Troubling, dark, engrossing

Rating: 8/10 (15 October 2019)

Was never into the whole comic book thing (the last Batman I saw was played by Michael Keaton) but this film was sold to me on the basis that it's more a portrayal of one man's descent into madness than a CGI-fuelled superhero adventure.
Comparisons with Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy certainly helped (not to mention the presence of the star of both of those films, Robert De Niro), as well as the leading man, an actor of whom I'm quickly becoming a devoted fan, Joaquin Phoenix. With all this considered, I armed myself with the extremely scant knowledge of the Batman universe that I possess and off to the pictures I went.
Well, what I and the packed cinema saw was an acting tour de force. I never saw Heath Ledger's legendary portrayal of the titular character but I really don't know how it can beat Phoenix's portrayal here. Admittedly, I think I'm right in saying that Ledger portrayed Joker whereas for most of this film, Phoenix is portraying Arthur Fleck and perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much. There's no denying that Joker is an intensely interesting character but for me, seeing the human behind the face-paint and his tumultuous unravelling is far more fascinating than the monster he becomes.
Much has been made of how dark this film is and that is certainly true; how it is a 15 certificate is more a sign of the times than anything because this film pulls no punches. The violence is, at times, extremely graphic and the portrayal of a man so troubled is often deeply unsettling. All of which, set against a relentlessly grim Gotham backdrop, is utterly necessary to give the film the atmosphere and the feel it requires but I did wonder how this film will sit in a franchise that, while not explicitly aimed at kids, nevertheless appeals to younger audiences the way Batman always has. 'The Dark Knight Rises' was a 12A; Joker should really be an 18 and trust me, you really don't want to be taking your kids to see it if you want them to get a good night's sleep afterwards.
What isn't in any doubt is the extraordinary performance Joaquin Phoenix delivers in the title role. He has always been a very dependable actor and has given some incredible performances over the years ('Walk The Line' and 'You Were Never Really Here' to name but two) but here, one gets the sense that he is throwing absolutely everything he has at the role. As well as a physical transformation (he clearly lost an awful lot of weight to attain the skeletal physique required), Phoenix brings a manic intensity to the part that is, at times, hugely uncomfortable to watch but is never anything less than utterly fascinating and absorbing.
It is unnerving because even for someone like me who has such a flimsy knowledge of the Batman story, there is a strange contradiction in the sadness and pity felt for a character who one knows is going to become one of pop culture's great supervillains; a murderous madman who will come to thrive on anarchy, violence, death and destruction. For most of the film though, he isn't Joker, he is Arthur Fleck, a sympathetic character exposed to the violence, the mockery and the ostracisation that those on the edge of society suffer all too often. With what's thrown at him, it is no wonder that he eventually snaps and fights back in the most spectacular and public way.
I might have got even more from this film if I had any interest in the comic book world but it says a lot about Joker that I was able to watch this as a stand-alone film and leave the cinema utterly mesmerised by what I'd seen. Director Todd Phillips' vision aside though, all praise has to go to Phoenix for delivering such a pained, intense, visceral and thrilling performance. In lesser hands, it could have felt cheap and exploitative but not here. I can't say either way whether this is a sensitive portrayal of mental illness but then again, Arthur's specific condition isn't explicitly defined and also, this is a fictional character whose defining feature, his greatest weapon, is that he is "insane" (for want of a better word).
Already, there have been debates about whether or not the portrayal is healthy and there are arguments on both sides. I don't know for sure but if nothing else, some good will surely come from increasing the spotlight on what it means to suffer from mental illness. The film itself, while set in a fictional city in an undefined timeframe, does touch upon issues that are seemingly timeless.
The lack of funding or of proper care for those living with mental illness is explicitly referred to in the film and are highlighted as major factors in Arthur's continuing decline. The therapist who just repeats the same questions, the lack of funding for proper care, the constant mockery from those who don't understand; these are all daily battles waged by those living with mental illness. Of course, in reality, said sufferers very, very seldom reach a point whereby they turn violent (or indeed murderous) and wreak revenge on society. Their battle to be heard and to get proper care, however, is all too common.
This is just one debate that the film will ignite but great cinema always does that and for me, 'Joker' is great cinema with a performance at its heart that surely cannot go unrewarded when Awards Season comes around. Certain scenes will stay with you long after the credits have rolled, debates will be had, lines will be quoted and meaning will be attempted to be extracted from what the viewer has seen. THAT is what only great cinema provides.
8.5/10