As an origin story, ‘Joker’ works just fine. Our protagonist Arthur Fleck, who eventually adopts the film’s title as his own, never quite settles on the chaotic genius archetype that has defined the character in its past iterations, but Joaquin Phoenix’s performance reveals a helpless man at the mercy of forces pulling him in many directions. He contorts his body into grotesque shapes, he discovers his aptitude for playful violence, he lets out uncontrollable bursts of laughter, and all of this paints the image of a man searching for agency in a joyless, oppressive city. Unlike Jokers of the past, Phoenix’s rendition is a victim of circumstance, not a mastermind of his environment.
As social commentary, which it very much aspires to be, ‘Joker’ is simplistic in its handling of its potentially rich subject matter. There is a long history of cinema examining disenfranchised masculinity, class warfare, mental illness, and violence as a means of expression, and in attempting to pay homage to these films, ‘Joker’ is effectively reminding us of how much more interesting and profound they are. Scorsese’s ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘The King of Comedy’ are the clearest influences here, but there are also direct references to classics such as ‘Network’ and ‘The French Connection’. ‘Joker’ never reaches the same depths as these films, since Arthur Fleck’s descent into violent madness is far more straightforward and free of complications that made characters like Travis Bickle so unpredictable. There is an element of ambiguity as we doubt whether certain scenes really take place, and yet the reveal that Fleck may be an unreliable narrator leaves us wondering… so what? It might be fun to question how much of Fleck’s story is actually true, but it doesn’t inform the themes of the story in the same way the open-ended final scene of ‘Taxi Driver’, for example, lets us consider whether a violent individual’s desires can ever truly be satiated.
More than anything else, the failings of ‘Joker’ lie in its screenplay. It is lines like “All I have are negative thoughts” and “Everyone is so awful these days” that describe in the plainest terms exactly what we are already seeing onscreen, telling us rather bluntly what the film wants to say. It is only through Phoenix’s professionalism that these lines are given some depth, saving this film from getting too caught up in its own heavy-handed message.
Writing aside, ‘Joker’ does succeed on some levels other than Phoenix’s performance. Todd Phillips includes some anachronistic hints towards a more contemporary society, even though the film appears to primarily be set in the 70’s. The spread of the clown meme, the viral standup video, and the talk show format may have been used to create a sense of timelessness, but they rather work better as hints of something a little more relevant in the film’s critique of modern media and the mob mentality that drives trends at the expense of individual welfare.
The costume and makeup department have also created a definitive look for the Joker that rivals Heath Ledger’s own gritty look from ‘The Dark Knight’. Much like John Wayne Gacy’s clown makeup, Phoenix has sharp corners around his eyes and mouth rather than the traditional rounded off edges, giving off an air of austerity. He also adorns himself in second-hand, colourful, pastel suits, like a toned down version of Cesar Romero’s Joker from the 1960’s ‘Batman’ television show. The overall impression is that of man mid-breakdown, caught between expressions of humour and anger, and ultimately one who merges both.
Joker isn’t a terrible movie, but nor do I think it’s a good one. The controversy it has sparked around whether it might encourage violence is certainly undeserved, but its popularity does represent a certain gratuitous cynicism that is currently very common. It is leading the Oscars with 11 nominations this year, more than any other film, though other than Phoenix locking down Best Actor it is unlikely to win in any of the biggest categories given its competition. If ‘Joker’ influences future mainstream movies to take a more serious look at relevant social issues then we might be able to retrospectively appreciate it for that, but as a standalone film it struggles to develop an engaging voice that holds up to any sort of interrogation.
