It's impossible to deny that Joker is anything other than a divisive movie. I've read the five and four star reviews and I've read the one star reviews on Letterboxd. I could see merit in all of them. I had my own preconceptions of the movie, after all.
I worried that the film was doing the usual harmful Hollywood stereotype of depicting someone with mental health problems as being a danger to others, when in reality, such people are more likely to be a danger to themselves.
I worried that, with Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy being widely reported influences and the use of the vintage 1970s/'80s Warner Bros logo that we'd essentially be watching the cinematic equivalent of one of those filters that hipsters add to their instagram photos to make the shot they took yesterday actually look like it was taken in 1983. I worried that I'd spend the running time just wishing I was actually watching Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy.
I worried too about the writer/director Todd Phillips, a man whose back catalogue I do not care for and who, as m'colleague on Letterboxd Graham Williamson says in his review has acted "like a royal dong on the press tour"; especially rich given the magpie like nature of what he clearly believes to be his tour de force.
I even found myself worrying, during the film, that Phillips really is insensitive and that America really did have no appreciation of irony if they think laying notorious sex offender Gary Glitter's track 'Rock & Roll Part 2' over a character who, it has just been revealed, was a victim of sexual abuse as a child is a good idea Though let's face it, it is a stonkingly good track, I do worry about the royalties and kudos that that disgusting man is now likely to receive as a result.
But there were things I saw in some reviews that I had no worries about. I didn't see why it was problematic to depict a backstory for the Joker. After all, hadn't we already seen one in Tim Burton's similarly revisionist take back in 1989? I fail to comprehend why it is only acceptable to delve into the origins of Bruce Wayne, ostensibly a good guy, but nonetheless a man whose personal tragedy has meant that he has become, as many would say, a dangerous vigilante. Don't people who act in a manner we find shocking deserve some examination, especially if their behaviour equally stems from some deep trauma? Just a few short days ago there was a knife attack in Manchester, for which the culprit, initially widely believed to be a terrorist is actually currently being detained under the Mental Health Act. Watching Joker in the wake of such events made this argument resonate all the more. Surely we can attempt to understand even if we cannot ever find it possible to condone?
I also didn't buy into the argument that Joker somehow excuses criminality and violence, that it was some kind of rallying cry. Frankly I think people who push that idea as a criticism is essentially doing the work of the privileged elite who benefit from the rotten capitalist system. These people can afford to be unaffected and untouched by economic crisis not just because of their wealth, but because their power is implicit on such people keeping them in their lofty positions. Each critic who expresses concern that this somehow condones or sympathises with violence against the state is simply protecting the pampered establishment and serving as their apologists. Frankly it's a bit rich to complain about a film that points the finger at the haves for the disenfranchised have-nots when its the former who are responsible for the latter. If those in power were really concerned, if they really meant it, they'd be banning the guns that are responsible for the violence and investing more in social care.
Before I headed out to see Joker today I read a comment on a political blog I follow regarding the Queen's speech at this morning's state opening of parliament. The man, called Trev, remarked that he only saw a bit of the speech on TV because not only did he find its content unbearable but that he had to go and walk a mile and half to his nearest library to print out evidence of his recent jobsearch activities ahead of signing on tomorrow. He explained that he has to walk because he can't afford the bus fare and that he fully expects that the person he'll be interviewed by tomorrow won't even look at his evidence. "I could have spent that last £2 on food or bog roll" he lamented, adding "Listening to Liz II saying unconvincingly “My Government will do this….and that” bears no relevance to my life whatsoever". This is the hard reality of daily life for many as a result of the choice of austerity measures that governments undertook as a result of the economic crisis their friends, relatives and social or educational contemporaries were responsible for. It reminded me of something Graham Williamson (again) said in his review; "there is a definite value to having them made in the context of a mass-appeal blockbuster rather than a Ken Loach film for once". As someone who watches a hell of a lot of Ken Loach and thinks that he's one of the finest filmmakers around, I completely agree with this. No matter how incredible Loach is, a socio-realist film like I, Daniel Blake, from which Trev's comment could easily have been a scene from, will only ever reach a certain kind of audience. A blockbuster like this reaches a far wider and arguably more diverse audience and that means that a similar message (however simplified or superficially explored) will go further. I'm encouraged that some of the people leaving a showing of Joker will actually be considering the unfairness of budgetary cuts in social care and the very real consequences of such a decision on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society. Joker may be set in the fictional city of Gotham in the 1980s, but it is very much a film for our times with real world concerns.
I've written a lot here and yet so far I haven't even mentioned the main reason why I feel that Joker is worthy of your consideration; Joaquin Phoenix. His nuanced performance here is absolutely incredible and deserves all the plaudits and awards that will inevitably come his way. When his Arthur Fleck is performing, there's an effeminacy to his mannerisms and a constant dazed smirk that put me in mind a little of Gene Wilder but, as the film progresses and he becomes more and more beaten down by the injustice of his very existence, he becomes harder, sharper The smile fixes and the mask sets. He becomes what society will view as a threat rather than the oddball they had previously summarily dismissed. What's perhaps alarming to audiences is, his character embraces and enjoys the transition. He feels it is who he ought to be, and it's all there in that dance.
Ultimately Joker is a downbeat film whose emotional tone is unvarying and negative but it is touched with brilliance. It's an angry film at a time when anger is understandable, but it's a film that asks us not to be angry, but instead to be empathetic. I've a feeling it's going to stay with me for some time. I needn't have worried.
