A Welcome Aboard movie for newbie cinephiles

Rating: 7/10 (13 January 2020)

On top of everything that is going on and actually went on, the hype, the negative critics, the awards and the nominations, I have to state firmly that Joker is a solid, good movie, good enough to drive one into the deeper world of more eye-opening, profounding cinema than their usual favorite superhero flicks. This rather untraditional out-of-comic-book adaptation captures the theme of 'society to insanity' at a reasonably compelling level while delivering it in a dirty-beautiful 80s New Yorky Gotham, all displayed on screen with state-of-the-art color grading. But did it move me the way Psycho or One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest did? Needless to say, 3 different movies can't be compared for the most part but considering all 3 have that same 'insanity' atmosphere going on, Joker didn't push me to that very end of my seat.
However, unlike most of what people who didn't enjoy Joker had to say about their taste in violence or acting, my judgement comes from quite an opposite direction. While most of them think Joker is too violent, I think Joker is not violent enough. While also some of them said Joaquin's performance was sub par after seeing the movie, I say he did great, way too good to be exact.
The reason I have behind this thought came around after I have not only seen the movie, but also taken a look at the original script and some behind the scene stuff. What I found out was, Joker is supposed to be way more down-deep crazy and gory. Arthur, in the screenplay, was going to rip his mouth off with a piece of glass to enlarge his smile and to become the full embodiment of the Joker, right in the middle of this chaotic riot on the burning street of Gotham. I wondered how impactful and stunning was it going to be if the actual ending was just that. But it didn't make it to the final work, and so were many too-cool-for-school words and plays in the script shared the same fate. At that moment, I realized the studio still wanted to please the crowd, even when the R-rated tag can't be avoided. And to do that, they intentionally missed many opportunity to turn this thing in to an absolute dark masterpiece. Now if I watch Joker again, I will see the scars from that destructive action in every frame, which is not quite what I think is enjoyable.
If that visible hole from the film was still one way or another can be neglected, then Joaquin's performance definitely cannot. He did such a great job, it was perfect. However, that is exactly why I felt less of Arthur Fleck the character and more of Joaquin Phoenix the actor, which is to me, defeats the purpose of acting in cinema.
The weight losing, the psychotic behavior studying, he did a lot of work, which is a thing all the Awards love: an accomplished & wealthy actor willing to shed tears, blood and sweat doing hard physical labor for the sake of art.
In contrary to that, my concept of what is great acting differs. Great acting is supposed to be effortless. When the acting reach its highest level, the actor is the character and vice versa, so when he or she acts, it's not really acting, it's just showing, living, being their usual self. One of the nicer examples of great effortless acting would be Faye Wong in Chungking Express. It's Faye's first role in her career, but she made it look like she already did a thousand films more or less. The character she played, also named Faye, is technically herself in a different world. When you watch Chungking Express, no way would you be able to see Faye the actress-pop superstar. You can only see Faye the character, and that's it.
Now back to Joker, I can't say I saw the same thing. I could feel Joaquin's admirable effort, I saw that he's trying to get in character, and that's the problem: I am not supposed to see or feel any of that. To me, Joker is a step down from Her with Joaquin, if you just forget about the awards and really consider the magic acting brings to cinema beyond corrupted competition.