I think the ‘Joker’ discourse has calmed down enough for me to
write this, at least until awards season comes around and the up roar may start
again, which it may or may not. Although from what I’ve seen, it will but from
what I’ve read, it won’t. From the very first rumblings about the ‘Joker’ film
being made there was excitement. With Todd ‘The Hangover’ Phillips at the helm
I did lose interest ever so slightly as I really don’t like those damn hangover
films, they’re terrible. But my love for Joaquin Phoenix trumps my dislike for
him. As the story started to shape up with teasers and even more rumours, it
all started up again. But once the film was show at Venice Film Festival,
things go way out of hand. Not only did Film twitter explode but the media in
general did too. And I thought ‘The Souvenir’ was going to be the film of discourse
this year.
It’s clear that from the outset Warner Bros. knew they’d have to
change things up as their DC Comics films weren’t going according to plan
(except Wonder Woman). They decided to go down the ‘dark’ route and take an
indie filmmaking approach to how they make their comic book films, so far, not
a bad plan. The unpacking of the end result has been gone over multiple times
by many people who love, hate, loathe, obsess over it and all have valid and
interesting takes. Maybe it’s because I’m fed up with the discourse or maybe I
really do like dark as hell films once in a while, not everything can be
sunshine and roses, but I really loved this film. If you’re reading this is disgust
at why I love this film, please save yourself the time and stop, but don’t
finish reading this just to have a go at me. Please also do not take my love
for this film as reason to think I think the people who didn’t like it missed a
point or are wrong. I love this film BUT I can totally understand why others don’t.
Some of my fellow writers who did/didn’t like the film have taken some abuse
online for their opinion. It’s not respectful and downright inhumane, don’t be
THAT person. At the end of the day, it’s a film and we all are allowed to have
a difference of opinion. Discussion or debate are fine, that’s part of the fun
of writing/talking about film but abuse will not be tolerated.
As an origin story, it fits quietly and comfortably within the DC
world. With enough open references to Batman and its characters, the story is
not burdened down with making sure that it ticks boxes and able to concentrate
on the hideous and brilliantly executed transformation of Arthur Fleck into what
we know as the Joker. This film is a character study of a poor wretch that
never fit into ‘normal’ society and never will. There are some other films of
this nature that focus on someone as they go through hell and continue to go through
pain and suffering and everyone just watches those films without blinking. But
as this film is technically within the comic book universe and therefore a
comic book film it is elevated and given a higher platform for people to see
it. But people don’t like depressing films, at least not at this high level.
They don’t want to see a grown man dressed as a clown being kicked on the floor
leaving him crying and bleeding, and definitely not in IMAX cinemas they don’t.
As we all know, ‘The Joker’ is a supervillain, so an origin story
would either evoke sympathy and we’d understand the character better as well as
his intentions and motives however, as ‘The Joker’ isn’t meant to have an origin
story, which is the beauty of the character itself, this film offers just one
possible iteration of the character’s origin. All the previous Jokers have
either just appeared or been given an origin, whether it’s been on screen or in
the comics, Arthur Fleck is not the ultimate Joker, but he is a fascinating
character. As well as exploration into this clown for hire, it is also a
mystery as we find out where Fleck came from, who is parents are and why he is
the way he is. It’s actually feels quite easy to pity the poor man but at the
same time you would cross the street to avoid him as there is something not
quite right about him. He gives off these dangerous vibes because he’s
unnerving. But you sympathise with him, even after the turning point scene on
the subway, you get swept up in the anger bubbling at the surface that turns
into full blown madness by the end. But the moment you start to question
whether you should be rooting for this character is when his fragile mind is
questioned, when he enters his neighbour Sophie’s apartment and it’s revealed
all the previous scenes with her in are in his mind. Fleck is an unreliable
protagonist which means the entire story and how it plays out can be
questioned. But this is truly what makes him a perfect Joker. He’s dangerous, yes
but the fact you don’t really know what’s going on just makes this story even
better as the Joker’s way has always been, chaos.
There are several outstanding moments, a particular favourite of mine
being Fleck dressed in a red suit, full make up, dancing on the stairs to THAT
song, but the scene on the Murray Franklin show, which is what half the film was leading up to. With
several nods to Scorsese films through Fleck and the fact that he loves talk
show host Murray, we all knew what was coming even with the misleads and if we’re
all honest, we wanted this scene to happen. When I tell people I liked the
film, not only because I think Phoenix is true genius actor and even after the
film will be underrated, I say I liked this film for the wrong reasons. The
film goes to dark hideous places and plays out things I would never do and
throughout Fleck’s personal discoveries you really want to go ‘full Joker’ that’s
why you came to watch the film right? Or did you watch the film just so you
could say it was terrible? If Fleck had just carried on with his miserable
little life and did nothing and watched someone else become the Joker, would
that have been better? No. We all know Fleck becomes Joker, but we get see HOW
he evolves into this human manifestation of chaos and someone who just wants to
watch the world burn. He also may have a reason to want that but as we only
know him has the villain, this is where you can if its nature or nurture
situation, or in Fleck’s case, both. We meet him as a victim but we leave him
as the villain, but what I think he was always a villain, just waiting to come
out.
If ‘Joker’ had been called something else or had barely hinted
that it was part of the DC Comics/film universe, I wonder if the response would
have been different. If the film hadn’t been given a Hollywood marketing budget,
would people have gone to see it as much as they did? I believe that half the
audience who went to see the film wanted to see a ‘comic book’ film and the
other half heard about the discourse and wanted to see what the fuss was about.
I was excited from the minute Phoenix’s name was attached to the film and loved
the trailer. This was not going to be like other films, that much was guaranteed
but since the film’s rise in controversy, the film has lost a bit of its soul.
If you’re wondering how that is possible and what that even means, I see it
that films are sometimes treated liked the animals of Animal Farm by George Orwell.
All films are released equal (as in no one has seen them) but some films are
more equal than others. Thin analogy, I know. Circumstances surrounding the release
and the reaction have all been orchestrated and if things had gone slightly
different, I wouldn’t be writing this long-winded post.
