 |
| Caesar Romero as The Joker in Batman |
This Friday, the D.C. Comics world unleashes their latest adaptation of Batman with a film that's promising to be darker and more perverse than ever before. True, Joker finds Batman's beloved foe The Joker getting an origin story that borrows heavily from Martin Scorsese films and earning Oscar conversation along the way. Even with an actor as prestigious and exciting as Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role, it's hard to deny that the history of actors who have played the character has lead to a competition among fans. Who is the best performance of The Joker? Many have found contention between Jack Nicholson (Batman '89) and Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) taking lead votes while even fewer praise Mark Hamill (Batman: The Animated Series), Zach Galifianakis (The LEGO Batman Movie) and, sigh, Jared Leto (Suicide Squad). But the question comes up yet again with Joker: who is the best, or is Phoenix about to take top honors?
It is true that there have been darker takes inspired by the wave of the nihilistic take on the character by Alan Moore and Frank Miller, and they have oddly informed a certain aspect of The Joker ever since. However, if one was to look at the actor who played him best, one would have to go back even further, to a time when "dark and gritty reboot" wasn't even heard of, when Batman was, you know, a detective in an average issue of Detective "D.C." Comics. It may seem strange to a certain generation who likes their Batmans to fight their Supermans and brand people with bat insignias, but the 1960's Batman series and subsequent film helped to define what the characters would become, and nobody left their mark on a character as permanently as Cesar Romero.
In a lot of ways, Batman has gotten a bad rap in later decades because of how much the character has changed. Whether it's because of the D.C. Extended Universe presenting a nihilistic and manic depressive version, or because Joel Schumacher took ideas from the beloved 1960's series and soullessly commercialized it with Batman & Robin. Whatever the case may be, audiences of today can't help but look at the Adam West era and come down on one of two sides. It's either too wimpy and campy or is a depiction of the characters as they should be. For the sake of argument, I perceive Batman from this era to be exactly what it needed to be: an upbeat crime show full of rich style and humor that could be wrapped up in a half-hour like an average serialized program. The theme song was an instant classic, and it made the world of comics fun. Yes, it was winking in how silly it was, but it did so lovingly and with deep intent. Even the narrator at times felt like his redundant/ridiculous line readings had him in on the joke. What's misunderstood about the series is that, for better or worse, it was a fun action series where a rouges gallery came to Gotham and fought Batman often over trivial things.
And what's wrong with that? It's true that Batman '89 was sold on the idea of a "darker" Batman, though even that is hard to fully ignore the influence that Cesar Romero had. The easy knock on Romero was that he wore facepaint over his mustache. However, if you so much as look at Nicholson in the role, you begin to see what was borrowed. It's the flamboyance, the facial design of the make-up, and the LOUD suits that have pretty much existed in every iteration. Yes, Nicholson was menacing, but he was in a lot of ways borrowing from Romero's performance. Both were loud and flamboyant, tossing their hands in the air and laughing as madness occurred around them. Both fit their respective stories tonally, though again it's hard to deny that there was something more to Romero.
The world of Batman was ridiculous, full of bat-this and bat-that and bat-shark repellants. It's something that has been joked about as recently as The LEGO Batman Movie, though hopefully with a winking affection. Those looking at it as dumb and thus obsolete stand no chance of fully appreciating how the show was itself a satire on crime serials while also revolutionizing how the caped crusader would be seen ever since. Because of Romero's ability to define the character, the first new take on the character over 20 years later had no choice but to be compared to Romero. Since then, no interpretation has lasted without their own form of melding. Nicholson paved the way for Hamill which paved the way for Ledger. At most, the average accepted version in pop culture has lasted years compared to Romero.
It was much in the look as it was in his general attitude. Speaking as the character has always been perceived as Batman's moral opposite, it makes sense that The Joker is a troublemaker to the highest degree. He is able to break out of Arkham Asylum with nothing more than a springboarded base on a baseball mound. He is ridiculous and nonsensical in ways that Batman's other heavyweights - The Riddler, Catwoman, and The Penguin - just couldn't be. He was heightened in a show that lived by its onomatopoeias. His laugh seems to convulse out of him and the feeling that he'd never stop only made him more intimidating. Everyone else had a gimmick that they lived by (who could forget King Tut or Mr. Freeze?), but there was no form to Romero's Joker, and that made him more unexpecting when he appeared on the screen.
It's something that the best interpretations have adapted. Ledger's Joker is an agent of chaos in the most disturbing, violent ways possible. His whole plan is to make everyone so mad that they become villains, even going so far as to murder innocent bystanders. Leto's Joker makes surprise entrances. The only revolutionary take on the character since Romero is Hamill and Galifianakis, who choose to find moral cores of their characters and what they stand for in relation to Batman. There's room to suggest that Phoenix will fall on this spectrum, though it remains to be seen. Still, Romero set the broad strokes by which this character evolved, and every small tic can be traced back to him.
He was campy, but he was also intimidating. Romero was a man who rolled his r's and laughed at authority. He was in his own way an agent of chaos, so much as one could be on a 1960's TV show geared at kids. Even the comical choice to strap Batman with an oversized bomb is a nutty technique that all of The Jokers since have borrowed from. Every time audiences think that they understand The Joker, he pulls a fast move and teams up with someone else, or finds himself just quickly appearing somewhere he isn't wanted. Forget the flamboyance or suits, he's just a guy who wants to bother you until you have no choice but to punch him. Only Romero thought to do it with laughter instead of nihilism.
As far as charismatic performances go, Romero deserves more credit. Maybe there's a tonally better one for future audiences, whether it be Nicholson or Ledger, but there's no denying that the impact of Romero's performance has radiated through history and defined a character better than even Adam West has on future takes. The 60's TV show deserves a lot more credit than it gets for making the character into what he would be for the next 50 years. Yes, there have been darker, more disturbing takes, but every one of them owes some credit to how The Joker acts, dresses, or even randomly shows up. Nobody has come as close to defining the character in Batman's 70 years in pop culture as permanently as Romero has, and he deserves more respect than the guy who painted over his mustache. He's so much more.
The world of Batman was ridiculous, full of bat-this and bat-that and bat-shark repellants. It's something that has been joked about as recently as The LEGO Batman Movie, though hopefully with a winking affection. Those looking at it as dumb and thus obsolete stand no chance of fully appreciating how the show was itself a satire on crime serials while also revolutionizing how the caped crusader would be seen ever since. Because of Romero's ability to define the character, the first new take on the character over 20 years later had no choice but to be compared to Romero. Since then, no interpretation has lasted without their own form of melding. Nicholson paved the way for Hamill which paved the way for Ledger. At most, the average accepted version in pop culture has lasted years compared to Romero.
It was much in the look as it was in his general attitude. Speaking as the character has always been perceived as Batman's moral opposite, it makes sense that The Joker is a troublemaker to the highest degree. He is able to break out of Arkham Asylum with nothing more than a springboarded base on a baseball mound. He is ridiculous and nonsensical in ways that Batman's other heavyweights - The Riddler, Catwoman, and The Penguin - just couldn't be. He was heightened in a show that lived by its onomatopoeias. His laugh seems to convulse out of him and the feeling that he'd never stop only made him more intimidating. Everyone else had a gimmick that they lived by (who could forget King Tut or Mr. Freeze?), but there was no form to Romero's Joker, and that made him more unexpecting when he appeared on the screen.
It's something that the best interpretations have adapted. Ledger's Joker is an agent of chaos in the most disturbing, violent ways possible. His whole plan is to make everyone so mad that they become villains, even going so far as to murder innocent bystanders. Leto's Joker makes surprise entrances. The only revolutionary take on the character since Romero is Hamill and Galifianakis, who choose to find moral cores of their characters and what they stand for in relation to Batman. There's room to suggest that Phoenix will fall on this spectrum, though it remains to be seen. Still, Romero set the broad strokes by which this character evolved, and every small tic can be traced back to him.
He was campy, but he was also intimidating. Romero was a man who rolled his r's and laughed at authority. He was in his own way an agent of chaos, so much as one could be on a 1960's TV show geared at kids. Even the comical choice to strap Batman with an oversized bomb is a nutty technique that all of The Jokers since have borrowed from. Every time audiences think that they understand The Joker, he pulls a fast move and teams up with someone else, or finds himself just quickly appearing somewhere he isn't wanted. Forget the flamboyance or suits, he's just a guy who wants to bother you until you have no choice but to punch him. Only Romero thought to do it with laughter instead of nihilism.
As far as charismatic performances go, Romero deserves more credit. Maybe there's a tonally better one for future audiences, whether it be Nicholson or Ledger, but there's no denying that the impact of Romero's performance has radiated through history and defined a character better than even Adam West has on future takes. The 60's TV show deserves a lot more credit than it gets for making the character into what he would be for the next 50 years. Yes, there have been darker, more disturbing takes, but every one of them owes some credit to how The Joker acts, dresses, or even randomly shows up. Nobody has come as close to defining the character in Batman's 70 years in pop culture as permanently as Romero has, and he deserves more respect than the guy who painted over his mustache. He's so much more.
Comments
Post a Comment