A Good Movie with a Missing Ingredient

Rating: 8/10 (5 October 2019)

Todd Phillips' new film Joker provides a new take on the often nebulous personal history of its titular character. Joaquin Phoenix portrays Arthur Fleck, a man whose social ineptitudes leave him outcasted like so many other nameless people in this film's version of Gotham City. Despite the protagonist's attempts to remain positive throughout the beginning of the movie, his spirits are further afflicted by a persistent, irrepressible laugh as a result of a mental condition; one the film hints at as being the result of past emotional trauma. It is through this that the movie cleverly ties Fleck's condition to the iconic Joker giggling that so many expect the famous villain to indulge in. Arthur's psychological condition, the ill-disguised prejudices of others, and the stigma surrounding the fact that Arthur still lives with and cares for his mother all conspire to induce in him his later criminally misanthropic tendencies.
The thrust of the story is centered around Arthur Fleck's attempts to make it as a standup comedian. Inspired by the fictional late night host Murray Franklin, portrayed by Robert De Niro, Fleck's longing to bring joy to the world is constantly interrupted by the violence inflicted on him by others. Several times throughout the film Joaquin Phoenix's character is assaulted by young hoodlums and ill-tempered adults, all of whom take issue with his profession as a small-time clown and performer. Most of Fleck's acquaintances throughout the film hasten his eventual transformation into the Joker by offering questionable advice and continuing to show him disrespect. All of the choices Fleck makes during the course of the movie eventually culminate in his embodying the id of Gotham's downtrodden masses. After discovering the secrets of his own past that were hidden from him, committing several murders, and successfully cutting himself off from even the few people he was once close to, Fleck's 'Joker' is fully realized and is lauded by a significant section of Gotham's population. The vengeful violence of the clown mask-adorned masses was ignited by Fleck's earlier killing of three Wayne Corporation employees, and the film's 'us and them' dichotomy produces the iconic chaos that the Joker is most known for stirring up.
The positives of the movie are obvious and deserve praise: Phoenix's portrayal of the Joker is compelling, and rivals that of Heath Ledger's Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. The appeal of Ledger's version lied in not only his unique take on the character, but also in the lack of knowledge about his specific origins. 'Less is more,' as they say.
Ledger's groundbreaking performance is clearly at the forefront of this film's mind, as evidenced by Phoenix's eventual choice of attire and clown makeup; Arthur Fleck conveniently chooses a look eerily similar to that of Ledger's portrayal of the Clown Prince of Crime. This isn't necessarily a criticism of the costume in this film, but rather stands as a testament to Heath Ledger's legacy of what we now expect of a good Joker performance. Ledger's Joker is so burned into the zeitgeist that a return to the look of any portrayal pre-Ledger would likely leave contemporary audiences wanting.
Despite the borrowed look of Phoenix's Joker, this film has a crucial advantage over The Dark Knight in regard to the villain: Phoenix is human, and humorous.
Heath Ledger made the Joker look threatening and in control, as a comic book villain should be. In The Dark Knight, Ledger serves as a more than formidable opponent to Christian Bale's Batman, and the ensuing struggle and dialogue between the two prove to be sufficiently engaging. However, with that said, Ledger's Joker was perhaps too impervious. Able to escape jail via an almost unrealistically well calculated plan, able to match Bale's Batman in hand-to-hand combat, and coordinate a fleet of goons in an attempt to kidnap Harvey Dent, Ledger's Joker had to tap into a level of supervillainy that should be reserved for films with characters wielding otherworldly powers. At the end of the day, the appeal of the character lies in the absence of his morality and the joy he takes in exploiting the malevolent elements of human nature. Ledger's Joker had no time for joking, he was too busy bringing a city to ruin.
In light of this, it appears that Phoenix's Joker is much more nuanced. Joker (2019) explores the more human aspects of the character, and isn't afraid to show the vulnerability of such an off-color villain. While never abandoning the dour tone the film is quick to establish, Joker makes legitimate attempts to engage its audience in a humorous way. The movie will poke fun at its lead character for the sake of getting a laugh just as much as it will try to share Arthur's twisted psychology with them as well. Let's just say that there's no scene in The Dark Knight where its villain bumps into a glass door in front of two law enforcement officials. It's because of this that Joker oftentimes feels more genuine than its predecessors. Not only does it capture those more human elements, but Joker still manages to depict the main character's influence and corrosive view of the world and its consequences. The film ends with Gotham City in ruin, just as it did in The Dark Knight, but not because of one criminal's unrealistically flawless endeavors. Gotham is in utter chaos not because the Joker succeeded in carrying out a masterwork; rather, Gotham falls because the Joker failed. Unable to impress people with his attempts at comedy, Arthur Fleck resorts to trying to prove that life is a farce. He attempts to accomplish this throughout the film by using more and more extreme measures, quickly shifting to murder and crime.
To conclude, I will discuss the 'missing ingredient' as it is pertinent to the Joker's criminal tendencies. While Joker amply demonstrates that Arthur Fleck inhabits a vindictive, sadistic world, the justification for why the Joker resorts to crime is absent. There is a leap from "these people have wronged me and deserve punishment" to "I must murder them" that the audience is expected to take for granted. While superfluous, I found myself comparing Joker to Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
While seemingly an esoteric reference, Dostoevsky's work contains what this film lacks. In Crime and Punishment, the protagonist Raskolnikov is a young student living in poverty, who plans to murder an old pawnbroker woman not only in order to steal her money but also because he believes the world would be better off without her. This is the equivalent of Arthur Fleck's feelings of resentment toward those who have abused him. However, in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's justification for why he believes murder is justified is clearly explained. Raskolnikov believes that there are some people that because of their superior character, ability, or understanding, they have a right to transcend morality itself in order to bring about seemingly positive change in the world. Raskolnikov fancies himself as one of these superior people, and because of this he feels justified in murdering the wretched old woman. I wouldn't want to ruin the plot to an over 150 year-old novel, but needless to say the rest of the book demonstrates the flaws in Raskolnikov's reasoning and the inescapable weight of moral consequence.
To bring this back to Joker, we are never explicitly shown how Arthur Fleck shifts from malcontent to criminal. He very clearly has elements of identifiable humanity in his character, otherwise the film would fail to leave the emotional impact it does. Fleck isn't Michael Myers from John Carpenter's Halloween, going around killing with no motivation (ignoring the sequels). Where is the Joker's justification or motivation to actually commit these heinous crimes? The ending of the film shows the consequences of his actions, and some may say that his contentment with the results demonstrates his ambition to commit crimes, but what brought him to the conclusion that crime is the remedy in the first place? What does it take for an abused person to go from victim to mass murderer? To say that everyone reaches a point where they 'can't take any more' and simply lash out would be a rather bold statement, considering so many people are abused and yet their conscious inhibits their ability to kill remorselessly. What makes the Joker different from the average person? Again, the film aptly portrays the consequences of the Joker's criminality. However, without a well-defined reason for why the Joker chose to put himself in a position where he's dancing down the hallways of Gotham jail by the time the credits roll, some audiences may feel frustrated by the lack of explanation as to why an outcast would choose a life of crime.
The Joker's trademark is a wake of chaos, yes, but if his motivation is chaos, when is that demonstrated in the film? Is the Joker inspired to create chaos, facilitate vindictive violence, or something else? With this bridge absent between the character's beginning and outcome, the film remains incomplete. As is, it is a well-directed film with compelling performances. However, with this crucial gap in the development of Arthur Fleck's motivations, Joker fails to bring its version of the iconic clown full circle.