Something picky out of the way first. The reveal that his girlfriend was actually a delusion was done too cheaply, it robbed it of impact. When she comes home and finds him in her apartment and acts shocked like they don't know each other, that was enough. The flashback to all the scenes where they were together only to cut to Joker in the same scenes alone was so hamfisted and weak. For me that whole segment could have been scrapped and replaced with a scene where they cross paths again in the hallway and she treats him like a stranger to be suspicious of, for example.
For a director that has made statements about how things are spoonfed to viewers these days, he is guilty of doing the same thing here. It would have exposed his insanity in a much more gradually realised way rather than;
Hey remember these scenes? Well he was actually alone the whole time! See, let me show you right now.
I liked the visual juxtaposition of skeletal disheveled Fleck meeting plump and suited Wayne in the theater restroom that he could only get into by pretending to be an usher. Speaks also to an idea that historically the only way regular folks could interact with the privileged was through servantry. I also liked the hypocrisy of show business on full display, the way it commodifies the misery of people in the form of content with which to get rich, and in the same breath treats people like they're worthless garbage.
One lesson Phillips seems to have placed in the film is that, contrary to Ein's comments, violence isn't the answer and this is symbolized quite well in the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents (after they just watched Blow Out at the cinema no less) to which the murderer in a clown mask says "You get what you deserve" which is of course Joker's punchline before he murders Murray. If we're to keep in mind that Joker is told from Fleck's perspective only, this act of copycat murder creates the chain of events that births Batman, his arch-nemesis, a 1%er authority figure that clamps down on crime more than any cop or commissioner "pig" could have ever hoped to do.
Joker was, by and large, quite boring--and it relied heavily on Phoenix's acting, which, although fine, did nothing to raise the film above average. It was an unimpressive and boring film
Boring? Man I couldn't disagree more, it was exciting and honestly I didn't feel like there was much filler, and the pacing was rather good I felt.
By contrast, Joker was a deadly serious film with no sense of humor.
What the fuck, I laughed many fucking times. Either your sense of humour is broken or you went into Joker with way too high(brow) expectations, because holy shit there were absolutely some funny moments and a certain kind of playfulness throughout that directly clashes with your description of the film.
By contrast, Joker was a deadly serious film with no sense of humor. And my comment about telling us everything was more in reference to the Joker as a figurative expression of anarchistic social angst. He's a more powerful character when we don't know where he comes from, and Phillips's film proved this. It couldn't decide what it wanted to say about Arthur Fleck. Was his violence provoked by socioeconomic inequities? If so, this is a splendid critique of the Batman narrative, since Bruce Wayne's superpower is basically that he's part of the 1%. But Joker muddies this reading by placing Arthur's mental illness front and center; so now, it's not poverty and wealth that are the problems, but mental health. It's just an unclear and imprecise story, when it clearly wants to be something insightful and meaningful. I'll take Nolan's/Ledger's Joker over Phoenix's any day.
...except that Fleck's descent into (further) insanity is spurred on by funding for mental health being cut so he can no longer access services and medication. That's by definition a critique of the Batman narrative, a kid who grows up seeing his parents murdered but his class status and privileged upbringing allows him to eventually take the "right" path whereas Fleck's trauma combined with his socio-economic position takes him down the very opposite path. It doesn't muddy the reading one iota, in fact it takes what can often be very one dimensional narratives about poor vs rich, white vs black and gives it more grounding in reality. Notice how there are just as many black characters in positions of power over Fleck as there are crawling through the trash with him? His councilor, the clerk who refuses to give him his mother's files, the doctor at the very end.
What you're expecting from Joker is a singular cause for his violence, and instead Phillips gives us a multi-causal narrative that intersects poverty, childhood trauma and mental health.
It doesn't have to be, but the two readings undercut each other. I think it would have been a more powerful and poignant film if Arthur had simply been a socially awkward poor boy.
100% disagree here.
I saw Joker yesterday, and I was telling my boyfriend I didn't like this Joker because he seemed "weak" to me. However, I used the wrong word. It's not "weak" persay... but all "interesting" qualities that we all know the Joker for having, seemed like this character lacked them (I thought Phoenix's acting was great but the screenplay's approach was obviously very different). Despite feeling a whole lot of sympathy for this character and could understand why he became what he became.... I was missing the witty and unpredictable charm that the Joker typically has. What made Heath Ledger's Joker memorable was you sympathized without knowing his full story. He was THAT fucked up. I don't want to see someone get trampled on over and over again for 2 hours, until they break. It's a bit too predictable and rational for the Joker's character, imo.
I don't get this view myself (especially sympathizing with Ledger's Joker, really?). To me it seemed like the new Joker made it a point to convey that prior to killing the 3 Wallstreeters on the train he completely lacked agency. As he said, he finally feels alive and that people notice him, and so it seems to follow logically that any of the wit we know the character for could develop by the time Bruce grows up and becomes Batman (which would be like 10-15 years after this film's events?).
I know it's comic books and all, but it seems ridiculous to me that we allow for Bruce to develop traits that eventually let him become the Batman we all know, but we expect Joker to just
be what we know right from the start. This film attempts to dissolve our more cartoonish expectations of villains and I appreciate it for that at the very least.
