Skip to main content

MOVIE REVIEW: Joker (2019)

Joker (MA15+)

Director: Todd Phillips

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro

Duration: 122 minutes

Every so often a movie comes along that seems to have more discussion around it before its release than most movies do in their lifetime. In my lifetime I can remember The Interview getting pulled from cinemas after it supposedly nearly incited global war, Martyrs for pushing boundaries of violence and bad taste, most of Lars von Trier's work, and Blue Is The Warmest Colour for its depiction of LGBT relationships with non-LGBT actors - all of which were stirring conversation before anyone had even gone to see them. Todd Phillips' new film Joker has managed to do this too, with widespread concern that it asks the viewer to empathise with a violent psychopath, potentially encouraging violent and anti-social behaviour. This is nothing new in the world of cinema, as I am sure you will be aware of, with films like A Clockwork Orange and Natural Born Killers existing amidst a storm of controversy regarding their depictions of violence. Of course this doesn't actually have anything to do with this new origin story for Batman's most iconic villain, but it was so unavoidably a part of my expectations and experience of seeing the movie that it needs to be addressed. Let me say this first up - movies don't hurt people, people hurt people. Of course there is a correlation between anti-social or violent behaviour and an exposure to violent content at a young age in some cases, but that does not make Joker a dangerous film. In fact, I was surprised by how little on screen violence there actually was in a movie that had been touted as irresponsible in its depiction of it. I really hate having to go into this sort of thing when talking about a movie, but like I say it was really impossible to avoid in this case. My thoughts on this aspect of the film will come across more clearly as I go into the actual film itself. 

The Joker is perhaps the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Batman lore, other than of course the Caped Crusader himself. Obviously Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight is rightly remembered as iconic, as is the goofier, more unhinged and less grounded in realism portrayal by Jack Nicholson in 1989s Batman opposite Michael Keaton. For me the definitive Joker is, alongside Ledger, that found in Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. At this point you can pretty confidently say that in ten years time, maybe even less, Joaquin Phoenix's performance will be mentioned in the same breath as these classic portrayals. It really is his movie from frame one, as we slowly push in on him from behind and watch him putting on his clown make up in the mirror, tears running it down his face as he pulls his mouth into a smile with his fingers. He is deranged from the outset, in an inwards, suffocated kind of way. Someone beaten down by a city that either turns you into a black tie event attendee or someone struggling to make ends meet.


If you are expecting a movie packed full of the Joker going toe to toe with the law, or even Batman, you will be disappointed. This is, like I said, his movie, but to the degree that almost everyone else is sidelined to allow the camera to fully interrogate Arthur Fleck and provide a complete portrait of his insanity. In the hands of a different script or lead actor this could have turned out to be the film's biggest downfall, but it is so painfully uncomfortable, sordid and unhinged that you can't bring yourself to look away. Being forced to watch him at a stand up bar laughing on all the off beats is genuinely skin crawling. Taking full advantage of it's limited perspective, the film smartly uses Fleck as an unreliable narrator - something that not only becomes more and more apparent as events transpire but forces you to then reevaluate the film as a whole after its conclusion.

There are smart subplots involving the Wayne family - something the film wisely doesn't spend too much time on in an otherwise separated storyline - his mother, and the single mother living in the apartment across the hall. What a shame, then, that some of the moments that had the potential to have real power and potency were handled with a lack of subtlety that could have elevated this to be a really special moment in cinema. For every couple of moments that oozed with a real sense that it was trying to be iconic (often coming remarkably close) there was another that either comes across as too self-important or simply unable to handle the grandeur of what it was attempting. There are moments that indicate an editor that perhaps was trying their best with something they weren't quite able to wrangle effectively, and others in which the direction wavers. Were it not for Phoenix's masterful performance this would be more of an issue, but for the most part this remains an underlying issue rather than one which is a constant hinderance to the enjoyment of the film.

The smacking final act of Joker means that the lasting taste of the film is one that is confident in the type of movie it is setting out to deliver, and one that pulls out all the stops in the process of doing it (not least some very clear inspiration from Scorsese's Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and The King of Comedy, and other classics like One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and The Man Who Laughs). Fleck's transformation into the Joker on De Niro's talk show is a moment that is one of the most shocking and successful of the film, and worth the price of admission alone. From that point onwards was when I sat leant in my chair with the realisation that I had really got what Joker is trying to offer. It is twisted, thrilling, exciting, dark, uneven, sloppy, mesmerising, shocking and mildly disappointing in equal measure. It is neither dangerously violent or the best film of the year - it is a great but noticeably flawed portrait of a man sliding into insanity while the rest of the world around him rots into oblivion.


Rating: B+

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

1 YEAR LATER: "22, A Million" by Bon Iver

   Bon Iver's third studio album turns 1 in about a week (where did that year go?), so I thought it would be interesting to talk a bit about how my impressions of the album have changed - or how they haven't - over the last 12 months. When this album was released I was more excited than I think I ever have been to hear a new album. For Emma, Forever Ago is one of my all time favourites, and I love his self-titled second album too, so I had huge expectations for this album, but was also wary that expectations might ruin my experience of the music. This was particularly the case for 22, A Million , because it is unlike anything else Justin Vernon has released. There have been hints at this more processed, electronic direction previously, like the song "Woods" on the Blood Bank EP and occasional flourishes on Bon Iver , but 22, A Million is a drastic departure from the Bon Iver sound we had grown accustomed to at this point in time. Or at least, that's what I thought...

ALBUM REVIEW: "A Man Apart" by Ben Ottewell

   Ben Ottewell's third LP A Man Apart goes boldly where he has been before, and while it certainly does that pretty well it doesn't manage to either strike new ground or any real emotional response. There is a distinctly "nice" feel to this record, which is, um, nice I guess if that's what you want. But it just doesn't feel like there's any immediacy or forward motion on any of these songs, like Ottewell is content with writing songs that could be on four wheel drive ads. Again, there isn't really anything particularly bad here, it's just a singer-songwriter album that isn't trying to break new ground. His typically growly voice is also beginning to give way to a more accessible, smooth tone, which could place you on either side of this record. For me it just cements it's place firmly in the middle ground somewhere.    Favourite Songs: Own It, A Man Apart and Lead Me    Least Favourite Songs: Watcher, Back To The World and Bones ...

EP REVIEW: "Same Kind Of Different" by Dean Lewis

   Dean Lewis offers up six largely acoustic-driven tunes on his debut offering, all of which are clearly aimed at wider appeal. The acoustic-pop thing has never really done it for me (read my recent Ed Sheeran review  here ), mainly because behind the slick production and singable hooks there's a general lack of songwriting to be had. This is where Same Kind Of Different sits a rung above most other similar albums; take the sugar and fairy dust away and there are still six complete songs that could be on a singer-songwriter album, rough and bare. I can appreciate the way these songs have been tailored to be played to a larger audience, but the substance behind the shine is more important to me. The six songs do sound very similar, however, and they do tend to blur together into a singular mass - which could be a good or a bad thing, depending on who you are. For me that was a bit of a concern on second and third listen, but I was generally pleased by Same Kind Of Diffe...