I’m going to ask you to do a favor for me before you see Joker. I want you to forget that you’re about to see a movie based on a comic book character. Not only that, but I want you to forget you’re seeing a movie based on Batman’s greatest villain. In fact, I want you to forget that this movie is called Joker.
You’re about to see a terrifying character manifest in a gritty 1970s-era pulp film.
Yes, I said “film” because I’m a snob.
Joaquin Phoenix takes on the mantle of the Joker in this (hopefully) stand-alone movie that needs no sequel and doesn’t connect with the current DCEU. This version of the character exists on its own without the need of the Batman to counteract with. Instead of the constant back-and-forth maniacal villainy he typically displays, this realistic version depicts a very mentally unstable person as he slides into his dark destiny as the clown prince of crime.
The question has been asked if Phoenix is able to accomplish the task of being the better Joker over Heath Ledger’s version. The vague answer is that it’s comparing apples and oranges. Ledger is the perfect foil to Christian Bale’s Batman. He knows he exists in a perpetual dance with the Dark Knight and never wants the merry-go-round to end. Even being a grounded character of sorts, there’s camp that melds well with the majority of the comic iterations.
Phoenix’s character of Arthur Fleck and the Joker, on the other hand, is an enhanced portrayal of someone who is severely damaged and delusional. He is the very definition of an unpredictable ticking time bomb. Somehow, showing a villain acting like an actual terrible individual is a very controversial thing these days. Though Todd Phillips directs Phoenix in such an intricate way that you never empathize with Arthur Fleck, even if life couldn’t be worse. There isn’t the iconic “One Bad Day” that turns a good man bad. Instead, he’s already rotten throughout.
Joker plays out like a slow-motion shark attack. The slow burn feel of this two-hour film puts it in a horror vein similar to Hereditary. There are no distinct action scenes. There are no punctuating puns after tense events. You simply experience a behind-the-scenes look at a deranged psychopath. This look is not only at the personal life of Arthur, but also the narrative he spins in his head. These elements are truly what set this film apart and will leave you with many questions after the credits roll.
Technically, Joker is a nearly flawless experience. Everything captured on film by cinematographer Lawrence Sher gives you the fly on the wall view of a life in chaos. Phillips crafts scenes as if he’s having us watch through Arthur’s eyes. Joker is an unreliable narrator, and the editing and direction double-down on that point. So much credit must go to composer Hildur Guðnadóttir (Chernobyl). Her moody and haunting score magnifies the performance of Phoenix. It is one of the main reasons I want to see this again.
For those worrying about the brutality within the movie. It feels more brutal than it actually is. Much of the violence isn’t seen and is left up to you to wonder if it happened. There is a bloody attack in the final third that you may wince at. In fact, this film is slow up until the final 20 minutes, which you leave you trying to catch your breath.
Joker is a grimy movie that will stay in your mind for days after you view it. It is a work of art, but art is always subjective. If you have the patience to let this movie surprise you, without thought of the decades of comic tropes behind you, Joker will be an unforgettable experience that will be mentioned every time someone creates a list of the best “comic book” movies. I will need to see this again before I give it a definite grade, but at this point it’s a B+.
Comments are closed.