As reviews of Todd Phillips’ original comic book villain film Joker roll in this morning (you can read my own review here) and discussions heat up about Joaquin Phoenix’s Oscar-worthy performance, there’s still debate and controversy over the film’s “sympathetic” performance. of the homicidal clown. Much of the court case is based on the assumption that the film presents her descent into psychosis as a result of society neglecting and abusing her (and, of course, the Joker has massive resentments and hatreds in the film), but those court cases and assumptions are incorrect. The fact is that the claim that the film glorifies or sympathizes with the poisonous behaviors and violence of loners is incorrect.
A story about a monster, from the monster’s point of view, demands a certain degree of inherent sympathetic perspective. If you were making a movie about Charles Manson’s “origin” as the leader of a mass-murdering cult, it would necessarily come with the early scenes depicting the abuse, torture, rape, and other traumas Manson experienced in his youth, how he was institutionalized through incarceration, how the adults in his life were mostly criminals who gave him horrific examples and worried him in their own lives. criminal behavior, and how at the age of 18, he had gone through a procedure that could have turned anyone into a deranged homicidal maniac.
The point is not to make yourself feel bad for him or to justify his upcoming rapes, attacks and murders, or to glorify Manson. No sensible, decent user can know who Manson is, see his crimes depicted, and feel genuine sympathy for him in his movements or for him, or perceive him as some kind of folk hero to emulate. But in fact, some members of his cult did just that, and there are actually other disturbed people in society who might watch a movie about his life and idolize him anyway. The film would not embellish or glorify, nor would its message be that we deserve to perceive and sympathize with Manson.
He now believes Manson is a fictional character. Imagine that he is such a famous villain, that his call alone is enough for most ordinary people to immediately understand who he is and that he is one of the most popular villains in all of entertainment. Imagine past incarnations of this villain painting him as cool, funny, smart, and what could really be called glamorous in the sense that many other people dress like him, wear shirts with his face on them, and compliment him on being a wonderful villain exactly because he’s so idealized, glowing, and a success at what he does.
Then believe a description of him in which he is weak, shameful, dishonest, scary, stalky, selfish, complaining, and ruthless to other people you really sympathize with. Imagine that, unlike previous versions where his murders were off-screen or depicted. With a minimum of disturbing violence and gore: you have to see its victims scared and begging, crying and desperately helpless. Imagine having to see the bloody and disgusting mess it creates. Imagine that when he acts “glorified” and others idealize him, you don’t forget that he is an unreliable storyteller and anyway, even Manson had his admirers and still has admirers to this day. Imagine that you don’t care at all why others look up to you and that you don’t have any genuine goals or goals. from a different point of view than inflicting pain and suffering on everyone around him, because some men just need to see the global burn, after all.
Does this seem glorifying to you? Does it sound glamorous? Does it seem that on the right side of your brain they would revel in such a thing and leave admiring this character?In fact, I hope not.
And therein lies the point. Joker will be accused of making the murderous villain sympathetic, and some will mistakenly interpret it as suggesting that he has a calendar or that he has been “transformed” into a monster through society. There is concern that this will make psychosis seem “cool. “. ” Which is the opposite of what Joker shows and says.
And if you go that route, I hope you’re not a fan of The Dark Knight’s Joker or Hannibal Lecter’s The Silence of the Lambs with its “cool, smart, and sexy” characterization. Or other serial killer videos that treat homicidal maniacs as folk heroes. Or Star Wars and its genius child killer, Darth Vader. Or Die Hard and its mega-popular villain Hans. Or Pulp Fiction and all its stylized, cool, glamorous villains you have to laugh at. and cheer with. Or Loki from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, who mass-murdered all kinds of people before becoming the shy “bad guy” who redeems himself and repairs everyone who went through brutal massacres and dictatorships.
Everyone likes to talk about the bad guys they like. Everyone likes to cite homicidal cannibals, terrorist thieves, area fascists, and isolated clowns as examples of wonderful tactics for painting cool, glamorous, funny, and lovable villains. It’s not likely to agree with the concept of Joker crossing a line, especially since it’s frankly the MINUS (to the point of “not at all”) glamorous, cool, or likable editing of the character. The degree of sympathetic attitude is due to the fact that this is an origin story, but one in which we are reminded that it is psychotic and violent and that everything we see is subject to debate.
And like I said before, the audience KNEW this is the Joker, they know what he is and what he’s going to do, and they see him do scary, ruthless, murderous crazy things, over and over again in the past. movie.
Even his specific victims who are unsympathetic are, in fact, no more unsympathetic than the Joker himself in the film, and several of them are truly sympathetic unless you choose to forget the context and background, and unless you need to give even the slightest consideration. This is a movie about an express character, who has a long express journey and is an express type of violent terrorist madman who seeks to destroy society for his own amusement. Don’t do that, and don’t forget how you and others feel and communicate about the other villains in other movies, before you take too seriously the excessive court cases and negative reviews of this movie that are largely made through other people who haven’t even noticed it yet.
If Joker sends messages or is irresponsible when it comes to violence and shooting, what are we going to make of the praise of this year’s movies like John Wick 3 with its friendly killer characters who shoot everyone and everyone around them, or Hobbs?
None of this is meant to denigrate the other films I’ve mentioned, or just interact on “what’s up. “I’m not saying, “But what about those other bad things?”I’m saying “you probably don’t know those other videos are bad and you probably think similar court cases about them are fake, so you deserve to apply the same logic here as well. “
Warner’s official poster for “Joker”
We can and deserve to communicate how art can constitute things into problematic tactics and the context in which misunderstood messages can be amplified or reduced depending on social circumstances. I surely don’t let films that convey poisonous messages pass me by, and I don’t deny that even films that don’t involve overtly poisonous messages can send combined signals or feed into broader, more destructive social narratives. But I’m also not claiming that ignorant misinterpretation of a film through a poisonous audience organization makes the film itself poisonous. or false, especially when it’s something surely different from what others think, or – as it is. That’s the case here – when the film makes us aware that the character’s habit is not only poisonous but also terribly evil.
In this case, the Joker is so obviously talking about an evil, deranged maniac that I think it’s crazy to consider him guilty by potentially venomous enthusiasts who might romanticize this Joker. And let me repeat, this Joker is MUCH less glamorous, cool. or applicable in the sense of “message” than The Dark Knight’s character edit (and I don’t think this edit is bad, dangerous, or poisonous either). When you watch this movie, I guarantee you wouldn’t possibly think it’s glamorous or fetishized like it has been in most past incarnations.
You can’t make a movie about the Joker without being true to his personality and character traits, and in turn, you can’t accomplish those things without describing him to some degree as someone who appreciates what he does and is pretty smart about it. The Joker demonstrates how he gets better and better at his deranged homicidal habit, and shows that yes, some other people first don’t understand the “why” of what he does, and eventually other people prone to a similar habit seek to join him. as in the comics, as in all the other film appearances of the Joker.
Joker is a wonderful movie. It’s Todd Phillips’ most productive work of art to date, it’s Joaquin Phoenix’s most productive performance, it’s Scott Silver’s most productive screenplay (along with Phillips himself), it’s Lawrence Sher’s most important cinematography, and it’s nominated to the status of Best Screen Representation. It is one of the most productive films of the year and will be in the running for several Oscars.
Talking about Joker and those issues is worth it, and many other people will have confused feelings about it and interpret certain aspects differently. I respect that and understand in part where they can come from. However, I believe that such a discussion deserves to be fully informed and coherent, and deserves to avoid oversimplifying or distorting what happens in the film and how it is presented. In particular, I hope that other people will see it and realize that the film’s presentation of his psychosis, his behavior, and his life is careful enough to prevent it from seeming cool or approachable, and as the story progresses, see the tricks the filmmakers have up their sleeves and the way new scenes suddenly peel back the layers of past scenes to demonstrate how frightening they are. and scary that it really is, and how unreliable it is, to begin with.
Similarly, those who protect the movie deserve not to engage with poisonous habits or hypocritically use arguments about the Joker to justify or excuse another overt bureaucracy of poisonous habits in other movies and among fans. I’ve noticed discussions on social media where (as someone who read the script and saw the movie) disagreed with the allegations and court cases directed at the Joker, but I’ve also noticed that other people seek to “protect” the movie by not providing serious counterpoints or saying that the court’s cases were wrong, but rather protecting the same kind of habit and message that was (wrongly) supposed to exist in the film.
Joker will be a movie that other people will talk about for the rest of the year, which we’ll discuss, revise, and reevaluate. I hope those who still have court cases and considerations will watch it at least a few times. , as I will watch several times to assess my own positions and simply to relive the brilliance of cinema through all involved.