It’s time to talk about that film where Joacquin Phoenix plays
a disturbed and violent individual! No, not that one. No, not that one either. It’s
instead time to look at his first foray into the ever lucrative world of comic
book movies—Joker.
I must admit, my first thought on hearing this one being
announcement was that we already had a Joker movie, back in 1989. DC’s foray
into focusing on the bad guys with Suicide Squad was…not met well for the most
part, and I have to admit I didn’t bother with it. However, after they started
to pick themselves up with Shazam, I became more interested in their upcoming
titles, and their seeming approach of focusing more on diversifying their
output than trying to build an ever-labyrinth continuity like Marvel (well,
supposedly this one isn’t part of the main DC series, but on the other hand,
who cares). So, having checked this one out, how does it fare?
Not as brilliant as some are making it out to be…but still
pretty good. Phoenix’s performance isn’t massively new territory for him—he’s
played broken and violent men in Sorcese-inspired flicks like You Were Never
Really Here, and also in scientology satire The Master (the former might be a
bit slow for general audiences, but I heartily recommend the latter). But as
comic-based movies go, this one’s definitely interesting.
Phoenix plays Arthur Fleck, a clown for hire suffering with
various mental ailments, in Gotham City during the malaise of the early 1980s.
I have to admit, I wasn’t expecting the setting, but it definitely adds to
things—there’s no neon nostalgia here, but the imagery of flaking walls, dirty trash-covered
streets, and rusting public transport all augments the less than uplifting mood.
It does owe a lot to Sorcese and Taxi Driver in this regard.
Fleck’s transformation into the Crown Prince of Crime is a
gradual one, and much of the first act is about him trying to balance his job,
his dismal home life, and his always-worsening condition. As he loses his
social worker and his medicines, those problems worsen and deepen for him in
ways that are at one point illustrated with a heart-rendering visual gut punch.
Eventually, the film starts connecting itself deeper to the
Batman mythos, for better or worse—as I expected, the Wayne family gets
mentioned, but is connected here more than I thought it would. Now, there’ll be
the inevitable discussions of how much this one counts as a comic book movie
(for me, there are some scenes which clearly echo seminal sequential pieces
like The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke, which is good enough in my
books), but let’s just say it makes its take on things clear by the end.
In a similar way to Nolan’s Dark Knight Rises, it takes on
the comparisons to the Wayne family (represented here by their patriarch Thomas,
played by Brett Cullen in a different and less pleasant take on the character)
and contemporary discussions of the 1%--but taking a different final course
than that one did. I honestly wasn’t sure on that particular political angle,
not when the film was doing a decent enough job on highlighting the effects the
carelessness and callousness of society has on Fleck’s state of mind.
Now, while Phoenix does put his usual intense focus into
portraying such a messed-up individual, he does spent perhaps a little too much
time mumbling his way through things (as true to life as that may be)—but once
he fully takes on the mantle of the Joker in the last act, that’s when he truly
comes into his own as the character. Each good film depiction of the character
has their defining scene—Nicholson had the art museum sequence, Ledger had his
infinitely quotable gangster meeting introduction, and here, he confronts
Robert De Niro on a talk show. That’s likely the scene that will be the defining
one for this film in the future, let me put it that way.
The ending leaves a lot up in the air, and while it takes a
predictable route in one sense, it also takes a different turn in another.
Ultimately, there is a lot to talk about here, and it’s definitely a comic character
study that delivers emotional punches like Logan did. Some have raised their concerns
about those with mental problems identifying with the Joker (leading to some
rather heated discussions and reportedly even police protection at theaters in the
US, as I hear), but I suppose that the film even raises such things shows it
has a real bite to it. As far as intensity goes, there’s little to match it in
the genre, and while I’ve nothing against the usual popcorn-y superhero flicks,
this is one that offers far more to talk about than just the space of a single
blog post I could make.
Overall, Joker isn’t revolutionary on its own, but certainly
offers a new take on things as far as cinematic movies of its ilk go, and is
definitely worth it for Phoenix’s compelling performance alone. Unfortunately,
I fear DC might be slipping again, having seen the trailer for Birds of Prey, which
is Joker’s lady sidekick Harley Quinn getting her own film. I honestly found
what I saw kinda cringeworthy, and while I’ve nothing against a female
empowerment message, I’m honestly not sure if the character of Harley, who is
disturbed and murderous to put it lightly, is the right avenue for it. Maybe
some will get something out of it, but I feel they’re falling into the same
trap as Suicide Squad.
But yeah. This flick’s a good ‘un, and we can have Jared
Leto safely displaced as this decade’s Joker. The real question is whether any
of them can beat Mark Hamill’s animated portrayal, but that is a topic to
natter about another time…
Comments
Post a Comment