|
Oooooh, Interesting. While I certainly agree the strength of Ledger's performance may lend him an unfair advantage, and also that I love the phantom very much, I think I have to stress against him above the Joker, certainly in terms of a greater "villian".
Phantom is a wonderful character and carries his tale more or less as both the Hero and Villian, we suffer for him as much as we fear him. Christine's rejection of him is as much understood as resented, that in some ways makes him a stronger character then the Joker but not a stronger villian.
The Joker is incomprehensible, it his multiple incarnations such as Ledger's performance and the almost as Iconic Mark Hammil voiced animated Joker. Don't be fooled the Joker in his more modern comic book forms if far more frightening then any of those. They all lend a sort of cuteness to his vicous madness, something that the real Joker would probably find them, and hang them on a noose out the front of their parents house before blowing it up.
He is mad, but he is vicous and unpredictable to a fault, people have allied themselves with him knowing full well he was not to be trusted and still walk away horrified at the lengths he'd go for his own sick amusement. The Joker has none of the fluffy charms of his film and animated conterparts, well perhaps a little but they are so far muddle in his extreme sadism and vicousness that you simply can't relate or emphasise with him at all, ever not in your wildest dreams. If you thought you could trust me, in all these years he would have found away to disturb you so much that you wouldn't dare.
Of course this is Movie Villians, which means we have Nicholsons Jokes, and Ledger's both wonderful characters vs Claude Raines and Gerard Butler's Phantoms, the latter who is projected much more heriocially.
Raines was good, but I don't think either of them much Jack or Heath's Joker.
Joker for me.
|