Post by Severen on Jun 20, 2006 2:11:51 GMT -5
The Joker is my favourite comic character, ever, has been for more years than I care to remember, but I still think there's room for various interpretations of the character to a certain degree, particularly if you're trying to bring him to life in different mediums than the one he was originally born in. And honestly, if they chose to approach the visual challenge of bringing The Joker to life in live action as having him cut up then I could live with that, just so long as the character at his core was there underneath it all, and still recognisable as The Joker.
The fact is The Joker's exhagerated smile is a touchstone of the character to many people, a prime and instantly visual recognisable ingredient, but to make that work, on film, with real people, well, it takes some doing to make work and be believable. Basically as I see it you have two options, either you don't do it at all (option 1), which leaves you with just the white face and green hair, or else you do it with make up fx (option 2), and if you choose the later route then you need a real world basis for the how and the why and the story behind the facial deformation (regardless of whether you actually show or incorporate that origin into the film itself) just so you have a place of logic to come from in the creation of the FX make up, so that you can ultimately sell the final piece as real and believable in the context of the film.
Me, I'm open to whichever route they take, just so long as they get the delicate balance of the character right (I find too many writers are way too lazy with The Joker's characterisation these days, leaning too heavily on one easy element, such as making him too camp, at the expense of all the other facets of his personality), if they manage to get The Joker right on the page, and select the right actor to bring him to life on the screen, then the rest is just window dressing really anyway. And then, to me, the only real concern as far as any extreme makeup job goes, is that it's flexable enough to allow for a true range of emotive performance from the actor wearing it.
We'll see I guess.
Sev.
The fact is The Joker's exhagerated smile is a touchstone of the character to many people, a prime and instantly visual recognisable ingredient, but to make that work, on film, with real people, well, it takes some doing to make work and be believable. Basically as I see it you have two options, either you don't do it at all (option 1), which leaves you with just the white face and green hair, or else you do it with make up fx (option 2), and if you choose the later route then you need a real world basis for the how and the why and the story behind the facial deformation (regardless of whether you actually show or incorporate that origin into the film itself) just so you have a place of logic to come from in the creation of the FX make up, so that you can ultimately sell the final piece as real and believable in the context of the film.
Me, I'm open to whichever route they take, just so long as they get the delicate balance of the character right (I find too many writers are way too lazy with The Joker's characterisation these days, leaning too heavily on one easy element, such as making him too camp, at the expense of all the other facets of his personality), if they manage to get The Joker right on the page, and select the right actor to bring him to life on the screen, then the rest is just window dressing really anyway. And then, to me, the only real concern as far as any extreme makeup job goes, is that it's flexable enough to allow for a true range of emotive performance from the actor wearing it.
We'll see I guess.
Sev.