If I’d made this claim a couple of years ago, I might have been lynched. But perhaps in 2011, we can finally look back with a bit of historical clarity and, at worst, agree to disagree.
Listen, Heath Ledger was at the top of his acting game in The Dark Knight and his Joker was an interesting character with an even more fascinating portrayal; but after watching a mere 10 minutes of Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman yesterday, I laughed more than I laughed throughout the entirety of The Dark Knight. And that’s the problem in a nutshell: Ledger’s Joker just wasn’t funny.
I’ve heard a lot of annoying and petty complaints about Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker. He was too chubby for the role is one I’ve heard more than a few times, and probably ranks amongst the stupidest criticisms ever. I’ve also heard that he wasn’t playing the Joker, but was playing Jack Nicholson…or playing Jack Nicholson playing the Joker, or whatever. I simply don’t agree, and this, as well, strikes me as being rather ignorant. But all of this aside, the reason Nicholson was a better Joker than Heath Ledger is that he played both sides of the Joker’s personality well: the comedian and the sociopath.
In case you’re curious, the scene I watched yesterday was the bit where the Joker interrupts the newscast to run a commercial for “new and improved Joker products!” That’s a perfect illustration of how funny Nicholson was, from that little high-kicking dance while pushing the shopping cart, to the way he delivered the line, “With new and improved Joker brand, I git a grin…agin…and agin…”, to the infectious, slightly demented laugh following the line about hair color so natural only your undertaker knows for sure.
Tim Burton and Jack Nicholson more or less nailed it in my opinion. Which is not to say that the film was perfect, but I think it remains probably the best film in the Batman franchise, problems notwithstanding.
If I had to rank Joker performances outside of these two, I’d probably have to give the gold medal to Mark Hamill–in particular, in later episodes of the animated series in which Joker went a little darker, culminating in the amazing and–to my mind, definitive–portrayal given in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. It may only be a voice-over, but Hamill knocked it so far out of the park that, for me, it’s almost difficult to imagine a pre-Batman: TAS world.
Oh, and just to put this out there, as well: Michael Keaton was a great Bruce Wayne. Actually, he and Val Kilmer were the best of the live action Batmans, though I will concede that Clooney was the absolute worst (and I like George Clooney).
Related posts:
I’m with you all the way.
I think as acting exercises go, Ledger’s performance may have been more nuanced and subtle, and maybe even a little more creepy and scary. But he was also more boring. More importantly, I don’t care how brilliant his acting was in that movie, since the character he was portraying wasn’t the Joker. Jack Nicholson was playing the Joker, and he did it to perfection.
Batman is an awesome movie.
Yeah, that’s all I’m saying: I’m not disparaging Ledger’s performance in any way, but it gets a little bit under my skin when people say that “true comic book fans” know that Ledger’s character was closer to the Joker of the comic books.
First of all, the Joker of the comic books has been written a number of ways over the years, so you have to be more specific about which Joker you mean. Do you mean the Joker of the Killing Joke?
But second of all, almost regardless of how the Joker has been written in the comic books, he has always been at least one thing: funny. So no–I disagree that The Dark Knight’s version of the Joker is the obvious choice of “true comic book fans”. Nicholson played the character of the comic books, and contrary to a lot of stupid opinions, he wasn’t playing Jack Nicholson.
I agree that a cursory review of the character (just like Batman) will give you an astounding number of variations, from the larcenous mischief-maker to the homicidal maniac, so there is no way to say whose portrayal is closer to the Joker of the comics.
That being said….
IMHO, Nicholson’s performance was bloated, forced and awkward. It’s not so much that he was too chubby or too old for the role, he was just unconvincing to me. The “zany” moments didn’t have the manic energy needed to pull them off, which is where I think a lot of the “it’s too obvious it’s Jack playing a role” comments come from.
The Dark Knight version was a different take on the character from a writing perspective, so that is simply a matter of taste and hardly the fault of either actor. However, Ledger did a much more convincing job with his role as the evil guy wearing clown make up than Nicholson did with his as the gangster-turned-loon.
To me, not having the Joker be funny is addition through subtraction, just like not having the live-action version of the Incredible Hulk speak. It was much more effective to be scared by the Joker than amused by him, at least in this sort of media. I don’t mind when they don’t follow the source material if it makes for a better movie or tv show.
Fun topic! At least give me this…. didn’t having Bruce’s parents murdered by a younger Jack Napier in the 1980′s Batman movie stretch the coincidence fabric just a *little* thin?
Thanks for commenting, Adam. I think you’ve enlightened me a little.
The Joker not being zany enough is a criticism that I can understand. To be sure, I don’t think Nicholson’s Joker is any crazier, really, than Bruce is (which is to say, kind of nuts, but still functional). Whether the writing is to blame for that or Nicholson is, I don’t know, but I’ll concede that when looked at in that light, the portrayal really is a far cry from, say, the bat-shit insane Joker of the animated series. (That’s not necessarily a bad thing, by the way.)
Ultimately, it doesn’t bother me because–gosh darn it–Nicholson always makes me laugh.
As to the young Jack Napier…I don’t know. It’s a little contrived, I guess, but it’s not as bad as in Spider-Man 3 when Raimi retconned the first movie so that the Sandman killed Uncle Ben. That’s a change that severely detracts from the origin story. Having Jack Napier be the murderer of Bruce’s parents doesn’t make the origin story worse. Since the film killed the Joker off, maybe it makes it better for the purposes of Batman as a stand-alone narrative.
My opinion about Batman Begins and the Dark Knight is that it was made by and for people who don’t like the comics. I think it’s possible to be a fan of the comics and still like the movies, but they both seemed as though they were made by people who scoff at comics and think that the films had to be “better” and “more mature.” Or whatever. So Chris Nolan’s interpretation of the Joker was certainly more realistic in terms of having him actually seem like a sociopath who might exist in real life.
But who cares about that? I’m not watching real life, I’m watching a movie. More than that, I’m watching a movie on Batman, so the Joker should damn well be similar to the guy from the comics. Ledger was called the joker and wore a suit that was purple. Other than that, the fidelity to the source material is pretty thin.
So, yeah, I think the Joker from the original Batman film is way better. I think the Batman from the TV series is way better. Just my opinion, however.
and as a person not from a comic background, I agree. I dug Jack way more. I’ve been meaning to write this for like 2 weeks but the first time i read it was on my phone and I couldn’t comment because my hands were too cold.
I should talk to more people who aren’t nerds. It’s always interesting to get the “normal person” perspective.
i aspire to nerd-dom.
Way to nail it.
I have always maintained that Ledger’s Joker was basically a punk with a crappy makeup job.
Nicholson’s Joker had more style.
I’ll take “Wait ’til they gt a load of me” over “Why so serious?” any day.
Thanks.
Yeah, I dunno…I’m content to agree to disagree with others, but I still think the Joker should be funny, regardless of everything else.
I disagree that it was a better portrayal of joker. I see jacks portrayal as a completely different incarnation only. If ledger had simply copied Nicholson it would have been a train wreck. Nicholson nailed the comic joker while ledger reinvented the character into one that better suited the tone of the movie. you really can’t compare the two jokers only the approaches that the two movies took on the entire mythology. All that aside mark’s voice will always be the default joker voice in my head when I think “joker”
Fair enough. In any event, I liked Nicholson’s portrayal better. To me, it felt like the character as I understood him, whereas Ledger’s Joker, while interesting and perhaps suited to the tone of the film, almost felt like some other character.
I do think it’s possible to do a dark and funny Joker. Hamill did it in the Revenge of the Joker, which bridges the gap in a way between Nicholson’s approach and Ledger’s.
Mocha makes an excellent point that Ledger’s portrayal of the character was more fitting the tone of Nolan’s Batman film, and that having him play it closer to the way Jack did would’ve been a train wreck. However, that just shows why I prefer the Tim Burton film over the Chris Nolan film. Burton’s film was dark yet fun and entertaining, while Nolan’s was just bleak and pretentious.
I will say that ledger got the internal workings of jokers mind perfectly if you look at the way he thought in the killing joke. The multiple choice back story, the lack of justice in real life, and his telling batman that they are both nuts
I agree to disagree on this topic as well, but in my perspective i think that the best character really depends on what theme the movie will be. A serious and rather creepy type of joker is great for Ledger while it may not have been as fitting for Nicholson, but a very funny and crazy joker works wonderfully for Jack because he has always been great at comedy. Not only did both actors do well but they both left imprints in your mind of them doing their best in the movie. Each moment was cherished as they made those great memories. If i had to choose between the two I don’t honestly know 100% if i could but I will. My choice would be…Heath. Sorry fans of Nicholson but I really like the depth in the movie and the seriousness. It was fitting for him and I loved it. I love Batman and I really love them both in these movies and I’d like to say thanks for putting this up because it brought something different to my attention. I love movies like this and even if people don’t agree I think that movies out of comics can be wonderful like X-men(sorry if you don’t like it but I’m a total X-men fanatic) and many others…well sorta. Thanks for listening fellow Batman fans(:
I really hate how there are tons of topics/videos etc… where both of them are compared,its just useless.I liked both movies and for me both Jack and Heath made them that great (especially Jack as he was pretty much the only reason I watched that movie to the entire end,while in TDK everyone gave such a strong performance including…do I even need to say their names…)
I personally don’t compare both films as they are different as it was mentioned above.Though if I had to choose which Joker I liked more (Not who was better because both play a different Joker)I would go with Heath because I prefer his portrayal of a darker joker rather then a more cartoony one much more.
Man, if you read the comics, you know that only a psycho would find his jokes funny. That’s the fun and the criticism in the whole story: the reader (or someone watching the movie) will find fun in his jokes if (s)he likes dark humor. That’s why I laughed at many of his jokes and his sarcasm: it’s a very raw humor, only recognized if you recognize that much of our humor is based on villains. I see more emphasis on the madness of the character in Nicholson’s performance, who always did great crazy ones. Who can forget the Shining?
Most important of all: Nicholson has showed us many times that madness is frequently mortal, but amoral. Ledger’s Joker is mad, but is also irredeemably evil, to his core and beyond. The comic contrasts this evil with Batman and this contrast is obvious there, but Bale fails to do that and causes the movie’s failure in portraying this same contrast, which is one of the great points of the story: both characters are “crazy”, but are opposites nevertheless.
Interesting comment. Thanks. At first I thought you were going to come down on the side of Ledger’s portrayal with the assertion that you’re not meant to laugh at the Joker’s jokes, because they’re only funny to him. But yes, I do agree with you. Were the Joker a real person, any rational person would be horrified, but as a fictional character, he’s hilarious in a very morbid way.
In any event, I’m not sure I expressed this in my post, but I do think both portrayals work within their respective films. My personal preference is for Nicholson’s character, however. I had to take a somewhat firm stance on it for the sake of controversy, but everybody is entitled to an opinion, of course.
Heath Ledgers Joker is obviously better…Move along children.
While I can certainly see your point of view and recognize the perceived validity of the opinion; I can’t get on board with the comments that say that the new films aren’t good because they aren’t close to the comic books, that they are produced by people who aren’t fans of the comics.
Just writing that idea out blew my mind (in a bad way).
Considering how many variations there are of each of the major comic book characters through all of the arcs, writers and artists; it kind of makes my brain shut down when it comes across that the new Batman films are nothing like the comics.
While it is true that the Joker is essentially the same through any of these renditions, maybe a touch darker here or a tad bit more “zany” as you say in another; he is essentially the one character who never really changes in the comics. And thats fine, it is something I will certainly admit to: they changed the Joker quite a bit for the film.
But that’s why the films are so good … no, GREAT. It is completely interesting and intriguing to watch these iconic character brought into a world that is more realistic. To see them in a light in which we could see them in the real world… how is that not a good idea?
But I guess this is slightly off-topic. I guess if we’re talking about the basis of the article written and my opinion; I think Ledger’s portrayal from an acting standpoint was far above what Jack produced. Despite a ledgendary career and undeniable talent; if you put the two along side one another and say, which of these performance required more acting chops to pull of to me it would be hands down the new Joker. Whether or not Nicholson’s version of Joker is more akin to the comic book version or not; acting-wise it has to be Ledger’s.
Again like most of the posters so far have said, it is all relative to the vision you are looking at in the Batman part of the comicbook universe I suppose.
I can definitely agree that in a critique of Jack’s performance while zany it doesn’t necessarily offer the pychotic “on the edge” part of the character’s craziness. Its just him being silly. Not “silly but could at any moment cut your face off.”
I think I just jumbled like 8 different thoughts into one comment and apologize for the cluster f it ended up becoming.
Love the blog by the way, great topics all around. Definitely adding it to my “blogs to check out while I’m not working at work” list.
ha! No worries–most of the stuff I post here is just a jumble of barely connected thoughts, so I understand. Thanks for the comment and the compliment.
I agree with mocha, but i dont think the movie was made to be a comedy. i think Ledger was meant to play some seriously disturbed, but somehow very intelligent, man. Yeah i agree that maybe there should have been some more comic relief in the movie, but “The Dark Knight” was meant to be a drama/action movie. Dont put it on Jack’s or Heath’s shoulders anyways. They do what they’re told. If they portray a certain scene in a way the director or screenwriter or whoever doesnt like it, they have to do it over the way “it was supposed to be”.
You know when someone dies, you here a million different stories as to how and why they died, well I heard, and believe over any other story, that he died because he got so into playing the character of the joker, that i guess he overdosed on some drug that kept him calm or just helped him sleep because he spazzed. Do you think if he was supposed to be the comic relief of the movie, he would have died?? I think he was an amazing actor and maybe he thought he knew what he was doing when he took the role, but he was so into getting the character down to a “t” (like a lot of other actors should start doing)and put his entire focus on this character, that he cracked.
Oh and I apologize now for any facts i didnt get right about what drugs he overdosed on or whatever else, but i dont spend my day with my eyes glued to the computer making sure i know every fact of every situation that happens. I honestly loved the way Heath and Jack played the joker. The way “The Dark Knight” was panned out, i think Heath played it perfectly, and the same goes for Jack. So why dont we get off the computers, away from the tv screens, and quit nit-picking at everything everyone does or says. If you dont like it, dont watch it. end of story.
WTF! shut up man Heath Ledger is a WAY better joker then Jack Nicholson!
The problem is that, as you briefly mentioned, all comic characters are reinvented again and again to better suit the audience of the era. Both Nicholson and Ledger played the Joker they were chosen to play, each bringing their own twist on the building blocks that have stuck with the character from the beginning. Because of this I don’t think either of them can be said to be ‘best’ so much as ‘preferred’.
Ledger’s Joker was, in my opinion, a better portrayal of the violent insanity behind the laughs. Nicholson, in contrast, was able to make the character more off-the-wall and bring out the amusing insanity.
Neither of the performances was perfect by any stretch of the imagination but now the standards have been set for both sides of the character’s personality we have to wait for somebody to top them both.
Okay so I’m late. Was just looking up some Joker related things. I saw many great points way up there. I thought I was going to come into this thread all pissed off but I was pleased. Only thing I disagree with is that Ledger’s Joker wasn’t funny. Honestly, I laughed throughout the entire film.
I still maintain that Nicholson was a better Joker, and that Batman was better than either of Nolan’s boring, pretentious films combined.
And I’ll go one further: I even liked Tommy Lee Jones better as Two Face than Arron Eckhart.
Gary Oldman is way better than Pat Hingle, however.
Jack Nicholson’s Joker was too… giddy. I mean he overacted many parts. Heath Ledger brought out the best Joker voice, and the greatest performance to date in my opinion.
For those criticizing the latest Batman movies, I just don’t understand why. The latest movies are breaking box office records. They’ve won many Oscars and other awards. These 2 movies already won more than Burton/Schumacher’s 4 films combined. The hype for Dark Knight Rises is amazing. Everyone is talking about it.
Those who prefer the older Batman movies only grew up on them. I remember growing up on a lot of things and it seems more exciting then.
The latest Batman movies have already grossed more than all the previous combined. That says a lot.
No, I prefer the Tim Burton Batman film to Nolan’s because I think it’s better. Here’s some advice: Don’t presume to tell somebody why he or she likes something, because it just weakens your entire argument because it makes you seem illogical and foolish. Then again, saying that Nolan’s films are superior because they made more money and won more awards is already illogical and foolish.
Since when do money and pointless awards (at this point, I’m pretty sure that I’ve won an Academy Award) equate to quality? And even if they did, that would mean that Burton and Schumacher’s films are amazing too, since they also made millions of dollars. We’re talking about hugely successful films here, let’s not quibble over which was more successful, considering how they all made hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, maybe not Batman and Robin, but that was shit.
But, again, like whatever you want and I’ll like what I want. But Nicholson was better.
can someone let “fuwalda” go back to his time machine because he really likes to make an argument silly that jack is better…. so bye bye classical moron…..just accept that present (heath) will always overcome the past (jack)…