Joker

*Deep, beleaguered sigh* 

We sure do live in a society.

Joker
Director: Todd Phillips
Writers: Todd Phillips and Scott Silver
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix
Music By: Hildur Gudnadottir
Rated R (Contains chaos and agents thereof)

Arthur Fleck is a sad man. He’s barely making ends meet with a crappy clown gig, he spends all his free time caring for his sick mother, and he has a severe mental illness that, among other things, makes him laugh uncontrollably at inappropriate times. To make matters worse, he lives in Gotham: an ugly, broken-down city which appears to be exclusively populated by psychopaths. Nothing seems to go right for this unfunny aspiring comedian–until one magical day, when he discovers the healing power of murder!

Over the past few years, I’ve normally tried to go see just about every superhero-related movie that comes out in theatres, especially if it’s from DC. But I had no desire to pay theatre prices to see Joker, for many reasons. The biggest one is that I’m deeply skeptical about solo supervillain movies in general (Venom did nothing to change my mind on this point), and out of all the comic book villains I know, the Joker seems like the worst possible candidate for a solo film. As the most overexposed comic character aside from Batman himself, the Clown Prince of Crime has been reinterpreted countless ways over the years, but personally, I only find him effective as a villain when he has no concrete backstory or sympathetic motivations whatsoever (which is his most common portrayal). He’s a clown who commits crimes because he thinks it’s funny. That’s it. Giving him a sympathetic backstory destroys the only thing that ever made him scary–the only trait that separates him from the countless other colourful psychos with a sense of humour that infest popular media. This, combined with the ridiculous level of media hype about the “shocking violence” and “dangerous ideas” of the film (and the equally ridiculous backlash from its fans), made me want to stay away for a while.

Me, running from people with opinions on Joker.

But now it’s up for an Oscar, and more importantly, it’s available at Redbox, so here we go.

Let me start by saying that, in many ways, this does seem like a well-made movie. It looks beautiful, I like its retro style, and its dark, solemn soundtrack went a long way towards making me think that things happening in the story had some kind of significance. Joaquin Phoenix does an unnervingly good job creating his character, and as much as I hate to admit it, he probably deserves his Oscar nomination for his Joker laugh alone. I also appreciate that the movie at least tried to raise awareness of the plight of people in our society with mental illness and other disadvantages. I mean…you gotta give points for trying.

My main issue with the movie is its script, and, related to that, certain aspects of its story. The actors do their level best to make the dialogue sound natural, but it’s so heavy-handed that it’s often hard to take any of it seriously–especially when the movie really, really wants us to. It’s painfully obvious that the filmmakers wanted to make a point about class conflict and mental health issues in the real world, but the problem is that this movie’s setting feels less like the real world than the cartoon version of Gotham in Batman: The Animated Series. And that one had zeppelins!

Just think: in a city where the subways look like this, a single woman leaves her door unlocked at night.

The very first scene in the movie shows Arthur being attacked by a gang of teenagers, who decide to beat him up for no reason whatsoever. From that point on, every single person Arthur interacts with treats him with rudeness and absurd levels of cruelty–from random strangers on a bus to his therapist to his own mother. The abuse he endures is so over-the-top that it often crosses the line into being comical. Gotham itself is equally unsubtle. There doesn’t seem to be a single surface in the entire city free from graffiti, none of the lights work properly, and every building (except one fancy movie theatre) looks like it ought to be condemned. We never get a reason for why things are this way–just some vague talk about the rich not caring about the poor. It’s cartoon-level worldbuilding: one-dimensional and completely disconnected from reality. Then we add characters delivering such on-the-nose lines as “If it were me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me,” and the whole movie starts to feel like what I kind of feared it would be: a cinematic version of the Joker society meme.

Let me reiterate that I thought the “news” articles back in October that insinuated this movie would cause violence were ridiculous. I don’t believe that people are mindless drones who just copy whatever they see in movies, so I’m not surprised that nobody went berserk at any Joker screenings. However, I do think the most obvious “moral” in this movie is unhealthy, and probably didn’t do anything to help the people it was trying to champion. That moral, as stated pretty blatantly by the Joker in a rant, is that society has failed the poor and mentally ill, and their frustration at being left behind is what causes things like mass shootings and riots. But much like this movie’s version of Gotham, that’s such a surface-level interpretation of the real-world issues that it would seem more at home in a kids’ cartoon than an adult movie. Yes, real-life treatment of mental health in America leaves a lot to be desired, but just to start with the obvious, not all mass shooters or rioters are poor or mentally ill. And not all people with mental illnesses are violent–in fact, based on what I’ve seen and read, the majority aren’t. Framing the Joker’s violence as a direct result of his untreated mental illness seems more like an attempt to justify his actions than anything else, and it’s kind of offensive to all the people going through similar struggles without resorting to violence. If you’re trying to raise awareness of a real-life problem, why not make a movie set in the real world, instead of a caricature?

This shouldn’t need saying, but The Dark Knight did it better.

I have a feeling a fan of Joker might answer, “because it’s a comic book movie.” But I also take issue with this movie as a comic adaptation. Mostly because it isn’t one. If you changed the title, set it in New York or a fictional city like Metropolis, and changed the names of Thomas and Bruce Wayne, nothing about the story would change and no one would recognize it as something inspired by a comic book. In fact, this origin story for the Joker wouldn’t make any sense in regular Batman canon. The only solid, recognizable reference the story makes to the Batman comics is…(SPOILER)

SHOWING THE WAYNE MURDER FOR THE FIVE HUNDRED THOUSANDTH TIME!!! I honestly thought I was going to watch a Batman-related movie without having to see that again, but nope. It’s there, pearls and all.

BOTTOM TEXT

Anyway, this is by no means a terrible movie. I could imagine it being enjoyable to someone with less of an attachment to superhero comics and more of an appreciation for pretty cinematography. But with barely any connection to its source material and only the most one-dimensional political commentary, for me there’s nothing to separate Joker from the many, many other stories I’ve seen about troubled men getting pushed over the edge into murder. I’ve seen it done worse. I’ve often seen it done better (including in some of the other Best Picture nominees this year). But in the immortal words of the Dark Knight:

“I’ve heard it before. And it wasn’t funny the first time.”

Grade: C

A Dark and Stormy Cinema, Part 2: Batman (1989)

“You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?”

Batman
Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren
Starring: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson
Music By: Danny Elfman
Rated PG-13 (Contains superhero violence, some implied sex, and mild language)

In crime-ridden Gotham City, petty crooks and mob bosses alike are being terrorised by a mysterious figure known as Batman. Intrepid photojournalist Vicki Vale comes to town to get the scoop on Batman, but finds herself even more intrigued by the eccentric billionaire Bruce Wayne. Meanwhile, a run-in with Batman at a chemical plant turns two-bit gangster Jack Napier into the much more sinister (and ambitious) Joker. Batman is the only one who can stop his plan to take over the city, but both men get more than they bargained for out of the confrontation.

In a generation shaped by the ’60s TV show, this movie was Hollywood’s first attempt to convince an adult movie-going audience to take Batman seriously. And it seems to have been at least partly successful, since my generation (the one that grew up after this movie’s release) generally doesn’t think of Batman as a comedy character.

In order to accomplish this, the movie really plays up the terror that the Dark Knight strikes into his enemies. The opening scene follows a couple of criminals who are scared out of their minds of meeting “the Bat” on a dark rooftop. When they do, he’s presented almost like a monster in a horror movie, emerging from the shadows just like a giant version of his namesake, and dealing a ton of damage to the hapless criminals in less than a minute. Even normal citizens are scared of Batman in this movie, spreading rumours that he’s a vampire or some other supernatural being. Gotham itself is also presented as a sort of dirty, gargoyle-infested city with Gothic-influenced architecture and dark alleys galore. A good 70 percent of the movie takes place at night, much of it in dark caves (including the Bat-one, of course), abandoned warehouses, and other such places. And that’s all before the Joker starts perpetuating his (sometimes genuinely disturbing) crimes. In other words, the whole thing feels much more like the Batman I know and love.

Da-da-da-DAAAHHH-dumm…

That being said, the movie is by no means devoid of camp, as you might be able to tell from the fact that “Songs by Prince” is a thing that appears in the credits. The Joker and his minions dance to the aforementioned songs while carrying a giant boombox. Bruce Wayne literally sleeps upside down like a bat. The Joker kills people with joy buzzers and big feather pens. The 1989 version of Batman takes place in a much more grounded reality than its predecessor, but it’s still a long way from, you know, actual reality.

And even the parts of the movie that were meant to be taken seriously haven’t always aged well. Batman’s whole “terror in the night” shtick doesn’t work on the audience too well once you realise that the actor can barely move in his rubber suit. That suit also severely limited the number of moves available to Batman in his fight scenes, so those don’t look great for the most part. I don’t think the Prince songs have aged particularly well either, but that could just be my personal distaste for pop.

Eh, Megamind had better museum-destroying music.

Campy elements aside, this movie does have a lot going for it. The acting is fantastic across the board, the cinematography is often lovely, and the Batmobile is even cooler than the ’60s one. Also, meaning no disrespect to Hans Zimmer, this movie gave us the best Batman theme of all time. I tend to prefer the arrangement used in the Animated Series, but even in this movie, it’s a beautiful theme that perfectly encapsulates the dark, gothic nature of Batman while also promising exciting adventures to come. It’s probably my favourite thing about the movie.

The way the central comic characters are adapted here is a little odd, though. For one thing, Jack Nicholson portrays possibly the sanest Joker I’ve seen in any medium. Sure, his methods are off the wall and his clown motif is unusual, but he’s motivated by very common, natural desires: power, money, sex, revenge. He starts the movie as a despicable gangster, and he ends it as a more confident and successful despicable gangster. There’s no mystery to him, nothing unexplained…not even anything particularly special.

“As you can see, I’m a lot happier.”

By contrast, this is possibly the most mentally unstable Batman I’ve seen in film so far (which is saying something). Michael Keaton plays the famous playboy Bruce Wayne like a socially awkward, absent-minded dork who is totally dependent on Alfred for survival. When he’s Batman, he’s good at scaring criminals (despite the rubber suit situation) but he never seems to do any detective work or strategic planning. He just finds out about a problem and throws himself head-first at it. He can’t even explain to his closest allies why he runs around at night scaring criminals–it’s just “something that (he has) to do.” Also–and here’s where the movie really threw me the first time I watched it–he is 100 percent okay with murder. Batman kills at least four or five criminals in this movie via explosions and weaponised grappling hooks, and no one ever so much as comments on it.

This was a problem for me when I first watched this movie. I had always heard that it was one of the best Batman movies ever made–possibly even the best, according to some people. But I didn’t see it until well into my 20s, after I’d become familiar with the Nolan trilogy, the DC Animated Universe, and a fairly large selection of comics. So I was a little shocked and disappointed to find that the Batman in this movie was so very different from any of those portrayals.

Like I said in my last review, Batman has been portrayed in a wide variety of ways in many different media, so I don’t think it’s my place to say any particular portrayal is “wrong.” But speaking personally, my least favourite type of Joker is one without any mystery to him. As the man himself once said, “If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!” And my least favourite version of Batman is the homicidal maniac type. To me, Batman’s no-killing code is one of the central aspects of his character. It’s what sets him apart from other edgy street “heroes,” like the Punisher. It’s what enables him to live with his demons without allowing them to turn him into a monster like the Joker. Sure, he runs into grey areas and loopholes all the time, but any Batman who doesn’t at least try to be a technical pacifist is a lesser Batman in my book.

I guess it’s not a gun in the strictest sense, but…yeesh, Batsy.

So for my second viewing, I tried my best to forget all my favourite Batmen and just enjoy the movie with the same context an average ’80s moviegoer would have brought to the theatre. And it improved the experience greatly. Keaton’s performance may not be what I expected, but it is a convincing picture of an unstable, slightly sheltered billionaire who never got over his parents’ deaths and eventually snapped. Likewise, Nicholson is genuinely terrifying (when he’s not dancing to Prince), and also genuinely funny, which covers the two qualities essential to any great Joker performance. It must have been a shock for the original audience to see Batman being portrayed so seriously after the expectations set by the ’60s show, but I bet it was a good kind of shock. It paved the way for much better portrayals of the character later on. The Animated Series alone is enough to justify this movie’s existence ten times over.

I think the movie’s biggest flaw–as a movie, not a Batman adaptation–is its lack of a strong protagonist. The audience views Bruce Wayne/Batman from the outside, not getting a real glimpse into his head until near the end of the film. We see a lot more of the Joker’s thought processes and motivations, oddly enough, but if you can find any sympathy for him, there’s probably something wrong with you. The closest thing we have to a point of view character is Vicki Vale, who is in charge of discovering Batman’s secrets so they can be revealed to the audience. But she’s an attractive woman, and this is the ’80s, so she’s not allowed to have much of a personality or to do much other than love Batman and scream a lot. The camera angles, the script, and the costumes she wears frame her as an object for the audience to ogle rather than a person for us to identify with.

When the first thing we see of a female character is her legs, you know there’s a problem.

As a result, we’re left without a relatable protagonist or point of view character, which made it hard for me to care a whole lot about what happened to the characters we did have. In the end, it just feels like a simple revenge story, not an inspiring tale about getting justice for the innocent or anything fun like that.

Everything looks cool, though, and the dialogue contains some truly unforgettable lines. It also inspired the title of one of the greatest Star Trek episodes ever, so that’s cool as well. I enjoyed it, and I’ll probably watch it again when I need my semiannual Batman fix. But ultimately, I appreciate it more because of what it did for Batman’s popular image than for itself. I still consider Batman: The Movie to be the better film, because it accomplished more of what it set out to do, and because it’s just more fun.

Not that Batman/Joker fights aren’t always fun.

But before it spawned the greatest animated shows of all time, or paved the way for the greatest live-action superhero trilogy of all time, Batman spawned its own little franchise. I’ll be watching all of its sequels for the first time, so my reviews will be my raw, unadulterated first thoughts. Stay tuned!

1. Batman: The Movie
2. Batman (1989)
3. ???
4. ???
5. ???
6. ???
7. ???
8. ???
9. ???
10. ???
11. ???