The UnPopular Opinion: Joker

Last Updated on July 30, 2021

THE UNPOPULAR OPINION is an ongoing column featuring different takes on films that either the writer HATED, but that the majority of film fans LOVED, or that the writer LOVED, but that most others LOATHED. We're hoping this column will promote constructive and geek fueled discussion. Enjoy!

****SOME SPOILERS ENSUE****

In just a couple of weeks, Joaquin Phoenix is likely going to walk away with an Academy Award for his performance in JOKER. The second Oscar for an actor playing Batmans archnemesis, Joaquin Phoenix's performance is a mesmerizing achievement of method and commitment, but it also is a fairly two-dimensional portrayal of a character renowned for having an ambiguous backstory. JOKER is a film that DC and Warner Bros needed, desperately, to keep their brand alive after the failure of JUSTICE LEAGUE to match the box office success over at Marvel Studios. But, despite receiving the most Academy Award nominations of any film in 2019, JOKER is a massively forgettable film that relied too much on media buzz that it was a dangerous film set to ignite violence in the masses. Rather, JOKER is a film that doesn't say much about anything and fails to take any true risks with a character with no limitations.

JOKER was heavily developed and marketed as a film in the vein of Martin Scorsese's ouevre. With heavy homage paid to THE KING OF COMEDY and TAXI DRIVER, Todd Phillips' film looks a lot like Scorsese's landmark early films but through the lens of a filmmaker nowhere nearly as talented. While JOKER is certainly not a bad film, it is nowhere close to being a great one. I respect Phillips' attempt to make a movie unlike any comic book film that came before it, but the finished product not only is unworthy of being called JOKER but fails to really say anything at all. Revisiting the film, the same elements are repeated over and over and never doing more than serving as superficial rationalizations for how and why Arthur Fleck descends into madness. We also never quite get an explanation as to how this character is in any way the villainous Clown Prince of Crime from the pages of DC Comics.

The ambigious origins of the Joker are a hallmark of the character and one that has fueled great stories like the iconic The Killing Joke which also posits the criminal in his early days as a comedian before descending into insanity. But, the clear difference between tales like that and JOKER the film is that here, Arthur has no overarching motivations to destroy the world or even bring Gotham down but rather he has more personal motivations that are self-centered. Here, he not only suffers from psychological issues including pathological laughter and depression but is unsuccessful in his career, romantically, and personally. Blaming society for his inability to get the medication he needs and the wealthy members of society for casting out the downtrodden, Arthur breaks with reality and begins a killing spree that ignites riots and violence across the city. Thematically, this is meant to evoke themes of how mental health in the United States is stigmatized as well as how class disparity and politics could lead to social breakdowns. But, these themes are showcased in Joaquin Phoenix's performance which is haunting whereas the rest of the film does nothing with them.

The fears that JOKER could dangerously trigger viewers into mimicking the violence on screen was misguided. JOKER is no more prone to incite copycats than THE DARK KNIGHT was. Just because a movie features a character who performs heinous acts does not mean others will take it as a call to arms. The problem is rather that JOKER shows us a world where one man's violence inspires others to do the same, assuming that a wide population of people would be just as mentally damaged as Arthur himself. Yes, this is a movie and is not meant to be taken literally, but the connections between Arthur Fleck's actions and those of Gotham's citizens are tenuous at best. JOKER spends a lot of time telling us why these things happen without giving us the reason why. Sure, Arthur serves as the spark for a city on the edge, but what comes of it? What is the point?

JOKER never presents any options for Arthur aside from his descent into madness. There is a nihilism on display here that means there was never any hope for him to choose a different path other than become the title character. But, every iteration of the Joker has roots in the madness turning him into a mastermind who is the opposite to the beacon that is Bruce Wayne/Batman. By telling this story without a Batman to balance it, JOKER ends up feeling incomplete. Todd Phillips tries to make up for this by rooting the film in the visual grit of Scorsese's films but it just feels superficial. Not a single character aside from Joaquin Phoenix is remotely developed and serve just to further Arthur Fleck's story. Even the "twist" that reveals Zazie Beetz's Sophie never had a relationship with Arthur can be seen a mile away.

There is nothing wrong with liking or even rooting for a villain or anti-hero. But, JOKER does not do anything beneficial for the genre nor the medium aside from tell yet another dark story. If it had any sort of originality to it, maybe it would have felt worthy of the stellar soundtrack and production values. Instead, JOKER is a compliation of the same sequence over and over again: Arthur is sad, laughs inappropriately, sees how bad Gotham is, bangs his head, fails as a comedian, and repeats. Those events don't evolve or change but just happen over and over again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results which makes JOKER the definitive portrait of insanity. Nothing about this Joker is redeeming or rewarding and the experience of sitting through it is painful and dull.

JOKER is a movie made up of moments that will likely be memorable for decades to come. The stair dancing sequence will be a pop culture touchpoint as long as those steps exist in New York, but the story elements and plot of the film are as forgettable as so many other Oscar bait movies of years past. Todd Phillips' film relies on Joaquin Phoenix and without him, the film falls apart. By the title itself, this movie is the story of a single character and an iconic one at that. I applaud the attempt Todd Phillips' made here, but his only success is that he had an actor as talented as Joaquin Phoenix. Had this movie starred anyone else, it would have failed miserably. JOKER is an interesting experiment but ultimately a failed one. JOKER is not a masterpiece but rather a deeply mediocre movie with a masterful leading performance.