Joker is a non-DCEU film that aims to tell the origin of Batman’s
greatest foe. It centers on Arthur Fleck
(Joaquin Phoenix), a mentally ill and impoverished party clown who struggles in
his dream of becoming a standup comedian.
But the society around him is constantly nasty and apathetic, and life
relentlessly craps at him. Perpetually
feeling isolated and oppressed, Arthur is gradually pushed toward madness,
mayhem, and murder. Meanwhile, he
inadvertently becomes a folk hero to a fed-up, embittered lower class, whose
resentful sentiments toward the ruling social elite are quickly reaching their critical boiling point.
Before this film was even widely released, it was met by significant media outrage. Critics claim that making and releasing it was irresponsible because it would promote racially-motivated mass shootings or just violence in general. Such assertion is, of course, completely ridiculous. But they really made much stink about it. The film isn’t even “certified fresh” at Rotten Tomatoes as a result.
Before this film was even widely released, it was met by significant media outrage. Critics claim that making and releasing it was irresponsible because it would promote racially-motivated mass shootings or just violence in general. Such assertion is, of course, completely ridiculous. But they really made much stink about it. The film isn’t even “certified fresh” at Rotten Tomatoes as a result.
It’s perplexing why a lot of these establishment critics hated it even to the point that they went out of their way to slander it. Maybe because it goes against their narrative of guns being the reason of mass shootings as the film shows that mental illness is a more likely catalyst? Or maybe because the film seems to suggest that the temperament and behavior of the leftist mob make them the kind of people that will hero-worship a villain like the Joker? Or maybe because there’s no blatant virtue signalling in it? Well, if the show fits… nah, I don’t know. I will avoid making a definitive assumption on what was their reason LOL.
Anyway, the point is, because of
all the toxic hullabaloo they raised, I went into Joker expecting really messed up things to happen in it. To my shock, in comparison to other R-rated
films, it’s pretty tame. I’ve seen much
more disturbing films. There are brutal
kills, sure, but the body count is minimal, and the violence isn’t even as
graphic as other for-adults comic book movies like the Deadpool duology or Logan. And, honestly, the wicked acts that this Joaquin
Phoenix version of the Joker commits in the movie barely scratch the surface of
what deprave and twisted deeds that a character like the Joker is capable of
doing – and has done in other media (he didn’t even torture anyone in this
movie). I knew the critics were
exaggerating, but I didn’t thought they were shamelessly grossly exaggerating
this much.
In fact, it can be argued that violence isn’t a main focus of this film. It is evident from the
get-go that, despite its comic book background, Joker is not really action-oriented. And though it’s categorized as a psychological thriller, it really comes off as more of a drama – a psychological drama, if you will. The point is, it’s a drama first and foremost. And whatever violence or any unsettling elements that come about simply happens to be in service to the dramatic direction that the film is going for.
Joker is basically a slow-burn character study of a downtrodden, broken man who is gradually pushed toward the edge by bad break after bard break and an apathetic, decaying society until he ultimately tips over to the dark side. It’s actually a-dime-a-dozen story concept, but its narrative totally captivates nonetheless. Firstly, it’s because its subject matter is an iconic comic book character. Secondly, it’s because the presentation is superb and well-thought-out.
Joker is basically a slow-burn character study of a downtrodden, broken man who is gradually pushed toward the edge by bad break after bard break and an apathetic, decaying society until he ultimately tips over to the dark side. It’s actually a-dime-a-dozen story concept, but its narrative totally captivates nonetheless. Firstly, it’s because its subject matter is an iconic comic book character. Secondly, it’s because the presentation is superb and well-thought-out.
There’s this amazing scene where
Arthur was in a comedy club, taking notes from a standup comedian’s act. While the rest of the audience laugh at the
punchlines, Arthur’s laughs were at parts that aren’t meant to be funny at
all. But those were the parts he found
funny, not the punchlines. He was notably
offbeat with his brand of humor. The intention of the scene is to
display the dissonance of his mental state from the normal, and the execution
is perfectly subtle and chilling. That scene
is just one of several which serve as testaments to how superb and
well-thought-out the film’s narrative presentation is.
Director Todd Phillip is pretty
masterful in helming this film. Through
his direction, the narrative unfolds in a gripping, well-paced manner,
supplemented by high production value, beautiful cinematography, and a haunting
score. But the most important factor why
this movie’s particular vision ends up being remarkable is Joaquin
Phoenix’s powerful performance.
Phoenix delivers a master class
in acting in this movie. “Nuanced” is a
word that is thrown around a lot. But it
totally defines to the work he did here.
Heath Ledger is still my favorite live-action Joker, but only because
his character is more well-written, his character design is more striking, and
he has the advantage of being pitted against a Batman (no Batman in this Joker movie). But performance-wise, the two are arguably
equals. As a result of all these,
Phoenix’s Joker may not be the best, but it’s distinctive, down to his laugh. Actually, for a large part of the movie,
Phoenix is Arthur Fleck. Again, the arc
is a slow burn. But by its third act, it
gets to a point where Arthur eventually “turns” into Joker, and I was like, “Yep. That’s Joker alright.” From that moment on, Phoenix’s Joker proves
to be a legit representation of the character: nihilistic, solipsistic, and
impulsive – acting without concern for consequences or tomorrow, and treating the
moment he’s in as if it’s going to be his last.
So, does this movie’s version of
the Joker’s origin work? I think
so. And it’s exactly because it’s a version of the Joker’s origin. Let me explain, and I’ll get SPOILER-y now.
What makes the Joker one of the
greatest comic book villains ever is because he’s the epitome of evil. There’s no real cause why he’s evil; he just
essentially is. He’s a constant. The Joker is what he is, not necessarily
because society or a hard life pushed him toward madness and evil. Joker is evil because he is evil. His insanity – as well as his nihilism and
solipsism and any other facets of the character, for that matter – is an
offshoot of his evil nature, not the other way around. Joker does not do evil
things because he is insane. He does
insane things because he is evil.
That’s why Joker requires no
origin. An origin will defeat that purpose. An origin will somehow give a cause for his
evil. And great Joker “origin” stories understand
this. Thus, those “origin” stories are told
through an undefinitive and unreliable manner.
In Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke,
an origin story was provided for the Joker in which he became so because he fell
on hard times. However, it turns out
that the Joker was just being an unreliable narrator all along, and in the end,
his unsure of his own story’s validity – "Sometimes I remember it one way,
sometimes another ... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple
choice!”, as he said. It’s also the case
with Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark
Knight, one of the reasons why I love his take: he tells different, conflicting
versions of how he got his scar, i.e. his “origin story.”
I believe Todd Phillips’ Joker also follows this principle, and that’s
why it’s a brilliant Joker “origin” story.
In the course of the film, we see that Arthur Fleck occasionally suffers
from delusions wherein he puts himself in fantasies that can become very real
to him. Thus, one interpretation we can
get from the final scene, wherein Arthur is being interviewed by a therapist, is
that the entire movie may be something that he has imagined in parts or in
full. The whole thing is just a “joke”
he’s thinking inside his head. The
essential “unreliable narrator” factor of a Joker origin is at play all along! He’s just another “version” of the Joker and
how he came to be (after all, there are supposedly three of them!). Heck, there’s even a solid argument to be
made that Arthur Fleck is not really the
Joker in the first place. He’s just
imagining that he is. He may even
believe that he is. The ambiguity of the
whole thing is simply brilliant and perfectly Joker-ian.
That brings us to one minor
criticism I have of this film. It
doesn’t really need to be a Joker
film at all. I imagine that, at its
earliest form, the script was that of an indie, arthouse-style psychological thriller that’s derivative of Taxi Driver,
The King of Comedy, and American Psycho. Seriously, if you have seen those three, you
will pick up themes and beats in Joker
that will make you realize that it’s heavily inspired by those movies. But I think Joker isn’t really trying to hide this. After all, Robert De Niro – the star of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy – even plays a character in Joker; that’s pretty on-the-nose casting right there (also worth
noting: coincidentally, the previous Joker actor Jared Leto was in American Psycho). Anyway, Todd Phillips or some other studio
executive probably got his hand on this early draft of the script, read it, and
had a eureka moment: “Hey, I have an
idea. Just a few tweaks here and there,
and this script works perfectly as a Joker
movie! It will definitely sell more
tickets that way.” It’s just my theory, but it’s probably true in some form as even Todd Phillips implied this as much
in some interviews I read. If the movie
wasn’t so dang well-made, this aspect would have been significantly detrimental
to it.
All in all, Joker has a few flaws, but it’s still a compelling, thought-provoking film as a whole. It’s absolutely one of 2019’s best cinema offerings.
Also, Joaquin Phoenix deserves to
have an Oscar nomination for his outstanding performance in this movie. I honestly can’t remember on top of my head anyone
who’s had better this year. He should be
an easy shoo-in for it (unless, of course, there are enough SJWs in the Academy
to screw him over).
No comments:
Post a Comment