This feels long overdo, but Jared Leto's Joker had to be the worst part of "Suicide Squad". Worse than the merchandising? Worse than the editing? Worse than Amanda Waller's plan of countering a Superman-level threat with the guys superheroes beat up on a regular basis? Okay, so there's some tough competition.
Let's the obvious out of the way, there was little to no way Leto could have followed up on the performance of Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight". That's not even mentioning Ledger's death, which also added a heavy layer of pity points to his character. Ledger's Joker was great because he was mysterious, and he was a showman, and he actually had some funny lines and he was actually scary and what he was doing for a purpose. Leto's Joker had none of that. Leto's first mistake, though, came before the movie. You see, Ledger spent a long time isolated and alone, making notes and building his Joker up for an uncomfortably surreal performance. Leto decided to skip the building part and started doing stupid stuff and saying "its what The Joker would do". Leto would apparently mail his co-stars various items as jokes, he sent Will Smith bullets covered in semen (his own? Like it makes a difference), he sent Margot Robbie a dead rat (also with semen), and several people got anal beads. No semen though. A few ass hairs, but no semen. Jared Leto also stated they shot enough Joker material to make a whole other movie, which was probably just to satisfy this seaking fawcett of a man. But Leto is just the actor, his acting speaks for itself. We really have to look at Leto's Joker and ask what makes him unlike other versions of The Joker.
Heath Ledger's Subtlety
You know what would have ruined The Joker for me in "The Dark Knight"? If he kept making empty threats or laughing people's faces or acting like he was asked to record grunts for a fighting game. When Ledger's Joker talked, you listened. Because when he talked it was important, the dumbest comment could be a social commentary or a hint at what he might be thinking. This Joker stood for something greater than himself without forgetting he was important in the grand scheme of things. His motivation isn't just fighting Batman it's showing the people of Gotham how bad they are on the inside. Leto's Joker? Motivated by money, crime, and possession of a person. Maybe it's the difference in how impactful these Jokers were to their respective films, but if dialog isn't enough-seriously, name me more than one Leto quote worth remembering-it comes down to performance. Ledger's Joker is subtle, he is tactical, he says he doesn't have a plan and things are all up to chance, but he still creates dangerous situations on purpose. Leto's Joker is annoying, uncomfortable, confusing, and just plain weird. He makes these growls and head gestures that are supposed to tell us he's unstable, but he hammers it in too hard. We can tell Ledger's Joker is crazy not because of what he says or what he has, but what he does. What does Leto's Joker actually do? He fires a gun, rides in a helicopter, and gets in a car chase. That's all. Ledger crashes a party, holds people hostage, threatens to blow a boat up, shoots a cop, and blows up three buildings. Again, this comes down to how much each character is shown, but with the limited time he got I'd respect Leto more if made his Joker nuanced and unpredictable instead of just being a moving tattoo.
Mark Hamill's Charm
When I first saw Leto's Joker-the tattoos and no shirt and grill-I couldn't decide what was wrong about it. Just that it was wrong. In more incarnations The Joker has worn a shirt, he's never really had tattoos outside of a horrible Frank Millar book. Was it because he was a gangster? No, again there have many versions of The Joker who was just a crime boss like the Jack Nicholson one. And the modern day gangster is the kind of ghetto, bling-wearing, tatted up gangsta' you see on MTV when they actually play music. So that should make sense. But then I remembered a characteristic of The Joker that runs deep in his roots, something even the most disgusting versions (looking at you Azzarello) have. Class. Charm. A gentlemen quality. Something the Mark Hamill Joker has in spades. Heh, card joke. You wanna know how The Joker manipulated Harley into becoming his sidekick? It was hypnotic lunacy or chemical bathes. It was with his voice. The Joker is a master manipulator because he can talk you into living your life or ending it. He talked a 5th Dimensional Imp into giving him the power to shape reality. The Joker and Harley's relationship was built off of The Joker's ability to sway her with his words and fake emotions. I understand the film wanted to do something different and not show an abusive relationship in a superhero movie and wanted everyone who compares their relationship to Joker and Harley to remain blissfully stupid, but here's the thing. If you strip The Joker of his abusive nature and the fact that he just uses Harley to get what he wants you take away something that makes him evil. Yes, The Joker kills people and tortures people but so does Victor Zsass or Dexter Morgan or any serial killer/murderer in fiction. Take away his clown gimmick and his relationship with Harley and you turn The Joker into any other murderer. And it isn't enough for him to hit her, he has to be able to convince her he'll change, not change, and then do it all again. Abusive relationships are complicated and sensitive and The Joker knows how to handle one for as long as he has to. And if The Joker isn't smart or charming enough to do that he isn't smart or charming enough to be entertaining or unique.
The Joker's Depth
Sometimes The Joker is sympathetic. Sometimes he isn't. Sometimes you're supposed to understand why The Joker does what he does. Sometimes are aren't. When a character is labelled as "crazy" or "insane" it is the assumption of most that this means whatever the character does-no matter how unnecessary or how random it may be-can be explained because they're crazy. It's like in any story involving magic that has a plot hole you can just say "magic exists" and forget about it. Something every version of The Joker has portrayed is a line, a line that keeps them from being driven by an excuse. There is purpose to what The Joker does. He wants attention because otherwise he'd feel insignificant. He wants to be important because otherwise he sees himself as God's mistake. He wants Batman to interact with him because he doesn't feel alive without someone as mad as he is chasing him. For The Joker, life is about comedy. Cruel, ironic comedy. He didn't kill Robin to hurt Batman's feelings, he did it because the first thing people think about Robin is "why would Batman need a kid's help". He attacked Jim Gordon because "he's the purest cop in Gotham". He does things with purpose, with statement. Anything random or weird along the way is just his way of gloating, it isn't because he's crazy. If he boops your nose before killing you it's because he's enjoying himself, that's all. The Joker is complex and simple at the same time. And leaning too far in either direction can be a good thing, but done wrong it can be the worst failure of the character. If he's too simple it feels like we're not supposed to focus on him as much. If's too complex we end up being confused about his goal or feeling overwhelmed by his complexity. That's why there are only a handful of legitimately good Joker stories. And they aren't the ones on the shelves like "Joker" or "Death of The Family". It's the books that paint The Joker as a force of nature, an incurable disease, and he knows it. And he can't change it. Jared Leto wanted to look like The Joker, he wanted to sound and move and act like The Joker, but he didn't want to think like The Joker. He didn't want to be like The Joker. And he didn't want to understand The Joker like so many actors and writers do. That's why his performance will always be the worst, to be remembered not in originality, but to be infamous in it's obviousness.
But at least he ain't Lex Luthor.
Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment