|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 9:37:07 GMT -5
Not a fair comparison, I'm sorry. Both movies strived for a darker and more realistic approach but with one main difference. The 1989 “Batman” mixed a realistic, dark Batman with an over the top, animated Joker. The movie was a mix of a realistic and comic-bookish style. The two new movies strive only for a realistic representation. I know, I know... there are comics about this that are dark and realistic, but that’s not my point here.
In my opinion, the role Nicholson played is harder than the one Ledger did. Reason being is that Nicholson had to portray a very comic-bookish, animated character and make him fit into a dark and realistic movie. Ledger, didn’t. He played a realistic, this-is-how-he-would-be-in-real-life Joker. To me, that’s easier. You got a dark movie and you’re playing a dark and psychotic character that’s NOTHING like the traditional Joker people know from animation and most comics. Nicholson, on the other hand, is praised to this day for being able to bring the image of a very well know character and make him fit into a realistic movie.
On a side note, I still can’t get Carry as the Riddler out of my mind. There is SO much of that performance in Ledger’s Joker. Honestly, you slap a green question mark suit on him and take out the laugh and you got the Riddler. Guess that’s why I can’t really put him over Jack.
|
|
|
|
Post by lueluxacky on Jul 22, 2008 12:31:06 GMT -5
Uh no, sorry but you cant say what role is harder to play when you know nothing about acting. By that logic, Ledger did one hell of a better job. Like you said, Jack played a more traditional Joker. Quite frankly, he was just a contemporary Cesar Romero:  Ledger played a new type of Joker, one that no one had ever seen before. Think about it, which is easier to play? A type of character that has already been portrayed, or a completely brand new character? Ledger made the character his own. Jack portrayed comic-book Joker, something he just had to imitate. It's harder to make a new character on your own and make him likeable than to just imitate something thats already been done. So no, you cant compare like that and say one is better than the other. It's just a matter of taste, because they BOTH played their roles fantastically and perfectly. No one can outdo Jack in playing old Joker, and no one can outdo Ledger in playing the new one. |
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 13:41:21 GMT -5
Oh? Well in that case you can't talk about how great Ledger is either since you know as much about it as I do. Get my point?
Nope. Romero played in light-hearted movie that had nothing to do with realism or darkness. Nicholson played a believable role in a dark and realistic movie. He managed to successfully intigrate a very animated/comicbooky Joker into a realistic film. That's hard to do successfully. Don't believe me? Look at Batman Returns. Dark movie, but it wasn't anywhere near as good as the first. Why? Penguin and Catwoman weren't done all that well.
Easy. A new character is far easier to play. By a HUGE margin! You see, Nicholson already made that type of Joker, and made it so well that people to this day praise his performance. If Ledger tried to do the same style, he (at best) would only copy Jack. No matter what, he would be compared to Jack's performance. By playing a new type of Joker it was an easy way out. Like you said, we've never seen one like that on the big screen before, so there were no preset expectations. So to answer your question, Ledger chose the easier (and without a doubt a more appropriate) style to use.
Read what I originally wrote about watching the movie, first post about it. I'm not comparing them like you seem to think I am. And you're not telling me anything new here. Re-read my posts in this thread.
Not really a fair statement. Surely Ledger isn't the only talented actor. And also, re-read what I wrote about my comparison between Ledger's Joker and Jim Carry's Riddler. There is A LOT in common!
|
|
|
|
Post by lueluxacky on Jul 22, 2008 14:23:59 GMT -5
Oh? Well in that case you can't talk about how great Ledger is either since you know as much about it as I do. Get my point? Ive been in drama clubs since I was back in highschool and Ive had my share of plays to the point I know what Im talking about when it comes to acting. Uh, Returns sucking had nothing to do with the villains not "done well", but Burton's lack of telling a coherent Batman story. Are you effing me? "Chose the easier" style? Trying something new is the hardest type of acting. When he took on the role, he knew he'd be compared to Jack. He had to change everything about the Joker that was previously known and make him a successful character. Trying not to imitate a previously portrayed character while acting is one of the toughest parts in acting. Take this play I did in Senior year, called "Comedy of Errors". I had previously seen that play on theater, and when I took the role of the character I was given, it was easy for me to play that character because I knew how he acted, thought and all. THAT'S the easy choice, knowing everything about your character. That's what Jack did. Yeah, he did an awesome job bringing a comic character to a serious movie, but he didnt bring anything new that wasnt known about The Joker. He took what was already portrayed about the Joker in the past and made it work on a serious film. Now, in freshman year in college, I was part of a movie from film class. I played a totally original character. I was given a script and all, but I had to create EVERYTHING about that character. The way the character spoke, move, thought, acted. It was all up to me. THIS is what Ledger did. He was given a character everyone knew, but he took it, twisted it and made him look like a totally new character. He didnt portray anything from past Jokers, he created him from the ground up. And trust me when I tell you that that type of acting is not easy. Neither is Jack. But im certain no one can do his Joker like he did. Same with Ledger. Especially with Ledger, because his Joker is one he created from his mind and his talent. You cant imitate that. (dont ever bring up batman forever again. bad memories  lol) Your point? There's no connection. It was revealed that Ledger would spend hours in his apartment locked up conjuring ideas for his character. Like I said, he created this new Joker on his own. And creating a new type of character, while constantly thinking to not imitate what's been done is harder. Jack was able to bring a well known Joker into the public and make him a villain no one will forget. But Ledger went and took this character everyone know, blasted him to smithereens, the built him back up on his own image, created a new type of Joker no one had ever seen (or portrayed) and that Joker was STILL loved by both fans and non-fans. The latter is definitely the most challenging job. Like I said, it's all about taste. You either love traditional "makes you laugh" Joker, or new anarchist "makes you scared" Joker. |
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 14:49:49 GMT -5
You know nothing about me and prefer to assume that I don't know anything on the subject. You particiapated in High School plays and now you are an expert? I think not.
We're comparing acting as villains, are we not? The plot of the originally Batman movie wasn't really a masterpiece either, but what sold it was the acting! Nicholson playing the Joker made that movie.
But not while protraing a character like the Joker. He is a stereotype, a cliche. What Ledger had to do (and he did it well) was not to be anything like Nicholson. It's really not as hard as you make it out to be. Now, if he had to play a cartoonish Joker, then you got an issue. Then he would be completely compared to Nicholson. In this case, he gave a practically completely new character. Take away the name and you could have a brand new DC character right there. Now, I'm not saying that it's not an accomplishment. What I am saying is that it's easier to come up with something new then to try to successfully repeat a perfect performance of an acting master.
Bingo! And that means THAT has been done already. The ONLY way that Ledger could make it work was to bring something new to the character, practically creating a whole new character IMO. And it's easier to play a realistic psycho in a dark and realistic movie than it is to make a comedic character work in a similar setting. Period!
I disagree with you. I was an art major and I can tell you that as an artist it is far better to create your own then to mimic existing material. Yes, you have to start from scratch. So what?! You have all the freedom in the world to make it your own, to make as you want it. Nicholson had to believably portrait a stereotype. It was the first serious Batman film so it wasn't about adding something new, it was about making what is work. Ledger had the freedom to make something new.
And that's what I said in my post about watching the movie. Not sure if you noticed, but we're not disagreeing on as many things as you seem to think. The part we're looking at differently is the what was "easier". And let's face it, both were tough roles to do. But I think that Ledger had far more freedom to express himself and create as an artist. Jack had to fill a stereotype. To me, that's harder. People going in to see "Batman" had expectations. They wanted to see a serious film and how the traditional Joker would work on the big screen. Ledger had clear sailing. Nobody wanted to see another Nicholson Joker. He could do everything EXCEPT what was already done.
|
|
|
|
Post by lueluxacky on Jul 22, 2008 15:11:31 GMT -5
You know nothing about me and prefer to assume that I don't know anything on the subject. You particiapated in High School plays and now you are an expert? I think not. Uh, I said "ive been since i was back in highschool." I havent stopped. Im in my second year of college and I still take a Performing Arts class. 6 years. Does that make an expert? No. But I sure as hell know more about performing than you do. I forgot what was the argument there. lol No disagreement though. Uh, that's the point I was trying to get across. Sure he had all the freedom in the world to do whatever the hell he pleased with the character, but that wasnt the hard part. The hard part is that The Joker is a well-known villain. A villain that every knows what he's like, a major reason for that was because Jack's portrayal. So yeah, while he has more freedom, he had to keep in mind that he was portraying an already created character. He had to make a new Joker, but keep him as The Joker. The fans dont want a Joker that acts nothing like The Joker. He did that. He became The Joker in a totally different way, while STILL making the audience think "he really is The Joker." THAT's the hard part. He had shoes to fill in. Not Jack's. But The Joker's. But those shoes had to different, while still retaining the colors of The Joker. Bad metaphor I know, but you get the gist. |
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 15:15:22 GMT -5
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
As an actor? Maybe. As an artist? I doubt it VERY much. And no, I'm not saying that acting and art are the same, but they share many traits. And we are discussing overall concepts here, not specific techniques, so I don't think you got as much of an upper hand as you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by lueluxacky on Jul 22, 2008 15:28:58 GMT -5
Let me give you one last example that I forgot to add.
Let's say they are two MGS movies in production. One with the character who plays Snake given the task to portray the Snake from the games. The other, for some godforsaken reason, to play a different type of Snake, but still make him a character fans from the game will recognize as Snake. I dunno, say they make Snake be a more social person. Has a family, wife and kids, something like. But still have that Snake personality from the games.
The latter will obviously have the hardest job. Because he's automatically already going to be judged on his portrayal as Snake. In fact, before the movie even starts production, he's already being hated on for playing different type of Snake. He's gotta give the director the Snake he asks, but at the same time he's gotta have that "Snake trait" that will make the fans happy.
That was basically Ledger's job. Make a new different Joker, but still retain that Joker-ness.
|
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 15:52:34 GMT -5
And I fully understand what you are saying. But I disagree. First of all, your example doesn’t say which movie would be made first, and that does make a big difference. Now, if the two were made side-by-side, then yes, you are right, the latter would be harder since you have nothing to base your performance on. But, if the traditional Snake was already successfully portrayed and your job was to make a new kind... it’s easier. You are given the freedom to do what you want AND a clear example what NOT to repeat. When playing an established character and trying to stay faithful to the existing expectations so you are limited to what you can do. And, at the same time, you have to make it work in a different medium. You also have to remember that Ledger didn’t have a choice in terms of making a new type of Joker or not. He had to. From the time it was announced everyone said they will compare him to Jack. Well, Jack already played the perfect classic Joker. So Ledger HAD TO make a new one. That's a factor as well. People LOVE Jack as the Joker. People did not want Ledger to repeat what was already done. So the people were already open to, and to some degree wanted, something different. That creates a lot of freedom as an artist. A LOT! Social acceptance. Jack didn't have that. He had to fulfill a very specific cliche, an icon that people knew VERY well.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Jackyl on Jul 22, 2008 18:23:22 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I'd nearly forgotten about Scarecrow. What happened to him? We see him in that fake Batman assault, and in a van, but then I don't remember much. I don't remember what happened to the Chinese fellow either. And Joker's last scene ends on a cliffhanger (supresses a smile) that doesn't wrap it up for me.
I used to love Clayface or whatever his name was in Batman: The Animated Series. I hope they use him someday, he was my favorite villain. There was also that kickass crocodile dude who was an almost equal match for Batman, too. Oh damn, now I'm remembering all those old villains! How about that cyborg Batman that gave him a run for his money?
I like the Nicholson Joker's personality a lot. He really was a court jester in the true sense and seemed like all the evil things he did were out of a morbid sense of humor. Almost more evil because when he did evil, he'd be looking at you in a way that was comically sick because it was like he was trying to impress you, like "Hey, check out how I shoot this guy in cold blood! Wait, you're not laughing..." Ledger's was an impressive ordeal too and showed him as much more of a real person, which I really liked. He was very clever and more rough around the edges, coming off as more of a hardened criminal than Nicholson's Joker. They're about even in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 18:36:42 GMT -5
See, what I didn't like about Ledger's Joker was that it wasn't "Joker" enough. And I understand, that had to be done to make the movie realistic. But what I love about the traditional/Nicholson Joker was that he did things not only because he is a psycho, but also to get a laugh. Ledger's Joker was on psychotic crusade to prove that Batman can be turned against what he stands, that people abandoned their laws and rules in a heartbeat. It was too phylosophical for a Joker character IMO.
The way I see it is that Nicholson had made the perfect balance. "Neither Solid nor Liquid, he was a well-balance masterpiece". The Cesar Romero's Joker was a cartoony character in a caroony Adam West movie. Ledger's Joker is a psycho in a dark and brooding movie. In both cases, the character matches the film style, thus I don't really see a stretch in terms of an acting challenge. Nicholson's Joker is a mix. It's a cartoony psycho in a realistic movie. That's why, IMO, it's the hardest of the 3 version of the Joker to portray in a movie.
|
|
cernex
Snake (level 3)
Posts: 722
|
Post by cernex on Jul 22, 2008 20:31:39 GMT -5
Nicholson's Joker is a mix. It's a cartoony psycho in a realistic movie. You DO realize you just called a Tim Burton movie (you know, Burton, the "weird" Hollywood kid with more of an artistic interpretation of things than anything else) "realistic"? Next thing you're going to say is that "Edward Scissor-hands" was one of the most down-to-earth movies ever, xD |
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 20:35:01 GMT -5
Combared to the Adam West crap, yes, the 1989 Batman was very realistic. And I think you know what I meant, stop trying to start sh*t.
|
|
cernex
Snake (level 3)
Posts: 722
|
Post by cernex on Jul 22, 2008 20:41:19 GMT -5
Compared to the Adam West crap, yes, EVERY Batman IS very realistic. FIXED |
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Jul 22, 2008 20:42:19 GMT -5
LOL! Though "Batman and Robin"?  Tough toss up! |
|
lol)
Tough toss up!