Joker: A Contemporary Classic and Cultural Disturbance

Greetings one and all. I come to you today—or perhaps some day in the future and considering my track record with posting the latter seems more likely—with some thoughts on a movie. It is a film seemingly everyone from right to left has thoughts on, emphasis on left. But this won't get political, at least not from my own intent. If, let's face it when, this gets political it will be summoned from the copious articles released discussing and criticizing this film and the message it sends. Or sometimes its lack of a message, honestly critics can be ouroboros incarnate . There has never been a film so contentious in recent years that involves a clown, unless you want to call IT problematic because Pennywise has become a sexualized icon despite devouring children for a living? That was an egregious stretch but I won't edit it out. It is astonishing to see a psychological thrill of a film be branded as unavoidably toxic with the potential to inspire violence. It is difficult to even classify this movie in a single set genre, it is simply beyond words. That there was a compliment in the highest esteem. Side note: The amount of praise I am about to hurl at Joker reminds me that I have a draft about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood... that remains unfinished and I started that back in August, but I posted it last week so we all can finally rejoice! My writing process, ladies and gentlemen. 

Editor's Note: I want to state first that I am aware of the innumerable amount of perpetrators who commit horrific acts, and I do not sympathize with them in the slightest. Joker is not and has never been a love letter or call-to-action for these real-life monsters. As much as I relay opinions from the media, it is merely to contradict and make light of their commentary. Just felt the need to squeeze in that PSA before getting started. 

I fear this review will turn into a defensive diatribe against the critics who dare to bash this movie. People have a right to their creative opinions; what bothers me personally is how slanted their outlooks come to be. Talking about this movie when you’re such an avid admirer of the work can often be like the snake biting its own tail ouroboros, I said it earlier, did you notice? Or maybe it represents a double edged sword? Whatever form of figurative speech that equates to fucking myself over. On one hand, I instinctively want to defend a film I feel so passionately about, as an ideologically-unattached viewer. Simultaneously and almost consequentially, I become part of the rabid mob that is labeled as “part of the problem,” promoting a film that elevates the biggest antagonist of all: disenfranchised white men. I’m writing this as I drive to work and I cannot believe I feel a need to cover this topic as part of a movie review, but the film has seemingly become the most divisive thing since the 2016 election. Oh yeah, I’m going there with little traction because I know I'm already getting carried away. Joker was the most disturbing movie I have seen (thus far). More visceral than American Psycho. More unsettling than Apocalypse Now. And this is because Joker was chillingly real. Being released in 2019, this movie may be the most gut-wrenchingly raw piece of cinema of recent years. Yes, I am aware that the Vietnam War was exponentially real on a grand scale, but that was the past, man. We live in a society now. I feel as though you can’t say society anymore without being called out as a meme, but nevertheless. If anything were to memeify a word, Joker is the one to accomplish it.

To begin... I am returning to this post in the new year, that is the year of our lord 2020, January 30th. Not only am I egregiously late in posting but I am well into the first month of the new year. At this moment, I am watching Joker for a fifth time. I have seen this in the theater, a second time in the theater (where the media got to me and I evacuated due to irrational fears), then three additional times in the comfort, sweet comfort, of my home. In any case, my goodness, I am writing entries all over the place. As I am writing this, the twist unfolds in the film that is Joker. The woman of Arthur's desires turns out to be just that: a woman of his desires, never to be requited. Please note I am quite intoxicated as I am writing this portion of the post, ergo the following paragraph shall be most impressive considering I am: drunk. I have a feeling this entire post will be a "stream of consciousness" type of post, and there may be a reasonable reason for that. This film is among the most remarkable films that follows no coherent plot line, in the sense of beginning-middle-end. I used to think my life was a tragedy... now I realize, it's a fucking comedy. What a predictable, semi-meme-worthy line. There are many moments that seem to capture the sheer predictability (i.e, lack of originality) of such a concept. However, I am drunk this film is unlike anything I have ever seen. This is a transcendental film that exceeds expectations. As I am writing this, I realize just how little I have written about this film, the best film of 2019 in my humble opinion. Edit: No it's not. How could a film that exceeds any expectation of film in this entire decade (that's right), evade my criticism in the verbal form? There is a very likely chance that this post will escape a fully formed critique and delve into a performance-specific analysis, along with a critique of the media's critique of this film, this outstanding picture. Here we go.

Still drunk. The fact that Todd Phillips, the director of the Hangover series, directed such an aptly-made film is astounding, utterly astounding to me. I admit, I enjoy the director's former films that breached the line of "raunchy comedy;" however, this film extends beyond his typical genre and proves his worthiness as a capable, and damn it a talented, director. The fact that he was nominated for Best Director by the Academy? That is truly bonkers. I have not yet seen Little Women but I have a feeling that Greta deserved the nod more than Toddy boy. Nevertheless, what happened happened. The fact of the matter here is that Todd Phillips happened to direct a phenomenal movie, perhaps the best of 2019 though that statement would be widely disputed by many. There are many things to discuss about this incredible film called Joker and the most I detest about this movie is how "controversial" everyone appears to make this movie out to be. The final scene of this movie, that is the climatic. 

That's it, that's the sentence. My drunken stupor ended there along with the fifth (?) viewing of Joker. You can tell my emotions are amplified when I drink with emphasis on love. As it appears to be the norm, more or less, this post will continue to resemble a stream-of-consciousness piece not unlike Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, which is a point I desperately wanted to make in that post but it's already posted as of Wednesday of last week. Nope, too late to add anything to it, it's published. Back to Joker... One thing that sticks out in particular is how vehement I have been against "the haters" rather than commenting on the film's inherent worth. So let's make due with this review. Joker is a series of subtle yet gripping acts that all lead up to explosive, expected-yet-unexpected moments. As the movie follows Arthur Fleck, its dejected protagonist-turned-antihero-question-mark, there are events that are markedly telling of the impending consequences that will come next. When I first saw the trailer for Joker, it was not what I expected the film to be whatsoever. To tell the truth, I did not have much interest in the film when I heard of its production, even with Joaquin in the starring role. In fact, prepare to be shocked but I did not approve of Joaquin's casting at the beginning—I told you to prepare yourself! The reason for this being that I thought this would be an out-and-out wham-bam comic book movie in the style of a toned-down Tim Burton. I could not envision Johnny Cash portraying such a zany, colorful villain. However, once I watched the trailer, I was utterly engrossed in this adaptation of pop culture's most infamous villain. This is not your grandpa's Joker: he is deeply disturbed, possibly schizophrenic, and rather unimpressive as an individual. He is Arthur Fleck, just another person you'd pass on the street without getting much of a lasting impression, as the character himself states in the film's climax. He is just a guy you would not take a second glance at, even if he was suffering or in distress. This is the point of the film that makes BuzzFeed roll their eyes, of course, but what the film is attempting to convey is that he is just another face of mental illness. Tap dancing all over the film, I apologize. The purpose, or at least one of them, of the film is to demonstrate how those suffering from mental illness, like Arthur, are cast aside. The issue is magnified on screen by how it is neglected in the universe of Joker, which is a theme that is completely unnoticed by the sheer ignorance of critics who paint this movie as an alt-right period piece. Sorry, can't help but shed light on the hypocrisy of those who denounce this movie for all the wrong reasons.

And now, a quote from a legitimate article in Psychology Today: "When Fleck completes his break from reality toward the end of the film and is transformed almost majestically into the Joker, he is reborn as the master of his own schizophrenic universe." Who knew a PhD in criminality could write with more eloquence than a bonafide critic? Overall, Joker is unparalleled in its depiction of Arthur Fleck's slow descent into the sheer madness. As he loses connection to what is real (as demonstrated with the twist in the film involving Sophie, the single mother across the hall), Arthur's downward spiral into intense psychopathy is simultaneously upsetting and engrossing to witness. Oddly enough, director Todd Phillips referred to Arthur's journey as an "ascent into madness," which could be ascribed to the character's rise in terms of being recognized, being seen finally, as he makes his way onto the Murray Franklin show, albeit under cruel circumstances. He went from being a downtrodden, desolate depressive to a manic and self-realized psychopath, i.e. the Joker. Arthur acquires this moniker from his idol, Murray Franklin himself, despite the term being used against him in a degrading manner. Arthur understands that he was, and is, being mocked; he understands that this is the reason he was invited to this show which he has long worshiped. Even though he is being made a mockery of, Arthur Fleck shows up in grandiose fashion because he is a narcissist. His show-stopping shtick that he plans to bring onto the live show is killing himself. Suicide is to be the punchline of the joke, i.e. his own life. What makes him a narcissist, among other things this is already getting to be too long, is that he wants his death to be showcased. Until the very end, he wants to be seen, to be recognized. His journal even documents this sentiment somewhat: "I hope my death makes more cents [sic] than my life." As the interview ultimately progresses, however, Arthur's scheme morphs into something far more sinister. He confesses to the subway murders, to the horror of the fellow guests and live audience, and rather than have him escorted off the set, Murray continues the interview, which is great for Arthur and his ego. Not so much for Murray himself. The moment when Arthur Fleck delivers the killing joke get it? with the punchline being DeNiro à la splat was somewhat expected yet at the same time evoked an audible gasp. The impact is all thanks to the build-up of Joker as a villain—which is credited to Joaquin's brilliant performance once again—as well as the direction to get us, the audience, to this breaking and explosive shot. No pun intended.

One of my only issues with the movie—the other issues are so menial they aren’t even worth mentioning because this movie is excellent otherwise—is the ending. The ending should have been the camera panning out to the multiple screens showing footage of Murray Franklin being shot. It’s a wonderful scene of realism in that the media is desperate to capture shock and awe for its audience. But no, that’s not the ending. The ending could have been Arthur climbing atop of the car and being praised by his unintentional army. That way, the movie could have shown the infamous pearl scene where Bruce loses his parents. But no, that’s not the ending. The movie drags on to find Arthur Fleck in Arkham State Hospital. As a result, we have many pundits questioning whether the events in this movie were really happening. And, personally, I hate when that happens. Just as in American Psycho twenty years earlier holy moly, people are positing whether anything we just watched for almost two hours actually happened. In American Psycho, I admit, it works because the whole message of that movie was whether anyone really knows who anyone is. Men are getting confused with other men because society is a wash. 2019: The Year of Society, amiright? That could have been the title, emphasis on could without italics. Rambling, next.

Let's take a step back from the calamity and negativity for a moment. There is a scene that really strikes a chord with me early on in the film. It is one that exemplifies Arthur Fleck as a tragic figure, one that you feel devastated for despite his subsequent acts of violence. See editor's note above to remind yourself, this is just a character from a movie. Around the beginning of the film, following the senseless beat-down Arthur endures, he cozies in with his mother, Penny, to watch their favorite talk show host, Murray Franklin (portrayed by King of Comedy, Robert DeNiro). As the emcee introduces Franklin, the scene changes to the actual set of the show, and Joaquin Phoenix is transported there as well. He imagines himself being part of the audience and, in his head, he obtains the earnest attention of Murray Franklin who expresses curious interest in Arthur and his life. After exchanging words, Murray calls Arthur to the stage, to the imaginary applause of audience members. In this moment between the two of them, Murray tells Arthur that he would give up his fame, his career, to have a kid like him. Here, we have a projection of what Arthur longs for more than anything: love and recognition. Murray becomes a doting father figure to Arthur in what is truly a heartbreaking fantasy sequence. Arthur's first appearance on the Murray Franklin show is all in his head and it is the most poignant point in Joker. Yes, this is where you develop sympathy for a truly disturbed individual, painting him as tragic. Yes, this could prove difficult in characterizing him as a villain later on in the film, to the dismay and rage of self-righteous blowhards everywhere. But the sad truth of it all is that Arthur Fleck was simply a poor schmuck who wanted to make the world smile.

Now is the time I will be referencing just a few articles discussing Joker, simply to comment on aspects I have not covered earlier in this here post. I hold myself to a high degree of accountability so I will cite them despite their absurd gaps in reasoning. Excess in derision, my apologies. One article from Vanity Fair analyzes the odds of Joker's success in the upcoming Oscar race. To be vanity fair, the author is quite appreciative of the film and acknowledges its quality and impact on Hollywood and society. Moreover, they appear to be commenting on what others would think about the movie's decreased chances in the awards circuit rather than owning these doubts as his own. (Spoiler alert: eleven Oscar nominations and Joaquin and the haunting musical score by Hildur Guðnadóttir kill it.) I am returning to this article post-Oscars as I realized I misinterpreted a point regarding the women portrayed in this film. The article mentioned "a psycho mom" and I thought they were referring to Sophie like a dunce, forgetting the presence of Arthur's mom, Penny Fleck. I suppose critics have a point when they say the role of women in this film is diminished, go figure. To comment on the women, I must say that, personally, I am very satisfied with Zazie's screen time. She was a fantastical vision for Arthur, which one could argue makes her barely a person, but to Arthur she is the person for him, the one to make him see brightness in his shitty life. Also, the scene where it is revealed that she was one of Arthur's delusions is merciful to her character because she did him no wrong. She is not victimized in the film; she is not fetishized or sexualized. She serves a purpose for the main character, which one could argue is the whole point of the outrage. But sometimes characters just do that.  As for Penny, I don't have much to say about her, clearly since I forgot she was the aforementioned psycho mom. I remember the actress from Desperate Housewives as an eccentric old rich lady and the Queen of Cats or some such horseshit from Catwoman. Hey, look, a DC comics crossover. Of course, Penny is a crucial character especially when you take into consideration why Arthur becomes Joker. She is the source of his upbringing and she is the one who brought trauma and abuse into his childhood, effectively destroying his life thereon in the process. She also represents a major landmark in Arthur's transformation into the Joker when Arthur smothers her with a pillow in the hospital. He has killed the person who "made him who he is," and the next target from there is Murray Franklin, another important figure in his mind. All in all, Penny, like Sophie, serves a purpose for the main attraction who happens to be Arthur. Sure, that may appall the actively woke community, but this is Joker even if you hate to admit it. Moreover, there are many films centered entirely around one person and this most certainly is the case for Joker. This is absolutely the Joaquin Phoenix power hour here—he is the movie.

As I peruse reviews about Joker, panning it for the most part, I find a similar theme. Many of the pieces I found that come from reputable sources—such as the New York Times to name the one I will be directly referencing—describe the film and its quote-unquote message as generally toothless and weak. They do not believe in the film or in what they interpret the film's message to be. Ergo, the frenzied buzz and criticism fueling against Joker becomes a moot point if the critics, who are also part of the media, do not believe the film makes a big enough statement to be taken seriously. This all makes sense in my mind, I hope it isn't coming out as impassioned psychobabble on the page. The overlapping opinion of contrarian critics can be encapsulated in one headline: "Are You Kidding Me?" This was the clever headline of a particularly vitriolic review by the New York Times, wherein the author contends that Joker is not interesting enough to inspire such debate. Calling the film "an empty, foggy exercise in second-hand style and second-rate philosophizing," the author continues to pick apart the film as well as its lack of bite and overall substance, yawning in between paragraphs in true New York Times arrogance I'm sure. In an attempt to analyze the character study laid out for audiences with Joker, the author concludes his thought piece with the following: 

"Arthur’s uncontrollable laughter arises from a medical condition that is possibly the result of childhood abuse. His profound alienation also arises from social inequality, the decline of civility, political corruption, television, government bureaucracy and a slew of other causes. Rich people are awful. Poor people are awful. Joker’s embrace of radical evil becomes a kind of integrity.... Or something." 

Not to nitpick the review, but Arthur's childhood abuse leads to more than just emotional incontinence. The critic practically holds himself above the character and the movie as a whole, lazily denouncing it as a phony production and a failure to convey a coherent theme. The aloof contempt in this article especially is just infuriating, and I wish it wasn't because this is just the opinion of a critic. Just like this post is the indulgent opinion of my own... however excessive.

To finally wrap this review up—after four months of dilly-dallying—I must offer an updated perspective that came about after watching more movies since that fateful day in the theater back in October. In the time between Joker's release and now, four days after the Oscars, I have seen the film four and a half times, as well as several other nominees. Sidenote: This marks one of the few rare years where I actually watch each Best Picture nominee. The first forty-five minutes of 1917 absolutely count, leave me alone. As a result of my annual awards season binge, I had the chance to watch some remarkable films and I am losing my train of thought here. TL;DR Joker was among the best films of 2019, this I hold steadfastly as my unwavering opinion, but it was not the best film of the year as I had previously proclaimed. Not by a long shot, in fact. Yes, I stand by the stylistic and cinematic praise I hurled toward it earlier in this post, but after months of reflection and the revelation of seeing other fantastic films from the past year? Let's just say I was schooled. What I can say unequivocally about Joker that is an honorable superlative in its own right is that this film featured the performance of the year, as well as one of the greatest performances of the decade. Joaquin Phoenix, earning his Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, proved himself, once again, to be a masterclass performer by enveloping himself in the seedy, pessimistic world of Gotham City. He completely transformed and lost himself in the role, metamorphosing into a wretched, abhorrent creature bred from abuse and festering mental health. As much as everyone detests the idea, you cannot help but feel sympathy towards this pitiful character... even if he is a white male. The performance was phenomenal in that he triggered (no pun intended) raw emotion from the audience—even if half of them would rather not admit it. I must confess, it is a shame that this movie will be inevitably linked to the rampant controversy perpetuated by the media and opinionated would-be pundits. It is truly upsetting to feel a need to defend Joker because, come on people, it's just a movie. You either like it or you don't, that is how it should be; however, Joker became more of a matter of social politics, making those who love and defend it toxic incels or problematic apologists, etc etc. For the reviews that actually do applaud Joker for the aesthetically impressive and mesmerizing film it is, good on them. It seems as though many critics were almost afraid to give it the praise it deserves (on one level or another) because they feared being associated with a toxic community or being branded as an incel sympathizer by the all-influential media. Can't we just be honest and accept a good movie without political overtones? Is that not at all feasible in this society? Well, turns out, yes, one can appreciate films sans politics. Despite all the accursed controversy, I am pleased to discover that once I strap in for yet another viewing, I forget all about the rage and heated debates. I can just sit back and be transported to the Scorsese-esque universe and enjoy in pure awe the grotesque majesty that is Joaquin's award-winning performance. In light of the accolades the film received in spite of the prolonged backlash, it goes to show you get what you fucking deserve—in the case of Joker, it's a cult-status legacy.

Sources:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/11/joker-oscars-2020-joaquin-phoenix
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/joaquin-phoenix-cover-story?inline
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/movies/joker-review.html
https://collider.com/joker-murry-franklin-death-explained/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201911/is-the-joker-psychopath