Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019)

The year is 1981. Arthur Fleck is a party clown and a social outsider who aspires to become a stand-up comedian. He lives with his mother, Penny, in an apartment in Gotham City. The rigid class system in this society has resulted in large segments of the population unemployed, disenfranchised, and impoverished. Arthur himself has it worse than most due to his crippling mental disorders. Things reach their absolute nadir when a group of delinquents steal Arthur’s sign, attacking him as he catches up to them. Still, he holds out hope that one day, it will all work out.

How a superhero origin story typically panned out was common knowledge by 2019. The protagonist started off the film in a bad way. Perhaps they lost their parents. Maybe they’re considered a loser by everyone else. It could even be something as simple as the mundanity of everyday life weighing them down. Regardless of their background, they would then discover their powers at the end of the first act and learn of the great responsibility that comes with them as the second draws to a close. The third act would then culminate in one final battle against their archnemesis. As superhero films tend to be idealistic, the protagonist would invariably win, thus allowing them to use their abilities to help others wherever they may need it.

With Joker, Todd Philips takes the comic book film formula and smashes it into millions of pieces.  Simply by virtue of placing a well-known supervillain in the lead role, you know the tragic ending of this film is a forgone conclusion. In fact, this is precisely what manages to make the film such a challenging watch. Arthur is forced to live in the absolute worst cesspool of crime, classism, and general human hostility and you know there is no light at the end of the tunnel for him. Indeed, even those who have never so much as touched a comic book in their lives know Arthur is destined to embrace the madness surrounding him, thus becoming its avatar. Because the manner in which the film is to end is painstakingly obvious, the mystery lies in the path it will take to get there.

The announcement of Joker was met with a certain amount of skepticism. The Joker is one of the most iconic villains in the history of fiction, yet ironically, very little is known about him. Several people attempted to give him an origin story in the decades since his debut in 1940. All of them are at least partially true, and it’s implied on multiple occasions that the Joker himself isn’t sure. This added to the character’s mystique. Most of the other members of Batman’s rogue’s gallery had a backstory, thus allowing the Dark Knight to understand them. The knowledge would allow him to emerge triumphant.  The Joker, on the other hand, simply is. By having such a vague past, one questions if he exists or if he’s even human. His sheer insanity ensures that even DC villains with actual superpowers are afraid of him.

The very premise of Mr. Philips’s film thus seems entirely counterproductive. Presenting Arthur as a victim of circumstance completely goes against the Joker’s modus operandi of committing evil acts for their own sake. He and co-writer Scott Silver even go as far as explaining away the Joker’s iconic evil laugh. In this depiction, Arthur has a mental disorder brought on by an abusive childhood that occasionally results in bouts of uncontrollable laughter – a Pseudobulbar affect, to be precise. There is not an ounce of joy to be found in Arthur’s laughter, and in a realistic touch, he carries a card to give people that explains his behavior if it temporarily renders him inarticulate.

In less capable hands, the film would only succeed in dispelling the character’s mystique much like what happened to Darth Vader in George Lucas’s Star Wars prequel films. Joker manages to avoid this problem by instead supplying its audience with a scathing satire of society and the media it consumes. Ever since he was a child, Arthur has idolized a talk show host named Murray Franklin, hoping to become as famous as him one day. This aspiration has been the single ray of hope in what is otherwise a dreary existence. He sees stand-up comedy as a way to achieve his goal. However, he begins laughing uncontrollably upon taking center stage. Murray then proceeds to use a clip of Arthur for the sole purpose of insulting him on national television. It’s a great way to demonstrate the extreme lack of empathy the media can have.

Indeed, the worst part about all of this is that Arthur’s environment only succeeds in hastening his decent. Gotham City as it is depicted in this film is mirrors the state of New York City throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This era was defined its anomalously severe crime waves. It was to the point where people could randomly find dead bodies in subway cars – though not all of them were murder victims. The film does an excellent job capturing what the city was like in that era. You see trash bags out in the open, flickering subway lights, and graffiti on the walls. As is often the case, the people’s sheer apathy of their surroundings results in worse attitudes overall. Why bother acting pleasant when nobody else cares?

The most significant turning point mirrors a real life incident often considered representative of how bad things became in New York City during this time. While traveling on a subway, Arthur is accosted by three inebriated businessmen from Wayne Enterprises. After harassing a female passenger, they set their sights on him due to having another one of his bouts while in clown makeup. Arthur, completely fed up with everything, pulls out a gun and fatally shoots the businessmen. Notably, he kills the last one while he was wounded and trying to escape.

This is an overt reference to an incident in 1984 in which Bernhard Goetz shot and wounded four African-American gang members on a subway train. The shooter’s actions were exacerbated by several racially charged statements he later issued. Regardless, it is often thought of as the moment in which the citizens of New York City couldn’t bear the high crime rates for a second longer and made a unified effort to clamp down on the problems plaguing the community. Their efforts would show after 1990 when homicides dropped faster than they had risen, leaving experts baffled. By the late-2010s, New York City would be considered one of the safest major cities in the world.

For Gotham City, Arthur’s killing of the Wayne businessmen would also have a significant impact. Specifically, it inspires other disenfranchised people to begin a violent countercultural revolution, donning clown masks of their own. Indeed, Thomas Wayne, who is usually depicted as a benevolent philanthropist, is shown to be a textbook elitist. His attempts at making Gotham City a better place comes from a position that actively chooses not to understand why people are lashing out. If one didn’t know any better, one might get the impression this film was nothing but a hit piece on an otherwise upstanding citizen.

Interestingly, the film itself seems to subtly enforce this interpretation. In a move highly reminiscent of American Psycho, the narrative is presented from the point of view of a mentally ill individual. Arthur is shown to be highly delusional and is prone to daydreaming. As the film goes on, you begin to realize that things may not be as they seem. Arthur stalks a neighbor through the streets only for her to inexplicably start dating him and show support for the violent clowns’ movement. If you thought this to be highly unrealistic, you would be correct. A later scene shows her freaking out when he appears in her apartment. In other words, the relationship never happened. Later on, Arthur concludes that he is the illegitimate son of Thomas Wayne. Every interaction they have involves Thomas violently rebuffing Arthur, making you wonder if the former’s condescending attitude is purely a fabrication of the latter’s imagination.

Ultimately, the very reason this film shines is because it manages to be ambiguous about a lot of crucial details, and places the onus on the audience to figure things out. Is Arthur really Thomas’s son? Did the billionaire pull strings in order to get out of supporting him? Is Arthur, having been deprived of the several medications he needs to stay sane thanks to an uncaring system, concocting a fantasy to give his life meaning? You never know what is real in this film, which allows it to be a truly fascinating character study. It cannot be overstated that a filmmaker putting so much faith in their audience was extremely rare in the late-2010s, making Joker the breath of fresh air the industry desperately needed at the time.

While the premise of the rich getting their just desserts might bind the film to the 2010s permanently, it features a level of nuance contemporary works lack. While Arthur is put through the wringer, certain people do have a reason to be angry with him. Arthur’s boss is shown to lack empathy, but he does correctly call him out on bringing a gun to a children’s hospital. Even Thomas Wayne’s hostility towards him makes a lot of sense when you consider that Arthur stuck his fingers into the mouth of his son, Bruce, in an attempt to get him to smile. Anything less than unbridled rage would’ve been considered downright neglectful.

Things reach a boiling point when Arthur learns of his mother’s deceptions and smothers her with a pillow. Realizing at that exact moment his life is a comedy, he fully embraces the Joker persona given to him by the malcontents. Former co-workers Gary and Randall, hearing about the passing of Arthur’s mother, bring a cake in sympathy. For having supplied him with the gun that got him fired and later getting him in trouble for it, he brutally kills Randall using a pair of scissors. This is the single most nerve-wracking sense in the entire film. Everyone knows the extent of the Joker’s depravity, so the audience is fully expecting for Arthur to murder Gary for the fun of it. He allows Gary to leave due to being one of the few people who was genuinely kind to him. However, Gary, being a dwarf, can’t reach the chain lock. Arthur then takes a few steps to the door and removes the chain, fulfilling his promise.

The climax of the film occurs when Arthur accepts Murray’s invitation to his show. A far cry from the man who used to idolize Murray, Arthur significantly changes the mood of the show when he begins cracking morbid jokes. He then confesses to having killed the three businessmen, going on a rant about how society has failed him. He emphasizes his point by pulling out his gun and shooting Murray in the head.

This leads to my favorite moment in the entire film. Arthur walks to the camera and apes Murray’s sign-off catchphrase, but is suddenly interrupted by a “Technical Difficulties” card – “Spanish Flea” naturally plays in the background. This juxtaposition of silliness and a pitch-black nihilism was perfect. A touch I especially enjoyed is that the other news stations replay Arthur’s murder. The censors thought to bleep out his profane language, yet leave footage of the murder itself untouched. It’s an excellent commentary on the contradictory standards of network television; you can show extreme violence, but swearing is just plain wrong. Then again, there’s also the fact that one cameraman lingers before fleeing the studio. He is horrified at what he has just seen, yet cannot turn away. So dedicated are the executives to ratings that they demonstrate a willingness to throw their own star under the bus, showing his last moments of life because it makes for great television.

Even if jokes are peppered throughout to lighten the mood, there is no escaping the sheer enormity of the ending. Arthur is apparently broken out of a police car only to be worshiped by the malcontents as their leader. Although the scene is presented as a triumphant moment, it is about as far away from a happy ending as one can get. A once well-meaning person has now become the single greatest threat to the city and its citizens. Even if Arthur was hoping, in some twisted sense, people would finally accept him for who he is, he still doesn’t get that. It is clear the demonstrators merely adore him purely because he is a face for their cause. They don’t care about Arthur; they care about the Joker. If he didn’t line up with their beliefs, they would kick him around just like the degenerates who stole his sign. In the end, Arthur became a monster – and he learns to enjoy every second of it.

It’s rather telling that while critics generally didn’t like Joker, artists loved it. The film won the Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival, and it had no shortage of big-name fans. Among those praising the film were Josh Brolin, Jessica Chastain, Vincent D’Onofrio, and Mark Hamill – the last of whom notably portrayed the Joker in the animated Batman series that ran from 1992 to 1995. It wasn’t just a hit amongst actors and actresses either; acclaimed filmmakers such as Michael Moore, Ana Lily Amirpour, Kelly Fremon Craig, Alex Ross Perry, and Guillermo del Toro had nothing but praise for it. Considering the most common argument against the film was that it wouldn’t be good for anything other than to inspire white men to commit mass shootings, this highly diverse fanbase completely renders such arguments null and void. It also suggests that, despite the critics’ insistence to the contrary, Joker did have a profound artistic statement to make. It is highly unlikely that many big-name filmmakers, actors, and actresses could be led astray.

On top of that, while critics considered Joker polarizing, audiences had no problems accepting it with many of them considering it one of the best films of the year and a great homage to the works of Martin Scorsese – particularly Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. In this regard, Joker reminds me of the various successful indie video games in the latter half of the 2010s, which were often ignored by the press only to gain devoted followings. To put it another way, it was a case in which the common person proved they had better taste than those paid to pen their opinions.

What I feel ultimately allows Joker to triumph over the other satirical works of its day is one simple factor: applicability. Satires in the late-2010s left zero room for interpretation, and the sheer amount of control contemporary auteurs wielded ensured you had to leave the theater having appreciated the film entirely on their terms rather than your own. This resulted in a lot of works that became dated within seconds of their debuts. Joker doesn’t have that problem. Many people of differing viewpoints can sympathize with Arthur for various reasons, be they critical of society or simply empathetic to the mentally ill. Because of the many, many jabs Mr. Philips makes at the expense of the media and society, it’s ultimately left to the viewer as to what Joker symbolizes – an art long lost in filmmaking by 2019. For taking its audience seriously and openly challenging the countless unfortunate tendencies prevalent in those paid to voice their opinions at the time, Joker stands as one of the decade’s last standout efforts.

Final Score: 7.5/10

32 thoughts on “Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019)

  1. Not seen it yet, so I skim read to avoid spoilers. But I’m looking forward to seeing it, but I’m not expecting the total masterpiece some have made out. Primarily a sect of angry people who think feminism is destroying modern cinema.


    • I get your concerns, but as I said, there were plenty of people who thought it was a masterpiece and clearly don’t fall into that category. My community is pretty big into feminism and other progressive causes, and everyone I’ve spoken to thought it was great. Speaking on a more general level, I just don’t think that it would’ve been embraced by fans so thoroughly if it only appealed to the people you speak of; it would’ve alienated everyone else – including myself. Really, American critics were the only faction that had problems with the film, and I firmly believe it’s because it refused to play by their rules. Even the irascible lightweight known as Owen Gleiberman, who can’t help but inject his left-leaning political rhetoric into every single piece he writes, was among those praising it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. That was an interesting review. I never thought a DC movie would have some arthouse aspects. It does make me wonder if the success of this movie is going to lead to some trend of villain-based movies with various backstories going on.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks! That is a distinct possibility, though if they end up good, I won’t complain too much. Then again, I can also see this being a one-time-only deal. We’ll just have to see. What I can say for now is that Joker was a solid effort; seeing actual arthouse aspects in a comic-book film was a great change of pace to shake things up, and I’m glad it managed to do so well.

      Liked by 1 person

      • No problem. I kind of noticed that with the announcement of that Cruella movie being made, but I wasn’t sure if there was a connection to Joker’s success or not. The movie (while I haven’t seen it) does seem like a one-and-done thing separate from the DC canon. That is cool how they tried something different. Now, if DC were to take chances to make movies of other characters, that would be great. I certainly have ideas.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Now some critics are claiming an attack will occur if Joaquin Phoenix gets an Oscar for his performance. It’s very strange. This is just another sign of how disconnected the critics have become from the audience.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Personally, I think it’s also a sign of how artistically conservative critics have become. Their predecessors of the late-1970s/early-1980s wouldn’t have bat an eyelash over something like Joker, hence their praise of Taxi Driver and other New Hollywood classics. The way they decry Joker is eerily similar to the old guard who decried Bonnie and Clyde back in 1967. Joker is a film that abjectly refuses to play by their rules, and emerged a superior effort to a majority of their sacred cows as a direct result.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I was intrigued simply upon hearing the names Joaquin Phoenix and Todd Phillips attached to a movie about the Joker, but grew a little weary constatnly hearing both sides of the argument. I hoped it wasn’t going to be one of those movies/games that were unsettlingly heavy JUST for the sake of being it; this was pretty much was I had heard about the campaign for the Modern Warfame reboot too.

    Having recently watched the movie, I’m a little confused as to what it was that caused such a frenzy with people. I didn’t find the movie as “incel-friendly” as reviews I’d read; I thought it was more of a condemnation of our lack of empathy amongst others, particularly people suffering from mental illness. The “eat the rich” or “1%” sentiments found in the movie are also the same that most of the left-leaning media would usually espouse in any other movie. Todd Phillips’ many statements after the release of the movie certainly didn’t help matters either…

    I had no doubt that Joaquin Phoenix would be amazing as the Joker, but the great camera work and overall feeling of tension while watching the movie had me thinking “this is the same guy that directed Old School and Road Trip??”. It’s also funny how Phillips firmly stated he had no interest in making “comic book movies” or any sort of follow-up to Joker, but after making over a billion dollars Warner Bros. seems to have a different idea…

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have to admit I wasn’t too keen on seeing it myself until someone I really trusted recommended it. Turns out the critics were full of hot air (again). The important takeaway is that the media would have you believe it’s polarizing, but by and large the only people who had any problems with it were critics and those who blindly subscribe to their ethos.

      There was/is a lot of negative press surrounding this film, and it is wholly undeserved. In fact, I kind of wonder if the media themselves may have manufactured the preemptive outrage about how it’ll inspire incels. If so, they really shot themselves in the foot. I don’t think many people were using the film for that purpose, but if they are now, the media themselves implanted that idea in their head. They really can be their own worst enemy. But, no, this film absolutely did not deserve that condemnation, and I’m glad the audience wasn’t led astray. You definitely bring up a good point in how critics/journalists seemed dismissive of Joker despite the heavy “eat the rich” themes present. It would seem that such a narrative would be a major hit. Indeed, I have no idea why cultural critics such as Jonathan McIntosh praise Parasite and condemn Joker despite having similar sentiments. Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if Todd Philips made those statements for the express purpose of exploiting the media to get his film promoted. If so, the media played right into his hand. I also feel this film didn’t resonate with critics because they’re so used to the manufactured art A24 produces that when something truly provocative came out, they had no idea what to do with it. Fortunately, audiences had no such problems.

      I can imagine this would be quite a shock after the Hangover trilogy! Joaquin Phoenix is absolutely amazing in this role. I’m not sure if it really should have a sequel, but it might not be a terrible idea.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Great review, as usual! I watched it and enjoyed it greatly, and – like you mentioned – the fact that different people have very different takes on the movie, and none of them can be entirely dismissed, speaks wonders about the artistic merit of Joker.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks! The sheer amount of applicability this film has is astonishing. It feels really out of place among contemporary satirical works wherein you walked away knowing exactly what the director wanted you to think. I also find it interesting how critics didn’t like it, but artists did. That to me suggests that there will be a significant reevaluation of it in the future – it could very well end up getting same treatment The Prestige got.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the film as well. Once you get past its lukewarm critical reception, it turns out the film has quite a lot to offer, huh? It was certainly no accident that it won the Golden Lion Award, I’d say.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Right. What I liked was it connected a motive for his killing Bruce Waynes parents.
        Cesar Romero was a terrible Joker-his laugh unnerved me . the movie explained a reason for the laugh though clearly he had Bulbar syndrome from the blow he received while tied to the radiator. I thought that part was brilliant. Science had not discovered the syndrome at that time period- which causes uncontrollable laughter or crying… Cheers


  6. I have not seen it. I definitely plan too though. Sounds like an interesting interpretation to day the least.

    The biggest problems with clowns, the emotions are mirrored reflections of reality. What lays behind the paint? No one knows. And that is what gives them their allure and their fearsome qualities.


    • Yeah, it’s definitely worth a watch, I’d say. It knows how to be satirical without being annoying about it, which is a rare skill in contemporary filmmaking.

      I myself am not afraid of clowns, but a lot of people are, so that’s probably why they tend to get these monstrous depictions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks! Glad you liked the review. This is probably one of the very few instances I can think of in which the only faction that had a problem with the film were the critics (well them and anyone who blindly takes their word). Must make the 11 nominations it received sting a lot, huh?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Truly thorough and excellent review of Joker. I haven’t yet watched it, though I plan to, but it’s interesting to see how it’s already raising conflicted feelings for me. I very much believe that I will sympathise with the Joker’s plight though I think that will come with my own bias – more so because the victims, from what I’ve read in your review, do not come across as sympathetic. Where it differs is that, in reality, such victims tend to be targeted for other more unjustifiable reasons e.g. hate crime. It’s interesting that it holds a mirror up to the audience – our sympathy is incumbent on who the victims are and how much of the tragedies, contained in the backstory, that we can relate to.


    • That is certainly one way to look at it. However, I felt that there was a real lack of catharsis to the murders Arthur committed. It doesn’t help that, aside from the young men on the subway (and one of them was not killed under justifiable self-defense), he ends up killing people who, while unlikable, didn’t really deserve to die. Really, the film puts more of an emphasis on the fall of Arthur than it does the rise of the Joker. This isn’t a cathartic power fantasy for angry white men; it’s a tragedy that showcases how badly society can fail certain people. It’s easy to get swept up in what the media has to say about this film, so it’s for the best to go into it with an open mind. I can tell you right now that plenty of people in my community, who are about as far away from the media-imposed stereotype of this fan as one can get, thought it was one of the best films of the year. All in all, this was a film that critiqued the media, and because the media aren’t exactly the type who can take criticism, it’s not terribly surprising they found it divisive.


      • The lack of catharsis to the murders Arthur commits, I’m now curious as to whether this was intentional on the directors part? If so, it would be a brilliant point to make and perhaps is a way to capture the sense of hopelessness in the murders he commits – I often find that it’s hopelessness that drives some to commit murders like this. The inability to conjure hope, so that even those who don’t truly deserve to die are killed, could be a way to conjure at least a little hope. It’s a vicious cycle that encapsulates how entrenched our capitalist systems ignore those who need help. In a way, perhaps the film is beneficial because it’s a way to make us realise how much we need to work on.


  8. Pingback: The 92nd Academy Awards’ “Best Picture” Nominees Ranked from Worst to Best | Extra Life

    • Thanks! The critics completely dropped the ball on this one, so I’m glad the film did so well. Also, Mr. Phoenix walked away with a well-deserved “Best Actor” award. Not too shabby, huh?


        • Ah good, glad you agree. Stuff like this makes me wonder if there will be another critic revolution like there was in the late 1960s when New Hollywood began in earnest or the late 1990s/early 2000s when the internet changed the critical landscape. As it stands, the critical circle is ruled by rampant confirmation bias, which makes taking their suggestions highly difficult. Alternatively, it makes me wonder how many masterpieces they’re letting drop simply because they don’t play by their rules.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.