![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A tale of two jokers
So, I just watched the Burton Batman again (for the first time in ten years, but I still remember the exact intonation of 90% of the lines), and I'm pondering the difference between Nicholson's Joker and Ledger's.
Nicholson's Joker is neurotic both in performance and in writing. He gets his references wrong, he's a ham because he wants the attention, and he seems to want people to respond to him. He's the class clown, if you'll pardon the pun. There are moments of brilliance in the performance, but they're almost always the pauses between his film-long song-and-dance routine. The show he puts on is neither funny nor scary, but the moments beneath it are still frequently compelling.
In a lot of ways that Joker is truer to the comics than Ledger's, but then most Joker stories in the comics are written badly. It's easy to have the Joker be a sideshow attraction, to focus on his aesthetic as opposed to his psychology. But when the Joker is done right, he is never, ever goofy no matter how ridiculous his surroundings or methods. Goofy implies that the character is in some way wrong, but the Joker isn't a villain because he sees the world incorrectly-- he's a villain because he sees the world with crystal clarity and doesn't care. He needs to be a sociopath first and a psychopath second, or he doesn't work.
Which is why Ledger's Joker is better. He cross-dresses, he does magic tricks, he over-elaborates and grandstands; but you never forget that there's something cold and hard inside him that could kill everyone in the room. If he's performing it's because he wants to show contempt for his audience, to make his actions that much worse by dressing them up as fun and games. When he laughs, he's laughing at you, not at himself.
Which is as it should be.
Nicholson's Joker is neurotic both in performance and in writing. He gets his references wrong, he's a ham because he wants the attention, and he seems to want people to respond to him. He's the class clown, if you'll pardon the pun. There are moments of brilliance in the performance, but they're almost always the pauses between his film-long song-and-dance routine. The show he puts on is neither funny nor scary, but the moments beneath it are still frequently compelling.
In a lot of ways that Joker is truer to the comics than Ledger's, but then most Joker stories in the comics are written badly. It's easy to have the Joker be a sideshow attraction, to focus on his aesthetic as opposed to his psychology. But when the Joker is done right, he is never, ever goofy no matter how ridiculous his surroundings or methods. Goofy implies that the character is in some way wrong, but the Joker isn't a villain because he sees the world incorrectly-- he's a villain because he sees the world with crystal clarity and doesn't care. He needs to be a sociopath first and a psychopath second, or he doesn't work.
Which is why Ledger's Joker is better. He cross-dresses, he does magic tricks, he over-elaborates and grandstands; but you never forget that there's something cold and hard inside him that could kill everyone in the room. If he's performing it's because he wants to show contempt for his audience, to make his actions that much worse by dressing them up as fun and games. When he laughs, he's laughing at you, not at himself.
Which is as it should be.