*deep inhale*

Good people of the Internet.

Occasionally with my A-List thing, I have gone to see a movie that I would never have seen otherwise. Sometimes, this has paid off very well for me (Booksmart, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Us, Escape Room) and sometimes, I have been filled with almost nothing but regret (Alita: Battle Angel, Pet Sematary, Avengers: Endgame, Toy Story 4). Nonetheless, I’ve had a fun time breaking down why exactly I’ve enjoyed some movies more than others, or why some had an effect on me while others didn’t.

I, generally, like superhero movies. So like a week ago, I took myself to the movies and I saw Joker, which…is…a movie. That I saw. Yep.

Mhm. It’s definitely a film. And I certainly saw it.

THE PLOT

The film follows Arthur Fleck, who starts as a clown for hire and ends up as just a clown 🌝

Okay, okay, plot. The plot.

Arthur Fleck is a “troubled” individual with an interesting brain thing that means occasionally he will go into fits of uncontrollable laughter. He has laminated cards that explain this that he can hand to people if it happens.

Arthur lives with and takes care of his ailing mother, who idolizes Thomas Wayne (resident Rich Guy Who Makes TV Appearances Often and Talks About The Greater Good) and believes that “if he only knew how we were living, he would help us.” Arthur doesn’t really believe this, but he loves his mother and humors her about this.

The point of the film is to follow Arthur and attempt to explain what sent him into the downward spiral that led to him being known as the infamous Joker. That’s about it.

I can’t really say much more without spoiling things (if you’re someone who cares about that for this movie, I mean…he’s…he becomes the Joker I don’t know how much more obvious it could be) and I really don’t want to hold back my opinions anymore SO without further ado…

THE REVIEW

Like I said above, I, generally, like superhero movies. I was intrigued by the idea of a solo Joker movie because I think Joker is a fascinating villain, and I think there’s a lot you can do with his backstory–while still making it crystal clear that he is a villain.

I really, really disliked this movie. I wanted to like it, I really did, but I just don’t. I can’t.

I took some time getting this review out partially because I bought Breath of the Wild recently and wow that game is fantaaaaaaastic, but also because I wanted this to be as objective as possible. My first draft of this review was scathing and unfair and without any thought to the other side. I’m sure much of it is still like that, despite my best efforts, but fun fact: it’s my movie blog, and if you disagree, you’re welcome to write your own review. Cool thanks.

I can and will give a plethora of reasons for disliking it, believe me. I walked out of that theater feeling cheated and gross and just bleh. I continue to think that it’s such a shame, because it’s a beautifully shot film. The cinnamontography is absolutely incredible, and Joaquin Phoenix does an amazing job as the lead. It’s stunning acting work and stunning camera work and it’s a SHAME that it’s wasted on whatever the hell this movie is.

Like…we have ANOTHER Alita: Battle Angel you guys. With the exception that I don’t think there was any necessarily stellar acting in Alita, but I digress. For the moment.

I guess there’s no better way to put it than I was disappointed. It’s very similar to how I felt walking out of Endgame, except this one makes me fear for what people who “relate” to Arthur Fleck will do. But both films made me feel stupid for ever thinking some profound, good storytelling could come out of superhero stories.

And it really sucks because it is possible: Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, Into the Spider-Verse, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, the very first Iron Man, these are examples to me of how profound, good storytelling can come out of superhero stories. I, admittedly, don’t follow any of the comics (there are so many oh god how do I even start ahhhhhhh), but from what I hear from people, there is some amazing storytelling at work there.

So, wow, it really feels like a letdown when we get a movie like this.

Now, normally, I would break down such elements as the music, the characters, the ending, so on and so forth, but I don’t think that would get us anywhere with this one, and it’s not really what I want to talk about anyway, so things will be divided up a little differently this time.

Without any further ado, let’s dive into…whatever the hell Joker is.

Also, spoiler alert now in effect. Although anything I say that might sound surprising and plot-twist-y might get proved false later and leave you sitting there like “…wait, what?” And that’s pretty much how the whole movie goes, so you’re welcome.

THE MENTAL ILLNESS THING

So let’s start with probably the most obvious thing: the Joker is like, not…well?

I mean, kind of a “no shit, Sherlock” moment but hear me out: this is a very, very big deal in the movie. Arthur Fleck, a.k.a., Joker, is mentally ill somehow. I don’t think we ever learn how specifically, it’s just a general “Mental Illness” thing. Whatever it is, he hallucinates, isn’t super great in social situations, feels zero remorse about killing multiple people, and paints his own blood on his face at the end. So. Yeah.

He’s also aware that he has a mental illness. I mean he sees some sort of health worker/therapist whatever before the funding gets cut, he knows the laughing thing isn’t normal, and he writes in his notebook the very, very profound “the worst part about having a mental illness is that people expect you to act like you don’t” (or something very similar to that) Oh. Wow. So profound. Much deep. *confetti or whatever*

Here’s why this is an incredibly generic route for the movie to take and also why it doesn’t work: it’s been done before. It’s the kind of general “mental illness is eeeeeevil” plot that you could have expected out of a movie in 2010, maybe, but this is 2019, ya fools (and now it’s 2020 even!!). Writing off the main villain’s issues as “general mental illness” is just bland, not to mention incredibly insensitive. Portraying a bad guy as mentally ill? Wow, way to vilify an entire large chunk of the human population yet again. It’s the same thing you do when you code your villain as gay–it’s been done countless times before, and all it does is further solidify the narrative that that group of people is subhuman and in contrast to “heroes.” Good work, y’all.

(“But wait!” I hear you say, “Batman doesn’t even make an APPEARANCE in this film, it’s just child Bruce Wayne, so you can’t even say there’s anything TO contrast Joker with because there is no hero!”

To which I say “Unfortunately, as we will delve into later, that was kind of the point. This is supposed to be an “anti-comic book movie” whatever the hell that means. Which like, cute, but as has been established before in many different adaptations: you cannot have the Joker without Batman, and vice versa. They complete each other. It’s so ingrained into our culture that when you think of one, you automatically think of the other. So even though Batman doesn’t make an appearance in this film, per se, you still think of him. You still watch his origin just as much as Joker’s. The very idea of Batman haunts Joker as a character even here, so there is always something to compare him to.

Now, sit down and finish your chips while I finish the review.”)

Now, here’s the thing, the elephant in the room: the Joker as a character in general is not well, like I said earlier. I don’t bring up this topic to insinuate that the Joker should be presented without a mental illness of some sort because, I mean one, that would maybe be even more horrifying, and two, it just wouldn’t make sense. But when you have a character like this who is well-known in his mythos as a villain, you have to keep presenting him as such. Sure, be honest about his mental state, but make it clear that it doesn’t excuse any of his behavior.

The Joker here is applauded for being a murderer. He’s glorified for starting a violent movement he didn’t even mean to. He’s turned into a symbol for a revolution that riots and kills in the streets. By the end, the Joker is shown that he’s fully and wholly accepted for who he is, which sounds sweet and endearing until you remember all the people he murdered in the film. It’s what he always craved, but it’s disgusting to watch.

Maybe that’s the point. But didn’t the Aurora movie theatre shooter claim he was dressed as the Joker? Mm. Yeah. How do we feel about all those people who claim they relate to the Joker from this film now?

(“But wait!” I hear you say, again, “is that even true? And I’m sure that wasn’t the intention of the filmmakers!”

“First of all,” I respond, “you are correct on both counts: the quote about him comparing himself to the Joker has since been debunked. But as this article discusses, one of the parents of the victims said that “Joker, which centers on the isolated and mentally ill antihero who becomes Batman’s eventual archnemesis, is ‘like a slap in the face.'”

Regardless of intention of the filmmakers, this was a real-life event that will always be tied to the franchise. Seems a little tasteless to uphold and justify violence, especially gun violence, as the film does. Warner Bros. Can claim that it “believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues” as much as it wants, but at the end of the day, this character is accepted by society for murdering multiple people. Warner Bros. Made a lot of money off this film, and really? That’s what they care about. That’s all they care about.

You want more proof? Because Joker made almost $1 billion on opening weekend, there are already talks about a sequel.

So much for “provoking difficult conversations.”)

THE “PLOT TWISTS” THING

Ugh.

So, you know how media lately is doing this thing where it’s like: “plot twists that absolutely no one sees coming are more important than a plot that makes sense and characters that act the way we wrote them originally??? :D”

It’s gross, but Joker doesn’t do that. At least, I don’t think it did? Maybe? I’m still trying to figure it out.

It felt very much like the film was trying to primarily be a “character study” of sorts, which meant the character-building scenes like Fleck chasing down and then being beaten by the kids in the beginning, handing the card that explains his laughter condition to the woman in the bus, and rehearsing his appearance on the talk show all set a certain tone, and they all belonged in that tone. It’s slow and layered and filled with subtext; it says so much more in the silence than it does in the lines from the script. Most of the film is like that. Fleck dying his hair messily? Yep. Fleck dancing down the stairs in full Joker regalia? Yep. Fleck crying in his clown makeup? Mhm. It’s all very artsy, character-driven, and slow.

Which is why it felt so out of place to suddenly have scenes filled with random, out-of-nowhere plot twists. Guess what?? Fleck is actually the secret brother of BRUCE WAYNE!!! Ooooooh!! Oh–no, wait, maybe he isn’t….becAUSE HIS MOM ACTUALLY ADOPTED HIM AND SHE’S EVEN MORE INSANE THAN HE IS!!!!! Did she ever have an affair with the head of Wayne Industries??? Who cares, that’s not important. Oh ALSO–remember his girlfriend?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HE ACTUALLY IMAGINED THAT ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP AND THEY’VE BARELY SPOKEN TWO SENTENCES TO EACH OTHER. WOW.

Once the plot-twist bug bit, the entire second half of the film felt like whiplash. Scenes of sudden and intense plot-development were interspersed with those calmer, character-driven silent scenes, and just when you got used to that, BAM. SLAPPED IN THE FACE WITH ANOTHER PLOT TWIST. WOW.

There’s a time and place for all of that, and I think there’s way to have a largely character-study-driven film involve all of that, but it never felt consistent here. It largely felt like the director wanted you to be just as confused as Arthur Fleck was, and like I guess if that was the point then good job? But it didn’t make for an enjoyable experience, and I’m also not entirely convinced that was the point. It feels like that would take some real forethought and based off of interviews with the director, I’m not sure much of that went into this film.

THE POLITICAL ALLEGORY THING

Hooooo boy.

We live in a time of political turmoil. Them’s just the facts. This climate is echoed in Hollywood in various ways, and sometimes I think it works, aaaaand sometimes I think it doesn’t.

The thing about including a political allegory in your film is that you kinda have to make it clear which side you’re on. We live at a time when there are two very staunchly opposed sides to every argument, and if you’re not going to clearly pick one, you have to at least make the allegory obvious regardless so it actually comes across like you intended. Or maybe you had zero intentions and just wanted to make a “not-comic book movie” because ha ha, the Joker is ~cool~ and ~edgy~.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark was very clearly on one particular side, it made it clear, and del Toro has not shied away from his intention in interviews. Us was filled with so much that it was intentional for the viewer to work out all the various allegories and theories on their own. Jojo Rabbit made its point clear in probably the most blatantly obvious way possible: Hitler is literally Sparta-kicked through a window!

What constantly annoys me about Joker is that it felt like it was really trying to play around with this whole political allegory idea, but without being too obvious about it–that or it wanted to stuff so many different allegories and ideas into one plot line that the whole thing just emerged as a muddled mess.

For example–one of the topics you could say that it tackles is the lack of funding and awareness for mental health. Cool, okay…but what’s the point? What is it saying is the answer? The loss of his therapist certainly didn’t help Fleck, but it also didn’t serve as the tipping point, either. Is it meant to just be one building block? Okay, but then why spend so much time on it? Why have his therapist even be a character at all, considering she barely did anything–her whole point was to sit at a desk so that Fleck could have someone to bounce his insane ideas off of, but he could have just as easily been talking to himself, that’s how helpful she was. So is the idea that if Fleck had had access to better help for his mental state, none of this would have happened? Okay, but that wasn’t clear at all, because he still had the issue of the gun he was given, his horrendous coworkers, his total lack of social life, his idealization of a famous person….

Okay, so then maybe what the film tackles is this whole rich vs. poor narrative. After all, the rich people in this film were total assholes, right? Fleck emerged as a sort of evil Robin Hood clown to save the people! Cool, sure, except there are problems with that narrative, too: Fleck murdered people. Lots of people. Not all of them rich assholes. And are you really saying that the environment in Gotham was such that that many poor people celebrated the murder of three innocent Wall Street-esque workers? Or, is that your point, that poor people are so dangerous and soulless that they will completely relish in the murder of the rich, so much so that they will start an entire clown movement?

(Yeah, it’s not lost on me that the poor people rioters were all wearing clown masks at the end–haha, they’re all clowns for following the Joker, hilarious)

Hmmm, okay, so maybe what it’s really digging at is that mental illness is the problem, not the guns. Okay. Yeah….except, as stated in the film, Fleck has been mentally ill his whole life. He didn’t murder anyone until he got his hands on a gun.

Well, okay, maybe it didn’t intend to have any sort of political allegory at all.

That’s my best answer at this point, except there was so much scattered throughout the film that could easily be labeled AS political allegory, it doesn’t feel like an accident.

But it’s certainly not clear–it’s a mess. And it’s a damn shame, because as I’ve stated, Joaquin Phoenix did amazing work for this. Damn.

THE “ROMANCE” THING

This is a minor thing in terms of plot, but I just have to get it out there: A huge chunk of the film, we are led to believe that Fleck is carrying on a successful, steamy relationship with one of his neighbors.

One of the big “plot twists” I guess is that oh, oh wow, he imagined that entire thing??? Whaaaaaaa??? (I assume it’s supposed to be surprising because there’s an entire slow motion montage that reveals it)

But like, I assumed from the get go it had to be fake or she had to be crazy, because I’m sorry, but it’s so incredibly unbelievable that a woman living alone with her daughter, let alone a woman of color living alone with her daughter, would ask absolutely no questions about her neighbor she’s spoken to twice and maybe flirted with once showing up at her doorstep looking completely bedraggled and covered in clown makeup AND THEN HE STARTS MAKING OUT WITH HER AND SHE’S LIKE “THIS IS FINE.”

But, sure, oh wow how shocking I did not see that coming at allllllll.

THE COMIC BOOK THING

So here’s the thing about the Joker: he’s a comic book character.

Wow, I know we all knew that, but anyway.

I don’t claim to be a DC expert by any stretch of the imagination–I watch the movies sometimes, I remember watching the animated Batman series in the morning before Winx Club or something, but I don’t really follow the comics.

Still, I was curious about how “accurate” this movie was to the original lore, and, shocker, it’s not. Or, well, not…really?

Apparently, from what I can gather, the Joker doesn’t really have a “set” backstory. There’s no universal explanation for why he is the way he is, unlike Bruce Wayne (rich, parents killed in an ally, ~the batcave~, etc.). In fact, apparently he is quoted saying in The Killing Joke (apparently a controversial graphic novel version of a potential origin story for the Joker) “Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another…if I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!”

Which, sure, that’s funky and interesting for one of the most iconic villains of all time. I can get down with it. And in that spirit of things, really any attempt at an “origin story” for the Joker can have almost entirely free reign, can’t it?

Every quote I’ve seen from the charming director of this film has had the same spirit of “I didn’t actually want to make a comic book movie, I didn’t bother reading anything about the character, hahah I guess that will make people mad oh well” (he must be suuuuper fun at parties). There are two interesting things about this mindset:

1. THE JOKER IS LITERALLY A COMIC BOOK VILLAIN??

You literally cannot make a movie about a villain, from comic books, without it being a comic book movie?? Sure you can take out the DC logo and make it all “dark and broody and dramatic and character-driven” BUT HE’S STILL A COMIC BOOK CHARACTER AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

If you want to make some sort of dramatic character study story about someone dealing with mental illness that focuses on classism and violence and whatever else but you don’t want it to be a “comic book movie” MAKE YOUR OWN ORIGINAL STORY THEN?? Clearly you have ideas so use that?? Do you not trust that your own ideas would get you very far? RIP to you I guess???

2. Joke’s on you (pun intended) because you literally STILL made a comic book movie

Despite the insistence that no attention was paid to the lore of Gotham or Batman or whatever, there’s a whole lot in here. The Joker, once stepping into that role by the end, looks exactly like you expect from the comics, there are no changes. There is still a huge point made to show Bruce Wayne’s own origin story. Still set in Gotham. It’s a dark tale, certainly, but it doesn’t stray far enough from the lore to be considered “not a comic book movie.” It is. Through and through.

Oops?

THE “STORY” THING

Despite the amazing cinnamontography and the incredible work done by Joaquin Phoenix, I still left the theatre feeling like I’d wasted a good couple hours of my life.

Here’s the thing about an origin story for a well-known character: the ending is spoiled from the get-go. We don’t go to these movies wondering how it will end, because we know. We go because the how is so much more powerful. We go to see what changed in Tony Stark’s life to lead him to fight the very weapons he grew up endorsing. We go to see what exactly made Wonder Woman defend humanity when she started out knowing so little about it. We go to see (hopefully) what simultaneously made and broke Black Widow.

We go in already knowing a big chunk of the story, but we don’t have the full picture. We want it, though, because we want answers. We want to know why someone behaves the way they do. We can guess, sure, but it’s so much more satisfying when there’s an explanation set in stone, especially one with twists that may be surprising but ultimately make sense in the end.

I don’t know what I was hoping for from Joker, but it felt ultimately like a letdown. It was like they looked at the character, thought “okay, so we have to explain this”, and then promptly took the easiest route. Why is the Joker insane? Because #mentalillness. That’s it.

Obviously the Joker has some kind of mental illness, something is clearly not right, but we never learn exactly what that is from this film. The whole thing felt like a cop-out, because it was predictable from the get go. Of course he gets fired from his shitty job. Of course the talk show host makes fun of him. Obviously he’s imagining the romance. No duh he starts killing people with the gun he was given.

The one moment of the story that felt fresh was the idea that the Joker and Batman were actually BROTHERS. But they couldn’t even let us have that because soon it was revealed that oh, no, that’s a lie actually, all made up by Fleck’s also-insane mother. How is he gonna handle this?? He kills her, obviously. Duh.

I wouldn’t even be as bothered by the cop-out if it didn’t also feel like the film was trying to make some bigger statement about…something. But what? What exactly is the commentary on society??

As mentioned before, if the commentary is meant to be classism, it doesn’t do this effectively because our main character is imprinted in our brains as a villain. You can say it’s not a comic book movie, but he is a comic book character. He’s a comic book villain. So are we supposed to root for the poor people? The ones he represents? The ones who cheer for him murdering people on live TV? Or are we supposed to cheer for the rich, the ones who get slaughtered mercilessly? But they were mostly assholes throughout the entire film??

If your goal is to make some sort of classism commentary, in our society, you have to pick a side. If your goal is to present the rich as the villains, then you have to make your comic book villain one of them.

Think of all the rich asshats in power right now. Think of the things they say and get away with. It’s confusing and frustrating and all we can think is that something has to be wrong with them, right?

Imagine, if you will, a Joker origin story where the Joker is a well-off rich kid. Something is still wrong with him, because, you know, it’s the Joker, but he’s rich, so he always gets away with things. He has easy access to weapons because he has money. He dresses as a clown and no one questions it because he has money. In fact, people applaud him as a “self-made man” because of it. Sure he shoots people on live TV, but what about those rioters in the streets protesting him?? How DARE they???

If the Joker doesn’t even know his own origin story, that’s a route you can take with it, isn’t it?

“But doesn’t it make Batman and Joker’s rivalry less powerful since they’re both rich now?” Oh, I’m sorry, I thought this “wasn’t a comic book movie” so why are we even asking about Batman? But if we are, wouldn’t it just frustrate Joker even more if Batman was just as rich as he but actually liked by people? Wouldn’t it encourage us even more if there was a rich guy who WASN’T an asshat?

“But how would I relate to the Joker then??” Uh, please don’t?

“But…but the lore!” If someone who doesn’t care at all for the lore can make a movie like this, so can I.

“Okay fine so just make your own movie then!!” Okay.

SHOULD YOU TAKE YOURSELF TO SEE THIS MOVIE?

If you can separate the acting and the cinnamontography from the awful and confusing story, then sure.

Otherwise, skip it. I have yet to hear or read a convincing argument in favor of this movie. We all have different tastes, sure, I acknowledge that. I genuinely think I may have enjoyed this more if it wasn’t a Joker movie. Or if it was a Joker movie that actually added anything to the lore.

But I swear if this gets Oscar-picked over Us, Knives Out, and Booksmart, I will organize clown riots in the streets.

But nothing matters except for money, so it will win awards. And there will be sequels. And lots of people talking about how “dark” and “risky” and “impressive” they all are. Yaaaaaaay.

(EDIT: published without posting the rATING THAT’S THE BEST PART WHY AM I LIKE THIS)

All in all, I give Joker…

1/5 UNIMPRESSED CLOWNS!!

FAVORITE MOMENT

Either the opening with Fleck putting on his clown makeup and faking a smile while a tear rolled down because wow, why wasn’t the whole movie like that, or when Fleck sneaks into his neighbor’s apartment and it’s revealed by her reaction that he’s imagined their entire relationship. It was the one moment that was actually believable. Also, he didn’t kill her, so yay.

“OOF” MOMENT

Everything else, really.

TRAILERS TO WATCH OUT FOR

Perhaps none of these, really, but let’s talk about them.

I guess it should have been a red flag that basically all of the trailers felt like they were for complete and total male power fantasies, but I’m a hopeful person.

Tenet is the next Christopher Nolan thing, so I’m actually slightly hopeful. Not incredibly, but at least slightly.

Ford v Ferrari is bound to be the next male-led, safe-topic, unoriginal Oscar winner, so while I likely won’t be seeing it anytime soon, I’m sure I’ll have to talk about it eventually. Cars fast.

Jumanji: The Next Level has the potential to be either really good, or really meh.

If I have to see one more trailer for 1917, I may riot. It’s another glory-war movie that will win all the sound design awards for some reason–because ooOoOOOOoooh, wAr.

While I have no real desire to see Uncut Gems, I will say that it actually looks kind of fascinating idea-wise. I mean, good on Sandler for bringing some goofiness to a rather serious-looking role and have it…work?

What is The Gentlemen. Why is it happening. It’s all guns and gangs and violence but it’s okay they all have well-pressed suits and have beautiful women on their arms, therefore it’s “gentlemanly.” Talk about a male power fantasy?? ALSO MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY AND COLIN FARRELL WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THIS MOVIE. STOP IT. NO.

Well, that does it for this review! Next we’ll be touching on some other flicks I’m late on, like Last Christmas (crying), Frozen 2 (more crying), Jojo Rabbit (SO MUCH CRYING), and Knives Out (wowowowowowow).

Look, if you like Joker, that’s fine. We probably won’t be best friends anytime soon, but who knows if we’d even want to be. I don’t know you, I don’t know your life.

I mean maybe you also really liked Alita: Battle Angel in which case I really don’t think we’d be friends, so…