Incel Inside ♫Do, do, do, doooo!♫
Director: Todd Philips
Writer(s): Todd Philips, Scott Silver
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Shea Whigham, Bill Camp, Glenn Fleshler, Sharon Washington, Dante Pereira-Olson, Douglas Hodge, Robert De Niro
Synopsis
In 1980s Gotham, a down-on-his-luck comedian, Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) struggles to make ends meet as a street clown, as well as looking after his invalid mother (Frances Conroy). When an altercation on a subway train becomes bloody, Fleck suddenly finds himself going down a dark path; a path that will lead him to become one of the most famous villains in comic book history …
Main review
The DC cinematic universe, unlike the MCU, does seem to be splintering somewhat. While the official DCCU still exists with upcoming films such as Birds of Prey and Wonder Woman 1984, the next Batman film won’t be connected to the DCCU. It’s a similar case for Joker, a film that is (for the moment) its own separate thing, and the film takes the route of exploring an anti-hero origin story.
As a piece of cinema, emulating the likes of Martin Scorsese, Joker is exceptional. It’s got the aesthetic of Taxi Diver and the cynicism of The King of Comedy (and shares some plot beats too, quite frankly). Todd Philips crafts Joker very carefully to invoke these films, specifically. Frankly, for the origin story of a maniac, it’s a logical choice.
Furthermore, Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is transformational. He’s always been an actor that gets lost in his roles (he famously ‘fake’ retired to become a rapper, for the purpose of a mockumentary), but in Joker it feels like something of a revelation. There have been some (fair) comparisons to Heather Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight, but the two versions of the character do come from a fundamentally different place.
This is where Joker becomes more controversial, and while from a cinematic standpoint the film is impressive, its message is somewhat problematic. In Joker, Arthur Fleck’s transformation is arguably fueled by his rejection by society; the audiences who don’t find his comedy fun, the women who don’t pay attention to him, or the more affluent in Gotham society that look down on him.
In many ways, it’s an incel narrative, and while the film probably doesn’t glorify that culture (it arguably shows what happens if it goes unchecked), the fact that the Joker is the protagonist (if not a good person), could give some validation to those in incel and alt-right community. The film’s tone is nihilistic, but at least the nihilism has a narrative purpose.
Joker is a polemic film. The dividing point is mostly likely going to be its politics, but viewed simply as a cinematic experience, it’s one of the better DC related films that have been made in a long time, possibly since the Nolan Batman trilogy. Joker is a film that feels quite ugly, but that’s also kind of the point. If nothing else, Joker is proof that Joaquin Phoenix is one of Hollywood’s best actors, because very few others could make such a transformation feel so worryingly real …
Pros
- Phoenix’s performance is transformational, both physically and mentally.
- The film’s themes and aesthetic is reminiscent of Scorsese films such as Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy.
- The film’s tone is nihilistic, but with a purpose.
- Fleck’s transition from downtrodden loner to the Joker, feels naturalistic.
- The film uses its violence in a very controlled way.
Cons
- Arguably, the film can be seen to promote Incel culture, although this is up to interpretation.
- The film sometimes feels slow-paced for the sake of it.
In a nutshell …
Joker is a piece of nihilistic film-making, about the worst impulses of society, but that doesn’t mean the film is not compelling. This is a comic book character origin story like no other, and while its politics is arguably flawed, Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is transcendent. DC might not have the universal cohesiveness of the MCU, but its outlying experiences are proving to be successful.
Cinema and silliness 