FILM REVIEW: Joker (2019)

Directed by Todd Phillips

* * ½

Perhaps Joker will be the most polarizing movie of 2019, with reviews either being completely in its favor or against it – I’m not sure I’ve seen any middle-ground reviews yet. For me, it is neither masterfully good nor glaringly bad, and it’s especially frustrating in the case of Joker because there are a number of ideas that are brilliant if implemented well. When the film works, it is an atmospheric and truly captivating slow burn of one man’s boiling descent into madness in a world gone down the drain. When the film doesn’t work, though, it is misdirected and forced social commentary that is just a tad too proud of itself.

“Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?” asks the troubled Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) to his psychiatrist, and indeed these are tough times Gotham City – the city is buried in filth as a result of an ongoing garbage strike as it approaches a tense mayoral election. During the day, Fleck commutes as a clown-for-hire, attempting everything in his power to bring laughter and joy to those around him, only to be shunned and heckled. At home, he cares for his ailing and unstable mother (Frances Conroy), taking solace in TV talk show hosted by comedian Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). Fleck reaches his boiling point after a bad day when he is attacked by three yuppies on a subway – the result is three young men killed by a man in clown makeup. However, Fleck sparks an uprising amongst the economically downtrodden – the clowns – further fueling the ticking time bomb that is Gotham City. For Fleck, who is now a hero to some, this proves to be an opportunity to bring meaning and purpose into his tragic life.

Though I’m not a big comic book enthusiast, I’ve always been partial to the Batman franchise. With Joker, I feel like I got the best of both worlds. Allow me to expand: the film confidently walks the line between a self-contained psychological drama and a supervillain origin story. Joker never crosses this line, albeit with maybe one or two exceptions when the film ties into the rest of the Batman mythos, which I personally liked. Other than those select moments, Joker can be appreciated just as well as a portrayal of psychological breakdown and urban decay, reminiscent of the likes of Taxi Driver.

Joker is rich in atmosphere. With the sidewalks littered with garbage bags, the walls plastered with graffiti and worn & torn flyers, and the manhole covers emitting a steady flow of noxious steam, the smells and textures of Gotham City become palpable for the viewer. This rotting corpse of a city is further complimented by Hildur Guonadottir’s score. Though the dramatic underscoring at climactic moments is mood-killing, the music is otherwise reminiscent of the apocalyptic strings and death-march percussion of Godspeed You! Black Emperor, further adding to Gotham’s tragedy.

At the core of Joker is none other than Joaquin Phoenix, who has steadily emerged as one of the very best actors working today. Channeling sympathetic awkwardness, Phoenix carries the entire weight of the film and gives the role his all. Though Joker is undoubtedly going to be an iconic addition to his track record, I wouldn’t go so far to say this is one of his best roles. There are some overbearingly hammy moments, but I credit this less to Phoenix than the direction. There were some bad choices on the part of director Phillips, frequently overplaying Fleck’s uncontrollable laughter and strange dances, moments that could have worked if not done to death.

I wish my criticisms ended there, but we’re just getting started. Joker is simultaneously overwritten and underdeveloped. Though the main circumstance for Fleck’s ultimate descent is his own mental instability, there are a series of extenuating circumstances that amplify his outrage: his alienation from his workplace, his mother’s mental instability, his aspirations to be a stand-up comedian, his infatuation with a neighboring single mother, being humiliated on TV by Murray Franklin, and so on. This is already more than enough, but it’s even more irritating that none of these subplots are fully developed and are just kind of thrown into the mix, feeling more like padding than anything else.

Some elements of Joker I can only describe as irresponsible, it’s first offense being its attempts at comic relief. While Joker is more concerned with being a drama, it can’t resist pandering to audiences. Comic relief is one thing, but to not only be so tonally out-of-place with it, doing it so distastefully is unforgivable – keep an eye out for a scene involving two former coworkers visiting a completely unhinged Fleck late in the film. I was aghast in just how inappropriate this was.

And then there’s the climax, where Joker is not only laughably self-congratulating and forceful in its commentary (complete with a “We life in a society” speech) but the film begins to treat Fletch more as a hero rather than an unhinged loner. There’s nothing wrong with depicting bad people in a sympathetic light, but it is important to keep a healthy arm’s distance. Joker depicts the election subplot in an us vs. them light (the politicians aren’t exactly sweethearts in this film), and to see Fletch rise up as the face of resistance against these allegedly heartless politicians comes off as very irresponsible and, frankly, kind of disconcerting (the current political climate makes this ring a lot louder).

I’m torn between Joker. There were brilliant ideas and the execution was solid, but what I didn’t like glared so brightly I can’t completely approve of the overall movie, but there was very little I outright hated, so I don’t completely disapprove the film either. Regardless, in an era bloated with comic book films featuring clear-cut heroes & villains, to so closely examine, scrutinize, and understand the human being behind one of those villains is an audacious move. For that, I greatly respect Joker.