Joker: Dancing King, Bruised and Lean, Only Late Thirty-Something

So Tuesday night I went to see Joker, and while I did enjoy it I don't think that it warranted the amount of hype and controversy that surrounded it before its opening. Offering a glimpse back to the grit of seventies urban centers, Joker is surprisingly less of a story of the forces of chaos as opposed to the commentary on the greater need for people to be politically and socially recognized. Even more surprisingly however, Joker is an example of great cinematography and directing coupled with fantastic acting (by Joaquin Phoenix et al), but it really just could have been better.

In stark contrast to the supposedly macho rebellion against society that the character of the Joker represents, Arthur is practically effeminate, complete with a high voice and relatively submissive demeanor.

Hailed as some sort of subversive call to violence, the only concrete message Joker delivers is a parable on the necessity and addictive nature of societal/political recognition. Hell, the titular Joker is essentially just some guy who is stuck in The Pit of Despair (don't even think about trying to escape). He works in a dead-end job trying to make ends meet for his dependent mother and himself as his life continues to go downhill, while at the same time struggling with mental illness (including one that makes him laugh at inappropriate times). It's intentionally meaningful that in a film that is supposedly about Joker that he lacks seemingly any agency, being mostly beholden to the flow of the larger story of the fraying of society. His entire life he's been ignored, and his only desire is to be recognized and praised, as shown through his daydreams of his comedy talkshow idol. In the spirit of the comic book, Joker's rise comes from essentially 'one bad day' (or week), with him simultaneously losing his job, socialized mental care (even if he doubts its effectiveness), and enduring a medical crisis. It's really textbook of just how hard life hits at times, and he's never lifted up, only ridiculed and undercut by the few that take notice of him. By the end of the film, it matters less that he's shed his social limitations than that he's achieved real, positive (though also infamous) recognition. This is without mentioning the situation that Gotham found itself at the time of the film, which needless to say is in a bad way. In a period of seemingly endless decline, Gotham's residents increasingly see themselves sidelined and deprived of a voice/political recognition. They are looked down upon by Thomas Wayne, who claims that their complaints are invalid, and that he will be able to fix everything. Essentially it's a story of the haves versus the have-nots, with the have-nots becoming mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. If the film was just this, and the overarching investigation, it would have made for a pretty tight movie, but alas, it's victim to one of the classic film blunders-too many side-plots that serve little purpose beyond stretching this thing to two hours. Seriously, can we stop treating a young Bruce Wayne as some sort of ominous plot device? Just include the mentions of the Waynes (Thomas was involved enough already) in the story and that's it, I mean, they're tied with Uncle Ben for mortality rate, we get it, they're gonna die. To me, all emotion has been removed from the event as it's now been reduced to nothing more than a space on a bingo sheet. Joker's story is pretty solid, and a few missteps notwithstanding it's at least a decent amount deeper than your average comic book film.

Though being undoubtedly unstable and depicted as manic, Arthur is a remarkably thoughtful and somber person. In terms of mannerisms he seems closer to a Bond-villain than a maniac.

In terms of technical cinema, Joker was a treat to watch, having great cinematography and locations in addition to "getting us inside" the character of Arther Fleck. Starting in the middle with locations, I at first was pretty excited to see more of Chicago in this film, but the inclusion of a staircase and indication of the existence of hills in Gotham was enough to have me despair, so Chicago is spared this time. In all seriousness though, Joker excels at capturing just how depressing (and I'm being charitable) and unplesant the cities of the seventies were, and likewise the realities of that ugly decade. The only places free from these marks of urban decay are, understandably, the very places and people that have the resources to hide these marks. It really makes you feel like you're living on skid row, and I'd say that's a a mark of a job done well. The camerawork of this film is done quite well, often depicting Arthur either separated from the audience, a face in the crowd, or simply alone, all mirroring his feelings of his existential pain. Violence is handled two ways, being either cut away from, or fast, snappy, and brutal in keeping with the realistic tone of the film. When cut away from, the violence is only alluded to, with the audience forced to come to their own conclusion as to the result, whether it actually happened or not. Finally, what might be my favorite part of this film is the organic revelation that Arthur is an unreliable narrator, which is vaguely hinted at a multitude of times before being fully embraced. This is accomplished through the off-hand dropping of personal information, sound editing, and literally speaking over the shoulder (on several occasions). It was probably my favorite execution of an unreliable narrator I've seen in a while, and it's a shame that many will be chased away by the film's unapologetically bleak tone to see it. I honestly can't really come up with any technical areas to ding this film on, though Joker does have more dance breaks than I've ever seen since Music Man.

In addition to everything else, Joker is a story about bullies and how though the years change, the methods don't.

At the end of the day, I'd say that Joker is a good film, perhaps on the lower end of great, but I'd say that it's definitely worth a watch even if it could be better, namely in the screenplay. The irony of the controversy surrounding Joker is that he really has no core message behind him, and he even says this, that words are essentially put into his mouth. He's hailed as a herald of chaos, with a legion of goons, but here he's a lonely man bereft of social connection, a victim and product of his upbringing, environment, and larger social and economic problems. Yes, we do live in a society, we get that in this film, so I got what I came for, but I really don't think that there's really anything genuinely subversive to be found in this film. Commentary? Yes. Edgy? No. At the end of the day, while I did enjoy Joker, I find myself let down by just how undeserving of the level of focus it is, but what do I know?