Discussion: Joker Afterthoughts

Joker: Discussing Its Laughable Reception

Alright! So, Joker is finally out and I assume most everyone who is going to go out and see the film has by now done so. Like our titular character, this post is going to be a little all over the place with random thoughts, anecdotes and discussion that have popped into my head since seeing the film about one month ago. Obviously, SPOILERS AHEAD.

One thing that I think everyone can agree upon (even most of the assholes that have condemned the film) is Joaquin's astounding performance. Though there are many elements of his manifestation that can be detailed and applauded, there is one in particular that, quite literally, stuck in my head for many days after seeing the film. That is - the laugh. Joker's laugh is one of his most important attributes and each actor who has portrayed Joker has put a unique spin on it. (Hamill and Ledger's are two of my personal favourites.) However, Joaquin (along with Philips and Silver) put a wholly unique spin on it by creating different forms of the infamous cackle. There is the 'normal laugh', the 'reactive laugh', and the 'physiological disorder'. There was something about witnessing the latter two forms during the film that conjured a wholly visceral reaction in me. In particular, was when Arthur is on-stage for his standup comedy and the laughing fit comes over him, causing him to choke and preventing him from speaking or beginning his set. As well, is that very high-pitched laugh he does that, normally, would be a quite comical sound, but its use in the film serves almost as a dark exclamation point after particularly troubling events Arthur is involved in. The sound and the image of these laughs are one of the most memorable things I have seen in cinema in a long while.

Now onto the more controversial chat...

Fuck all those people who have whole-heartedly bashed this film! To be clear, I am referring to 1. the pretentious ivory tower reviewers (i.e. The New Yorker, Guardian, Roger Ebert, etc.) and 2. the general populace who have condemned the film for 'moral/ethical' reasons.

Firstly, I have no issue with people have differing impressions of a film. But when you take such a hard stance, as many of these negative reviewers have done, you have to base your opinion on substance. Having read many of these negative reviews I have seen a common and dismaying trend. That is, many of the negative conclusions are based on a combination of the following factors. One, Joker is still, at its core, a superhero/comic book film, and therefore not real cinema (*ahem* Scorsese...). Two, Todd Phillips, being the director of raunchy comedy films like Road Trip, The Hangover, et al. is not a real director and this 'dramatic outing' does not change that. And, lastly, three, is that Joker is an unsuccessful rehash of former stories and themes of which its predecessors did them better.

I will try to respond to each of these briefly. One, (being someone who enjoys comic book films) all I can say is that you cannot dismiss a film solely based on its so-called 'genre'. This is especially true for professional reviewers. Take a film as its whole and form an opinion based on the actual film and not its labels and related preconceived opinions of those labels. Two, bashing a film based on opinions of its director is just bullshit. Yes, I am looking at you Glenn Kenny of Roger Ebert and many others... Just because Phillips has made comedies (some of which had quite juvenile humour) doesn't mean he cannot branch out into other genres, or, have the skill/talent to succeed in doing so. Lastly, every piece of art has taken inspiration from what came before. The difference with Joker is that it didn't try to hide a few of its most direct inspirations (Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy). In fact, the director of those former films was, for a while, a producer of Joker. It was an inspired choice of direction for the story and an innovative one too in taking those seminal films and transferring elements from them in a fresh direction with a comic book story and its infamous 'protagonist'. In no way is Joker trying to compete with those former films or its creators, as well, the film does not detract from the legacies from those films. It is simply its own entity and should be judged as such.

With regards to the moral/ethical condemnation, I find it difficult to listen to these discussions knowing that the same could be said of so so so many other films that have come before (or books, tv shows, etc.). There is no way that Joker 'incites violence' more than any other similarly-plotted story that shows a progression that leads to a person committing violence. And this argument really sounds just like one more scapegoat route that the right-wing has put out there to turn heads away from debate on gun rights and other more relevant discussions. The list of similar movies/stories really is endless. Carrie is about a bullied student that exacts revenge. Breaking Bad and The Godfather are both about seemingly good men who end up becoming violent and arguably evil. Those are ones where the transition is obvious. There are many other stories where the justification of violence is much more blurred and/or celebrated. Should not any of the plethora of violent revenge films not garner the same criticism of Joker? Or Tarantino, Von Trier and those other colourfully violent filmmakers (yes, many of them do continually receive condemnation)? The fact that this conversation has resulted from Joker is not my issue, it is the fact that this conversation has bled into the reasoning for the film to receive negative reviews.

What are your thoughts? Agree, disagree with my lengthy rant? Let me know in the comments below.