For Comic Book Nerds, Joker is Surprising, New, and Daring. Film Fans Have Seen Much Better.

Rating: 5/10 (29 January 2020)

Is it close-minded to say that comic book movies should stay in their lane? Most will say yes, and they will praise Joker for expanding the reach of superheroes even further into Hollywood's already saturated landscape. In one way, these people are right. Joker does barely qualify as a comic book movie. Batman and the Gotham City universe are relegated to the background, leaving in the foreground Arthur Fleck, a mentally ill clown who comes to slightly resemble The Clown Prince of Crime. If we have learned anything about comic books fans in the post-Avengers world, it's that they are very easily impressed. So used to their episodic bores they are, that anything that seems slightly more human or cerebral is celebrated as a revolutionary triumph. Joker is the latest comic book movie to get that treatment. From the director of The Hangover comes a movie starring everyone's favorite Batman villain in a capital F Film, that is most definitely not your average superhero movie. I don't see that as a positive. Joker tries very very hard to be a respected human character-piece. But because it strains in every moment to prove its worth as "more than" a Batman movie, I couldn't embrace it.
Joker is a protracted origin story for Batman's eventual arch-nemesis. It revolves around Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) a failed clown turned stand-up comedian who dreams of making it big. He is bullied and broken down by the system, leading to an eventual turn to evil. For all the "discourse" (huge scare quotes around that word) surrounding the movie's stance on politics and culture, race and real world violence, Joker is not much more provocative than that. To talk about its deeper themes is useless, because the movie isn't even interested in that stuff. Joker kills some rich guys, he starts a wave of "Rich Guys are Bad" sentiment, and eventually it leads to a small uprising. Along the way, writers Todd Phillips and Scott Silver sprinkle in some lines about mental illness that sound profound but go nowhere. It's as if the filmmakers figured the movie should have some serious themes, but weren't bothered to do the work. And I don't blame them. In fact, if I have a major complaint about the film, it's not that the movie wasn't serious enough, its that it takes itself way too seriously. Just be a comic book movie. If you want to be serious, takes your cues from The Killing Joke, not Taxi Driver. What's apparent all the way through Joker is the effort in which Todd Phillips tries to make this Gotham City "real". If you're so invested in making a Scorsese homage, drop the Batman mythos completely and call your movie 'Fleck'. The problem is, the movie has been a success because of the Batman mythos. I ask you then, why be so embarrassed by it? Make an honest-to-goodness Joker movie. It's the pretending to be "above" comic books that bothers me.
If you run down the technical qualities of Joker, you'll find things to admire. There are some interesting shots, some really gorgeous cinematography and production design showcasing a Gotham City that looks like the world's most beautiful garbage fire. There is a standard of quality here. The movie doesn't flat-out stink. That said, the script kind of does.
But I digress. The only element I find worth discussing at any length is Joaquin Phoenix. He is a whole Hell of a lot of things in this movie, but most of all he is crazy watchable. Phoenix commits with everything he has to freakish physicality. He's got the rail thin body and the large, exaggerated movements of a silent era comedian. Then there's his laugh, uncontrolled and visibly painful. It is something to behold. Simply extremely admirable work from one of the most daring actors out there. The way he speaks dialogue though is a lot less admirable. Phoenix affects a weird child-like cadence that feels forced all the way through. He is going for creepy I suppose, but it comes off awkward. Still, he's in frame for almost the entirety of the movie, and because of him, you can't help but watch.
I just don't see how anyone can walk out of this movie feeling energized by anything outside of the central performance and a few moments of violence. If the movie feigns in the direction of politics or mental illness, it certainly doesn't devote any energy to exploring them. There is far more attention given to the task of trying the shed the comic book image. Admittedly, the movie starts to get interesting in the last 15 minutes. Interesting enough to make you think at least. As patently ridiculous as the talk show scene is, as shoehorned in as some of the lines are, it ends with a genuinely provocative shock. But those final moments are an eleventh hour twist on what is basically a lame super villain origin story without any of the charms of a comic book.
Comic book fans love darkness. In the world of superheroes, Darkness = Greatness. And Joker certainly is dark. It's the kind of thing tailored-made for comic bros who think The Dark Knight is the best movie of the century and Captain America: The Winter Soldier is some kind of monumental leap for cinema. But Joker is painfully transparent to the rest of us in its attempt to be edgy. I continue to implore comic book moviemakers to just play the material how it ought to be played. It's a lesson for every movie ever made, but one I think Todd Phillips really should have taken closer to heart. Joker strains hard for seriousness, desperately clinging to pseudo-profound dialogue, dirge-y strings on the soundtrack, and vacuous flirtations with topical issues. I didn't like it as a Batman-adjacent comic book movie because it constantly tries to push away from its source, and I didn't like it as a character-piece because it's too dependent on your familiarity with Batman's arch-nemesis. I like this movie ONLY as a showcase for Joaquin Phoenix to go absolutely mad with skinny underwear dancing and murder. I saw it, and I have no particular desire to ever think about it again.
55/100