‘Joker’ or — All Set Up, No Punchline?
I had two big concerns going into Todd Phillips’, apparently, stand alone movie ‘Joker’ (2019) this morning: first I’m not a fan of Phillips’ work finding it nasty, ugly, tasteless and with an exploitative attitude towards mental health; second was that it was going to be nothing more than Martin Scorsese references.
The good news is that ‘Joker’ suits Phillips “sensibilities” and allows him to explore his obvious predilections in a somewhat more legitimate arena than a straight forward “comedy”. It was also pleasant to see that, sure, ‘Taxi Driver’ (1976) and ‘The King of Comedy’ (1982) are the big touchstones here but there’s more to ‘Joker’ than just those with flashes of ‘Fight Club’ (1999), ‘The Warriors’ (1979), ‘The French Connection’ (1971) and even a decent dose of silent cinema (was that shot lifted from William Wellman’s 1927 film ‘Wings’?). There’s even an explicit nod to ‘Zorro The Gay Blade’ (1981) which made me smile. Yet the biggest parallel here might be ‘Network’ (1976), except with Phillips gleefully plunging into the territory Chayefsky had the subtlety not to do and, hence, inverting the meaning and missing the point. Incidentally, what is the point of this movie?
Which brings us to the bad news as this is one heavily flawed film. Sure, the film has vitality and balls (good to see nowadays) and the darkness here, unlike with Zack Snyder, feels genuine and real. Yet for all the tap-dancing and fancy footwork ‘Joker’ is always in danger of stumbling under its own self-importance. This wouldn’t be a problem if this wasn’t (and hope this doesn’t spoil anything) a movie set in Batman’s world. When it is looking at how a man might turn bad everything I was kinda buying it but when, halfway through, it suddenly lurches into full-on “Oh, you do remember this IS a superhero movie, right?” then things happen which almost sink the entire film. And I was not expecting this “serious” movie to give the 60’s Batman TV show pole-slide an origin story.
When ‘Joker’ threatens (although thank god it doesn’t) to make a narrative turn that, if it had, would’ve been the stupidest decision ever made in a superhero movie it would’ve left me throwing my hands up and giving up on it completely. It’s a misdirect but I still felt the film losing me and boredom was slowly setting in, something compounded by a big drop in a sense of dramatic drive. And even though one idiotic choice is adverted ‘Joker’ makes an even bigger one at the end. When I saw it coming I couldn’t believe it. Are we really going here AGAIN? I thought this was the kind of movie, a franchise separate entity, that would have the luxury of being able to ignore going back to that particular well. Instead the movie embraces it with passion and, for me, kills the film.
‘Joker’ is not a bad movie at all with a decent first hour and an attempt to do something different, despite it also feeling at times that it consists solely of other films patched together. I’m just not sure I’d want to watch it again. But don’t be tricked by ‘Joker’ as you can bet your ass that this is not a stand-alone movie in the slightest and is instead, hiding behind all that make-up, a hard re-set and an annihilation of everything Batman since Nolan. This is a violent movie but the biggest act of violence might be that of Warner Bros and Phillips towards DC and Snyder.
