Three years after the
character’s last big-screen appearance in Suicide
Squad, the Joker returns in a standalone feature starring Joaquin Phoenix. In
Joker, Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) lives a
lonely life near the bottom of the totem pole. Ignored or ridiculed by almost everyone,
he finally breaks under the pressure, starting on a destructive path that
culminates in rage and violence. The movie, which doesn’t take specific inspiration
from any one iteration comic book Joker origin story, is directed by Todd Phillips
(The Hangover, Starsky & Hutch).
A few things you should
know up front: 1) Joker isn’t a comic
book movie, despite the fact that its main character originated in that medium.
A few things from comic books carry over, for sure, but Joker’s DNA doesn’t share much with superhero movies; it’s a crime
drama/psychological thriller. 2) Joker
is most definitely not for everyone. It’s dark, it’s tortured, and it’s violent.
If you’re looking for a feel-good flick, a hero, or some laughs, this is not
for you.
photo courtesy of theatlantic.com
I found Joker devastatingly bleak, and therefore
not particularly enjoyable. It has a few redeeming qualities, so I don’t think
I can say—as some critics have said—that it’s an intellectually or emotionally vacuous
movie. But neither do I think Joker
is nearly as smart, as original, or as necessary as it thinks it is.
The big showstopper is Phoenix,
whose performance merits substantial critical attention. As is often the case with
these types of bombastic roles, Phoenix acts really hard here, and in my opinion, acting hard does not always equal acting
well. In this case, though, the
attention is deserved, because Phoenix’s performance is undeniably impressive.
He does a lot of close-up, expressive work, and yes, he crafts an unnerving
laugh. Most impressively, he brings a haunting physicality to the role,
especially when he runs or dances. Apart from Phoenix, performances from Robert
De Niro and Frances Conroy bear mentioning. Here and there, Joker sprinkles in other talented actors
in bit parts.
photo courtesy of vox.com
Performances aside, Joker is a mixed bag. There’s obviously
artistry on the screen; Philipps and cinematographer Lawrence Sher create a
visually immersive (and awfully grimy) Gotham. And in places, including some
places I wasn’t expecting, Joker produces
real emotional resonance. In other places, however, Joker seems amateurish: predictable, improbable, on the nose. Many
of the parts that do work borrow
heavily from other movies: Taxi Driver,
The King of Comedy, Network, Fight Club, and of course, Nolan’s Batman trilogy. Everyone has influences,
of course—and Joker openly acknowledges
them—but I’m not sure that Joker knows
what it wants to say with them.
photo courtesy of washingtonpost.com
Finally, Joker seems ill-conceived as a premise. Why tell a Joker origin story? Conventional
storytelling wisdom cautions against overexplaining a character’s motivations,
and much of the Joker’s power as a character stems from the mystery surrounding
him in most iterations (see Ledger’s Joker’s numerous, conflicting backstories).
Why does the role of the Joker, by virtue
of his madness, call for an A-list actor giving a performance full of gravitas?
Nicholson and Ledger set high dramatic bars, yes, but comic book actors need
not always be virtuosos. Why should we inject
realism or grittiness into this character? Comic books are inherently
fantastical, and we betray our conflicted embarrassment of them when we try to
make them more “adult.” And it’s worth considering why a movie like this should be released today. I’m not for
censorship, but the story of a stilted man slipping into madness and committing
acts of senseless violence—especially such a story told with sympathy—seems crucially
shortsighted.
Joker
is rated R for strong bloody violence, disturbing behavior, language and brief
sexual images.
No comments:
Post a Comment