The Joker (2019): A Critical Look into The Film that Divided Audiences.

(June 2020)

---

Prologue: Film Criticism

The concept of film criticism is riddled with irony. Some call the art elitist and unnecessary, some refrain from bad mouthing critics in order to elevate their chances of success. Regardless, critics in any field are heralded as both suppliers of intimidation and upliftment. Film criticism is definitely different to your YouTube film analysis or your average cinemagoers IMDB review. Criticism, it resonates with the technical, academical and underlying constructs of the film industry- not just if the lead has great or articulate acting, whether the lead represents something more politically or socially and even then, that mere analysis of one component barely scratches the critical itch of the Pauline Kael's’ or Robert Egberts’ of the world (of film criticism).

The debate between critics for decades has been the pull between aiding or offending art by one’s own subjective account of what art should be, why should a Hollywood blockbuster or an indie darling be held to the same degree of assessment, knowing they are as different as donkeys and laptops? Critics hold a lot of power, yet they can be fickle and easily broken down by the same intellectual theories they hold so dearly. A theme that stuck out so clearly when researching film criticism, the origins, the politics of it, the people- criticism need only apply to ‘proper’ films. Films that are continuously sought to be ‘The 100 Best Films in History’. Who cares about Kubrick anymore? Who really watches and enjoys Hollywood’s golden years anymore? The most popular films now and the ones breaking waves with its revenue, technology and diversity in the field- these films are never classed as critical successes and by that account, must see films or film canon. This factor of criticism is a shockwave to the intermediate students of criticism.

Would a chef pâtissier be classed as the world’s best chef? No. They may be the best in their field but put alongside gourmet dinner chefs or your local sandwich artist, they seem inexperienced.

The same applies to those critics who cannot take a non-classic or non-essential piece of film and critique it for it’s good, as well as its bad, and cannot bring the same construct of classic criticism to a comic book film as it does a 1930’s misogyny noir.

The Joker

Any film can be politicised, romanticised and picked apart so finely that any quote can mean more than fiction and ‘Joker’ is no exception.

Todd Phillips’ 2019 piece ‘Joker’ split audiences and critics alike, positive to negative review ratios have been 50:50 equal since the films release. The film, in my opinion, was overwhelmingly underwhelming and was definitely a ‘victim’/’perpetrator’ of the ever dangerous: Overhyped Film.

As a ‘comic book’ movie, as it was referred to by some audiences, in my opinion lacks the traits or known traits of DC’s beloved ‘Joker’ character. Phillips, however, created this outcome, claiming to want to ‘take the comic book movie universe and turn it on its head’, oddly enough by using an already established ‘darker’ character, from the already esteemed ‘darker’ comic book movie universe- DC.

Through a basic analysis, had Phillips just tried to create an independent and refreshing storyline for one of the most recognisable fictional characters, the film would be okay. However, regardless of like or dislike towards the film, critically and academically the story is lacklustre, unoriginal and telling of Phillips’ directorial abilities if this was his true belief of a ‘gritty and serious’ take on irreverence. The film isn’t inherently bad and is incomparable to the ‘Jokers’ before Joaquin Phoenix’s depiction of Arthur Fleck- yet the film has issue within its narrative, it’s reflection of cultural relevance and most annoyingly, technical elements pulled me, as an audience, out of the viewing experience.

Technically, the film had some strong aspects and some very weak aspects. The technical aspects come from the sense of setting- so where the film takes place, what people look like, and talk like (the script) and other technical aspects that make or break a film- like score, cinematography and the use of narrative structure and theories/ideas that have gone into the film successfully or not.

The greatest success of this film, as a viewer, was the consistent and riveting use of its colour palette. Throughout the film the colours are exceptional at telling or aiding the story and adding more emotive details to scenes: blue, yellow brown, off orange were the colours that were most saturated throughout. Throughout the scenes, there seemed to always be at least one yellow source of light/colouring to contrast the dull, blue tone palette of sad 80’s Gotham. This drew the eye to Fleck/Phoenix, as the yellow usually surrounded him during his endeavours, and really proposed the idea of his trying personality and will to ‘make people laugh’ throughout the grimness of the film. The opening meeting in the doctor’s office- the room is heavily grey, almost a brown/neutral-scale, yet we see a lamp behind and above Phoenix, illuminating his presence and adding the slightest warm tone to the otherwise plain and cold box room.

Colouring throughout the film created the rich comparisons between communities and the life we see Arthur mosey on through. The stark brightness of the hospital wing where Arthur performs as a clown, but stupidly brings a gun, offered a comparison to the later stark whiteness of the interview room in the (assumed) asylum at the end of the film. We recognised these areas and the break from the ‘normal’ depressive, dull and neutral toned Gotham, helps us determine placement of character and to a certain degree, helps us remember that stark bright, white walls were where Arthur originally became equated with a gun, (i.e. violence/corruption) and he ends in a hospital due to the fixation of violence and his slowly deteriorating sanity. In short, the films use of colour helps us focus on memorable aspects and the recognition of place or feeling of a scene through the mimicking of colour/lighting/ activity, it helps us put the pieces together on how the man we’re watching has changed throughout the two hours of viewing.

Linked to the exceptional colour palette, the lighting of the film was wonderful. It added such a flourished technical accessory to the film and working with the colour palette, it added a creative flair to the scenes and helped produce a slightly ‘artier’ and sophisticated visual style to the film- but this only worked at certain times, as the style tended to change constantly throughout. For example, one of the better scenes in the film was the train sequence with Arthur versus the heckling businessmen. We have our first taste of uncertain sympathy and disdain for the characters on screen. Regardless, the fluidity of lighting and the quick changes of light:dark balance, helped amplify the intensity of the scene and delivered a true feeling of threat to the audience. If there was one technically almost perfect scene, the train sequence (prior to the final shooting) was breathtaking.

As previously mentioned, the style/cinematography is where ‘Joker’ loses all hope as a successful picture. Presented as a perhaps more indie film, with elements of Scorsese’s 1976 ‘Taxi Driver’, the direction due to Todd Phillips, assumedly lack of arthouse practice, was a failure. The “style” and visuals were an odd mix between an overly saturated Michael Bay blockbuster and a gritty, overly seriously acted indie film, both of which are unnerving and disappointing to watch.

The use of CGI was apparently slim to none in the film, a questionable statement but one that is appreciated as superhero/comic book films of all equations enjoy the use of digital enhancement and CGI- looking to the Marvel and DC cinematics universes there.

However, through post-production, parts of the film are undoubtedly edited as the realism vanishes in scenes and that provides an uncomfortable out-of-body viewing experience, as the immersion of the film is overtaken by the annoyance of the quality.

Case and point, after Arthur is invited onto Murrays show, he takes a bus to the Gotham Asylum (one hour into the film), of which through lighting or CGI (background perhaps?) or an editing overlay for colour or effect, the scene is very dreamlike and completely opposes the realism style used for the majority of the film. This small detail, and other small details like an occasional lens flare or overly saturated colouring, take away the grittiness and severity of the moment and the established colour/lighting palettes.

For a director who has a large filmography, the technical aspects seemed to lack professionalism- whether that fall to the blame of the cinematographer or the editor, Phillips should have known how to create a realistic film due to his time working on ‘hang out’ films, like ‘The Hangover’. The use of lighting and colour really lifted the film but due to the constant change in camera and type of editing or overlays, the film looked inconsistent - realistic and gritty in some parts and then overly fake and artificial in others, literally consecutively for some scenes. For example, the shooting on the train (of the three businessmen), the shot of the final businessman being shot at the foot of the stairs was good, it was clear and in focus and the style matched that of the film so far but the succeeding close up of Arthurs face looks completely different, the shot can only be described as very pretty, very warm and incredibly false, it reminded me of our meeting with an all-glowing CGI ‘Captain Marvel’ at the beginning of ‘Avengers: Endgame’. I don’t even think this can be claimed as intentional to “the world of glamour” Joker may live in or the “showman lighting” hinted throughout, as the film doesn’t seem that well thought out.

A constant issue throughout was pacing. The pace and timing of the was, I believe, a happy accident for the filmmakers as it seemed to create a sense of confusion for the audience unto where we were in the film/in Arthur's life and added another layer of reality upon the sequence of events. But, the issue of the timing could also be down to laziness of the filmmakers regarding whether to make the narrative linear or not. The timing was bumpy and the story, due to that, felt hard to keep up with and not because the narrative was incredibly intellectually stimulating. The second issue with pacing was due to how much was so quickly added to the story, the audience is constantly hit with something and it’s difficult to digest. A lot was put into the two hours and it almost felt like a workout, a constant stream of events that erase the importance of the last one.

Pacing as a narrative device was poor, it felt misunderstood by the writers of the film. The pacing for this so-called indie- film was incredibly action-based and action film-esque. This may be due to the film being a one-off and independent from the DC universe, unlike Christopher Nolan’s ‘Batman’ trilogy, there wasn’t time for ‘Joker’ to slowly introduce itself- it had to move quickly to attain attention from the audience. Regardless, the idea to create a gritty solo movie for this character would have worked better if the creators had worked with the understanding that indie films have narrative patience- especially since Phillips pushed so hard for ‘Joker’ not to be anti-comic book, which can rely on action and fitting in a lot in a shorter time.

The narrative of ‘Joker’ was indescribable, in a negative way. The narrative in my opinion used a lot of cheap tropes, such as the most obvious use of Arthurs perverse imaginary relationship with Sophie- ‘she was never really there’ was an incredibly childish narrative direction and it offended me, truly. Watching the film gave me an angry sense of using stereotypes and conservative-driven ideologies to fund a good versus evil storyline, the film felt very “pity me, I’m the innocent underdog”. The use of mental health, the poor and odd family conventions (Arthur and Bruce, Arthur and Penny) felt cheap and done before, not to mention the ‘eat the rich’ mentality the film created within it, though the director/team behind the film claim there was no political intentions. Nevertheless, there are arguably elements of vilifying a poor man with clear disabilities and traumatic issues and claiming that he is the ever-loved prankster and infamous antagonist- The Joker? To me it didn’t work.

The Joker, in whichever rendition of film, TV or comic, has never needed sympathy to have control. He has never played a ‘broken’ character, there is obvious argument for it but he’s never needed it, hence the beauty of the character- someone who is bad because he wants to be, and because the narrative of Batman being good because he wants to try to be, works so well with someone who will test him- they need each other to exist.

The issue of the solo Joker film is that is suggests there is a worse background for this villain, whereas though we can understand that characters are complex and not everyone has the choice to be good or bad, the Joker isn’t meant to be the heroic or ‘misunderstood’ and some audiences wouldn’t understand that, such as to why some people are cult-followers and ‘fangirls’ of serial killers and prolifically bad men and women.

The worrying aspect of the narrative of ‘The Joker’ suggests that the villain isn’t really the villain, that the Joker isn’t a bad person but the predetermined plan to murder Murray and the intentional kill of Penn suggest otherwise but is purposely overlooked.

Uncovering the narrative of the ‘difficult man’ is strangely exhilarating as we want to believe this troubled and seemingly inherently good person will defy expectations and become good at the end- yet we know the outcome of the Joker’s story, so we know that anything positive leading up the end must be sensationalism of this villains story. The ‘difficult man’ is a narrative trope we’re more often seeing, examples such as ‘Don Draper’ (Mad Men) and ‘Walter White’ (Breaking Bad) and often it’s overlapped with the post-modern trope of the ‘anti-hero’. Arthur Fleck definitely fits into this mould and would have been an interesting take on the character (if the film had been executed better).

‘Joker’, however, shows a man falling into a slow descent into the unhinged man, rather than the difficult. This to some audiences is terrifying and to others seems coincidental that the pacing of that narrative coincides with the time Fleck stop taking his medication, but I digress.

The narrative isn’t gritty enough. It isn’t explicit enough to what Phillips described and suggested the film to be. To me, really studying the story, there could be a suggestion of a subversion of the ‘Hero’s Journey’, making the film the ‘Villain's Journey’ but as before mentioned, there isn’t enough evidence to suggest Phillip’s was creating Fleck to be a villain! The issue with Phillip’s Joker is that he did not make clear that the actions of this character were bad and there’s a suggestion that they could be excused. The sensationalism is what caused some audiences to panic and believe the actions could be mimicked, in an ordeal like the 2012 cinema shooting during ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, and with the disturbing increase of random shooting sprees across America/globally, ‘Joker’s’ lack of consequence seems to let a chaotic man be the ‘anti-hero’ that some ‘troubled’ audience members might want to copy.

This is what created political ideals about the film and created a split reaction from audiences, to some degree controversy might be the only driving force to the film’s success.

There are inherent political or social themes throughout ‘Joker’, from the understanding of America’s political and economic climate in the 70’s/80’s, the lack of resources for those struggling and impoverished. The link to political films from the era of ‘Joker’, like ‘Taxi Driver’, could suggest a sophisticated performance piece on how the poor suffer regardless of the decade, or that the way to make people hear you is to ‘send a message’ (reference to 2008’s Dark Knight ‘Joker’) or that in some directors visions, it’s the chaotic skinny white man who always loses out and deserves payback for the humiliation he’s suffered… Except none of these messages would have ever come through clearly due to the lack of nuance and thought that actually went into the film. There was also an assumption that audiences would understand the intertextuality of the events that transpired throughout the depressive decades of 80’s America or even just the nod to drama like ‘Taxi Driver’ or ‘King of Comedy’.

This is the same film that only won awards thanks to its main lead being able to take a mediocre character and playing him well and a score that was so tedious and jarring-it set the tone perfectly. Again though, Gary Glitters? Seriously? These Hollywood directors truly do think they’re untouchable.

The film critically isn’t impressive but perhaps that’s a positive, as critics will have to delve deeper into what they know and apply harder or more complex theories to the film and what it means. ‘Joker’ successfully toys with and flips between who/if anyone was in the right or wrong or if there was a villain or even any bad guys - the ending describes this well and ties up the constant shift in perspective for the viewer/from the viewer in my experience.

It isn’t the most intelligent film and for me, not the most enjoyable due to technicalities, but there was a good attempt at creating a new story for one of the most iconic ‘baddies’.

The one thing that the film got right, undoubtedly and with certainty, was the correct portrayal of Joker being a massive drama queen and a huge attention seeker. That was comic-accurate for an ‘anti-comic book’ film.