By Nadia Ranaputri
Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Douglas Hodge, Shea Whigham.
The Joker has gotten many iterations in the past, through the likes of Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Mark Hamill, and Jared Leto. With each of these portrayals, both in comics and films, there's always a different take with the character, most of these takes being successfully masterful (though Leto's is my least favorite). There's many ways you can craft Batman's infamous nemesis, and each new take brings a whole new element to the character. Whichever take they do with the character, his origin story remains the same for the most part. So when it was announced that Joker would have his own origin film, I wondered how they would pull it off. Were they taking a direct route from the source material? Or were they going to take a completely different route and make a new story? It's safe to say that Todd Phillips' origin film about the Clown Prince of Crime chose the latter. That leaves us with another question. How will they take a completely different spin on a comic book villain's origin?
Joker takes place in 1980s Gotham, where the city is on the verge of collapse. There's a clear conflict between the rich and the poor, and nothing much was done to fix the issue. It is here that we're introduced to Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a professional clown who longs for a career in stand up comedy. He's invisible to the world, his only proof of existence being beaten up and abused by others. His current job doesn't do him justice, he's on several different medications, and the system that's supposed to help him isn't doing him any favors ("Everyone is awful these days, it’s enough to make anyone crazy," Arthur says at some point). His mental condition, one of them being fits of uncontrollable laughter that constantly puts him in pain and jeopardy; causes a rift that drives society further from him. And the more strained his relationship with society gets whenever he tries to get closer, the more he drives himself towards the edge. As he gets closer towards the edge, that's when we see a flick of the switch, the transformation of the man who would become the arch nemesis we've come to know for decades.
It is no surprise that Joaquin Phoenix is the star of this film. Phoenix's take has a vice-like grip on you, enticing you to take trip in the mad world of Gotham through his eyes. It's a brilliant mix of haunting, chilling, menacing, and tragic. It may not take the reign from Heath Ledger's already iconic performance in The Dark Knight, but it's extremely close. Here's the thing though, both Ledger and Phoenix have different takes on the Joker, and both portrayals were perfectly electrifying on their own. Whenever Phoenix appears on screen, you're immediately drawn in. Arthur Fleck as a character may not have much of a charisma, but Phoenix knows how to capture the audience in a trance with his performance. In addition to Phoenix, the film boasts a fine supporting cast in the likes of Robert De Niro as talk show host Murray Franklin (a direct nod to his character in The King of Comedy), Zazie Beetz as Sophie, and Frances Conroy as Arthur's mother Penny Fleck. They're the ones who ground Arthur, and bring out the more intimate and human moments in him. But essentially, it is Joaquin Phoenix's film. He's the one that carries the film, and what he does with this role is incredible.
This is perhaps the most gorgeous looking comic book film, possibly because its visuals approach a more arthouse type of film, one that punctuates an emphasis of certain things such as character, emotion, and atmosphere as opposed to wider shots to emphasize the vast scale of its world. Through the visuals, storytelling, and performance, it's clear that the film's intent was to solely focus on Arthur, and Arthur alone. It's both a visual feast, but there's a sense of beauty in the middle of the dreary madness. The film consists of symmetrical shots that makes it feel as if there's a little bit of that Wes Anderson vibe to the film, whimsical yet full of grit and realism. Every shot is a story of its own, whether it is a wide symmetrical shot, or a close up, all beautifully captured by Lawrence Sher and completed by the chilling score from Hildur Guðnadóttir. They help in creating a much grittier and intimate look on Gotham, as well as shape the character of Arthur Fleck as we follow him on his journey. While Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy views Gotham on both the metropolitan beauty and occasionally the dark side of the slums, Joker turns that image on its head and displays more of that dreary part of Gotham. While some visuals are colorful, none of them represent a true sense of joy. Through Arthur's eyes, Gotham is a bleak world, and the color palette emphasizes that beautifully.
Joker feels much like an arthouse film than a comic book film, a character study of intriguing proportions. We don't see a man who would later become Batman's foe, we see man slowly descending into madness from the society that pushes him towards the edge. In a world full of comic book films with heroes and villains, time travel, and CGI fights, Joker takes a more gritty take to it. Take away the comic book elements of Joker, and it's a character study about a man who slowly descends into madness. It's a perfect basis for a re-imagining of an infamous foe, and the film is well aware of what it has. It's a look into a person's transformation, a look into his mind and how he views the world. It's a film about what the world can do to a person, and what happens if that person is driven towards self destruction and snaps back at the world. Joker is one film that discusses mental illness and social class, and it does not simply shy away from the topic. In fact, it's lifting that topic for everyone to see. It asks the hard questions, it discusses subject matters that perhaps other comic book films wouldn't dare to delve in, and it is incredibly refreshing to see.
The film has the difficult task of having a well-known villain as the main protagonist, but the film does an excellent job of crafting the character and how he ended up being the way he is. Yet at the same time, it doesn't glorify his terrible actions that made him as the villain we know as the Joker. Yes, we may sympathize with him at times, and he's made good points of his own (one of them being when he rants, "If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me! ") That does not mean that we as the audience would condone his later actions, but we see why he does it. Joker does many things, but what it doesn't do is make a hero out of the man who would become a villain. The character of the Joker has never been heroic, and the film certainly won't change that fact. And the thing is, madness and violence have always been the traits of his character, so it's understandable that the film would later explore that aspect. Addressing the violence in this film, it is indeed violent, but not as much violence as many might be concerned. In fact, there are other much more violent films before it. But the violence here is the kind that's raw and realistically gritty. It may take some time for the film to really change gears, but once it does, that's when it gets insane. No, it does not glorify violence as some may have been concerned with. It's more of a cautionary tale of a crumbled society that consequently shapes the character of a man who would later crumble with it. And I could not stress this enough when I say that this is not a film that you should take kids to see. Just because it's a comic book film, it does not mean that it's suitable for children.
Joker is not a film that lingers on action sequences to keep the audiences on their feet, but it's one that keeps them intrigued with its intricate character study on how one man's journey could lead him to be the Clown Prince of Crime. The portrayal of the Joker as a character always has something new up their sleeve, and Joker brings plenty of those to the table, with masterful results. There's obvious nods to its main inspirations, namely Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, both coincidentally star Robert De Niro. Some story elements of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke can even be seen here. What's most interesting, however, is its use of what is called "the death of the author", meaning that once a story is brought out to the world, the author no longer holds authority over what the reader interprets from the story. Joker uses this to an advantage, playing with elements of what is real and what isn't real. It incorporates ambiguous scenes in which to me, feel like it's leaving some of the interpretation to the audience. It's more focused on character than it is on action as well as visual storytelling than exposition, or in other words, it shows more than it tells, which is why it is not only an excellent comic book film, but an excellent film in general. So no, it might not follow the standard elements of a comic book film, but that's exactly what makes it riveting.
Overall verdict: Joker doesn't take much of a focus on the elements of a comic book film, but rather in a similar beat of an arthouse film. In fact, it's taken a far leap from its source material by a completely different re-imagining that differs from most comic book films. Joaquin Phoenix is a revelation in this role, turning everyone's eyes on him and keeps them glued for the entire film. With Phoenix, the film boasts an impressive supporting casts with the likes of De Niro, Beetz, and Conroy. But in the end, it's Phoenix that steals the show. While perhaps it may not take the reign from Ledger's iconic take, Phoenix's performance is a close second, if not equally masterful to Ledger's. Its minimal action makes for a bigger focus on character, on the crumbling society that affects the characters. It focuses on the hard matters that other comic book films would probably never discuss. Joker takes an intriguing view of how society plays into the shaping of a person, of how things can lead them to certain actions that make them who they are; without hailing those actions as heroic. It's far from a standard comic book film, but it's a brilliant choice for Joker, especially when it nails the execution. Joker is without a doubt, a masterpiece, both as a comic book film and as a film in general.
Stars: 4.7/5
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Douglas Hodge, Shea Whigham.
The Joker has gotten many iterations in the past, through the likes of Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Mark Hamill, and Jared Leto. With each of these portrayals, both in comics and films, there's always a different take with the character, most of these takes being successfully masterful (though Leto's is my least favorite). There's many ways you can craft Batman's infamous nemesis, and each new take brings a whole new element to the character. Whichever take they do with the character, his origin story remains the same for the most part. So when it was announced that Joker would have his own origin film, I wondered how they would pull it off. Were they taking a direct route from the source material? Or were they going to take a completely different route and make a new story? It's safe to say that Todd Phillips' origin film about the Clown Prince of Crime chose the latter. That leaves us with another question. How will they take a completely different spin on a comic book villain's origin?
Joker takes place in 1980s Gotham, where the city is on the verge of collapse. There's a clear conflict between the rich and the poor, and nothing much was done to fix the issue. It is here that we're introduced to Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a professional clown who longs for a career in stand up comedy. He's invisible to the world, his only proof of existence being beaten up and abused by others. His current job doesn't do him justice, he's on several different medications, and the system that's supposed to help him isn't doing him any favors ("Everyone is awful these days, it’s enough to make anyone crazy," Arthur says at some point). His mental condition, one of them being fits of uncontrollable laughter that constantly puts him in pain and jeopardy; causes a rift that drives society further from him. And the more strained his relationship with society gets whenever he tries to get closer, the more he drives himself towards the edge. As he gets closer towards the edge, that's when we see a flick of the switch, the transformation of the man who would become the arch nemesis we've come to know for decades.
It is no surprise that Joaquin Phoenix is the star of this film. Phoenix's take has a vice-like grip on you, enticing you to take trip in the mad world of Gotham through his eyes. It's a brilliant mix of haunting, chilling, menacing, and tragic. It may not take the reign from Heath Ledger's already iconic performance in The Dark Knight, but it's extremely close. Here's the thing though, both Ledger and Phoenix have different takes on the Joker, and both portrayals were perfectly electrifying on their own. Whenever Phoenix appears on screen, you're immediately drawn in. Arthur Fleck as a character may not have much of a charisma, but Phoenix knows how to capture the audience in a trance with his performance. In addition to Phoenix, the film boasts a fine supporting cast in the likes of Robert De Niro as talk show host Murray Franklin (a direct nod to his character in The King of Comedy), Zazie Beetz as Sophie, and Frances Conroy as Arthur's mother Penny Fleck. They're the ones who ground Arthur, and bring out the more intimate and human moments in him. But essentially, it is Joaquin Phoenix's film. He's the one that carries the film, and what he does with this role is incredible.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
This is perhaps the most gorgeous looking comic book film, possibly because its visuals approach a more arthouse type of film, one that punctuates an emphasis of certain things such as character, emotion, and atmosphere as opposed to wider shots to emphasize the vast scale of its world. Through the visuals, storytelling, and performance, it's clear that the film's intent was to solely focus on Arthur, and Arthur alone. It's both a visual feast, but there's a sense of beauty in the middle of the dreary madness. The film consists of symmetrical shots that makes it feel as if there's a little bit of that Wes Anderson vibe to the film, whimsical yet full of grit and realism. Every shot is a story of its own, whether it is a wide symmetrical shot, or a close up, all beautifully captured by Lawrence Sher and completed by the chilling score from Hildur Guðnadóttir. They help in creating a much grittier and intimate look on Gotham, as well as shape the character of Arthur Fleck as we follow him on his journey. While Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy views Gotham on both the metropolitan beauty and occasionally the dark side of the slums, Joker turns that image on its head and displays more of that dreary part of Gotham. While some visuals are colorful, none of them represent a true sense of joy. Through Arthur's eyes, Gotham is a bleak world, and the color palette emphasizes that beautifully.
Joker feels much like an arthouse film than a comic book film, a character study of intriguing proportions. We don't see a man who would later become Batman's foe, we see man slowly descending into madness from the society that pushes him towards the edge. In a world full of comic book films with heroes and villains, time travel, and CGI fights, Joker takes a more gritty take to it. Take away the comic book elements of Joker, and it's a character study about a man who slowly descends into madness. It's a perfect basis for a re-imagining of an infamous foe, and the film is well aware of what it has. It's a look into a person's transformation, a look into his mind and how he views the world. It's a film about what the world can do to a person, and what happens if that person is driven towards self destruction and snaps back at the world. Joker is one film that discusses mental illness and social class, and it does not simply shy away from the topic. In fact, it's lifting that topic for everyone to see. It asks the hard questions, it discusses subject matters that perhaps other comic book films wouldn't dare to delve in, and it is incredibly refreshing to see.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
The film has the difficult task of having a well-known villain as the main protagonist, but the film does an excellent job of crafting the character and how he ended up being the way he is. Yet at the same time, it doesn't glorify his terrible actions that made him as the villain we know as the Joker. Yes, we may sympathize with him at times, and he's made good points of his own (one of them being when he rants, "If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me! ") That does not mean that we as the audience would condone his later actions, but we see why he does it. Joker does many things, but what it doesn't do is make a hero out of the man who would become a villain. The character of the Joker has never been heroic, and the film certainly won't change that fact. And the thing is, madness and violence have always been the traits of his character, so it's understandable that the film would later explore that aspect. Addressing the violence in this film, it is indeed violent, but not as much violence as many might be concerned. In fact, there are other much more violent films before it. But the violence here is the kind that's raw and realistically gritty. It may take some time for the film to really change gears, but once it does, that's when it gets insane. No, it does not glorify violence as some may have been concerned with. It's more of a cautionary tale of a crumbled society that consequently shapes the character of a man who would later crumble with it. And I could not stress this enough when I say that this is not a film that you should take kids to see. Just because it's a comic book film, it does not mean that it's suitable for children.
Joker is not a film that lingers on action sequences to keep the audiences on their feet, but it's one that keeps them intrigued with its intricate character study on how one man's journey could lead him to be the Clown Prince of Crime. The portrayal of the Joker as a character always has something new up their sleeve, and Joker brings plenty of those to the table, with masterful results. There's obvious nods to its main inspirations, namely Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, both coincidentally star Robert De Niro. Some story elements of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke can even be seen here. What's most interesting, however, is its use of what is called "the death of the author", meaning that once a story is brought out to the world, the author no longer holds authority over what the reader interprets from the story. Joker uses this to an advantage, playing with elements of what is real and what isn't real. It incorporates ambiguous scenes in which to me, feel like it's leaving some of the interpretation to the audience. It's more focused on character than it is on action as well as visual storytelling than exposition, or in other words, it shows more than it tells, which is why it is not only an excellent comic book film, but an excellent film in general. So no, it might not follow the standard elements of a comic book film, but that's exactly what makes it riveting.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
Overall verdict: Joker doesn't take much of a focus on the elements of a comic book film, but rather in a similar beat of an arthouse film. In fact, it's taken a far leap from its source material by a completely different re-imagining that differs from most comic book films. Joaquin Phoenix is a revelation in this role, turning everyone's eyes on him and keeps them glued for the entire film. With Phoenix, the film boasts an impressive supporting casts with the likes of De Niro, Beetz, and Conroy. But in the end, it's Phoenix that steals the show. While perhaps it may not take the reign from Ledger's iconic take, Phoenix's performance is a close second, if not equally masterful to Ledger's. Its minimal action makes for a bigger focus on character, on the crumbling society that affects the characters. It focuses on the hard matters that other comic book films would probably never discuss. Joker takes an intriguing view of how society plays into the shaping of a person, of how things can lead them to certain actions that make them who they are; without hailing those actions as heroic. It's far from a standard comic book film, but it's a brilliant choice for Joker, especially when it nails the execution. Joker is without a doubt, a masterpiece, both as a comic book film and as a film in general.
Stars: 4.7/5
0 Comments