Ledger or Nicholson, who's closer?

[AgentRedgrave]

So I've heard time and again, that Jack Nicholson is closer to the comic book Joker, then Heath Ledger.

​

Well I will agree that Jack's Joker LOOKS more like the one from the comics, and his backstory that he was a criminal that fell into chemicals that gave him chalk white skin, green hair, and ruby red lips are all aspects from the comics.

On the other hand, Heath's Joker is closer to the comics in the sense that, he has no known identity outside of being the Joker, we don't know his real name, or anything about him from before he became the Joker (Jack and the comic book Joker, we know HOW they become the Joker, but unlike Jack's Joker, we don't know anything before that, or even his real name, as is the case of the Heath's and the comic book version).

Also, Heath's Joker, imo, is a bit closer in the sense that he doesn't really have a specific goal, just to spread anarchy and chaos, to show the morals of society are a big joke.

Jack's Joker, though clearly insane, imo, he just wasn't AS crazy, and struck me as more of a mad mob boss, then an agent of chaos.

Another aspect, Jack's Joker, was the one who killed Bruce Wayne's parents in his film. Whereas Nolan's trilogy, the Joker had nothing to do with it, as in the case of the comics

That's my opinion, and it's not meant to be a debate of quality. As I feel Jack and Heath's Jokers were perfectly fitted for the films they appeared in.

It's just I know a lot of people tend to say Jack was closer to the comics, and I think that's more to do with the fact that he looks like the traditional Joker, then Heath did, and there's more to it then that.

Thoughts?

 

[Innsmouth]

I remember joker having some backstory in some of his comic book versions. Generally I prefer Nicholson, but its' tough call for me.

 

[AgentRedgrave]

I remember joker having some backstory in some of his comic book versions.

Yes, but nothing we know is true, that's the point. Heath's Joker gave two different stories of how he got his scars.

Also, it's not a question of which you prefer, just which do you think is closer to the comics

 

[Innsmouth]

Yes, but nothing we know is true, that's the point. Heath's Joker gave two different stories of how he got his scars.

Also, it's not a question of which you prefer, just which do you think is closer to the comics

I really think it depends on comic. In comics Joker was mobster, chaos agent, harmless jester, etc. He had very many different versions just like films. Personally I think Nicholson is closer to classic interpretation + animated series variant, while Ledger is more akin to modern variant.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

"Closer" is really predicated on the acceptance of a "one true" version of the character, when by the very nature of a media where an author's interpretations or intentions create different versions, one is not really ever "the true version," just a version.

It's really no different from the different versions of Alice, or even Dante.

 

[berto]

Closer to the comic might be a hard thing to pitch. There isn't one single universal interpretation in the comics as it is so that's not a particularly solid definition either. Each actor took a different approach to the character and they each pushed what the Joker is in a different direction. I would say Nicholson was more cartoonish while Ledger was something I would call the personification of anarchy.

 

[Chancey289]

You want the Joker? Look no further than Mark Hamill's interpretation.

Ledger, while good at what he was doing in particular, never really screamed Joker to me.

 

[absolitude]

i don't follow the comics so i wouldn't know how joker was depicted at jack's time and heath's time, but i guess jack did closer to it, to my knowledge at least he gets the comical looks..

but closer as in depiction of a senile, heath nailed it perfectly, jack's joker was too dandy and dressed for the occassion, and he was too theatrical for my taste, and feels like he acted as himself, he played a cuckoo once and his joker has the same expression with that, only more "humorous" --nothing new from his joker, i never did like his joker anyway hence i never cared about joker before ledger..

and this may not be on-topic but it's related time-wise and acting chop-wise, compared to jack's joker i prefer devito's penguin much much more.. both are theatrical and under burton so i think it's a fair comparison

 

[Absent Nova]

If there was one thing I didn't like about Ledger's Joker it was that his laugh was weak, especially after the standard that Mark Hamill set.

But to answer your question I can't decide. Jack and Heath are both great.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

I think all of the actors who have played (or voiced) the Joker have brought something to the table, in that though not in whole, they had aspects of him in part. The other thing is, and I'm sure someone--or a few someones--have already said it, but it really depends on what version of the Joker we're talking about.

Like with many of the DC and Marvel comic book characters, the Joker has gone through many different incarnations with many different origin stories, names/aliases, and personality quirks. So when it really comes down to it, there is no "one true Joker" in the batch; there are many faces of the same character. Archetypes, as it were.

If you were to ask me my favourite? I still couldn't answer. Mark Hamill was the best VA of his character for more than a decade, but as far as live action goes, I'm torn between Ledger and Nicholson's roles, because they both did such a brilliant job of it in their own ways.

 

[Shadow]

Ledger, imo. He's close to the current version of Joker and carried the performance stunningly.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased, but I've always felt that Nicholson's Joker is just Nicholson cosplaying Joker. He doesn't fit with the comics of that time nor does he seem to fit with any of the other versions of Joker...except perhaps Romero's to a slight degree. (I actually watched the movie last night to see if my opinion on him changed and...nope. Spent the movie cringing.)

 

[absolitude]

but I've always felt that Nicholson's Joker is just Nicholson cosplaying Joker

ah, yes, this is actually what i'm tryin to say, can't find the words for it..

(I actually watched the movie last night to see if my opinion on him changed and...nope. Spent the movie cringing.)

lol

 

[Foxtrot94]

Not into comics but I've done my research about Joker every now and then and I'd agree Ledger's version feels closer.

As it was said before, Ledger really did play the agent of chaos and madness Joker's supposed to be, while Nicholson's interpretation didn't have the same vibe. Although I still enjoyed it.

Also, the points made in the OP apply too.

In terms of acting, one thing makes me prefer Ledger over Nicholson: he scared the **** out of me with his Joker. He's simply memorable.

Finally, dude, you should make this a poll.

 

[Innsmouth]

Ok, I try to make list of things I picked from comics and animations and try to compare them.

Joker was homicidal sociopath. Both of them were. Nicholson tried to poison city with his gas. Ledger committed acted of terrorism trying to provoke mass murder.

Joker had trademark venom. Nicholson scores here. Ledger didn't had anything as trademarked as it.

Joker displayed willingness to die only to overcome Batman. Ledger scores here. He didn't cared wether he dies or not, while Nicholson tried to stay alive in the end.

Joker was a mob boss. Nicholson clearly was. Ledger less so. While he forced people do his will, he never was a mob figure, instead being more of a terrorist.

Joker didn't cared about those who helped him. Neither cared about their gangs, willing to get rid of them.

Joker made performances out of his crimes. They both pretty much did. Though Nicholson more so. Ledger crimes were more of acts of terrorism.

Joker acted absurd and goofy to oppose Batman's seriousness and grittiness. Nicholson takes point for me. He really was more "clown like". Ledger was pretty gritty himself which kinda ruined whole point of Joker being opposed to Batman.

Joker actively tries to break his opponents and those around him on mental level. Ledger did. Nicholson kinda did to when he ruined face of his former gf, but nothing on Ledger scale.

If I forgot anything please feel free to add something.

 

[Jak]

nicholson's joker had the physical appearance and the mannerisms down but at his core, he's not the joker (to me at least). ledger on the other hand, while he doesn't look like how i'd imagine the joker to look, he behaves exactly like him. he sounds kinda how i imagine comic book joker to sound (minus that midwest twang). he's very much comic book joker. but both jokers work well within their respective contexts

i will say that i wish ledger's joker had the joker toxin. because in real life, there are theoretical solutions to creating joker venom. and most of batman's gadgets in the nolan trilogy were theoretical at the time of their release. so i don't see why he couldn't have it, but i still think it was solid