Movie Review: Joker ** 1/2

I do not believe that art usually creates culture (I often wish that artists had that power). I believe that art is a reflection of culture. To see Joker is to understand that we have large societal issues that we are struggling with. We are in an epidemic of the poor being downtrodden by the rich, where disillusioned white men turn to violence especially against women (although not to women as much in this film, thankfully), where celebrity is a goal worth having no matter the cost, and where, yes, we have a crisis in mental health. Joker is a reflection of these issues in our society… I just wish it had something more to say about these issues. 

Is Joker a Hollywood blockbuster adaptation of an iconic comic book villain or is it an art film? In an era of limited creativity from studios where the only real interest in financing a film comes from making an adaptation, a remake, or a prequel / sequel, Todd Phillips, the director of Joker, may have found a way to make a film through the studios that is almost an art film. By choosing to adapt the iconic Batman villain, the Joker, Todd Philips dropped dollar signs in front of the executives at Warner Brothers whose DC Universe films have suffered in comparison to their
Marvel counterparts. Some say it was a risk for Warner Brothers to finance such a project. Really? If Joker had absolutely nothing to do with the DC Universe and was an original film perhaps that would have been a risk. But, by pitching it as a stand alone DC film, Phillips ingeniously got the studio to bite. Being much more… perhaps… “truthful” with his lead actor Joaquin Phoenix, who felt that the worst part of the film was the connection to the DC Universe (apparently Phoenix brittled at saying the name Wayne because he didn’t want it to be connected), Todd calmed Phoenix with the notion that indeed this is a stand alone film. Phillips made the film he wanted to make, independent of the DC Universe. He gamed the system and won. 

Joker has been a difficult movie to tackle. On the one hand, I have numerous friends who are film lovers who adore the film, and on the other hand, I have the same type of film loving friends who believe the film is not simply misguided, but truly dangerous. I understand both opinions. The performance by Joaquin Phoenix is, indeed, one for the ages and Phillips does craft some genuinely impressive images and sequences, but its shallow understanding of mental illness and a facade of a true character study leads us to empathize without truly understanding the character who we are meant to empathize. Because of the heroic imagery of Joker in the film, changing him to be a twisted icon of the repressed working man, one can easily see the Joker as indeed a hero; someone who is bullied and figures out how to finally deal with his bullies and achieve fame as well level of gratitude from the masses that he desires. After seeing the film twice, I fall in the center of these two opinions; some very impressive elements, but also some misfires. 

Todd Phillips Joker begins with Arthur Fleck sitting in front of a mirror, trying on ‘faces’. He places his thumbs in his mouth and creates that enduring Joker smile, before turning his thumbs down, and transforming that smile into a frown. We see the two masks of drama here: comedy and tragedy. It also reverses the famous Joker line “let’s put a smile on that face.” Demonstrating his enduring unhappiness, Arthur at one point confides “I’ve never been happy one f*&#*!@ moment in my life!” 

Arthur’s unhappiness come from numerous places: an overbearing and mentally unstable mother, a co-dependent relationship with said mother, a lack of a father figure, a society without a true social safety net, but most of all, they come from his mental illness and society’s reaction to that illness. It is this portrayal of mental illness that I take issue with. The mentally ill are an often stigmatized group and generally are not violent. Just like in every group of people that we categorize, there are violent people in them. But the mentally ill are no more likely to be violent than those without mental illness. Both the horrible shootings in Aurora and Newtown were indeed committed by people with mental illness, but the vast majority of mass shootings are not. We tend to say that those who commit such crimes are mentally ill if they are white, and yet, we don't say that about Islamic extremism or minorities who commit shooting like the assassination of multiple police in Dallas in 2016. This disparity is a problem as is the idea that red flag laws will solve the problem of mentally ill people being denied access to weapons. It doesn’t deal with the root of the problem considering how few of these are indeed committed by those who are mentally ill. 

The problem with the way the screenwriter and director portray Arthur Fleck in Joker is that he has mental illness. We know this because he takes medication. He has been institutionalized. He has a card on him to ask forgiveness for his tick like behavior of laughing. But we never explore that mental illness. In fact, it is never named. Is it pseudobulbar affect? Is it a form of tourette's syndrome? The fact that Arthur cannot help his behavior makes him a victim of bullies. Sure, the simple message of the film is ... don't bully people, but, I think that its not enough. Here is where Phillips’ limited film language leads us into problems. Because there are times where we get the POV of Fleck and then later realize that his version of events might not have happened, he is an unreliable narrator. That in itself is not an issue, but it seems to be inconsistent. Also, the POV provides us little insight into him that we didn’t already have. For example, his nonexistent stalker like relationship with his neighbor was always fantasy for me. When it is revealed that it is… there wasn’t any growth for me in understanding the character. In Taxi Driver, Martin Scorsese uses slow motion to place us inside Travis Bickle’s mind. We see the camera slow down whenever he sees a black person. We understand without it often being said that he is indeed a racist. That insight into his character allows us to come to a moral understanding of this character before we are plunged into his actions. With Arthur, we feel for him because he is indeed a victim, or always in the wrong place at the wrong time (the gun in the hospital for example). The fact that the world comes to idolize him after he decides to get revenge on his oppressors and that he's turned into a working class hero is problematic. We are left to condemn the actions, but understand that the person might have been helped had he had proper treatment, which I think is a real problem (aka the lack of mental health care). It is misleading in that most people with mental illness do not commit such crimes.

There is also a logical gap that I do not understand. Fleck’s motives for killing Murray Franklin, the cruel late night host whom Fleck looks up to as an idol, in front of the entire world on air are interpreted by the masses as a means of standing up to “the man” or the establishment and it acts as a calling for a revolution. Those are not Arthur’s intentions. He means to commit revenge, not to call upon the poor to stand up for themselves. Yet, that is how his actions are taken… there could have been a thematic point made here in a clearer film. Why is it that the populace sees Joker’s actions in this manner. Are they misinterpreted? What is it about humanity that causes them to misinterpret this action? Why are they inspired by it? Is this part of a plan from Fleck? If so when did he plan it? I am left to wonder… 

The film that Joker references over and over is Taxi Driver. Taxi Driver doesn't hesitate to let us know that Travis Bickle is not a good person, although he is not mentally ill. He may suffer from depression or other normal psychological ailments, but there is no attempt to suggest he suffers from a specific psychological disorder. Perhaps PTSD from Vietnam, but even that is purposefully kept at arm’s length. It is not relevant to his behavior. In fact, when we are allowed inside his mind, we realize how racist Travis Bickle is. He blames everyone else in the world for his inability to connect. The nuance of how Scorsese has him planning his manifesto and repeating himself, literally having him start and then repeat what he just did in film demonstrates the premeditated thought that goes into these acts. It is not a reaction to bullying, but rather, a carefully calculated method to achieve what he desires. It presents a much more nuanced version of this character where we can condemn him and feel for him without idolizing him. The end “idolization” in Taxi Driver, extremely brief, is shot in a way unlike anything else in the movie. For the first time it is overexposed. I think this could suggest not a dream per say as both Schrader and Scorsese don't particularly like that reading, but rather a fantasy fulfillment. We do not feel joy or relief at the idea that he has achieved something, far from it, we are shocked and disgusted by the idea. The action scenes in Taxi Driver are not cathartic in any way. They do not feel like a good thing, while, the emotions felt when Joker lays down on the car near the end, replicating a scene from White Heat are meant to demonstrate a euphoria of the success he feels. As film critic from Grouchoreviews says, “Absent a moral compass, the film relies on the audience to remember to bring theirs.” To me, that is problematic. 

With all that being said, what Joaquin Phoenix does with this performance is amazing. He creates a character for us to observe rather than to necessarily understand. What a performance it is. He looks sickly with his bones jutting out of him, and yet, three is an elegance to him as well. No wonder Joaquin had mental breakdowns during the filming of this movie. Phoenix has made a career of playing isolated loners, perhaps none better than his character in The Master, but this is close. He embodies the character in every moment, every second of the film. It’s breathtaking, hard to watch, but you can’t look away. 

Another element of the film that I thought was fantastic is the score, which is also so well composed and used within the movie. It adds to this mind set of ugliness, and yet, with moments of beauty in it. 

Returning to the end of the movie, some have asked whether it actually happened, or whether Arthur was in the institution the entire time. If he’s telling this story, could it all be a lie to make himself look great? Obviously, we are in Arthur's mind for part of this film, so there is a question of whether or not it is actually happening, but the lack of precision in the film language to me is indeed the problem. I think that for one to understand why Taxi Driver is such an amazing film and why Joker is muddled is to understand the difference for how a cohesive film language in how to read a character is truly important. Therefore, I can condemn Travis Bickle, the person, as well as the actions, while I have a harder time with Arthur Fleck. That I have a harder time with him is indeed problematic as I do not believe that Phillips means for us to see Joker as a hero… but… the fact that I can’t tell what Phillips means through the language in his own film… is problematic.