Ledger's portrayal of The Joker in "The Dark Knight"

[end_boss]

I'm pretty certain that if Ledger does win the Oscar, it will be because the Academy felt he deserved it. There haven't been many post-mortem winners, but there have been a few post-mortem nominations, and most of them don't actually win.

One last thought to add on to what I've already said, I think that some pretty big credit should be given to the re-creation of the Joker character as we know it. We've always seen a certain portrayal of his character, with some noticeable differences, but certainly not nearly as subversive as we've seen in The Dark Knight. Ledger redefined the way we will think of The Joker from now on, but never truly before. Even having read The Killing Joke and a few other graphic novels of a dark nature, this was a performance that took me by surprise in his interpretation of the role.

 

[Jumplion]

This is what bugs me, and bugs me it does.

Themoment an actor plays in their last movie, everyone can't help but focus on said actor.
It's because he is dead god damnit that everyone is kicking up a fuss. Yes it was a good movie, yes he played it rather well, no you should not quote every fucking line that he says at every given moment. This is what happens to me every day. Someone is always quoting a line he says in the movie in their bad representation of his voice. Another things is that because he is dead, his piss is liquid gold and anyone who so much doesn't bat an eye at his excellent performance will get raped by 14 different fans that have only just joined in "the batman craze" and who haven't even probably seen the first one.

That's what bugs me, yes he did a pretty good job, I enjoyed the movie, but he can't of been that fucking great. I hate to say it but, if he wins an oscar for it, it may be that it's a sympathy vote and not just the roll he plays. The way he plays the joker is good, and he does get quite in depth in the character, but if he does win, there will be SOME votes that are just because of sympathy.

Sorry for the rant, it just fucking bugs me that people think that he was the real star of batman, hell even the producers made it seem like the movie focused around him and not really batman.
It's almost at the point where the movie will be called "The Joker.... And possibly batman, but The Joker!"

Does it bug anyone else, or am I just insane?

Actually, at when I saw the movie I didn't know that Heath Ledgers was dead. I thought that there was an actor who died during the production of the movie and then Ledgers was casted to replace said actor.

Yeah, that's what I thought. But regardless, I thought his preformance was absolutely stunning and believable. At first I would think "I wouldn't mind having the Joker in my city!" but then I think "wait...nevermind" because he was so god damn good that I could believe that he would do everything he did in Gotham city in my own city.

 

[dukethepcdr]

I actually didn't like Ledgers portrayal of the joker at all, too me it was kinda like ordering sausage and mash and recieving bacon and mash.
It was close, but it really wasn't quite right.

I've always seen The Joker as a very acute villain, for all of his madness. However, Ledgers joker seemed to be a rambling, bumbling hobo with terrible face paint and hair style.
He seemed to lack direction or purpose, which is what The Joker always had.

Personally, i'd rather they went more into depth about Two face. Let the Joker remain the enigma that he has always been.

I agree with you. I watched the movie and found the Joker to be more of a creepy annoyance than the main interest. They totally messed him up. The Joker I know is a very clever con man who wanted to take revenge on both the Mob and Batman: one for snubbing him and not giving him the respect he wanted and the other for not saving him from falling in the acid. Yes, he was always a bit of a loose cannon which is why the Mob didn't want him around anymore, but he was always more with it and pulled together than Ledger's Joker. Ledger's Joker seemed like he'd already had his butt kicked severly and was limping around like a wounded animal who really didn't care about anything anymore. He was more pitiful than any Joker I've seen before.

I was more interested in what they would do with Harvey Dent/ Two-Faces' story. They might as well have left out the Joker and had some other villian, maybe even one made up just for the movie, in his place. They made up Lucius Fox for these movies, never heard of that character before Nolan started making Batman movies, so why not a made up sub-villian. Besides, wasn't it one of the mobsters that threw acid on Dent when he got convicted that turned him into Two-Face to start with? I hate it when movies change the story they are supposed to be based on like that. Other than that story change, I liked the way Aaron Ekhart played Harvey Dent. He and Bale and the guy who played Gordon and Michael Cane were fantastic. It's too bad they get almost ignored because Ledger didn't know any better than to take dangerous medicine cocktails. Reminds me of what happened to Elvis. What a waste of a fairly good actor.

If you watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight only for what they are and forget everything you ever thought you knew about the comics, they are good enough movies. I really had hopes before they started making Batman Begins that they would finally, finally follow the original comic book plots. Oh well, maybe some day. Batman gets remade and rebooted more often than just about any intellectual property I can think of. I've almost lost count of how many different series: comics, cartoons, live action, video games I've seen in my lifetime. Each is different in some way. All keep the essential core of who Batman is but none of them really have ever done a proper job of presenting Batman the way Bob Kane and Bill Finger did when they wrote the first comics of him. That's what I really want to see. How about a movie set in the 1940's back when the Mob was actually powerful and show how Bruce Wayne really began as Batman acording to his creators Kane and Finger? If I had the resources and talent to make movies, that's what I'd do.

 

[kiltmanfortywo]

They made up Lucius Fox for these movies, never heard of that character before Nolan started making Batman movies, so why not a made up sub-villian.

Actually, Fox's character is pretty close to accurate. He is the CEO or president of Wayne Enterprises and he very well knows of Wayne as Batman.

The Joker's original character, from the 40's, was very close to this current iteration. He was a psychopathic mass murderer. The editors thought he was far to creepy and horrible and were going to kill him off after the 1st issue but the last panel was drawn to suggest that he escaped.(The change was made minutes before print time.)

The Joker that you are thinking of is the 1960's-70's when comic censorship was at an all time high and they had to restrain him to a prankster or risk loosing the comic all together. The Adam West Batman Joker was even further into this censorship, causing a more diluted sense of his true evil and making him seem more like a renegade clown.(There is a phrase I never thought I would say)

Kiltman

P.S. The Joker's character has gone from mass murderer to felony clown to light hearted prankster to felony clown then back to mass murdering psychopath.

 

[Cerebrium]

You said "Never seen in live action before". Jack Nicholson.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Personally, I went into the movie sceptical about Ledger's performance. Coming out of it, I was staggered... in the words of Kevin Smith, he didn't so much give a performance as lose himself in the character. It was a staggering piece of acting, and I liked him even more than the Mark Hamill incarnation (the nerd's Joker of choice). It was always going to be his movie on that evidence, even if he were still with us. An Oscar nomination surely awaits... he had every facet of his character nailed down to a T.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Maybe your standards are too high? And just to clarify, this ISNT his last role - he was making (i think most of it was done) another film when he died.

He was. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, directed by Terry Gilliam. He half-finished filming, and Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell and someone else I think (forget the name) will complete his role. It sounds weird, but it actually works in the story of the film.

 

[aRealGuitarHero707]

This is what bugs me, and bugs me it does.

Themoment an actor plays in their last movie, everyone can't help but focus on said actor.
It's because he is dead god damnit that everyone is kicking up a fuss. Yes it was a good movie, yes he played it rather well, no you should not quote every fucking line that he says at every given moment. This is what happens to me every day. Someone is always quoting a line he says in the movie in their bad representation of his voice. Another things is that because he is dead, his piss is liquid gold and anyone who so much doesn't bat an eye at his excellent performance will get raped by 14 different fans that have only just joined in "the batman craze" and who haven't even probably seen the first one.

That's what bugs me, yes he did a pretty good job, I enjoyed the movie, but he can't of been that fucking great. I hate to say it but, if he wins an oscar for it, it may be that it's a sympathy vote and not just the roll he plays. The way he plays the joker is good, and he does get quite in depth in the character, but if he does win, there will be SOME votes that are just because of sympathy.

Sorry for the rant, it just fucking bugs me that people think that he was the real star of batman, hell even the producers made it seem like the movie focused around him and not really batman.
It's almost at the point where the movie will be called "The Joker.... And possibly batman, but The Joker!"

Does it bug anyone else, or am I just insane?

playin' devil's advocate here for a second but if you look at both movies
Batman Begins was about Batman becoming the hero that we know him for so it makes sense that the second one be less about him and more about what kind of villan can actually stand up to him (in the first few scenes of TDK it shows criminals nervous to do business at night because they were afraid of Batman) in enters The Joker

 

[ZacOfTheZombies]

I fully enjoyed Ledgers portrayal of the Joker. He not only delivered to the fans, a Joker they love and fear, but also true life to the character. Seeing as Joker was Ledger's last roll in life, I say he went out with one hell of a bang.

 

[bobraj]

Heath Ledger's performance ranks as one of the all time greats but it should not be forgotten that every great performance requires a great script.

Whenever a script writer/ director is faced with transforming a comic book villain into a screen villain, they have always stumbled upon the same problem.

The best comic book villains are pantomime characters. While they usually have a back story to create a motivation for their behaviour (take your pick from life-changing accidents, dying relatives, born with amazing power, etc,etc...), the main reason they are feared is because of their awesome single minded attitude towards destruction.

They never care who is in their way, who they have to bribe, maim or kill. They don't even care what they are destroying. It is the act itself that is all consuming.

The major problem with movie depictions of comic book heroes up until now is that they have never tried to copy this formula or even try to improve on it. The writers and directors have always felt the need to try to humanise villains in order to make them more believable and unfortunately this lessens the impact the villain has on the viewer.

Thankfully though, Christopher Nolan turned this convention on it's head and went all out. He must be a true comic book fan (or a really smart guy) to see what it was that makes the truly great comic book villains so memorable.

No ulterior motives, no reasoning, no cowardice and above all, no baggage. Nolan ripped everything human from the Joker, leaving him with only a hard-on for anarchy and a brilliantly twisted mind. We cannot fathom the kind of human mind that could do what the Joker did in the film.and this is why the character is so utterly compelling to us.

If the Joker had not been written this way, Ledger could not have pulled this performance out of the bag.

 

[Andraste]

Dark Knight was a fantastically done film. As bobraj, points out, the writing was very good, and it was expertly delivered by a stellar cast. Heath Ledger was left behind and he somehow became The Joker as someone else said. Terrible shame what happened to him, just as he was really coming out of his shell and sinking his teeth into some roles.

A friend said to me when I asked how it was, "It was your typical comic book movie in the same way The Godfather is a gangster flick."

 

[Usnota]

I was one of the sceptics that thought that Ledger was just getting to much praise for this movie because he was dead. Then I saw the movie, that was one of the most brilliant preformances of villian I and ever seen, the only one I could even think to rival it is Hopkins' preformance as Hannibal

 

[Auron555]

I agree (with OP), his Joker was amazing.

 

[freakyHippo]

Heath Ledger was fantastic as the Joker. I shall echo what many have said here, Ledgers performance is on par with Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. To pull off a character that is both psychotic, unhinged, calculating and funny is a really hard feat, it will be hard to push him off the 'Best Supporting Actor' Oscar. The Dark Knight has a few decent performances, i also enjoyed Gary Oldmans portrayel of Commisionare Gordon. The Dark Knight is in my top 3 movies i've seen this year.

 

[The Rusk]

Simply awesome

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Really, Heath Ledger wasn't in that movie, it WAS the Joker.

This is exactly what I've been telling everyone. Ledger's Joker was a man who just wanted to "watch the world burn", because he thought it needed to. I honestly started to forget that there was an actor behind that messy makeup- the consistency and depth of the character were some of the best I've seen in a motion picture.

The most memorable scene for me was when he gave Dent the revolver in the hospital. I seriously believed he wouldn't have minded getting blown away so long as he created an even bigger monster in Two-Face. And when Dent put his fate in the flip of a coin, you could see how happy the Joker was that he'd brought someone formerly so upright into his chaotic little world.

 

[HardRockSamurai]

I absolutely agree. Hell, while batman was flying around beating the snot out of minions, I sat there, impatiently tapping my fingers, waiting for the Joker to appear again...

 

[kiltmanfortywo]

I keep thinking this over and the idea of the Joker seemed to fester over the past fews years and generations of Batman into something not quite right. This iteration really brought back the original focus of the Joker and his basic evil.

Kiltman

P.S. I keep wanting them to do a movie version of "Joker's Comedy of Errors" (Batman 66) in which he pulls the"worlds greatest boner!" Remember that this is the psychopathic killer joker, not happy little prankster.

 

[Treblaine]

The only problem is that he completely upstaged Batman and everyone else in the movie, batman wasn't so interesting this time and I can't say it is my favourite movie for many little things but Ledger's performance saved this film from mediocrity.

I suppose my main problem with is film is as Batman becomes all serious and edgy with gore and hyper-real violence, it just appears awkward as Batman refuses to use lethal force against psychopathic terrorists shooting at him and civilians with sub-machine guns. I mean in a world where 24 and Lost all the characters have no hesitation in shooting to kill the bad guys, it seems silly how Batman insists on using his fists. How the hell is he going to strike fear into criminals if he won't do much more than slap them around; less a vigilante and more your pissed off mom.