1. HOW IS IT?
You know… I’m kinda surprised to say this, but it’s really good. Better than I expected.
2. WILL I LIKE IT?
I’m not sure. The people I saw it with didn’t like it as much as I did. It’s definitely not for everyone. If you’re looking for a superhero movie, or an action movie, or anything in that vein, look elsewhere. They really did make a comic book “Taxi Driver,” they weren’t bluffing. It’s not a popcorn movie, it’s not family entertainment, and it’s definitely not fun. At all. It is two solid hours of watching a weird, deranged man go crazy.
Now that I’ve seen it, I can say that the trailers described it honestly, so if you come at me like “that was weird and boring, I didn’t expect that!” it’s on you, not them. They were very clear about what they were selling.
3. IS IT, LIKE, SOME KIND OF “PRO-INCEL” MOVIE?
Definitely not.
4. WHAT IS AN INCEL, ANYWAY?
Google it.
5. OKAY I GOOGLED IT (OR I ALREADY KNEW). ARE YOU SURE IT’S NOT A “PRO-INCEL” MOVIE?
Very sure. That being said, it’s DEFINITELY an accurate portrait of a type of person that really exists, the kind of person who often turns out to be a mass shooter, so I get why some people might be uncomfortable watching it.
I was prepared to bail on “Joker” if I got a whiff of “poor trod-upon white dude gets his justified revenge!” I never got a hint of that. At no point did I feel like I was being asked to empathize/sympathize with the Joker. Watching this movie is like watching a bug in a jar, or a car wreck in slow motion: morbid curiosity and a desire to understanding drive you forward, not attachment to or support of the protagonist or their actions.
There are larger socio-political questions at play in “Joker;” I was surprised how much of a character the city of Gotham was. But here, too, the movie is careful. (MILD SPOILER) Arthur’s involvement in a larger movement is accidental and self-serving. It’s not that misunderstands what’s happening around him, it’s that he literally could not care less about it.
I was very much reminded of the end of “Taxi Driver,” where Travis Bickle lashes out in an act of wanton violence, but by blind luck, his aggression lands on the “right” target and society calls him a hero. “Taxi Driver’s” ending is ambiguous, but you COULD read it as Scorsese arguing that maybe being seen as a hero is enough to salvage a desperate man. A steady flow of approval, recognition and respect at very least stabilize a ticking time bomb… for now.
(SPOILERS) “Joker” makes the same argument, but in the other direction: a lonely, unwell man lashes out and accidentally launches a political movement, which he then gleefully hops aboard, just happy to be a part of anything. Violence makes him feel powerful, present. It makes him feel real. Again, we are reckoning with people who really feel this way, so I get why it might cause you to shift in your seat, but I don’t see the point in doing a version of the Joker that isn’t relevant.
6. HOW IS JOAQUIN PHOENIX?
Phenomenal.
7. BETTER THAN HEATH LEDGER?
No. But also, they aren’t really in competition, because this Joker is as different from Heath as Heath was from Jack Nicholson. The magic of the Joker, and the reason he’s the greatest villain of all time, is that he can sustain this many different interpretation while still being at his core the same character.
Heath’s Joker (or Nolan’s Joker) is an ideological zealot, an anarchist with an unlimited pain tolerance and the strategic genius of Napoleon. The scariest thing about him is that he isn’t really insane, he’s actually hyper-competent. You might accuse him of being clinically devoid of empathy, but I don’t think he can’t feel empathy, I think he doesn’t, he switches it off. He’s articulate, in control of his emotions, and goal-oriented. It just so happens that his goals are the stuff of nightmares.
Joaquin’s Joker (or Phillip’s Joker), by contrast, is a feral animal. His actions often surprise him as much as anyone else. His predicament is that, for whatever reason, he feels a morality that is a photo negative of ours. Telling him that killing is bad and other peoples’ lives matter is like telling him black is white and up is down. He nods and plays along, but in the back of his broken mind, he just can’t feel it. He’s an unfortunate soul, and his choices are probably a life of self-denial or becoming a monster. Take a guess which one he chooses.
8. I FEEL LIKE YOU’RE DODGING THE QUESTION. RANK THEM!
Happily. For live-action Jokers, it’s…
- Heath
- Jack
- Joaquin
(We don’t talk about Jared)
But again, this isn’t a ranking of quality of performance, because that would be a three-way tie. Each of these guys had their own Joker that the other two would never be able to do, and they did them perfectly. The only way you can rank them is by figuring out which version you just happen to enjoy most, and why. I will always be a sucker for the methodical terrorist field general that Heath, the Nolans and Goyer brought to the screen. He’s the closest to the character’s origins, and the one that makes me lean forward in my chair. He fills me with terror and awe in equal measure. I could’ve watched ten more movies about him.
What Phillips, Silver and Phoenix have constructed here is something completely different. I once said I didn’t want to see a live-action Joker for at least another decade, because there was no point in the shadow of Ledger, but “Joker” has proven me wrong. They made the character their own. It isn’t my favorite version of the Clown Prince of Crime, but it’s a valid one.
And no, I didn’t forget Mark. Everyone loves Mark, but it’s not a live-action performance, so that’s a different category.
9. IS THERE ANY ACTION?
Literally none.
10. HOW VIOLENT IS IT?
Extremely, but sporadically.
11. SO YOU REALLY LIKED IT, BUT YOU LIKED JACK NICHOLSON BETTER?
Yes, but that’s more due to nostalgia than anything. And because I think Jack has been unfairly forgotten in Joker history. His take on the character is brilliant.
In a few years, Joaquin might usurp Jack’s spot. I wanna let this one sit for a while.
12. HOW LONG IS IT?
Two hours. Enough to feel it, but it’s not a drag.
13. ANY COMPLAINTS?
(MAJOR SPOILER) A few, but not many. There’s a subplot that insinuates Arthur might be the illegitimate offspring of Thomas Wayne, and therefore Batman’s half-brother. Wisely, they don’t commit to this one way or another, but I didn’t feel like the movie got much worthwhile from trying this angle, and resorting to daddy issues seemed a bit easy, like a splash of primary colors on a canvas full of muted tones. Robert De Niro’s talk show host functions much better as an insufficient father figure; having two of them felt like overkill.
14. FAVORITE SCENE?
(MAJOR SPOILER) There are a bunch of good ones. But at the very end, someone asks the Joker what he’s thinking about, and he says he was remembering a joke. The movie then cuts to Bruce Wayne standing in the alley in front of his dead parents, a gorgeously composed shot with the perfect touch of foreboding music sitting on it (the score, by Hildur Guðnadóttir, is outstanding). The shot pushes in gently, just enough to feel momentum.
It’s such a perfect moment. Did the Joker hear about the Waynes dying in the riot he caused? Does he have any inkling of what he’s unleashed?
The person asks him to tell her the joke. He replies, “You wouldn’t get it.” The movie doesn’t end there, but I almost wish it had.
15. ANYTHING ELSE?
I just want to highlight how extraordinary this film is on a technical level. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher is stunning. The music was composed by an Icelandic cellist, and she knocks it out of the park in scene after scene. The editing by Jeff Groth was snappy and propulsive.
Of course everyone is talking about Joaquin Phoenix, and deservedly so, it’s one hell of a performance, but these people and many others were on their A-game, too. “Joker” looked and sounded like a million bucks, back to front.