Retiring a character

For those of you haven't heard this newsbit ---

CNN, MTV, the Associate Press, and other interested news sources recently reported on a certain website's goal to retire the Joker character from any future Batman productions. In deference to Heath Ledger's now Academy Award winning performance, "The Ultimate Joker" seeks to forever "withdraw" the character, rather ungrammatically stating: "It’s impossible to imagine, impossible to draw or dub much less repeat the performance." As a result, over 30,000 supporters have signed a petition which the site proprietors hope to submit to the production company in control of the Batman franchise.

Though I find the idea mildly amusing - treating Ledger's Joker like Wayne Gretzky's retired #99 jersey - I can't quite get on board with it. Interpretation is a large part of what makes any film, play, or production great. It's what transformed "The Godfather" from a rambling, cliche novel into an epic film about family, power, and the American dream. It gave us Sean Connery and Daniel Craig as James Bond. Finally, interpretation, at the direction of Christopher Nolan, is what rescued us film-lovers from the terribly campy Batman franchise. (It's also worthwhile to recall the initial skepticism Batman fans expressed at the casting of Ledger, particularly following Jack Nicholson's iconic performance in the '89 version helmed by Tim Burton). So while I agree that there may never be a Joker quite like Ledger's, it does a disservice to the author, director, and the story itself to say an actor should be the last incarnation of a character. Besides, who wouldn't be a little curious to see Crispin Glover or Daniel Day Lewis' version of the Joker?

(Heath Ledger as the Joker)