Good but nothing special

Rating: 6/10 (17 January 2020)

Joker is a movie that many have been talking about this year, and I'm not sure if all that talk is justified. Joker is a fine movie: it has a good lead performance, a good score, good cinematography, some quiet moments of subtlety, and it comments on topical issues that give the film some relevance. But beyond that, there isn't much to say about the film. Narratively, it's fairly shallow and simplistic. The overall message of the movie is so simple that this film does not really owe itself to rewatch value, nor do I think it would hold up after one watch.
This film has been called a rorschach test by its lead star, Joaquin Phoenix, and I would certainly agree with him, but not in a positive way. I do agree that think it is up to the viewer to interpret something deeper out of the story, but that is not because the story is smart, but rather because of how simple it is. Arthur Fleck is a mentally-ill person who gets stepped on by everyone around him. Eventually, he takes control of his life, murders some people, and becomes the Joker.
There is nothing wrong with having a simple story, but when every character besides the main character is cartoonishly one dimensional, and when the dialogue is this on the nose, it makes it harder to take this message seriously. The only really memorable character in the film is Arthur himself. Everyone else, from his neighbor across the hall, to his psychiatrist, to Murray, to Arthur's work friend seem to only exist to be thorns in Arthur's side. The movie is strangely repetitive as we are introduced to these four figures in Arthur's life in one scene only to have them betray him in one way or another in the next. This is what I mean when I say the film is simplistic.
Every character and plot beat in the film is against Arthur. The film does not have any smarter way of generating sympathy for Arthur other than making him a punching bag. I think the reason some praise this film while others hate it is because of their ability or inability respectively to relate to the main character. If one relates to Arthur being an outcast, then they can probably find a lot of themselves inside the hyper-exaggerated craziness of the main character. If one does not relate to Arthur, or if one finds his passiveness to be uncompelling, then the film becomes rather dull.
As for me, I was mesmerized by Joaquin Phoenix's performance and I was most happy when the movie let the visuals speak for themselves. As I said before, I found the dialogue in this film rather on the nose, so when the film presents no-dialogue sequences of Arthur dancing, or doing weird stuff like climbing into the fridge, I enjoyed the film. I wish the script had more faith to leave things up to the audience. Instead of just making Arthur the ultimate victim, I think the story would have been more interesting if there were some things that were Arthur's fault and some things that weren't. The closest thing I can think of is Arthur getting fired because he had his gun on him, but the film presents it in a way where Arthur's coworker is really responsible for him having the weapon.
The film is clearly heavily inspired by Martin Scorsese films like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, and sadly it is not as thought provoking as either of them. I normally hate the "this movie isn't very good because this other movie did it better" argument, as that can be the case for virtually every film. But for this movie, I think comparing it to Martin Scorsese films is justified because not only does the film itself make numerous references to these two movies, but the director Todd
Phillips constantly mentions those films being direct influences. Certain scenes, like Arthur idealizing Murray, having a supportive girlfriend who may or may not actually care, and being rejected by countless individuals is straight out of King of Comedy; and Arthur feeling like an outsider to society is clearly reminiscent of Taxi Driver. While Taxi Driver focused on the mentally-ill, prostitutes,
There's nothing wrong with being inspired by other films, but the problem with Joker is that most of its substance is entirely derived from those films. When entire subplots just feel like updated versions of films from the '70's and '80's, I can't help but feel a little unengaged. This movie does add some interesting elements to the usual "man goes mad" formula, but it does not go in any new directions.
I thought the idea of framing Joker's rise as a class war between the rich and poor of the city was a very smart choice. It is very relevant and different from its influences. I just wish that more was explored with how Arthur felt about his followers. It's interesting because Arthur is someone who doesn't care about money; he specifically says he isn't political and yet all the people in clown masks are using his image to make a political statement. I wanted to see what Author felt about that, how he felt still being an outcast even among people that dress and worship him. But we don't really get into that. He just seems vaguely happy when he sees clown-folk, and it's upsetting because I think the movie could have further explored its isolation themes and shown how blind followers are probably not the best catharsis for being alone. It felt strange how Joker just embraced being among people who didn't understand him.
Another subplot I enjoyed but could have used more of was Arthur's imaginary girlfriend. I wasn't sure what the point of this entire subplot was. Is it to show that Arthur's lonely? Because we kind of understand that from the very start of the film. Is it to show that he's crazy? Because we understand that as well. The film doesn't have a real conclusion for this either. Arthur learns he's been imagining things, goes to the real girls apartment, and then just goes about his day. I genuinely don't understand why the imaginary girlfriend was included. At first I thought it was so Arthur could have someone to talk to, but they don't talk about anything really complicated. I think it's just another way for the simplistic script to make Arthur abandoned by someone.
There are other subplots that feel strangely undercooked as well. While Thomas Wayne I thought was well-integrated, everytime Bruce Wayne showed up it took me out of the film. Comic book stuff just does not dwell with this grounded drama. Whenever the film went out of its way to show yet another murder of the Wayne parents, it felt like a studio note. It's like if you were watching Taxi Driver and then all of a sudden Aquaman showed up. Something as over-the-top as Batman just does not belong in this universe, and it was extremely distracting.
Even though this review has been largely negative so far, it is important to talk about what works for me. The score by Hildur Guðnadóttir is fantastic. The quiet scenes where the score gets to convey Arthur's inner conflict work wonderfully. She's won many awards for her score, and its certainly deserved.
The cinematography was also quite spectacular. There are many memorable shots and camera movements and it contributed a lot to why I thought the movie was good at the very least. My favorite shots include Arthur on the train with his head against the window, and Arthur climbing into the refrigerator.
The lead star is also impressive. This isn't Joaquin Phoenix's best performance, but it is still impressive and it helps carry the film. Joaquin adds so much to the movie, and as I've learned, some of the more subtle moments of the film were completely improvised. Scenes of him dancing in the bathroom or climbing into the refrigerator were all smart, visual moments of conveying the journey Arthur was going on. Like I said, if the film had more moments like these, that didn't cram the message down the viewer's throats and let the audience think for themselves, I think the film would have been a masterpiece.
As it stands, Joker is good, but nothing more. It is a well-acted, well-shot film with a decent enough structure of a man taking control of his life. It doesn't fully explore its themes and it owes so much of its existence to Scorsese, that it is hard to say it stands on its own. The viewer has to take it upon themself to give this film value. For me, I enjoyed the ride and it was entertaining enough even if some things left me unsatisfied. It certainly stands apart among the comic book genre (even if it really isn't a comic book film at all), and if it helps introduce people to smarter films of a similar vein, then I suppose it's hard to be mad at that.