Oh boy. Joker's been a hot topic in the film community (and in general) for a while now. All through it's production, people have been talking about it, and in the last few weeks in particular, people have been going crazy. It wins the Golden Lion, it gets rave reviews, there's countless articles about how it's going to start violence and destroy society, it finally comes out, people love it, people hate it, and it becomes literally impossible to ignore this film. I've been sceptically excited for a while now, because I love Joaquin Phoenix and Robert de Niro, and it looked like a really interesting take on the character, but it looked like it borrowed a little bit too much from Scorsese, it looked like it was skewing a bit too edgy without understanding how to do it, and Todd Philips in general is just.... not my tempo. That and all of the buzz around this film made me realise that I really didn't know how I was going to feel about it. Honestly, I knew it could go any way for me. I could love it, I could hate it, I could really like it, or it could just.... be fine. Any way it went though, there was one thing that was undeniable: this is the film that got 2019 talking. So how did I feel about Joker? Well....
I guess I should set the scene, even though you've probably seen it from the (pretty ace) trailer. Arthur Fleck is a clown in Gotham in the early 80s who's not having the best time. He's a struggling stand-up, his mental state is fragile, he cares for his ailing mother, and he suffers from a condition that causes uncontrollable laughter in difficult situations. It doesn't help that the city he's living in is kind of going to shit. Social unrest, class division and super rats are just a few of the things plaguing the Gotham of this film. One day, however, Arthur has an encounter which.... changes things, for him and Gotham. To say anything else would be a spoiler, so I'll leave it there. I think, in general, the "we live in a SOCIETY" plot is a tricky one to get right. It's a very specific type of social commentary that can be done very wrong, and I think it's all about time, place and execution. I'll talk about the (absolutely ridiculous) buzz around this film's violence later, but one thing that I think is true is that stories about dispossessed individuals rising up to fight against an unjust society have so much potential to go wrong. Look at Taxi Driver, one of my all-time favourite films, and a big influence on Joker. It works because of its context. It looks at the dehumanising effects of war on an already deeply disturbed man who comes back to a city that turns its back on him. It works because it places itself in the context of the Vietnam war, and because it never asks the audience to sympathize with Travis too much one way or the other. It never claims to have all of the answers, and never suggests that anything that's happening is necessarily right, just that it IS happening. It's also not overly edgy, not hollowly so anyway. I mention it because not only is it the absolute best incarnation of this kind of story, but it also nails the thing that Joker is going for
Before I discuss that though, I want to clarify something: by and large, I liked this film. Did I love it? No, because it does have some issues that I can't really get around, but overall, I thought it was good, something that I wanted to get out of the way now before I dive into some of this film's problems. So what's good here? Well, Joaquin Phoenix. His Arthur Fleck is unlike any other portrayal of this character. It's a bold rejection of the idea that this character doesn't have a defined origin, and as someone who actually likes when adaptations deviate a little, I think that was a good choice. Phoenix sells Arthur's slide from persecuted clown to totally corrupted.... clown, and the way that he nails the meekness and the descent is a solid reminder that he is one of the best actors of his generation. Is this his best performance? No, but that speaks to the strength of the rest of his filmography more than anything else. Everything that comes from him in this film is great, and I'll explain what I mean by that in a minute, but for now, I think that the Oscar buzz is definitely earned, because it is an amazing performance, the perfect mainstream vessel for Phoenix's intensity. As for de Niro, he brings a lot of weight to a key supporting role that knowingly flips the dynamic from The King of Comedy. He's the Langford to Phoenix's Pupkin, and seeing him on the other side is an absolute thrill, one that yields some very rich rewards in the home stretch. Frances Conroy actually brings a fair amount to Arthur's mother as well, even if she is more of a plot device than anything. In Conroy's hands, she at least feels human, and is a relatively likeable character in this sea of amorality. And Zazie Beetz is... completely wasted as a character who kind of feels like an afterthought, but hey, Zazie Beetz! The cruel, uncaring atmosphere is certainly an effective one, and Philips' gritty approach is definitely a good decision. The world of Joker is quite unlike any other take on Gotham, mirroring the likes of Watchmen and Sin City for comic book grime. These are the things that Joker does well, crafting this really unpleasant world and filling it with wonderful turns from capable actors. The problems come in the content....
Look, I'm not going to blame this film for spreading violence, because that was an entirely media-constructed piece of fear mongering. Joker will not turn you violent, just like Fight Club, Taxi Driver and Falling Down didn't turn you violent. The idea that it would is absolutely ridiculous, as it always is. But even then, the observations that Joker makes about society are just that: observations. Todd Philips is so intent on showing you society, on displaying how awful and uncaring the world is. He's so determined to say something that he ends up saying very little. Every social comment that Joker makes is so base level, just showing what's happening and never exploring its implications, instead just saying "society, amiright?". And most of the time, no, you're not. I said it a moment ago, but these stories of the people society leaves behind rising up and enacting their version of justice have so much potential to go wrong, and although Joker doesn't make a complete mess of it, it's not as insightful as it likes to think it is. No spoilers, but I think it's biggest mistake is making Arthur's story overlap with the social upheaval in Gotham, leading to an ending that's definitely saying....something? What he's doing is wrong, but what they're doing is right, and that climaxes in a way that's not quite clear. Is it a descent or a revolution? Villainy or justice? Honestly, I don't quite know, and I'm not sure the film does either. I don't know if this is the right character to do this kind of social commentary with, because he doesn't quite work as the face of the social revolution in Gotham. I'm not saying this as some enraged fanboy who's hurt because they're going against the comics, because, in an adaptation, I care more about the actual film that comes out of those changes rather than the changes themselves, and on that level, I'm not sure it works. The relatively random context means that Arthur's status as the face of this movement never feels earned. I said that everything that comes from Phoenix is great, because he's the thing that fuels everything good about this take on the character. The script is serviceable, if a little on the nose, but the story beats and commentary don't really lend this character anything particularly good or interesting, instead relying on Phoenix's incredible turn to ensure our investment in him, which, thankfully, he does with aplomb.
I don't want this to turn into a petty comparison between a comic book film and Scorsese, especially not with the current discourse, but when I think of everything that Taxi Driver did well, it's all stuff that's largely absent from Joker. From the start, it asks us to sympathise with Arthur, which is fine. That's not an issue, and it's not something that I have any real problems with. The problem comes when we have to accept that what he's doing is right, or at the very least not wrong. What Gotham's upper classes are doing is wrong, so everything done in defiance of their prejudice must be right? Philips seems to be claiming to have answers, to know the root of these issues and their subsequent solutions, but instead of the rallying cry for the disillusioned citizens that it's clearly trying to be, it instead becomes a confused primal scream that's desperately seeking some sort of catharsis. And it definitely achieves it, but at the cost of the poignancy and sharpness that these stories possess at their best. The "we live in a society" stories have a clear moral compass. Travis Bickle commits acts of social violence. Tyler Durden was a terrorist. We know what they're doing is wrong, even when they think that they're right, and, as an audience, we're never asked to think any other way. I'm not worried about moral corruption or anything, but I do think that understanding that what these characters are doing isn't right is necessary. It's not just, but it is happening. Joker doesn't do that, and always justifies what's happening onscreen, which is where it stumbles big time. It's not going to cause any violence but it does fail as a criticism of society because that criticism is hollow. It asks us to identify with this movement, and at the apex, makes a really passionately argued point that.... something is.... happening to the people because.....society is doing.... something, and the upper classes are bad because.... society. It's all the right pieces in all the wrong places; the right method but lacking any meaningful observation. If you were to ask this film questions, it'd answer all of them with "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!". And I swore that I wouldn't rant....
So, Joker is.… well it's definitely a film. The discourse on this one has been deafening, and I've been really struggling with writing this review because I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. It's proving to be so divisive, prompting these really strong reactions from people. I definitely didn't love it, in case you couldn't tell from those last two paragraphs. I won't go in depth about the society stuff again, but I do think that it's the film's greatest shortcoming, which is a shame, because it's right at the forefront. So no, I'm not in the camp of thesaurus wielders that hold this film up as a masterpiece and one of the best of 2019. That said, I definitely didn't hate it either. Phoenix absolutely owns here, and again reminds me why I love him so much. And for a mainstream blockbuster, it definitely feels atypical in its approach and style. As for the Scorsese-borrowing, if you're going to take inspiration from anyone, there are definitely worse choices than the king. Is it disappointing that my reaction to this deliberately provocative film isn't especially either way? Maybe, but I still liked it. I'm still in the camp of people who say it's a good movie, even if I wouldn't call it anything better than that. As I said, whatever happens, this is the film of 2019, the one that broke through and got everyone talking, and as a cultural event, it's definitely made an impression. That impression wasn't an especially strong one on me, but hey, who am I but another critic on the internet? If you love Joker, awesome! It's always awesome to find something you think is great. If you hate Joker, well that's cool too! It's definitely got some irredeemable issues, and it's 100% understandable if you thought it was awful. Me? Well, I think it's fine, nothing more, nothing less..... and that's kind of all I have to say about that
No comments:
Post a Comment