It's good. Kind of.

Rating: 6/10 (1 April 2020)

'Joker' follows the story of Arthur Fleck, a troubled amateur comedian who is constantly beaten down by society, driving his transformation into the iconic comic book villain, Joker. With a great lead performance, good sense of atmosphere, an original score and pleasing visual style it is unfortunately let down by the script. Presenting underdeveloped themes, cheesy dialogue, cartoonish logic and poorly written characters. What is ultimately a slightly above average film has fuelled debate and division among film fans.
'Joker' is a good movie. Kind of. It is entertaining on a first viewing but the more you think about the film, the less valuable it becomes, and the more issues start to arise. Joaquin Phoenix is without a doubt the film's greatest strength, he is one of the finest actors working today and while this is not his best performance it is still very good. After winning best actor at the Academy Awards it is likely that this will be the performance that most audience members come to know him for. Phoenix portrays the underlying sinister nature of Arthur as well as evoking pathos for his traumatic experience, making Arthur a character that is simultaneously pitied and feared. In addition to provoking emotion Phoenix brings gravitas to the roll, elevating what could have been comical dialogue in the hands of a lesser actor and giving it a sense of weight and believability.
More stylish than most comic book adaptations, the film's design feels grimy and lived in, the period aesthetic bolstering the idea that Gotham city is run down, and the society locked in a negative cycle. The filth that festers and spreads through Arthur's world is captured for the screen with well composed cinematography. The colour, high contrast lighting, and effective use of shallow focus gives the frame a pleasing visual texture. The obvious attention to detail from DOP Lawrence Sher imbues the film with an artistic integrity often lost in a genre saturated by creatively stifled corporate products. The award-winning score from Hildur Guðnadóttir also deserves mention, with boldness and originality it is effective and emotive, carrying much of the film's tonal weight, picking up the slack where the writing falls short.
The downfall of this film is the writing. The first half of the film is comically mean to the point of absurdity. Burdened by a very slow first act with little plot, the audience are subjected to a repetitive loop of Arthur being beaten down both figuratively and literally. It is effective in presenting Arthur as a victim of his circumstances however the excess of his suffering makes it unbelievable. Accompanied by the lack of narrative progression, it comes across as the writers stopping the story to over explain the idea that society made Arthur the way he is. The film is plagued with obvious writing lacking any complexity or subtly.
The movie presents in a very self-serious manner but doesn't follow through with a clever plot or nuanced themes. There is plenty going on, but nothing is sufficiently developed. For instance, the social uprising that is sparked by the Joker is unearned. While there is clearly a class divide in Gotham there is a lack of build-up and no attempt from the screen writers to delve deeper into why the class divide exists, or what it is either side of the divide wants.
But perhaps the plot doesn't need to be amazing, if it's a character study then the characterisation and character arc should be strong enough to carry the movie. Right? Writer/director Todd Phillips claims 'Joker' is a character study. However, it is difficult to write a compelling character study with a passive protagonist, one whose goals or actions are not the driving force of the plot. Arthur's lack of action comes as a result of his lack of clearly defined goals. Without a strong motivation he ends up reacting to the plot rather than driving it. This makes for a less compelling lead character and limits the opportunity for the writers to provide commentary on Arthur's intentions.
So, where does the film sit morally? Arthur is clearly presented as a victim, and with practically all the other characters being exceedingly mean or evil, his violence seems to be justified. Presenting Arthur's violent outburst as his 'hero moment' and not providing an in-text counter voice of reason is somewhat morally irresponsible from the script and is further evidence of the lack of complexity. The film is angry at the world but not sure why it's angry or how to fix it. It is important to note that the film is not directly condoning violence, the performance from Phoenix and the score work in tandem to convey that these are the horrific acts of a delusional man. But, the openness of the film's message call into question what it was Todd Phillips was trying to say with this movie. The film becomes a kind of blank slate where audience members can project their own thesis statement about the broad issues the film identifies.
For a more believable and morally complex world the film should offer a strong counter to Arthur. Yes, the film is from Arthur's subjective point of view but that shouldn't prevent the film from presenting an opposing view to his. While we as an audience will see the same things Arthur sees, how we see those things can still be different. A believable and complex world is not a necessity for good story telling, but if a film presents itself with the gritty self-importance that 'Joker' does then it should follow through with a more mature execution. While ultimately audience takeaway is more important than authorial intent there is still valid criticism in the film's execution of its goals.
Why tell this story in a Joker origin movie? Obviously, the cynical reason is because comic book movies are some of the most successful and recognisable IP in Hollywood. The inclusion of comic book references such as the Wayne family feel forced and unnecessary having very little baring on the story and serving little purpose outside of the tenuous connection to the source material. There is nothing wrong with bending the source material to fit the story you want to tell but this film is trying so hard to be a 'real' movie that the comic book elements feel out of place and the film would have been stronger as an original concept. There is, however, a strong crutch provided by the source material that the film can sneakily lean on. We as an audience know that the Joker is supposed to be the bad guy and we know that Arthur is eventually going to snap and take that dive into comic book villainy. Phillips takes advantage of this giving the film a palpable, yet cheap, sense of anticipation.
With all this in mind 'Joker' will for some people be well-crafted and entertaining, for others it will be thematically messy and problematic, and for some the film may be a deeply provocative character study that shines a light on class segregation and mental illness. Any of these reactions are justifiable when discussing the subjective nature of cinema. But, perhaps each of these different interpretations would benefit from a more critical analysis and a consideration of other perspectives, re-assessing the film's intent and success.