Film Review: Joker
Rebecca Daly reviews the controversy surrounding Todd Phillips’ recent film, Joker.
Villains have undoubtedly evolved in mainstream film, and we are now being asked to understand the minds of characters that were once assumed inherently evil. In many cases this adds a new dimension to the narrative, allowing audiences to understand the motives behind the actions of these characters. However, the recent controversial film Joker left me wondering where the line is drawn when asking an audience to empathise with a ‘villain’.
Joker centres around Arthur Fleck, a wannabe stand-up comedian who works by day as a clown-for-hire. Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of the character was arguably the highlight of the film. With the camera planted firmly in front of Phoenix for much of the film’s duration, we are shown every tiny expression and mannerism. Arthur is initially painted as a lonely outsider. Alongside his job he cares for his elderly mother, but despite this he is shunned by the rest of society. Before the title had even appeared on screen, Arthur, during one of his jobs, was attacked by a group of teenagers who beat him up and left him lying injured on the ground. This scene set the tone for a large part of the film, in which members of the public repeatedly bully and abuse Arthur unprovoked, eventually pushing him to his limit.
How is it that a seemingly innocent man could be so unlucky as to get continuously targeted by society? I found myself asking this question throughout the film but was never able to sufficiently answer it. At worst, lazy writing is the way to make sense of Arthur’s progression from an aspiring comedian to a stone-cold killer. But despite a lack of subtlety, it does succeed in evoking a certain sympathy for the character during the first half of the film. This is the origin of much of the controversy surrounding this film, due to the difficulty in finding a balance between understanding the main character and his motives, whilst avoiding the glorification of his actions during the second half of the film. The main concern is about those who do not find that balance, viewing the events of the film much like the mask-wearing fans Arthur gains in the film: as justified acts of revenge against the society that cast him out, striking many as similar to ‘incel’ culture.
The term ‘incel’ is a portmanteau of ‘involuntary celibate’ and has been floating around the internet since the nineties, where its users still predominantly reside. It began branching out from internet forums into national headlines following the 2014 Isla Vista killings, in which a 22-year-old man went on a killing spree, motivated by a desire to ‘punish’ society, in particular women, for rejecting him. This has caused so much concern that American cinema chain Landmark Theatres banned costumes and make-up from all Joker screenings, in an attempt to prevent an event similar to the 2012 Colorado shooting, where a mass shooting occurred during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises.
It is probable that much of this extreme reaction can be attributed to the large part that violence plays in the film. In fact, it could be said that it drives the narrative of the film, with the initial violence of society against Arthur at the film’s opening ultimately leading to Arthur’s violence against society at the film’s end. Perhaps, then, whether we agree with the notion that the bloodshed in Joker is excessive depends on whether we believe it is an appropriate technique for propelling the plot forward.
An interesting thing to note is that one scene in particular, which many would deem the most violent, is also the one that drew the most laughter from the audience. Moments when Arthur was hit with inconvenient bouts of laughter, due to what is explained as a medical condition, also got a few hesitant chuckles. What these moments have in common is that this is the laughter of an audience unsure whether they should be laughing.
This uncertainty reflects the many grey areas presented in the film, resulting in my questioning of what my reaction ‘should’ be in our current society. Is it wrong to laugh during the film? Is it wrong to pity Arthur when he is being singled out and attacked by strangers, considering what he goes on to do? By the film’s climax, I was confused as to how the film wanted me to feel about Arthur Fleck. Perhaps the true aim of the film was not to pass judgement on the character, but instead encourage us to think about our reaction to his story and prompt us to pass judgement on that instead.