By George Haerle
For Grays Harbor News Group
Batman’s world-famous arch-nemesis, the Joker, is a role that brings the expectation of slightly wacky Hollywood talent attached to it. This time around, that talent is Joaquin Phoenix. But while his excellent delivery in “Joker” will probably please most movie-goers, they may also cringe very hard at this new portrayal of the character.
This origin story predates the rise of Batman; we see only Bruce Wayne as a child. This is a gritty, somewhat depressing trip down the spiraling slide of a man’s descent into madness. It’s violent and graphic, and the recent addition to more R-rated adult-leaning “superhero” movies, all of which seem to be far better than many of their PG-13 counterparts.
Technically, the film is very well made, and the performances are great all around. Phoenix’s portrayal is both believable and soul-crushingly sad. As a man who is beaten down by the world, he lives in and unsuccessfully battles mental illness until it drives him to total insanity and evil. The comparisons to “Taxi Driver” are inevitable, and a whole other conversation could be had about art replicating prior art successfully.
Here’s the caveat of this review, and my issues with the movie: In this case, there are a lot of other films I might consider rewatching first before visiting “Joker” again. There are some issues that I took with “Joker” and social commentary that it completely bungles.
Joaquin Phoenix’s rendition may not satisfy those of you who are used to a far more entertaining version of the character as played by Jack Nicholson, Mark Hammill and Heath Ledger. One of the constants of the role is his incredibly dark humor and, well, actually being quite funny. A successful portrayal of the Joker generally has made the audience laugh in a way that they know they shouldn’t. He’s the classic villain you love to hate.
But there isn’t a spot of dark humor to be found from this film, which makes a point to show that Arthur Fleck/Joker is a failed comedian — not funny at all. He’s got a chillingly haunting laugh that is brought on by moments of anxiety and panic, but that and his homicidal tendencies later in the film seem like the things true to the character.
Some of the praise I’ve seen for the film by critics and audiences alike have been that you could call the movie “Fleck” and take the Joker elements out, and it would still work. This statement is true, but is this a good thing? Is it a Joker movie if all of the elements involving the Joker are erroneous and not true to the character?
The second, but more significant problem is the social commentary it fails to accomplish. This film tries to create a world where the rich and poor are at opposition, due to the decay and increasingly vicious nature of Gotham City. But never once does the film actively portray the obscenely wealthy and corrupt as the source of civil unrest and rioting, even though it vaguely mentions that they have caused the citizens strife. Bruce’s father, Thomas Wayne, is portrayed as a bit of an out-of-touch jerk with a comment he makes on TV, but that’s about it.
Meanwhile, the citizens of Gotham are all portrayed as post-apocalyptic savages. The Joker becomes a beacon of inspiration for them as they destroy the streets, with figures of authority — the police and the rich, including the Waynes — victimized by the violence and unrest.
If you can look past this out-of-touch commentary on civil unrest and protesters, you’ll probably enjoy “Joker.” This critic wonders if, after time passes, it will be viewed as an incredibly flawed and problematic film — much like recent re-examinations of the creepy Oscar winner “American Beauty.” Go check it out and see what you think.
* * *
“Joker” is currently playing at the Riverside Cinemas, 1017 S. Boone St. in Aberdeen.
George Haerle holds a bachelor’s degree in creative writing for media and lives in Cosmopolis.
