I thought Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker was a disappointment. Anyone else agree? - Batman (1989) Discussion

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

A comparison doesn't make sense. Different eras. Differ acting styles. Different directing styles.

However, at the time I thought the characterization was cartoonish based on how the Joker was portrayed in the comics at the time. IMO, Willem Defoe or John Lithgow would have worked better. Some people say Tim Curry, but he could have gone either way and been similar to Nicholson.

reply

[–] Costumer (1834) 2 years ago

Personally, I thought Nicholson was a far better Joker than Ledger. He fit a lot of the Joker mythology and attitude.

I thought Ledger was a chilling villian, and brilliantly acted; but that was not the Joker.

Author of the Sodality Universe
The Road from Antioch
In the Markets of Tyre
Flight to Lystra
The Theater at Ephesus
The Council on Jerusalem (coming 2023)

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

nickolson joker was funny.

ledger joker wasn't.

that why i prefer nickolson joker by far.

reply

[–] SilenceByWolf (1868) 2 years ago

"Here let me lend you a hand" . I found that part in the movie hilarious. And she was dumb enough to fall for it. Link: https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx_fvlujTlqNXdxZ3i4rxYq7i6aSy5SKnw

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

many great scene in original 1989 batman.

all i remember from the dark night is mass hysterias over it. all the fanboy lose mind over this film hahahhaha. bless them. they starved of good movie in 2000s. i dont blame them.

reply

[–] almonigal (1293) 2 years ago

I have same opinion. He's cartoonish and comic book'y, which I admit, is the base of the character, but somehow seems off. The rest of his gang is also too cartoony; JN's joker would have worked much better if his crew was more ... serious.
And my opinion was the same even before the Dark Knight was released.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

"JN's joker would have worked much better if his crew was more ... serious."

Agreed, they were a step from the TV show's henchman. I prefer the TV Joker over the JN Joker. He was so deranged he put makeup over a mustache.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 2 years ago

Nicholson's Joker was creepy, sinister, deranged, maniacal, and full of effervescent glee in his madness. What's not to love?

He didn't seem cartoonish to me, and lacked nothing.

I don't think Joker needed an origin or a connection to Batman, but that's not on Nicholson, that's the plot of the film. And to be honest, I don't mind it. It's fine, it's just not my favourite.

Now, was Ledger better? I think I do prefer Ledger's Joker to Nicholson's, but that's not to say Nicholson did a bad job or the characterisation was "lesser," I just think Heath's performance was superb.

With that said, Leto's the only Joker I've seen that I didn't really care for (seemed like derivative of Ledger/Nolan's creation, but like they were trying to one-up it; "look at me!")

The best version, in my opinion, is Joaquin Phoenix, but that might be unfair because he got so much focus and screen time compared to other versions.

reply

[–] kenburke (2396) 2 years ago

I disagree. His "party animal from Hell" performance was perfect!!!

reply

[–] janelsenor (2048) 2 years ago

No. Best Joker ever.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Jack Nicholson ruins the movie. Period. He was ham with no wry.

reply

[–] janelsenor (2048) 2 years ago

Incorrect

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (2682) 2 years ago

The Joker is a criminal, and everything he does or says, he thinks is funny.
Nicholson was comic book accurate. He was brilliant.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Nicholson -- at the time -- looked like the absolute best casting for The Joker (and for "Batman") imaginable.

He was a "prestige superstar" -- he had two Oscars to his name (one from the 70's for Cuckoo's Nest and one for the 80's for Terms of Endearment) and, in the right role, he was VERY bankable. Other Batman superstars to come like Jim Carrey and Arnold Schwarzenegger were bankable but without prestige.

To an older generation, Jack had been THE star of the early 70's, starting with Easy Rider in 1969 and running through an "early 70's" canon that included Five Easy Pieces(Oscar nommed), Carnal Knowledge, The Last Detail(Oscar nommed), Chinatown( a classic) and Cuckoo's Nest (a classic AND a blockbuster.)

Jack had survived slumps to "come back" in the 80's but the key thing was: he had never agreed be in a "summer blockbuster" before.

Or, for that matter in a "Christmas blockbuster," either. He had turned down The Sting(Redford role), Close Encounters(Dreyfuss role) and Superman (Hackman role -- Lex Luthor.)

For the producers of Batman to lure Nicholson into a summer blockbuster was considered a very, very, VERY hard catch in 1988. Nicholson was "forever in talks" to the point where the producers said they were approaching Robin Williams . (THAT's around the time Jack said yes -- but also to big money from the movie AND toys.)

Producers Peter Guber and Jon Peters had worked with Jack recently in the "prestige summer blockbuster" Witches of Eastwick(where Jack played The Devil) so they felt they had an inside track. They did.

Getting Jack Nicholson in the 80's to anchor Batman matched what the producers did in the 70's when they got Marlon Brando to anchor Superman: to attach a "great actor" to a comic book movie(back when studios didn't TRUST comic book movies.)

Except Brando only gave them a 20 minute cameo -- Nicholson took over HIS movie(with able help from Michael Keaton.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

To all of this the retort may be: "So what? Was Jack the best choice? Weren't James Woods and Willem Dafoe and David Bowie more accurate? Wasn't Jack too...overweight?"

Maybe. But none that mattered.. He was a bigger star than any of those guys, and brought movie history along with him. Plus, his manic roles in Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining and The Witches of Eastwick more than showed he had what it takes to make a great Joker.

And he was. And it was a blockbuster. And Jack's career -- in danger of fading with the 90's -- took off as a new generation of young people came to know and like the older star.

Jack made $60 million or so off of Batman, so Oscar rather ignored him.. Yes, Heath Ledger would end up winning the Oscar for HIS Joker, and Joaquin Phoenix would end up winning the Oscar for HIS Joker, but Jack already had two Oscars when he made Batman...and he would soon win another(As Good As it Gets.)

What Jack was that the others were not -- and never will be - was a bona fide superstar and classic actor in movie history. He gave us "The Joker through a superstar's eyes" and with the superstar's famous face and voice informing the Joker.

He was great. And there was no more IMPORTANT actor to play the Joker in 1989 than Jack Nicholson.

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (2682) 2 years ago

Thanks for your comments. Good info and good thoughts.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Thank you!

reply

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

All of that is accurate, but it has nothing to do with the various Joker performances.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

All of that is accurate, but it has nothing to do with the various Joker performances.

---

Well, yes and no. Nicholson brought his superstardom and his movie history to the role and that became PART of his performance.

If I were shown one clip of Nicholson's Joker, and one clip of Heath Ledger's Joker, without being told who the actors were, and asked to identify them -- I'd say (1) Jack Nicholson and (2) "He's very good, but I don't know who that is."

Superstar casting gets you that.

But to the issue of performance, I will concede that Nicholson was accused of being "overrated," "always playing himself" and "hammy," but...he wasn't really any of those things.

Oh, he got over-praised. Eddie Murphy came out of the Batman premiere and said: "There's the rest of us...and then there's Jack." Oooh...the God praising the God.

But...Nicholson DID have a talent for acting to go with his charisma(he used all sorts of educated techniques) and his performance as the Joker is a great one.

It excited me and entertained me in 1989. Finally, Jack Nicholson in a family blockbuster! (Of sorts.) The role had plenty of technique. Jack's voice -- high pitched and twangy in the 70's -- was now deep and stereophonic in middle age. He hit his "Ts" hard ('BatTman..a baT in my belfry") and hissed his "S's.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Three scenes where his acting was great:

ONE: First coming upon Jack Palance, now as the Joker...from deep-voiced rage to crazy laughter. ('Wait''ll they get a load of ME.)
TWO: His "madman's silent dialogue" with the fried skeletal corpse of his high voltage joy buzzer victim. Nicholson had 1,001 moving face muscles and they all move here -- not just the eyebrows. He's crazy, too ("What? Grease 'em ALL?")
And he shows off that crazy laugh.
THREE: His "chat" with Vicki Vale at the art gallery. You can see and hear "Jack Nicholson" in there -- the Joker's actually talking a bit sexy to Vicki before noting of his days of being attractive "that's all over for me." And then he gets really scary ("Do I look like I'm joking?") and lethal (his acid-spraying posey.)

No, I think Nicholson delivered the whole package for Batman: his very name turned it into a "prestige movie" and then he delivered a thoughtful nuanced acting job.

My rankings of Joker performances:

Jack Nicholson
Heath Ledger

Cesar Romero

Joaquin Phoenix
Jared Leto

...about Leto. Whereas when Nicholson and Ledger took the screen and their movies "came to entertaining life," when Leto took the screen, the movie died and you couldn't wait for him to leave. THAT's a bad performance. Didn't like the tats, either.

About Phoenix: a great, emotional,weird performance. But he didn't seem like a powerful crime boss aborning to me. He seemed like a mix of Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin, but bad at both parts. And that scene at the end on DeNiro's talk show was the worst. In real life, security would have been on the Joker in 10 seconds(there are some real life video examples of this). Plus, Phoenix seemed to go for a "stage gay" voice all of a sudden.

I'm sorry that Phoenix won the Oscar for his performance; I wish Jack had won one for his.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

RE: Heath Ledger:

Nicholson's Joker was a superstar performance, based on his facial muscles(only Walter Matthau could match him, in rubber-faced dexterity, in their day) his known voice, his known smile. We waited for Jack Nicholson, we expected Jack Nicholson and we GOT Jack Nicholson. (Just like back in the day, we got Bogart or Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant or John Wayne -- voices and faces.)

But with Heath Ledger, there was nothing he had done before(in a short, sadly cut off career) to prepare us for his Joker. He couldn't depend on superstar tricks, he built HIS Joker from the ground up. The cuts at the edges of the mouth. The wild flourishes. The line readings. I particularly liked how he said his crime outfit was going to experience "AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION!".., swinging his arms in and then out, breaking a pool cue in half on the phrase...and then making his henchmen applicants fight to the death for a job with the cue halves as spears.

Nicholson just barely edged Ledger, in my book.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

thanks

reply

[–] FFNogoodnik (778) 2 years ago

I am not a comic person so I can only talk about the TV and film versions so here goes:
Ledger is to Nicholson what Nicholson was to Romero.
I watch the TV show and Cesar Romero's Joker a lot when I was a kid (I am 55 now) so when I saw 1989's Batman I was amazed at how serious and psychotic Nicholson's joker was.
Then when I saw "The Dark Knight" Ledger's joker made me feel the same way towards Nicholson's joker that Nicholson's joker made me feel about Romero's joker.

reply