(WARNING:- I’ve tried to be vague but there may be some details which could be considered spoilery - you have been warned)
Joker
Dir. Todd Philips / Dur. 122 mins
In A Nutshell:- Really? You’ve not heard about this by now? OK, it’s a happy guy who spends his life as a successful clown...or something...
The Thoughts:- There’s a lot to unpick with this one so I’m just going to go with a big rambling chunk in the middle here and then hopefully wrap it up to some sort of conclusion. As with any film that has had such a weird buzz around (the initial positive hype, the inevitable backlash, the slightly hysterical amping up of security around perceived violence), it’s very hard to divorce all of that and view it objectively as a film. It’s also, being a lifelong comics fan, hard to separate it from comparisons to comics that have gone before. I’ll do my best.
Let’s start with the positives - the 70s vibe, from the opening old school Warner Bros logo is fully realised. It definitely evokes the 70s era Scorsese films that are clearly its biggest influences. Joaquin Phoenix is great - it’s a performance that holds you all the way through and he deservedly is receiving plaudits for it. It very much holds the centre of the film and keeps you compelled through to the end to see what becomes of him. Frances Conroy is always a strong presence and no less so here as Arthur Fleck’s mother. De Niro is good as the flipside to his King Of Comedy turn but perhaps draws a little too much attention to the Scorsese parallels.
It starts to get problematic with what it’s trying to say. Is it a statement on how society fails those with mental illness? On how programmes of austerity lead to those who need society’s help being the ones most disadvantaged? On mob mentality and the conflation of legitimate preset with violent uprising? Or is it just a dark gritty crime drama with superhero connections? Or a character study with an unreliable narrator, some of which may or may not have happened? It’s partly all of those things at once and, as a consequence, it leaves the film feeling very much like it’s trying to tell you that it's ‘about something” but I’m not sure I came away with any clear idea of what that something was.
One note as a comics fan - this may feel like a big departure from the usual big screen superhero fare but, in the comics world, these kind of darker, more "realistic" takes on superhero fiction have ben around for quite some time so it doesn't feel quite as new or shocking from that point of view.
One last thing and on that that’s likely to be problematic for UK audiences more so than in other countries - a key moment in the film is accompanied by a Gary Glitter song. I can understand his songs being in a film made in the 70s but it feels a little irresponsible to utilise the work of a convicted paedophile now (even though he doesn’t profit and it goes to the record company, it doesn’t sit right that anyone should profit off his work anymore).
The Verdict:- Is it a masterpiece? No, I don’t think so. Is it the best film DC have put out so far (in a post-Marvel world)? Yes, by a long shot but that bar is sadly fairly low. Is it a good film? I would have to go with “Yes, but..” as the answer. It’s very good in some ways and very muddled in others.
Side Note:- While sat waiting for the next film at the festival to begin after watching Joker, the two women behind me were talking about the film by pure coincidence. The one who had seen it was saying that sections of the film where he was the Joker were great but she didn't want to have to sit through a long origin story to get there. I’m still baffled as to what she expected from a film that has been very cleary marketed as being about the origin of the Joker….
No comments:
Post a Comment