JOKER; A Professional Scotsman Review #31
# SPOLIER FREE # Watch Trailer
THE JOKER (1966): “Our Joke’s on you!”
In the blockbuster era, no single reccurring iconic figure has chronicled cinematic tastes at the time more succinctly than the Joker. Batman himself has remained fairly consistent, Kilmer’s slightly sexualised take being the only real tonal departure. Romero’s first incarnation of a cinematic Joker was limited to the camp 60s TV movie version, beloved but certainly small scale, indicative that at that time comic books were mostly for kids. After the adultization on the genre through smarter and more adult graphic novels in the 80s, Nicholson gave us a darker, arch criminal who, for sure, chewed the scenery with abandon. Yet his 15 rated threat (the first 12A in Britain which allowed ten year old Kyle to see it) literally dies laughing, very much in line with the bombast of the 80s/early 90s where villains were constantly plunging off buildings. It seems less edgy now but Burton’s 1989 Batman [10... but I accept there is some nostalgia clouding my judgement on the score] was considered very dark at the time. Ledger gave us a genius level mastermind in The Dark Knight [10] with a focused, sinister intent and mysterious origin, very much in line with Nolan’s intellect heavy blockbuster art house dramas. Even Leto’s much maligned attempt from Suicide Squad [5] gave us a scuzzy (possibly coke fuelled) gangster in line with the flashier action heavy content wildly popular a few years ago, driving a fast, gaudy car with a hot blond by his side whom wouldn’t have looked out of place in the Fast and the Furious franchise. In Tod Phillip’s 2019 version, Joaquin Phoenix has given us a tortured loner in line with… well, it’s more in line with his own acting work. His turn reminded me of his troubled soul in both You Were Never Really Here [9] and his societally isolated misfit from The Master [9]. Whilst it’s hard to think of many mainstream contemporaries for such a deeply introspective take on comic book characters, I genuinely think that we’ll be seeing more of this in the comic book realm and in that regard this movie will set the precedence for the next few years.
THE JOKER (1989): “’Winged freak terrorises’? Wait until they get a load of me!”
Yet it certainly isn’t reinventing the wheel, there have been many heavily character driven, focused, intensely personal films before out with the comic book genre. Scorsese’s 70s/early 80s era masterworks Raging Bull [10], Taxi Driver [10] and most evocatively The King Of Comedy [9], are invoked tastefully within Joker itself. Yet to see this tone in such a marque film set against the fun but intellectually flat monolith of the Marvel franchise (and to a lesser extent the DC universe too in which I guess this technically belongs), I genuinely think we’re looking at a game changer. Aye, Nolan’s Batman trilogy modernised the genre but almost as quickly as his refreshingly adult and smart take on Batman (and by extension all comic book films) rose, the effects did not carry across long term to the point where now, around a decade later, we’d already reached something of an artistic nadir. One aspect I have been bemused by is the controversy surrounding the project. With almost everyone clamouring for more thought and artistry in the field, it comes as something as a surprise to see many critics decrying the films excessive violence and even some worrying that this loner incel (involuntarily celibate) white male will spark copy-cat killers. Frankly, these critiques are absurd. Sure, someone might copy his acts – but that’s on them, not the artists. The film is appropriately rated and to be honest even if the film was promoting shockingly violent behaviour without much thought, it’s entirely on the viewer’s responsibility to interpret art responsibly. I honestly thought we dealt with this nonsense in the 90s? Besides, the movie itself was, to my mind, very socially conscious. It highlights pressing issues about mental health and neglect. It starts many conversations about how the system treats someone whom clearly needs help and possible consequences should we neglect these issues.
THE JOKER (2008): “Why so serious?”
One thing I really loved - it's so visual. Faces and twitches carry huge weight and there are many stretches where there is such sparse dialogue. This was as unexpected as it was appreciated from a director who's never been known for subtlety. I saw the film a few days ago and I’ve had to let it settle before writing this review because whilst there were certain things I loved, because the concept was so praiseworthy out the gate and because it’s bold enough to invoke some wonderful predecessors, it must inevitably be held to a higher standard of critique. Subsequently, the small missteps stuck in my mind more than they should have. There’s a scene where a twist is revealed regarding a neighbour. Whilst this is handled very well in the reveal, the film then hammers the point home a little ungraciously and I saw the twist coming long before it happened. Why does a work colleague pay him a visit later when it’s clear he’s an enemy? Or is this a fault in the protagonist’s thinking? Indeed, there’s some fun to be had in deciding what was real and what was not. I suspect many YouTube film theory channels are going to be in business because of this for the foreseeable future and to be fair the film is dense enough to warrant such fun interpretations. The downside is that occasionally a little definite clarity would have helped the narrative. But these are minor nit picks in the grand scheme of things and in many ways it's these rougher edges that have kept me thinking. Partly I'm trying to resolve them in my head, partly I'm still trying to decipher what exactly was real. And if they're itches in the film's otherwise flawless veneer, they've certainly been fun to scratch.
THE JOKER (2016): “Would you die for me?”
HARLEY QUINN: “Yes.”
THE JOKER (2016): “That’s too easy. Would you live for me?”
Joaquin Phoenix is utterly brilliant. So invested in the character, both physically and emotionally, that it’s hard to see past him winning the Oscar. He’s certainly on a par with Ledger and Nicholson, sharing some similarities in the spirit of the character whilst being completely unique. If the first half of the film is a check list of misery that can befall the character the second half opens up with something of a mystery regarding his eternal foe which was done elegantly in a way that cleverly merges this hyper real portrayal of the Joker with the rather fantastical Batman universe. It’s still hard to imagine this Joker in another movie with the Batman et al but it at least feels possible. I’d defo watch it. The costumes are fantastic and it’s hard to argue that he doesn’t look super cool by the end of the movie – no wonder he dances so much. He’s almost becoming a Rockstar. A violent, dangerous Rockstar for sure, but if he cut an album I’d give it a spin. And yet despite this glorious ascent/descent there are real world consequences. Shocking things happen and whilst one might enjoy watching a damaged individual embracing his dangerous alter ego it would take a damaged mind to wish to actually be him.
THE JOKER (2019): “All I have are negative thoughts.”
FINAL ANALYSIS: It’s beautifully shot and wonderfully acted across the board. The deepest character focused study I've seen in a long cinematic mile and if it doesn't quite match Scorsese's greatest triumphs... well, that's no disgrace. And it certainly can't be accused of ripping them off. This Joker is it's own thing with some fabulous visual imagery, an appropriately grinding score and spot on use of music. Even DeNiro decides to turn up and deliver a decent turn, nodding to his The King Of Comedy character, perhaps Rupert Pupkin all grown up? The director has outdone himself in creating a wonderfully bold and brave style and approach, complimented perfectly by the searing turn from Phoenix who inhabits the character/s to the point that one would be tempted to ask him between takes if he was taking his medication. There have been many honourable attempts, but in my opinion this is the first cinematic equivalent of the elegance, artistry and intellectual rigour that can be found in a graphic novel translated to the big screen.
SCORE: Breath taking and bold in ambition if not entirely flawless and to a degree the flaws are part of its considerable melancholy charm. A solid 9.
ALTERNATE TITLE: Where He Got Those Scars
