OSCARS 2020: Joker (2019)

It only came out last October and I'm already sick of talking about “Joker.” From the moment the trailer debuted, the Discourse started to roar and has never stopped. From the way the marketing seemed to be courting the most toxic corners of nerd fandom, which lead to (ultimately unfounded) fears of mass violence, to the unending debates surrounding the actual merits of the final film, “Joker” is easily the most talked about movie of 2019. Now, it seems the Academy has decided to weigh in. And they were apparently impressed. Todd Philips' DC Comics inspired “violent loner” flick received more Oscar nominations than any other movie this year. That's despite a lot of really smart people thinking the movie is actually bad. Yet “Joker” has attracted passionate fans too and not just among edgelord film bros. (Though there are plenty of those.)  Now I guess it's my turn to reflect on last year's most endlessly discussed motion picture.

Breaking significantly from DC Comics tradition, this “Joker” begins in 1980s Gotham City, overrun with crime and waste from a garbage man's strike. We focus in on a wannabe comedian and struggling clown named Arthur Fleck. Arthur suffers from a neurological condition that causes uncontrollable laughing and that's really just one factor in his miserable life, which is mostly spent living with his sickly mom. (Who harbors an obsession with millionaire and would-be politician Thomas Wayne.) After loosing his job, Arthur – while still in his make-up – is attacked on the subway by three Wall Street types, which he then shoots to death. Thus begins Fleck's slow slide into insanity and nihilism on his way towards becoming a supervillain named Joker.

Upon seeing it for the first time last fall, the thing that bugged me the most about “Joker” is how totally divorced from its source material it is. That is to be expected, since an definitive origin story is totally antithetical to the comic book Joker's entire existence. This version of Gotham City doesn't resemble any previous one much. Instead of presenting us with a Joker, the master villain that commits crimes ranging from the mischievous to the truly vile strictly because it amuses him, we meet... Arthur Fleck, a pathetic and mentally ill man who violently rises up against the society we live in. That's because Todd Philips and his film have nothing but contempt for actual comic book lore. Instead, his “Joker” is glorified Martin Scorsese fanfiction, remixing elements from “The King of Comedy,” “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” without really understanding the themes behind any of them.

Philips is another filmmaker best known for comedy who decided to make a hard break for legitimacy, the Academy being more than happy to take the bait. Philips really wants us to know how serious he is. “Joker”  is largely a miserablist drama set in a world totally without love. Everyone in this film is awful, selfish, vulgar, and ugly, up to and including Arthur. For most of its run time, “Joker” is devoted to showing how terrible its protagonist's life is. That this climaxes in a refrigerator assisted suicide attempt and eventual violence is not surprising. However, there's no actual depth to this endless misery. “Joker” seems to be saying that the world sucks and humanity sucks but with no insight beyond that, like an edgy teenager scrawling an anarchy symbol on his notebook because he thinks it's cool. (Considering the underlying disgust for humanity seen in Philips' comedies, the film's nihilism is simply the director coming clean with how he really feels.)

Of course, “Joker” does believe in some things. The movie wants us to think its about how cruelly the mentally ill – or anyone who is different – are treated by this nebulous thing we call society. Arthur even screams about this, just as he begins his proper transformation into the Joker. And the film comes ever so close to touching on something profound there, with how Fleck's insurance is taken away or a key phrase he scribbles in his notebook of madness. The suggestion is that, if anyone had just shown Arthur some love or kindness, his turn towards evil might've been avoided. But that's hard to take seriously when the film's entire world is so cartoonishly selfish and vile. No, the only thing the movie seems to actually believe is that this violent loner's rampage is totally justified and that women – ranging from his mother to the pretty woman down the hall, the subjects of the film's most insulting plot twists – deserve some of the blame.

“Joker's” total emptiness is most apparent in its vacant provocations towards our modern political hellscape. Even though it makes no sense for a city apparently so rife with crime – surely these murders wouldn't warrant anymore media attention than all the others? – but Arthur's subway slayings inspire a public protest against the rich. This is clearly meant to invoke the modern Occupy Wall Street and anti-fascist movement in America. Yet Arthur himself repeatedly clarifies that he has no political motivations at all. This feeling is furthered by the film's depiction of Thomas Wayne as neither evil millionaire nor generous philanthropist. The movie isn't actually saying anything about antifa or the Alt-Right or Trump or James Holmes any of that shit. It just introduces elements vaguely reminiscent of these real world issues in an attempt to look like it's saying something about modern America. Even though a minute's reading reveals it clearly isn't. (That organized, presumably anti-capitalist protesters would hail a multiple murderer as a hero also strikes me as unlikely but, oops, I just put more thought into this than the actual writers did.)

And yet for all its obvious problems, and obviously problematic elements, there is something undeniably compelling about “Joker.” A lot of this is owed to Joaquin Phoenix, who does indeed give an incredible performance. Emaciated, brooding, cackling, totally pathetic one minute and completely unhinged the next, he is a truly frightening cinematic villain. The decision to have Phoenix break out in interpretive dance, the first moment of catharsis the character has felt in his entire life, is inspired. Those scenes are the movie's best. (The film is so much Phoenix's, that the rest of the cast really blend into the background. Though Brett Cullen does a pretty good Alec Baldwin impersonation as Thomas Wayne.) It must be said that “Joker” is a well-produced film. Lawrence Sher's cinematography is frequently incredible. The movie's relentlessly grimy world is put together convincingly. Hildur Guðnadóttir's rumbling, disharmonic score is impressive.

From a narrative perspective, “Joker” isn't even that well constructed. It meanders considerably in its first half and has three goddamn endings for some reason. Still, I can't help but admit that “Joker” is, at the very least, a somewhat interesting motion picture. Even though it has pretty much nothing to do with the comic books that ostensibly inspired it, I'm still sort of blown away that a movie this nastily noncommercial was a major tent pole release based on some of pop culture's most well known characters. For all its empty-headed edginess, certain moments in “Joker's” last third do hit like a sledgehammer. This could've been a truly good film, if it had bothered to build any sort of actual viewpoint behind its endless ugliness. We are going to be debating the merits of “Joker” until the planet is finally consumed in fire, which is a real bummer as it really doesn't deserve that much analysis. Yet I guess I'm glad it exists, to prove that a comic book movie can be about truly anything. [6/10]