Joker 2019

An interesting take on the Joker's origin, and even more on Gotham's society. We're always shown that things are bad n Gotham. Life is hard, lots of poverty, lots of criminality. But this time we see the real impact on regular people's lives, not from the point of view of the billionaire whow will make things better because he thinks he's a hero.

Let's get rid of the obvious: Joaquin Phoenix is amazing. Awkward, violent, crazy, mostly sad. The idea of the neurologic dammage that makes him laugh is pretty good, and this laugh is so weird and disturbing. It's uncontrollable and awkward, you can really see it's not intentional, it's something else, but it physically, painfully turn into a laugh. Just this is already an amazing performance. The movie is mostly about Arthur, and his slow transition to the Joker personnality. We only really see the Joker in the final sequence on TV, but the transition is perfectly executed and Phoenix is really at the top of his game there. Will be hard to beat for the Oscar, obviously.

A lot of people commented that the movie promoted violence and incel culture. I don't really agree with that.

First for the incel part, well, it's obvious what it's in reference to, but it's only promoting it inasmuch you think that behaving like the de facto number one criminally insane character in fiction is good advertising. Yes, it's very cringy. The stalking. The "Was it you that stalked me the whole day ? That makes me so hot! Wanna go for a drink later ?". The just go in and grab her (without even having gone for this drink or a single word). But it's pretty heavily shown that those are just the fantasies of a madman.

As for the violence, well, it's not really a Joker movie, again, apart from the very end it's not the Joker that Phoenix is playing, just Arthur. And it's mostly a take on his private story and on Gotham's society... with the caveat that it now comes dangerously close to our own. A few years ago, the violence would have been just fiction. Today it's seen as an incitation to violence because the situation is pretty close to our own. A lot of people live in poverty and bad condition, while the walthy feel superior, have control of eveything and virtual impunity. So I see it more as a harsh critique of our society. The clown rioters are not criminals, just beaten down regular people that want change.

What's the catalyzer of the riots ? The metro murders ? For starters, maybe, but it is just as much the Wayne interview that show the whole arrogance of the upper class that are in control, if you're not wealthy, you're a clown. As for the dead guys, they were also wealthy assholes. What were they doing ? Harrassing a woman and beating up a guy. Was this ever said ? I mean if there were witness able to say, or camera showing that the murderer was a clown, couldn't they see what happened before ? They were beating and kicking a guy on the ground, pretty heavily, and were ostensibly drunk, enough that one could not be sure they would know not to go to far. That's legitimate defense. I mean it's shown here as a terrible act of violence that incits riots but people get gunned down in the US for a 20th of that on an almost daily basis ! How can people come and say it's too violent ? OK, the third one was regular murder, almost execution style though.

Same goes for Wayne, as soon as the mother obsessively talks about her letters, you know what's coming. 1) He's Batman half brother. 2) Denial, of course he's not. 3) But maybe ? And it doesn't fail. However, the way of the denial was harsh. Was the photo a proof ? Or did his mother just extrapolate and imagined the rest from that. But if not ? Damn. He just sent his ex to the asylum just to get rid of her and their child. Would the Thomas Wayne we know do that ? Certainly not. Would the one shown in this movie ? 100%! And that would be too perfect. First the Joker and Wayne are equally responsible for the riots and inspiring the guy that shot him down. But in this case, he would also be 100% responsible for th Joker himself. First, obviously by being his Arthur's father, but mostly for sending his mother to the asylum, leading to her traumlatism, that would lead to Arthur's abuse and own mental issues. And in this case, he's also a very sick criminal, but totally out of reach for the law because of his wealth. Until karma strikes again.

How about Murray ? He's definitely inviting Arthur to humiliate him. Another wealthy asshole. Does he deserve to be shot for that ? Well, no. But you get the point. On the same level, Randall. (And yes, this one was violent).

And the cops ? They litterally shot innocent people in the metro ! But again, do the news talk about it ?

As for his mother, well the medical history says it all.

"Some people just want to watch the wold burn" are we told in Dark Knight. Well, here we're just shown that when you're not in the shoes of a billionaire wannabe hero, maybe it deserves burning. I'm not saying those are rational actions, the guy is obviously mad, but it shows that at some point change can't be brought by respecting the rules, and it needs someone mad, outside of the constraint of society to do it. Because those at the top are just as criminal as those at the bottom, it's just more indirect and the consequences are at a much bigger scale. They don't play by the rules either, and there's no way to beat them if you do.

One point where the movie really diverges from reality is the newspaper titling "Kill the rich", which obviously could not happen because the rich own the paper. (Though this one might be one of Arthur's delusion ?)

Anyway, it's a bit slow at the beginning, but you rapidly get into it. The progression of the society slowly grinding Arthur down, the loss of everything that kept him whole, everything disappearing one after the other, his job, his social worker, his meds, his imaginary girlfriend, his mother (figuratively then litterally), his newly discovered father, his hope of being a comedian, his idol, it's so much that it's hard to see where the breaking point is.

The comedy part in the middl are well balanced. Though I would have liked to see more of his jokes.

The whole thing is superbly filmed, with good music. There's nothing to say on the technical point of view, that's great art.

Some bad points, though minor ones.

Too much dancing. Yeah, he's a little crazy but 5+ scenes of him dancing to an inaudible music, like for an invisible audience gets old pretty fast. It's a boring way to show it, specially repeatedly. This doesn't bring anything.

Thomas Wayne is just a regular wealthy asshole. That's not the way the character is usually portrayed. Here he's arrogant, may have had his lover sent to the asylum, and seem to despise poor people, while presenting himself as their savior. Remind you of someone ? Though he was usually seen from the Batman's perspective, (so idealized maybe ?), it's still a huge gap.

The neighbour's montage. Small thing, but come on! We get he all imagined it. If you didn't get it right away, you would when she's afraid of seeing him in her home. There was no need to replay the scenes where she in fact not there. Would there really be people in the audience thinking "What a bitch, why is she acting like she doesn't know him ?" ? Was it necessary for the US audience to understand ? It's hard to say these days. Anyway, on the moment that was annoying enough to get me out of the story. Maybe if the scenes were totally different ? She was there but, afraid, or angry and he didn't catch it ?

I have some questions on the final scene. Not sure when it happens. Was he in the asylum all this time and is this all a delusion ? Or was he sent there after being injured and it happens a little after the riot scene ?