I'm not a huge follower of the comic book film industry, which is now big enough to be considered a separate sub industry within the film one. Within that subset of cinema, to me, it feels like Batman is the standout over the last few decades - going back to the Tim Burton Batman. This could be seen as quite a milestone in a number of ways due to how it dealt with the subject matter. As ludicrous as it would now appear, the release of a darker[1]
interpretation of the comic book world (although as I understand it, the actual comic book world was dark) was groundbreaking and was a risk. It was dark enough that, in the UK, a new cinema certificate was introduced between the prevailing PG and 15 to enable more of the target market to be able to see it (or at least pay to see it). The 12 certificate was in itself a milestone in cinema - regulations understanding the teenageification of cinema. Involving some proper stars in the production, Jack Nicholson was the scene-stealer as the Joker. This particular cycle of Batman films went forward for a few years until Batman & Robin in 1997, attracting bigger and bigger stars in conjunction with worse and worse reviews. The Joker happened to be the most compelling of villains and the remaining films recognised that by requiring teams of baddies and goodies to make up for that.
A decade and a half later, the franchise needed another reboot and the feted Christopher Nolan, known for well regarded films such as Memento and Insomnia but nothing approaching the scale of Batman, was handed a suitcase full of cash to direct an "origin" story in the form of Batman Begins. Yet again, this was a darker reinterpretation of the comic book world that showed Batman in a simultaneously positive and negative light. In the shadow of the Iraq War, it was clearer and clearer that goodies and baddies were harder to delineate at all times. Could bad people have been "good" in the past? As Batman Begins did very well for the studio, they decided to give Nolan even more money and leeway to do whatever he wanted. Second album syndrome kicked in and the next film became bigger and broader in all the ways it could - best exemplified by the astonishing use of IMAX filming for a number of scenes. These scenes are all superbly put together and the second album was actually pretty popular - making over a billion dollars at the box office. Again, when you want to make it count, you bring in the Joker. This Joker was played by Heath Ledger who, unfortunately, passed away after filming but before release lending the film an odd atmosphere knowing that the deranged character on screen had died. The performance was screen filling (although I think it is fair to suggest that Ledger's death may have had the effect of elevating the performance too) and all Jokers after this would need to be measured against this.
And the next cinematic Joker is coming along without Batman now. How does that symbiotic relationship work without a relationship?
As a film, this one, made by Todd Philips, seems to have generated quite a lot of commentary because of the nature of having a protagonist to relate to that you aren't supposed to. Telling the story of how a damaged man, living with his mum in Gotham, could turn and fall to the depths of becoming someone that just wants to see the world burn. From victim to villain, it must surely be seen as a parable for the age to some degree, but is it?
In a sort of preparation for the themes developed here, I recently watched both Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. Both of these films look at people that have been somewhat marginalised by society and have been name checked plenty of times when I read about Joker. I'd read enough about it to get that image and heard that the direction could be seen as sympathetic to the loner's cause. It felt highly appropriate, therefore, to go to see this alone[2]. The screening, on a Monday evening, was close to full so it had captured the imagination of the public and the crowd was a little less arthousey[3] than usual at the Barbican.
The film itself starts off showing the difficulties of the disorder that Arthur Fleck[4] has - an involuntary laughter that can manifest at inopportune moments. This does not always have the effect of disarming people around him so he carries a little card that he hands to people to explain the disorder. I'm not entirely sure that it is always believed to be a disorder by the recipients...
As for many prequels, and this isn't really a prequel but an "origin" story, the overall thrust of the narrative is already known and so it isn't "spoil"able in the same way. We see the effects of cuts to mental health provision as Arthur loses access to his therapist - a lady that tells him outright that it is due to budget cuts. As he spirals down and is picked on by strangers, he eventually snaps and shoots some office workers that were accosting another passenger. Why was he carrying a gun? Some other low level bullying by strangers that he was finding tiresome made him feel like he should. This shooting somehow gets seen as some kind of bellwether for the mood of Gotham as the victims happened to be part of Wayne Enterprises and this was class war[5] - Gotham City had a new hero. That is the pivot of the film and the rest of the story follows Arthur Fleck in hiding until he eventually reveals himself in a television interview and becomes Joker.
The conversion of this act of violence into social commentary, largely off-screen in news broadcasts and television analysis that Joker is definitively not part of, was really unclear but is the defining moment of the film, and arguably, therefore, the Batman world. It ends up painting the Joker as a hostage to fortune and not really the one in control of his image. At the point when Arthur does take control of his image, he does so on a TV interview show. Robert De Niro is the TV host that seems to echo the role that he didn't play (but wanted to) in King of Comedy who happened to take an interest in one particular comedian that performed badly (Arthur) at a comedy club.
In my opinion, this part, the pivot, is not that well developed as to why this worked out in this way but the success of the film across the world seems to suggest that I am in the minority. As he walked out of the studio as a known murderer - having killed three strangers on the subway - he was now the Joker. Famous around the country and leaving as a hero of our times (to some) and walking through the physical manifestation of the “social commentary” that he had become - a riot on the streets about inequality.
I found Joker to be an interesting film but that was partially because in parts, it was infuriatingly ambiguous about what it was supposed to be saying. At other times, it was incredibly unsubtle about it all: “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?”. I don’t think it was cleverly ambiguous either, I just think it was muddled. Arguably, the story is one of how society has lost empathy and this is shown with swingeing cuts to public services that cause the decline by Arthur into the feelings he had. We are made to feel sympathetic towards a man bullied and pushed throughout his life, living as a carer with a dream for more but held back by society. And this is all true - he is a man that has been wronged by a society that has decided taxes for the public good are not affordable. But that is seemingly not the message being taken away and the glorification of the acts of violence do, in a sense, give some pause for thought. The character himself is fairly pathetic at the start and showing how a pathetic man can become a hero is a journey that is interesting and could appeal to those with a dodgy mindset. I think that is the concern but it is an old tale told in a fairly modern way. The story isn’t particularly new and I think is only a real problem if you live in a country with easy access to firearms. And if you live somewhere like that, Joker isn’t the biggest of your risk intensifiers!
One of the things it is worth bringing up is the nature of how believable it all is - there are parts where there is romance, or implied romance, that seems to be in Arthur’s head but this is never particularly clear. I usually like things like this and I cannot deny that these ambiguities did work for me. There is a current thread through a lot of social commentary about incels[6] . This does sort of tie in as Arthur is attracted to somebody pleasant in the film but those acts of kindness by her may also lead him to misunderstand. It probably is not a coincidence that the murder on the subway occurred after saving a young lady from unwanted attention from “successful” men.
It is a pretty bleak film throughout and it is as bleak as you can realistically get within the audience you are aiming for - this is no Neon Demon though. There is a little bit of violence which I would liken to Drive - short and sharp. It is more visceral than The Dark Knight - there is nothing like the throwaway violence of a pencil in the eye, for example. That bleakness may be what has seen it being so well-received as it is outside of the mainstream envelope but I did not think it that good a film. Joker lives in the slipstream of the Nolan Batmans and although it is more intimate due to the nature of the story, it still is in the shadow of The Dark Knight. The end of Joker has him in a car and this seems to ape, fairly directly, a scene of Heath Ledger’s Joker riding in the back of a car looking out of the window. It may have been a homage but it really struck me as a copy. I would still recommend watching it because it is something that is outside of the normal bounds but I think a lot of the positive commentary will die away in the future when looked at fresh. In a way, I think it is worth seeing what so many seem to like sometimes.
1. This is always a relative term and the comparison was always with the Adam West Batman series which was fun, Saturday morning fare at the time in the UK. I used to like that as a child.↩
2. I think I prefer going to the cinema on my own and do so the majority of the time. I say think because it is, of course, also possible that I've just persuaded myself to believe that.↩
3. I think this really just means noisier - until a minute or so after the lights fully dimmed, it was still a bit chatty.↩
4. It appears that there is no canonical real name for the Joker and this is another one.↩
5. “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett↩
6. This is a portmanteau of involuntarily celibate and refers to those that are not popular with the oppostie sex. It is used, within some circles, as a justification/explanation (sometimes one, sometimes the other) of acts of violence due to bottled up frustration. It is also a way, for some, to blame women for the acts of men when those women have done nothing wrong.↩
A decade and a half later, the franchise needed another reboot and the feted Christopher Nolan, known for well regarded films such as Memento and Insomnia but nothing approaching the scale of Batman, was handed a suitcase full of cash to direct an "origin" story in the form of Batman Begins. Yet again, this was a darker reinterpretation of the comic book world that showed Batman in a simultaneously positive and negative light. In the shadow of the Iraq War, it was clearer and clearer that goodies and baddies were harder to delineate at all times. Could bad people have been "good" in the past? As Batman Begins did very well for the studio, they decided to give Nolan even more money and leeway to do whatever he wanted. Second album syndrome kicked in and the next film became bigger and broader in all the ways it could - best exemplified by the astonishing use of IMAX filming for a number of scenes. These scenes are all superbly put together and the second album was actually pretty popular - making over a billion dollars at the box office. Again, when you want to make it count, you bring in the Joker. This Joker was played by Heath Ledger who, unfortunately, passed away after filming but before release lending the film an odd atmosphere knowing that the deranged character on screen had died. The performance was screen filling (although I think it is fair to suggest that Ledger's death may have had the effect of elevating the performance too) and all Jokers after this would need to be measured against this.
And the next cinematic Joker is coming along without Batman now. How does that symbiotic relationship work without a relationship?
As a film, this one, made by Todd Philips, seems to have generated quite a lot of commentary because of the nature of having a protagonist to relate to that you aren't supposed to. Telling the story of how a damaged man, living with his mum in Gotham, could turn and fall to the depths of becoming someone that just wants to see the world burn. From victim to villain, it must surely be seen as a parable for the age to some degree, but is it?
In a sort of preparation for the themes developed here, I recently watched both Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. Both of these films look at people that have been somewhat marginalised by society and have been name checked plenty of times when I read about Joker. I'd read enough about it to get that image and heard that the direction could be seen as sympathetic to the loner's cause. It felt highly appropriate, therefore, to go to see this alone[2]. The screening, on a Monday evening, was close to full so it had captured the imagination of the public and the crowd was a little less arthousey[3] than usual at the Barbican.
The film itself starts off showing the difficulties of the disorder that Arthur Fleck[4] has - an involuntary laughter that can manifest at inopportune moments. This does not always have the effect of disarming people around him so he carries a little card that he hands to people to explain the disorder. I'm not entirely sure that it is always believed to be a disorder by the recipients...
As for many prequels, and this isn't really a prequel but an "origin" story, the overall thrust of the narrative is already known and so it isn't "spoil"able in the same way. We see the effects of cuts to mental health provision as Arthur loses access to his therapist - a lady that tells him outright that it is due to budget cuts. As he spirals down and is picked on by strangers, he eventually snaps and shoots some office workers that were accosting another passenger. Why was he carrying a gun? Some other low level bullying by strangers that he was finding tiresome made him feel like he should. This shooting somehow gets seen as some kind of bellwether for the mood of Gotham as the victims happened to be part of Wayne Enterprises and this was class war[5] - Gotham City had a new hero. That is the pivot of the film and the rest of the story follows Arthur Fleck in hiding until he eventually reveals himself in a television interview and becomes Joker.
In my opinion, this part, the pivot, is not that well developed as to why this worked out in this way but the success of the film across the world seems to suggest that I am in the minority. As he walked out of the studio as a known murderer - having killed three strangers on the subway - he was now the Joker. Famous around the country and leaving as a hero of our times (to some) and walking through the physical manifestation of the “social commentary” that he had become - a riot on the streets about inequality.
I found Joker to be an interesting film but that was partially because in parts, it was infuriatingly ambiguous about what it was supposed to be saying. At other times, it was incredibly unsubtle about it all: “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?”. I don’t think it was cleverly ambiguous either, I just think it was muddled. Arguably, the story is one of how society has lost empathy and this is shown with swingeing cuts to public services that cause the decline by Arthur into the feelings he had. We are made to feel sympathetic towards a man bullied and pushed throughout his life, living as a carer with a dream for more but held back by society. And this is all true - he is a man that has been wronged by a society that has decided taxes for the public good are not affordable. But that is seemingly not the message being taken away and the glorification of the acts of violence do, in a sense, give some pause for thought. The character himself is fairly pathetic at the start and showing how a pathetic man can become a hero is a journey that is interesting and could appeal to those with a dodgy mindset. I think that is the concern but it is an old tale told in a fairly modern way. The story isn’t particularly new and I think is only a real problem if you live in a country with easy access to firearms. And if you live somewhere like that, Joker isn’t the biggest of your risk intensifiers!
One of the things it is worth bringing up is the nature of how believable it all is - there are parts where there is romance, or implied romance, that seems to be in Arthur’s head but this is never particularly clear. I usually like things like this and I cannot deny that these ambiguities did work for me. There is a current thread through a lot of social commentary about incels[6] . This does sort of tie in as Arthur is attracted to somebody pleasant in the film but those acts of kindness by her may also lead him to misunderstand. It probably is not a coincidence that the murder on the subway occurred after saving a young lady from unwanted attention from “successful” men.
1. This is always a relative term and the comparison was always with the Adam West Batman series which was fun, Saturday morning fare at the time in the UK. I used to like that as a child.↩
2. I think I prefer going to the cinema on my own and do so the majority of the time. I say think because it is, of course, also possible that I've just persuaded myself to believe that.↩
3. I think this really just means noisier - until a minute or so after the lights fully dimmed, it was still a bit chatty.↩
4. It appears that there is no canonical real name for the Joker and this is another one.↩
5. “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett↩
6. This is a portmanteau of involuntarily celibate and refers to those that are not popular with the oppostie sex. It is used, within some circles, as a justification/explanation (sometimes one, sometimes the other) of acts of violence due to bottled up frustration. It is also a way, for some, to blame women for the acts of men when those women have done nothing wrong.↩
