Just a straightforward question: does the idea put forth in "The Dark Knight," that The Joker was (maybe!) an abused child, work for you?
Do you prefer the classic origin, where he's just a thug who falls into a vat of chemicals?
Does the Joker being possibly motivated by his childhood abuse "water down" his villainy? Do you prefer him to be more of an evil without explanation, chilling like a serial killer from a perfect family whose misanthropic behavior is seemingly without explanation?
Now, a larger question: does having these explanations for the motivations of heroes or villains -- abuse, rape, etc. -- "ruin" the character for you? Or do they make the character more interesting?
My opinion? I encounter a number of comic readers who get pissed off with these sorts of origins. They feel it's a cop-out. But to say that there hasn't been villains or heroes who have been propelled towards their missions, at least in part, by some form of past abuse? I don't buy that. There would have to be some of them.
But the Joker? I remember in one of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, they explained Freddy's origin as being a horribly abused child. Did that ruin him for me, take away some of his menace? It really didn't. If anything, that made him scarier. Because that placed him more in the realm of reality.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Joker As An Abused Child
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you have any comments, tips, news items, suggestions, etc? Email Me!
Posts
51 comments:
I liked that the Joker was a guy in make-up, the original incarnation of the character.
I didn't really put much thought into him as a an abused child even though that seemed to be the one constant in his storytelling. I was more enamored with the way he kept changing the story about his scars.
But how much of the abuse is what really motivated the Joker? I got the sense that he was just a man obsessed with chaos and disorder.
Well, if you recall, in the the Dark Knight, the Joker gave at least two different origin stories (one: abusive childhood, two: wife with gambling debts), and it was implied that he was about to give a third to Batman. So I'm not sure it's fair to say that "abused child" is his definitive origin.
I know this is kind of missing the point of your question, but it seemed farily straightforward to me that in The Dark Knight the Joker was simply making stuff up when he explained his past. He tells two different stories, and when he fights Batman at the end he prepares to tell him yet another version before he gets "cut" off (sorry).
When he told his first abused child version, I did feel a little disheartened that a force-of-nature villian was being explained away with chlidhood trauma. I was relieved when it was revealed to be just another way he lets loose his deranged imagination.
It didn't really affect the character for two reasons:
1) He had already told a completely different 'origin' story, so it's not like he was exactly credible to begin with
2) Despite the two stories, at no point did the Joker ask for any clemency because of what had happened to him. He did what he did and didn't play the pity card even while being strung up by Batman. There's a perverse consistency in that.
For some it works, for others the ambiguity of it all actually plays the same role. While the Joker had to come from SOMEWHERE, I kinda agree with something I read earlier somewhere that there was an appeal to the not knowing of it all. That it was implied the Joker's origin as he tells it may be skewed to whatever he feels at the moment. Was he a stand up comic? A thug? The Red Hood? Abused? A psycho killer looking for purpose? Hell, why not all of the above?
Some characters, when done right, transcend the need for the little details in their backstory. These characters can get away with the "just because" reason. The Joker is like he is just because. And ya know what? Just because IS realistic 'cause I've dealt with a few people who were like they were "just because." No real push towards the path they chose, they literally did wake up one day and say why not. Other characters, you either need to have it all spelled out, or you can spell it all out and not diminish the character any. And, of course, there's the small percentage where the devil is in the details and those end up killing the character for a reader. Sometimes it's best just not to know.
It really all depends on the character and who handles them the best.
I really didn't give any consideration to the "abused child" story the Joker related early on, since he seemed to contradict himself, at least in terms of the origin of his scars, later on in the film. I don't think the explanation was meant to be significant or meaningful; it only matters that we find out that his past is "multiple choice".
First-time poster here. I felt that the abused-child angle was taken from "Mad Love," the wonderful Paul Dini story. There's this haunting moment toward the end where Batman--in prime Batjerk fashion--brutally rips aside Harley's delusions that she has a special relationship with Joker. I'm paraphrasing here, but it's something like, "Which story did he tell you? Was it the one where his dad took him to the circus? He's got a million of them, Harley." And down comes the illusion. Poor thing.
And I like that implication, because it implies that Joker's true origin doesn't matter. His purpose is to torment Batman in the present, not brood about the past. He's a force of nature, and Heath Ledger's performance matches up well to that standard.
I think the child abuse angle, or any type of "mitigating" explanation for his actions and mindset, ultimately detracts from the character.
To me, The Joker is at his most chilling when there is no humanizing explanation for his criminal behavior. In a way, his "superhuman" trait is the depth of his insanity and murderous tendencies. He is completely unsympathetic in this way, which works better for his character in every incarnation that I've seen (i.e., he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever).
I think the angle of Joker possibly being an abused child is interesting -- within the spectrum of that specific movie.
But outside of that, it's really not the Joker to me.
I agree that the most definitive Joker is the completely amoral one who's just the embodiment of evil.
The Crooked Man said - "I don't think the explanation was meant to be significant or meaningful; it only matters that we find out that his past is 'multiple choice'."
I can't remember which story it was where I read the Joker state it like this (maybe it was even Killing Joke), but I always thought that was a brilliant way to write his attitude and to reconcile all the various origins readers had seen/heard ovetr the decades.
I didn't get the impression that it was intended for there to be any truth to the Joker's stories. Batpants couldn't find anything factual on him on any of his super Bat-puters. I was sold on the idea that he was just an apeshit crazy dude that wanted to watch the world burn. Or, in other words, a "completely amoral one who's just the embodiment of evil".
The Joker was lying. The End. This includes "The Killing Joke."
Does anyone here remember The Maxx? At one point the series jumped forward several years and the main villain from the first arc told his origin story, which did involve an unhappy childhood. The protagonist was determined not to listen on the grounds that she didn't want to hear any excuses, but the villain tried to clarify that he wasn't making excuses so much as explanations.
That's a distinction that seems to be ignored frequently in real life, as well. "There was a huge accident on the freeway and I was stuck in my car for 3 hours." "Don't give me excuses, be here on time!" etc. It's as if explaining how something happened is automatically an attempt to avoid responsibility.
So if you think an explanation is the same as an excuse, then sure, a villain's origin is an attempt to justify and soften his actions. If you don't see them as the same thing, then it's simply another layer of complexity.
In real life, kids are abused and disfigured by parents and DON'T turn into jokers. I find it disingenuous when writers try to tie characters' lives into nice, pretty, consistent packages: It actually makes them look LESS realistic.
I grinned when the Joker launched into the second explanation for his scars. That told me that they "get" the Joker.
There are a lot of people who are abused as children who don't grow up to be psychotic. But someone with a genetically "fragile" neurological system who gets abused could, theoretically, grow up to behave much as we saw the Joker did. As such, Ledger's portrayal was especially chilling because he perfectly epitomized that far end of the human psychological spectrum--psychotic and sociopathic. And that ensured that he remained truly unknowable and, thus, terrifyingly human.
So, in my opinion, it's a safe bet that the Joker had been abused, because even though he changed the story's details, the themes stayed the same: betrayal, disfigurement and abandonment. And none of those things happen absent painful, intimate and human interaction.
But that doesn't mean that he gets a "Get Out of Jail Free" card or isn't held accountable. Far from it. He's the kind of sick that never gets cured. So either he goes away for a very, very long time OR, as our ancestors might have done, meets with an "unfortunate hunting accident." Toss a coin.
Here's the thing. Lately (meaning the past few decades), the most definitive aspect of The Joker has been the enigma. Who is he? What drives him? Where did he come from? And, most of all, WHY? Why does he do the things he does? Why does he take such glee in it?
If these questions get answered, I think he definitely loses some quintessential aspect of his character. I think this applies to his abuse as well as any aspect of his character.
It's one of the reasons I disliked the Tim Burton/Jack Nicholson portrayal. While I loved how Nicholson played the character, the storyline defined his history too well, and (weirdly) tied him too firmly to Bruce Wayne's past.
Anyway, if your more general question is, "Do psycho killer characters become humanized/less scary by tragic stories in their past?" I guess my answer is...it depends.
I think you're right that someone like Freddy doesn't lose anything because he's so monolithic. And I guess I'm trying to be nice when I say that.
A not-nice way would be to say "2 dimensional."
As I was writing this, something I've been thinking about just gained a kind of clarity.
Characters who are supposed to inspire fear can continue to do so, regardless of tragedy, sadness or pretty much any emotion except levity.
I was thinking about Weeds. The show on Showtime?
The character of U-Turn in Weeds is kind of a heavy. But there are times when he seems just really foolish. He's very delicately written and acted to pull this off, but those times when he's foolish, any kind ability to inspire fear is removed from him. It's as if he can't be two things at once.
Interesting.
Also interesting that The Joker represents both comedy and tragedy as a character. Comedy turned into tragedy.
I don't think that anything could ruin the portrayl of the Joker in this movie for me. It was perfect. That is all.
Batman's origin never changes. Which is great; vengeance is one hell of a motivator.
The Joker's origin changes to fit the story and the times.
For the Nolan movies you need something serious (no vat of chemicals, no Joker fish). Whether it's child abuse or misguided love (I don't believe either) the mystery origin helps to confuse Batman.
I personally like the new origin in Confidential making Batman even more responsible and explaining the Joker's talents.
Multiple origins all the way. The recent Bolland-illustrated origin in COUNTDOWN where he basically says "Pick a card, any card," is pitch-perfect. No origin should be set in stone, which is what the movie did perfectly.
Really, the only character who actually pulls off the abusive childhood cliche is Harvey Dent. That kind of abuse actually fits his madness *perfectly.*
From the JLA "Rock of Ages" storyline, we know the Joker's brain is so massively miswired that the Martian Manhunter almost goes crazy visiting it.
From a short story in one of the Silverberg anthologies, it is hypothesized that he was an extremely creepy kid, using an empty water tower as a clubhouse, where he built bizarre skeletons, mixing various species.
Then there's the Alex Ross story in Batman Black and White, showing "Jack" to be rather clever and coniving.
The makeup? That just strike fear into the cowardly, superstitious criminals (and public).
The Joker was lying when he said that. He tailored his origin story to who he was trying to mesmerize/terrify. The Joker in TDK has no real origin. He's a fully formed agent of chaos.
For what it's worth, I never cared for the vat of chemicals origin. I prefer the Joker as a self-made man.
I think there are two components to any given person's opinion on this matter.
1. Does the Joker as an abused child make him seem less villainous from a dramatic standpoint? I think the answer here is clearly yes. It's a variation on the rules that govern a good horror film--the monster is scarier when we don't get a good look at him. Since TDK presents this Joker origin as a mere possibility instead of definite fact, it avoids this pitfall.
2. The bigger question: Does the Joker as an abused child make him less villainous from a moral standpoint? That is to say, is he more justified if his actions were influenced by a tragic life?
My answer here is a resounding no. The sorrows of the past are no pardon for the sins of today--and this is true whether we're talking about child abuse or a plunge into a vat of chemicals. Just look at Batman for the evidence. He was a victim of tragedy early in his life and became a force for justice, while Joker, Batman's perfect foil, experienced tragedy (probably) and became a force for evil.
Do people read the prior comments before posting their own. I think there might be a wee bit of redundancy here.
Definitive explanations of certain characters are not needed or wanted. The Joker is one of those characters.
Look at poor Wolverine. The more they revealed about his tortured past, the less I cared.
The mystery is more engaging than the reality.
so you lifted your ban on non-Marvel movies? :-)
This reminds me of Red Dragon by Thomas Harris (made into the movie Manhunter by Michael Mann, then later remade as Red Dragon). Francis Dolarhyde, the serial killer Will is hunting, is revealed to have become the way he is because of horrendous abuse from the grandmother who raised him. Graham is asked whether this makes him pity Dolarhyde. He says something to the effect of "I pity the boy he was, but I have no pity for the monster he's become."
when i read this post, my initial reaction was "wow, you really missed the entire point of the characterization of the Joker in DK." As others here have pointed out, the conflicting origins provided by the character effectively render moot any discussion of "why?", and forces the viewer to confront the villain solely on the basis of his actions. it's really one of the more brilliant tropes of the film.
but when i thought about it, i realized that i can't be surprised you are so off base here, since you admitted not long ago that you only saw 20 minutes of the film before you dismissed it.
It really is better to not talk about subjects one has no logical basis to discuss.
"it really is better to not talk about subjects one has no logical basis to discuss."
What Roger Ebert had to say in his review of Dark Knight:
"His clown's makeup more sloppy than before, his cackle betraying deep wounds, he seeks revenge, he claims, for the horrible punishment his father exacted on him when he was a child."
I guess he missed the point of the movie too, huh? I know, he's a terrible reviewer.
My vote: never give us the Joker's identity or backstory. Never. Makes him ten times scarier.
well ebert says that the joker claims he was abused, not that he actually was.
unreliable narrator and all that.
the joker changes his story twice in the movie, and goes for a third time until batman gets tired and shuts him up.
i'm guessing it's based on that line in the killing joke: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"
honestly i was disappointed he only gave two origins. to be more clear about it they should have done three or four.
Ebert did miss the point. This doesn't make him a bad reviewer, it just means he made a mistake. (Of course, it also doesn't give cause to bash anybody)
From the script [pp 64-65], the story he tells Rachel Dawes in the movie: "I had a wife, beautiful like you. Who tells me I worry too much. Who says I need to smile more. Who gambles. And gets in deep with the sharks. One day they carve her face, and we've got no money for surgeries. She can't take it.
"I just want to see her smile again. I just want her to know I don't care about the scars. So I put a razor in my mouth and do this to myself... And you know what? She can't stand the sight of me... She leaves! See, now I see the funny side. Now I'm always smiling."
I think it's a lot creepier when evil people arise out of perfectly normal backgrounds.
Well, as much as I respect Roger Ebert, I think he dropped the ball by keying in on the abused kid explanation. The Joker later tells Rachel Dawes another equally detailed, equally plausible scenario involving a betraying wife. We're left wondering, is one true, the other false? Are both false?
I think he's lying with a grain of truth both times. As another poster said, both stories contain similar themes. Certainly something happened to the guy, probably multiple things. Also, let's not discount genetic or physiological causes.
But the ultimate point of the Joker in the movie isn't where he's from, it's that he's a freak in the truest sense of the word. Any conventional explanation pales. Like someone else wrote here, he's the perfect engine of chaos.
Even in Killing Joke, Moore has the Joker at least semi-refute the origin as depicted by saying something along the lines of "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice." I think the origin shown in the book is merely the iteration he's remembering at the time because it fits the "joke" he's telling, that one bad day can create a monster.
Which I don't think is true at all. It takes a lot more than just one or two external events. There has to be some internal cause as well. Look how the movie does the Two-Face thing with Harvey Dent- he's got kind of a martyr complex before his disfigurement, shows violent tendencies and has this inflexible but brittle sense of right and wrong. The secret is, he was Two-Face inside all along, with this malleable self-image vulnerable to horrific events. The events were just the inciting incidents for something already present.
And he still might've been redeemable, whereas the Joker is most clearly not. He's unreachable.
Any psychiatrist reading this, feel free to contradict or correct me... I'd love to read a professional's take on the Joker's mentality.
Just not too much- I prefer him inexplicable. That's scarier. I don't want to have sympathy for him.
Has anyone called out Ebert on that flub? He really must not have been paying attention.
I think the key point in Ebert's review is:
""His clown's makeup more sloppy than before, his cackle betraying deep wounds, he seeks revenge, he claims, for the horrible punishment his father exacted on him when he was a child."
Ebert speaks correctly. At one point the Joker does claim it's a result of horrible abuse. And then later, the Joker claims that it was the result of him trying to please his damaged wife.
I admit, the first time I saw the movie, I was crushed when the Joker went into the abuse backstory. I do think any sort of backstory takes away from that particular character, abuse or no. But once he went on about his wife, totally negating what he'd said before, I was thrilled.
So I guess I agree and disagree with you. It WOULD have ruined things, if that was how it played out in the movie. :-)
Has anybody who worked on the movie & would be in a position to know confirmed that Joker was lying?
Okay, here's a scenario:
Joker admits to Batman or thug #2 or whoever that he was an abused kid. Then he stops and thinks: why am I telling this to *this* asshole? It makes him, in his opinion, look weak & vulnerable. It embarrasses him, opens up old wounds, points out his one point of vulnerability. So he then says he lied about it.
Which leads into: so much of Batman Begins was about how childhood trauma shaped Bruce Wayne into Batman. One of the themes of The Dark Knight is about duality, embodied in Harvey Dent. Would it be so out-of-left-field to think that with the Joker, a reverse origin story is given: childhood trauma produces not a hero, but a villain? Presenting how two different people choose to deal with the tragedy in their lives -- one by hurting others and one by helping others?
But I think part of what I'm seeing here, in the fervent denials that Joker was abused, is that: yes, it kinda ruins/waters down the icon. That as much as we'd like to keep these various incarnations of The Joker in the comics and the movies separate, if we establish such an influential Joker as being an abused child, it leaks into everything else.
And, with "synergy" being what it is, such a plot point could easily be dictated to be reflected in the comics...
Just addressing an earlier comment about the first Batman movie and Joker's origin there:
Even as a 15-year-old, I knew making Joker the killer of Batman's parents was hackneyed and just a little too pat.
Roger Ebert is a seriously ill man who might be excused for missing a plot point in a film he's seen in between chemo appointments.
what is YOU excuse val?
oh that's right---this is a movie
that you did not see...
I'm not denying that the Joker was abused as a child in the Dark Knight just because we think it weakens the character - I'm saying it because I do not believe it is supported by the movie in any way. It looks like almost everybody else here agrees with that.
The Joker never claims to be lying. The child abuse theory arises when he attacks a mob boss and tells him this: "Wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. He'd beat mommy right in front of me. One night he goes off crazier than usual, mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit.
"So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. Turns to me and says 'why so serious?' Comes at me with the knife- 'why so serious?' Sticks the blade in my mouth- 'Let's put a smile on that face' and..."
Then he kills the mob boss.
Later, he tells the contradictory story about his wife to Rachel Dawes. The possibility of the Joker being hurt as a child is never mentioned again.
He is lying because the circumstances behind the facial scarring are different, so one of them is lie - and if one, why not both? There's no way to tell the difference anyways; it just so happens he confronts the mob boss first.
We are told he there are "no matches on prints, DNA, dental. Clothing is custom, no labels. Nothing in his pockets but knives and lint. No name, no other alias... nothing." Dark Knight does not claim he was abused as a child, it claims he's the boogeyman - sprung up out of nowhere.
And yes, I think saying he did it because of child abuse does weaken the character. Unlike Freddy, he's already in the realm of reality - he's not a dream monster, he's a madman. For all we know, he was just a regular person that one day he decided to start doing these horrible thing - that's what is scary about the Joker.
Honestly Val, the scenario you've given couldn't be farther from what happened in the actual movie than if it was done deliberately.
It was pretty clear that the story was just that, a story. There wasn't any hint that he was revealing any sort of vulnerability when he told it.
It was a flippant explanation told in exactly the same manner as the subsequent wife story with the purpose of taunting and terrorizing the intended victim.
We don't need anyone "in the know" to confirm what is made incredibly obvious from the movie itself.
You missed the point entirely. Joker had several explanations for his scarred face. One of them was supposedly the result of child abuse. I suggest you watch beyond the first 20 minutes of the film as previously stated before dissecting it and asking silly questions. Frankly the vat of chemicals is a rather stupid concept. Nolan's Joker had zero back story. He was simply a chaotic force of nature, as the Joker rightfully should be.
"Nolan's Joker had zero back story. He was simply a chaotic force of nature, as the Joker rightfully should be."
Don't you think it's also pretty silly to assume to know what the director was thinking?
Can you also tell me what David Chase was thinking when he made that Sopranos ending?
And Lost In Translation -- you probably know what Scarlett Johansson whispered to Bill Murray at the end of the movie, don't you?
I love self-righteous people. They make me feel less bad about my own self-righteousness.
Thank God we are in America where we have the leisure to be self-righteous about superhero movies.
"We don't need anyone "in the know" to confirm what is made incredibly obvious from the movie itself."
Oh, and because you paid $10 for a movie ticket and run a comic book blog I should take your word for the defacto explanation for this aspect of the movie? Please get off your high-horse.
Only Christopher Nolan knows what those scenes really meant. If he says, "you know, the Joker totally lied about the abuse," then I'll buy it and happily concede.
Other than that, there can only be speculation. Sorry.
"Roger Ebert is a seriously ill man who might be excused for missing a plot point in a film he's seen in between chemo appointments."
Ultra-fanboy mentality in action:
Ebert interpreted the movie "the wrong way" because he had cancer!
Brilliant!
Oh Kalinara, one more thing: could you please write a post on your blog where you make this an "important" issue? I love those posts.
And in the final analysis, I really don't think it's tremendously important whether Joker was abused or not -- as he's an imaginary character.
I just love watching the split between those who merely state their opinion on the movie and those who forcefully claim to know the definitive interpretation.
In another era, another place, we'd be doing this about Biblical passages.
"Mark meant this!"
"No asshole, everybody knows that Mark meant that! Heretic!"
“The Joker, he sort of cuts through the film – he’s got no story arc, he’s just a force of nature tearing through. Heath has given an amazing performance in the role, it’s really extraordinary.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/13/entertainment/ca-dark13
The Joker just is, with no explanations of the way he is. But I saw some of "The Killing Joke" in it with the scars, how he remembers it differently each time...
David Goyer: That's the key to the character. That's what was so appealing about him. I think if we had done an origin story for The Joker we would have deflated the character.
Jonathan Nolan: To me it's the most interesting vision of the character, is one who leaves you at the end of the movie with more questions than answers. To me, The Joker, my vision of the character, my understanding of the character from the comic books, the aspect of him that appealed to me most, was the idea of the elemental bad guy. That opening shot of him standing on a corner in my imagination he could have just appeared out of thin air.
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/the_dark_knight_writers_desk_with_david_goyer_and_jonathan_nolan
From Ebert's 7/31 "Movie Answer Man" feature, where he answers questions from readers:
Q. In your review for "The Dark Knight," you say that the Joker is a product of his father's poor treatment, but that's just one story he uses to explain his scars. Another is that he did it for his wife, and Batman interrupts before he offers a -- most likely -- different story. I think the point was that he doesn't have a cause. Who's wrong here?
Samy Amanatullah, San Diego
A. I am. I should have mentioned all of his dubious stories, instead of sampling.
David, while you're at it, could you also find the quote from Christopher Nolan where he definitively says Joker was not abused?
That would be really helpful.
Because without that, it's just outraged fanboy/girl syndrome + apologetics for Chris Nolan.
Again, don't really care too much one way or another, and have respect for those who voice their contrary opinions without being self-righteous assholes with their heads up their asses.
But I get a real kick out of reading responses from people on these types of posts who have obviously blown up the importance of an imaginary character to a near-religious level worthy of dogma.
And as much as I think a proposed cinematic "dark" treatment of a DC property such as Green Lantern would be terrible, it would almost be worth it to hear the collective bitching of fans who obviously know the "right" way characters they neither created nor wrote nor directed should be.
You spend so much time defending your dogma and writing screeds on how your position is right on message boards...
At the end of the day, I have a billion other things to do with my time -- and a whole bunch of other things to demonstrate as my accomplishments other than the flame war I fought over a character I neither created nor wrote nor have a financial stake in nor have special insight into. Have fun with it.
Post a Comment