Joker (2019) Film Review

(March 2022)

---

A review of Joker for CINEASTE magazine.

Joker

Political Apathy Gone Mad.

Upon revisiting Joker (2019), after its success and thriving status in the cultural stratosphere, it’s important to see the film again, separated from its initial excitement and release.

Joker is the political ramblings of a mad man.

Phillips that is, not Fleck.

Its critical success comes in an ironic manner, the bourgeoise elite celebrating a poor attempt of empathy with the mistreated proletariat. It has an air of superficial awareness, followed by a storm of naivete.

Arthur Fleck is a new type of Joker, not one yet explored. For art’s sake, it would be unfair to compare him to previous renditions of the same character. There are some calculated risks with giving such an emotional backstory to a beloved character, and some do work out but Phillips’s persistence that Joker is not a comicbook film... It sucks the enjoyment out of such an infamous character.

Joker, as text, didn’t perform as well as it should have. It was overhyped, it was cursed from the get-go. The cults of filmbros who identify with a misunderstood, overlooked, and under-appreciated clown certainly proved their allegiance to The Joker by worshipping this film. And that is fine!

However, the narrative so clearly tries to be intellectual, teasing and playing with our perceptions of The Joker, Gotham, and The Wayne’s- as well as the social systems Arthur frequently interacts with.

But its narrative devices are poor. ‘They were never really there’, ‘You are my Father’, ‘you rich people don’t care for us small people’.

Tiresome tropes that came as predictable and boring.

Its sense of setting clearly took inspiration from Taxi Driver, even its use of DeNiro was too on the nose. Its colour palette is perhaps its only remarkable aspect, dipping between cool blues and warm oranges depending on the mood. It is quite nice.

Phillip’s aimed for this (non)comic book film to take on the stature of a ‘deep’ text, a thought piece, a provoking narrative.

The messy politics is what holds the narrative back, and what makes it dislikeable or distasteful. The politicisation of The Joker and the Gotham are the key examples of Phillips not understanding of the political climate.

In a world where white, bitter men commit gynecide and pedicide, due to senseless selfishness and anger, why did this film need to comment on a known psychopath as misunderstood and a little bit sad?

In a climate where school shooters, wife-killers and abusers are let off because of their poor mental health, why is Arthur Fleck given justification for his crimes? Why is he treated as the hero, or at least anti-hero, and we are all expected to accept this ideology?

Labelling poor people as readily anarchists, who all have an instant eat the rich mentality that is synonymous with rioting and violence? It seems a little impartial.

Almost as though representing the poor from an upper-class perspective.

Phillips doesn’t understand the very people he is trying to portray, but how could a large Hollywood director?

It’s tone deaf.

And boring. (Just wanted to repeat that.)