I pity the people who have to put up with him.) A guy with his anger issues has to have a rap sheet, or at the very least a history of unreported domestic violence.

His post:

It wasn't that difficult. Your kind always makes such weak, ignorant points while grasping at straws that it is pretty easy to show how wrong and stupid you are.

I also notice how you didn't even try to dispute my point. That is always a sure sign that a person knows they cannot dispute the point. So, instead, they throw out insults or muddy the waters or such.

This kills me, Chris. Like the time you destroyed his post about the history of the Joker in the comics (surely what put you on the list). Sadly I think I was already on ignore by the time I pointed out his Clint Eastwood post was absolute nonsense. (I wonder if he still thinks Clint Eastwood really won four Oscars for acting?)

Long story short (too late) I now look forward to his drivel. All the greats have moved on or semi-retired, the most entertaining board regular is now justanicknamed. I hope he avoids medication, treatment or incarceration for as long as possible. I'm in this for the long haul, I want to be entertained.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

It wasn't that difficult. Your kind always makes such weak, ignorant points while grasping at straws that it is pretty easy to show how wrong and stupid you are.

I also notice how you didn't even try to dispute my point. That is always a sure sign that a person knows they cannot dispute the point. So, instead, they throw out insults or muddy the waters or such.

But, at least you aren't one of the d!ck eating morons who know they are on ignore and yet still choose to reply to me. 

You have an ignore list? Do you take requests?

You have no point to dispute. I wasn't even commenting on the movie, I was just noting the unusual moment in time in which we live when clown makeup on arrestees is surprisingly common. Nobody with a life gives a damn about whether proper arrest procedures are followed with a SUPERVILLAIN. It's indicative of mental deformity that you are beating your chest about winning an argument on that topic when no one has even engaged you.

Carry on, though.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Do you take requests?

I don't put morons like you on ignore. I have too much fun ridiculing and showing how stupid they are. It is fun to toy with retards like Hippo and Spencer.

You have no point to dispute.

Avoid the topic, give non-answers, muddy the waters, etc.

I was just noting the unusual moment in time in which we live when clown makeup on arrestees is surprisingly common.

And I asked-

How many of them have been arrested for multiple bank robberies, murders, kidnapping and terrorism?

To which you avoided giving a direct answer. That is ALWAYS a sign that the person knows they cannot give an answer which supports their view. So, they avoid the topic, give non-answers, muddy the waters, throw out insults.....

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

To which you avoided giving a direct answer. That is ALWAYS a sign that the person knows they cannot give an answer which supports their view. So, they avoid the topic, give non-answers, muddy the waters, throw out insults...

This is a pretty precise description of your own participation in this thread.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

This is a pretty precise description of your own participation in this thread.

Which direct question did I avoid giving a direct answer to?

Oh CR*P!!! I just asked you another direct answer. Uh-oh, here comes the avoidance of the topic, non-answers, muddying the waters, throwing out insults...

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Background stories often change. As long as it isn't totally off/crazy, it isn't a big deal. What worked for one story (or 50 years ago) doesn't always work in today's world.

I didn't have an issue with his make up. I have a HUGE issue with the fact that if you remove Joker's makeup, his suit and don't refer to him as Joker, that no one would know who he was supposed to be. He wasn't funny in any kind of way, including a maniacal way. His plan was out of this world complicated and not crazy. And he was way too good to not be known by someone.

And, I agree with your question as to why the cops didn't take off his makeup. It is another one of the many stupid things Nolan did or didn't do in these movies.

[–] Horror_Metal 8 years ago

I agree, the look was all wrong. He resembled a sloppy hobo with grungey hair and kind of a punk rock get up. The Joker is supposed to have perma white skin and dress kind of neatly with well kept hair. Performance wise though, Ledger nailed it and was pretty dead on although he was more of an anarchist.

Way better than Leto's version though, ugh...

Horror_Metal

[–] Skibidido 8 years ago

I remember a lot of people complaining about that back when the movie was in production. Most versions of The Joker, he doesn't wear any make-up so it was unfaithful to the source material. But as soon as the movie came out and we got that performance, it wasn't anyone's concern anymore and people realized that it's a silly thing to care about.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

And most people hated Ledger being cast as Joker - right up until the time of his unfortunate death. Then, before even seeing the movie, he was praised as having been a great choice.



[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

And most people hated Ledger being cast as Joker - right up until the time of his unfortunate death. Then, before even seeing the movie, he was praised as having been a great choice.

Totally inaccurate. The casting choice was widely criticized when it was initially announced, but the hype began to build during production, when word got out he had done something unique with the character. The hype was already at a fever pitch when the teaser was released, a full year before the film opened. This is an absolute fact, you can look up reactions all over the internet.

Another things that cracks me up are the haters who insist the movie only made money because Ledger died. Hype gets people into the theaters for the opening weekend. Anyone who saw the movie, "Just because Ledger died," would have rushed to see it immediately, it's how hype works.

BvS was a terrible movie, but the hype of having Batman & Superman onscreen together was too much for some people to ignore. The hype around that concept was enormous, hence its huge opening. But its numbers fell off a cliff immediately and it didn't last three full months in theaters.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=superman2015.htm

Now look at TDK's numbers:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=darkknight.htm
Legs like that don't come from 'hype,' they come from positive word of mouth, they come from people actually wanting to see the film again in the theater. 'Hype' over someone's death does not make you go see the movie four months after it opening night. Established actors with larger fan bases have died during production or post-production in the past, and it never turned the film into a box office juggernaut. For that matter, why didn't these same people go to see Ledger in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus which was also released after Ledger's death?

I know you won't read this because you put me on ignore the first time I provided evidence of your erroneous assumptions, but anyone else who might share your nonsense opinion now has something to chew on.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] Chris-Au 8 years ago

Re: Joker doesn't wear makeup
by justanicknamed » 3 hours ago (Mon Oct 24 2016 09:50:54)
IMDb member since March 2014

And most people hated Ledger being cast as Joker - right up until the time of his unfortunate death.

Utter bullšhit.

But what else is new when it comes to your posts?

There was a vocal minority that was pissed when Ledger was cast. A LOT of people were shocked by his casting. Most people took a wait and see attitude.

By the time the viral marketing campaign started MOST people were on board. By the time the first teaser dropped MOST people were not only on board but they were enthusiastically anticipating Ledger's performance. Ledger was getting Oscar buzz before he died.

This is ALL easily verified.

Facts are a bitch that way.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg

Chris

[–] FMT 8 years ago

There was a vocal minority that was pissed when Ledger was cast.

http://i.imgur.com/0c4VdSS.gif

[–] al666940-3 8 years ago

If you bother to look at the trivia, you'll see that:
- The Joker was based on the character Gwynplaine from Victor Hugo's novel "The Man who Laughs", a man whom was surgically mutilated to have a permanent grin.
- Ledger's Joker is based off Gwynplaine directly, thus bypassing previous Joker incarnations and going straight to the source material.

In a way is the truest interpretation.

[–] FMT 8 years ago

If you bother to look at the trivia, you'll see that:
- The Joker was based on the character Gwynplaine from Victor Hugo's novel "The Man who Laughs", a man whom was surgically mutilated to have a permanent grin.

Ledger's Joker had a permanent grin? Maybe it kind of looked like an extended smile when he was already laughing, but since he spends most of the movie - in typical Christopher Nolan fashion - with a straight face, it just looks like he has scars on his face.

- Ledger's Joker is based off Gwynplaine directly, thus bypassing previous Joker incarnations and going straight to the source material.

Spoke like a man who has never seen The Man Who Laughs, as Gwynplaine and this Joker's disfigurements have nothing in common. Ledger's Joker is primarily based on Alex DeLarge and John Ryder, and how did he bypassed previous Joker incarnations when Jack Nicholson's Joker was also surgically mutilated and left with a permanent grin?

Also, what does his permanent grin have to do with the fact that, in this movie, he wears makeup?

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it doesn't have anything to do with it - this is just a desperate attempt to side-track the issue.

[–] al666940-3 8 years ago

"Spoke like a man who has never seen The Man Who Laughs"

I sure didn't see it, I READ IT (the book, you know there's these things called books out there?).

Have you?

"Ledger's Joker is primarily based on Alex DeLarge and John Ryder"

Yes, the resemblance in both look and behaviour (serial rapist wearing pajamas and a diaper) is uncanny indeed. Try again...

"Jack Nicholson's Joker was also surgically mutilated and left with a permanent grin"

One step closer to the source than Romero's Joker definitely.

[–] FMT 8 years ago

I sure didn't see it, I READ IT (the book, you know there's these things called books out there?).

No, never heard of it. But given those fan posters that were around before Heath Ledger was cast I automatically assumed you were, like everyone else was back then, talking about the movie adaptation.

Yes, the resemblance in both look and behaviour (serial rapist wearing pajamas and a diaper) is uncanny indeed. Try again...

I don't need to try again, those influences have been mentioned by Christopher Nolan himself since the very beginning. So it doesn't count as an influence if it's not a 1:1 copy? Have you met Hippo, by any chance? You'd like him. Anyway, in that case neither do your statements about The Man Who Laughs, as, while it influenced (The movie, not the book!) the creation of the character in the comics back in the day, it never influenced TDK's version of the character. Alex DeLarge, John Ryder and even Francis Bacon's paintings, on the other hand, are all known to have.

Also, what does his permanent grin have to do with the fact that, in this movie, he wears makeup?

[–] FriendlyPsychopath 8 years ago

Because it was a different interpretation.

[–] VivaLaVader 8 years ago

The trilogy had a gritty feel and was supposed to be "grounded in realism." And yes, many things happened in the movies that were far from being realistic, but like a good sci-fi movie, you're willing to let it go and think, "yeah, I'll buy that." Same deal with the makeup, its more realistic. Falling into a chemical vat reminds sounds like something that would come out of Batman and Robin, not TDK. I think it was to give it a more consistent tone.