Authors note: Aside from the addition of the first three paragraphs and some minor revisions, this is the review of Joker that I posted on Facebook in October of 2019. Now that the film is one year old, I have decided to post it onto my blog.
On the night of October 3rd, 2019, I saw the second evening screening of Joker at the beautiful Oriental Theater. I had just gotten out of my Film Genres class, so I still had my backpack. Because of this, I had to have a security guard check it on my way in. I was mildly annoyed by this. I had heard stories about Warner Bros. barring press from the films premiere and had read their disclaimer put on most ticketing websites, and the whole thing felt very manufactured to me. A studio manipulating the news cycle to make their film seem more interesting. So at first, I wasn't buying it.
However, about half-an-hour into the 35mm screening, something strange happened. The sound cut out. This went one for about thirty seconds before I heard a voice behind me go "It's okay everybody. It's under control". Of course, it was just an employee informing us about the status of the projector, but I couldn't help looking over my shoulder like, "Wait, is something going to happen?". Luckily, nothing did. The problem was resolved and we started again from where the sound had cut out.
With Joker, Warner Bros. has successfully blurred the lines between real life and marketing. Is this a good or bad thing? Probably bad, but I can't deny its made for an interesting experience. Anyway...
If nothing else, I appreciate what Joker stands for in the context of a Hollywood comic-book movie. I like the idea that a filmmaker in the MCU era can take one of the most popular characters in fandom, strip that character to their basic roots, and reinvent them for a new genre. I know the "gritty reboot" aesthetic is basically a joke now (hell, there's an entire YouTube channel dedicated to parodying it), but "Taxi Driver starring the Joker with sprinklings of The King of Comedy" isn't the worst movie pitch I've heard. Granted, even in the most unforgiving circles of fans, the Joker has more leniency in adaptation changes because there is no set backstory for the mysterious clown.
At a glance, the film is agreeable enough. The seventies were one of the most visually rich times for cinema (yes, I know it takes place in '81) so the film, which prides itself on being inspired by that era of film, has a great attention to detail. It's always refreshing to see a superhero movie not set against the backdrop of a larger universe(or so we're told), and even though I would have been more excited if DiCaprio stayed on board (he would have been PERFECT), Joaquin Phoenix is a equally gifted and interesting actor worthy of taking up the mantle.
The appeal of the movie, both from what I got and why it's been such a success, is the throwback style. I love looking at this film. The lighting alternates between elegant and grungy, and the camera compositions are lovingly set-up. But the costume design, including a refreshing centerpiece costume not making use of the iconic green and purple color scheme, must not be overlooked, as well as an amazing soundtrack (score AND soundtrack).
But despite, or perhaps because of, the obvious technical competence on the stage, it never quite comes together. The film often falls victim to the bits where the film has to stop being it's own thing and has to remind us why we know who the Joker is at all, as if being a prequel was the only reason to justify its existence. At first it's handled well with the presence of Thomas Wayne, which is actually surprisingly clever, but an extended sequence featuring one of the most recognizable voices of the whole franchise tips it over.
I actually think I enjoyed the film more when I saw it at a digital screening at a Marcus theater instead of the 35 mm screenings now playing at select indie theaters, probably because it made the film seem less pretentious. Watching it at the Oriental made it seem like a gritty, Taxi Driver riff that never fully gets off the ground, but the digital screening makes it seem like a good example of a mainstream superhero movie.
Also, I know I'll get some flack for bringing this up, but elements of Joker's marketing build-up ended up seeping into how I interpreted the film, but not in the way you might expect. The week before it came out, director Todd Phillips (The Hangover trilogy, Due Date, War Dogs) gave an interview in which he blamed "woke culture" (sigh) on why he stopped making comedy movies. Now that's not a line of thinking I agree with, but on a more personal level, it's not a community I feel particularly welcome in. And later in the film when the Joker goes on a talk show (no spoilers) and rants that "...the system...decide(s) what's right or wrong the same way that you decide what's funny or not", it was impossible not to think of Phillips comments and roll my eyes.
Joker is well-made and endlessly interesting, but notably imperfect. The thing I like most about it that it opens the door for more unconventional comic book movies. Hopefully one that succeeds in being truly subversive.
