Joker

Dir: Todd Phillips

2019

*****

For all the criticism and praise that has been thrown at Todd Phillips’ Joker, it really isn’t a particularly original film and is nothing we haven’t seen before. I’m not just referring to the very obvious cinematic influences such as Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy and Network, but also what authors and artists have been doing in the comics for decades. In many respects I should be outraged at the similarities to the great 1970s films that I have mentioned but I’m not, not only because I’m elated by the fact that the story embraces all the creativity of the comics but because said influences have been acknowledged and reworked into something rather profound. I guess you could say it was a simple and easy trick to pull but it doesn’t take away just how impressive it is. Once more it is the people who are three steps behind complaining about it. The violence is nothing out of the ordinary and it has been long established that television, movies and comics do not influence violence, indeed, they’ve been scapegoated for many years by the sort of people this film condemns. People have criticised the film makers depiction of mental health, suggesting that it be in bad taste but frankly it is quite obviously fictional. I don’t understand why creating a fake mental illness is somehow worse than just labeling someone as bad? Not once does Joker suggest that anyone/everyone with a mental illness is a possible murderer, even if it did, why is everyone suddenly shocked and disgusted by it now? For years films have confused legitimate mental health conditions and have portrayed them incorrectly. Films have also included mindless violence for years, 99% of which haven’t battered a single eyelid. The difference between Joker and the all the rest isn’t only because it is attached to a superhero/comic franchise, but because it’s a film of quality. Heroism has been explored several times in comic/superhero films of late, so exploring villainy is logical progression. Batman is nothing without his enemies, a long established fact, so why can’t they have their own origin movie and why can’t their characters be explored? People just don’t like to admit that there is more to people than just good and bad, indeed, good people do bad things and not everyone is born bad. People have related to the Joker in this film because of a very fundamental truth, that when one is bullied, victimized, declared worthless and uncared for for most of their lives they can, and often will, rebel. Throughout the film Joker toys with the idea of suicide, it is only towards the end that he decides not to and to fight back. The idea that Joker is a failed stand up comedian is very clever and first appeared in Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s 1988 graphic novel The Killing Joke. The idea that he isn’t simply evil is also explained and it is a classic within the genre. Only non-comic fans seem to get upset about comics – a whole thirty years late. The idea that Joker also has an obsession with a TV talk show is also very clever and gives the film relevance, even though the film is set in the early 1980s. It is a clear reference to Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy and even has the film’s lead, Robert De Niro as the TV host. In the film Joker is ridiculed by talk show host Murray Franklin for a cheap laugh, a devastating blow to the aspiring comedian and super fan. It was strange then to watch The Graham Norton Show the week after the film’s release where Robert De Niro was a guest. He didn’t look comfortable for the entire show, especially when members of the public are ridiculed at the end of the show. There are so many aspects of Joker that one can relate to in our current social and political climate, it can hide behind the fact that its part of a superhero universe but it never really does. It points out that Bruce Wayne’s dad can’t have been all nice to get as rich as he is and any pain and suffering that young Bruce might endure can be matched by anyone else’s. You have to remember that Batman is also a vigilante, fueled by revenge. Are we asked to sympathise with Joker at any point? Yes, in a way we are, but that sympathy is quite clearly extinguished in the scene whereby Joker decides exactly what path his future lies. The point is we can condemn crime while also acknowledging how and why is happens. It isn’t loony-leftism, bleeding-heart liberalism or the soft approach either, it is rational thought and using one’s brain. You don’t keep treating an ailment, you look for the cause and try to catch and cure it before the illness takes hold. Joker is an example of what can happen when we don’t do this. Joker is a film that asks us to think about this but as always those that can’t grasp this have spoken first and have spoken loudest. The mob that follow Joker are the lost and forgotten, and while Joker isn’t political, the lost and forgotten – and ignorant, are marching all over the world at the moment, waving flags and doing one-armed salutes. I would argue that most people who commit crime are unintelligent, have given up and think of themselves as worthless. These people are uneducated and have been neglected by society. Just labeling someone as evil is too easy. However, you can be both and in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. When you’ve lost everything you have nothing to loose, a phrase that is worth remembering, which I think is brilliantly explored. I’m going to stop there because I don’t think anyone is talking about the film’s good qualities enough. I still can’t quite believe this is a Todd Phillips film so I’ve decided not to be too quick to judge from now on. The story works well on its own and as part of Batman mythology, I liked the non-Batman parts better but the Wayne side of the story was short and sweet and worked well. The film was a visual feast from start to finish with every single scene and every single shot filmed with purpose and finesse. It is intended as a Scorsese tribute and that is exactly what it is, capturing the director’s temperament and visual style quite remarkably. The pace of the film is perfectly staggered which meant that the climax of the film was perfectly executed and didn’t come from out of nowhere. This wasn’t about the decent into madness, this was about a rebirth, a very different kettle of fish. Of course none of this would have meant anything if the casting hadn’t been right. The script was written for Joaquin Phoenix and Todd Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver stool their ground when it came to him being cast. Warner Bros, who deserve credit for going along with it, decided they wanted Leonardo DiCaprio for the Joker as Scorsese was, at that time, meant to be a producer. They want it to be a big Scorsese/DiCaprio/De Niro picture, missing the point of the performance for a marketing angle. Scorsese pulled out because of work commitments but De Niro was cast as a character he himself chased after in The King of Comedy. It’s a lovely full-circle bit of casting. However, the film belongs to Phoenix. The idea is great, it looks great and has been marketed brilliantly but Phoenix brings the Joker alive like no one has before. He was good friends with the late Heath Ledger, so it is nice to see him carry the character Ledger will be best remembered for to its next natural state. The big picture is there in all its glory but there are also some lovely little details that I loved. Batman fans will be happy with all the Gotham references but there were other aspects I liked, like Joker watching Charlie Chaplin on the big screen. It is only when you watch Chaplin running that you release that from Ceaser Romario to Joaquin Phoenix, a huge part of all of the live-action versions of Joker’s physiology is Charlie Chaplin’s silly walk. It feels like an indulgent film in many respects, one that seems people have immersed themselves in. Phoenix’s Joker won’t start riots and no one is going to kill anyone because of this film’s existence but it will become iconic and every teenagers bedroom will now have Phoenix’s Joker on the wall instead/next to Ledgers.