Skip to main content

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker
(2019)

(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

But the politics… The proliferation of think pieces on Joker might give one the impression it heralded the implosion of western civilisation, vying even with Trump and Boris for column inches. How it’s legitimising and enforcing the positions of – apparently, who knew? –millions of basement-dwelling, enraged incels, all poised to take out their self-hatred on the “norms” at the pull of a trigger. How it “advocates” all the things progressive society hoped it had strong-armed to the door with marching orders. And how, thanks to Todd Phillips shooting his sensitive mouth off, it stands by association in opposition to anyone intent on curbing artistic and more especially comedic freedoms, the righteous Twitterati intent on expunging such unexpurgated voices. All of which, well, yeah. Inevitable hyperbole on all sides. Wade through all that, and you reach the important question; is Joker any good? Does any of the hype(rbole) actually match up to the movie itself? Some of it.

Joker encounters the obstacle that, even as a non-blockbuster, differently-positioned alt-comic book movie, it is selling itself as that thing. It can’t just be a little project to be embraced or ignored, not with the full might of the Warner marketing department behind it. When it was first announced, back when Marty Scorsese – he of “MCU isn’t cinema” infamy – was, for a few days, attached as an executive producer, it was greeted extremely dubiously. This was, after all, off the back of the last Joker iteration, and the idea – admittedly not without some justification up until then – that the Joker in and of himself spelled success, nearly as much as a nippleless Batman himself, was seen as simple straightforward cynicism on Warner’s part. That combined with a laissez-faire, throw anything at the wall and see what sticks casualness to projects in the wake of the collapse of a “coherent” Snyder-led DC-verse. There was equal parts intrigue – Joaquin Phoenix, who had turned down Dr Strange and was really not interested in commercial for commercial fare’s sake – and suspicion – how could Todd Phillips, who tended towards broad or gross-out comedy be planning something artistically inclined? Case in point: War Dogs. Just how wannabe Scorsese was that (and you can bet it had The Wolf of Wall Street comparisons all over its pitch meetings)? So really, it could have gone either way in terms of how it was appraised; it could have been another Suicide Squad.

As such, I’ll readily admit I needed persuading. And I say that as someone who actually liked The Hangover Part II. None of the trailers really convinced me this was going to be a movie of serious artistic accomplishment, impressive as moments – and Phoenix, obviously – appeared. And then the initial outpouring of critics’ raves (a Golden Lion is not to be sniffed at). And then the backlash. All of it kindling to an event picture. As in: gotta see to have an opinion. Most comic book movies aren’t watercooler events in that sense.

The problems I have with Joker essentially goes back to those initial message-board responses, the push-pull of Phoenix and Phillips working together. On the one hand, Phoenix gives the kind of fully immersive, absorbing performance you expect: a cracked actor, or clown, undergoing fractures of mind and body (his physical contortions are as alarming as any schisms in his psyche). On the other, Phillips, who is, as comedy directors go, top flight, one of the few who can lend a cinematic lustre to what is traditionally a rather four-square approach to the genre, simply isn’t up to that level. Indeed, he even undermines the central performance somewhere around the mid-section by allowing his star’s antics to close in on repetitive schtick. Phillips is unable to lend the camera a subjectivity that would really entangle you with Arthur Fleck’s perspective. The way Scorsese does with Travis Bickle. Or even Aronofsky does with Nina Sayers. And I think that’s because he doesn’t really know his protagonist; at best, he has a clutch of ideas and grievances he has thrown in a blender and tipped out, sploshing across the screen where they may.

Which means it’s all very well having such an overview in principal, but whether or not the entire movie is actually in Arthur Fleck’s own head – as the final scene in Arkham might suggest – is only so interesting. Although, the scene where he runs into a glass door after brushing off the cops intent on questioning him suggests that if he is, his psyche is so self-gnawing that it can’t even allow his fantasy self a moment of cool. There’s only ever an out-of-his-reach feel to Phillips clutching at the psychological traumas Arthur is going through, his playing the role of devoted son and possible disinherited millionaire’s bastard and fantasy boyfriend of his neighbour.

There’s no additional interest to a delusion within a delusion if none of the delusions are that compelling in the first place – although it might at least explain how Arthur leaps from where he is at the end of the movie to a criminal mastermind of Batman lore, as in: he doesn’t. And the movie’s deep dive into Wayne family continuity doesn’t suddenly become a flash of brilliance if its only significance is that he’s a disturbed guy obsessed with the fame of the Wayne family and (perhaps) the death of Bruce’s parents.

Of course, one might also draw dots between a guy who talks unprompted to kids on buses, makes friends with a single mum and grabs at a boy outside the gates of his father’s mansion, and his final transformative serenading himself to Gary Glitter’s Rock ‘n’ Roll (Part 2), surely the picture’s most transgressive moment and one that can be no coincidence. But those connections don’t really make it daring either. Quite the contrary: it’s simply a movie that’s self-consciously fishing and not having the cojones, through casting its net of interpretations sufficiently wide, to have an actually coherent point of view.

So while Phoenix sustains Arthur’s interior life, Phillips fails him simply by not having the tools to keep up. On the other hand, the director is fully versant and entirely at ease and accomplished with the “real world” elements of the story. Of the squalor of 1981 NYC, of a mentally-ill guy having the shit kicked out of him in back alleys or on the subway, and of the catharsis of turning upon his oppressors. Sure, the anti-rich sentiment is only ever window-dressing in its sub-V for Vendetta masked movement – a stretch that Arthur would have inspired it, sure, but then any such stretch has the instant get-out of it being an insane person’s imaginings – but in fairness, that cynicism and the uncertainty attached to that theme are addressed head-on during his Murray Franklin show appearance, where Arthur both rejects the political element and embraces it in his vilification of Gotham’s richest benefactor.

And the Network-esque death on air is effective simply because it’s a tried-and-tested shock tactic, even as far back as Joe Dante homaging it for a werewolf transformation. Phillips was accomplished with the seedy viscera you could almost – but wouldn’t want to – touch in The Hangovers, and it’s the same here, with the squalid apartment building and the ever-screaming neighbour you never see, shouting rebukes to Arthur’s involuntary laughter.

Phillips handles the explosions of violence with relish, and he has taken the trouble to ensure that everyone on the receiving end of Arthur’s outbursts is culpable in some way. One might argue this is exactly how a locked-up fantasist would play out their projections, but it also represents the sculpting of the anti-hero in the manner of someone actually enamoured of Travis Bickle’s exploits. You can have a performance telling one story, and a director simultaneously saying one thing while depicting another, and sometimes those things can co-exist, but the greater risk is that you end up signalling that you have no idea what you’re actually saying, if anything. The entire movie strikes me as having a cake-and-eat-it approach – it’s even set in the same year that someone obsessed with Taxi Driver committed an attempted presidential assassination – which means it’s never quite anything; it lacks a singularity of vision that comes from a “true” auteur (even when that true auteur is intentionally offering ambiguity of interpretation).

Consequently, I was most engaged by the last half hour of Joker, when it stopped playing rather feeble games with Arthur’s imaginings and got down to him transforming himself into a masked, nominally empowered alter ego (at least, until the last couple of minutes). I suspect my view of the film will coalesce more with a second viewing, but I have the feeling it may simply confirm a rather empty experience, rich of environment and impressive of performance, but ultimately superficial, directly because of its purported depth, which amounts to a grab bag of societal decay, opportunistic political swipes and references to much better movies made by a guy who doesn’t like comic book movies. I don’t feel Phillips feels Arthur, however much Phoenix does. Certainly, if either he or Phoenix back down from a no-sequel policy, they’re likely to expose that these really were the Joker’s new clothes.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Old Boggy walks on Lammas Eve.

Jeeves and Wooster 2.5: Kidnapped  (aka The Mysterious Stranger)
Kidnapped continues the saga of Chuffnell Hall. Having said of 2.4 that the best Wodehouse adaptations tend to stick closely to the text, this one is an exception that proves the rule, diverging significantly yet still scoring with its highly preposterous additions.

Jeeves: Tis old boggy. He be abroad tonight. He be heading for the railway station.
Gone are many of the imbroglios involving Stoker and Glossop (the estimable Roger Brierley), including the contesting of the former’s uncle’s will. Also gone, sadly, is the inebriated Brinkley throwing potatoes at Stoker, which surely would have been enormous fun. Instead, we concentrate on Bertie being locked aboard Stoker’s yacht in order to secure his marriage to Pauline (as per the novel), Chuffy tailing Pauline in disguise (so there’s a different/additional reason for Stoker to believe Bertie and she spent the night together, this time at a pub en route to Chufnell Hall) and …

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998)
An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar.

Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins, and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch, in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whether the audience was on …