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're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

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…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

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.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

The President is dead. You got that? Somebody’s had him for dinner.

Escape from New York (1981)
(SPOILERS) There’s a refreshingly simplicity to John Carpenter’s nightmare vision of 1997. Society and government don’t represent a global pyramid; they’re messy and erratic, and can go deeply, deeply wrong without connivance, subterfuge, engineered rebellions or recourse to reset. There’s also a sense of playfulness here, of self-conscious cynicism regarding the survival prospects for the US, as voiced by Kurt Russell’s riff on Clint Eastwood anti-heroics in the decidedly not dead form of Snake Plissken. But in contrast to Carpenter’s later Big Trouble in Little China (where Russell is merciless to the legend of John Wayne), Escape from New York is underpinned by a relentlessly grim, grounded aesthetic, one that lends texture and substance; it remains one of the most convincing and memorable of dystopian visions.