Joker

Year : 2019

Genre : Comic Book 

After seeing Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', there were many (including myself) that felt there wasn't an actor on the planet that could top Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. He brought something completely new to the role, and it was a fresh spin on a character that was more often than not a rehash of how Cesar Romero felt the character should be played in the 1960's TV series. I include Mark Hamill's voice overs, naturally.

I went into 'Joker' reserving judgement.

I'd also read that the film played fan service to the likes of James Holmes. He was the shooter who killed / injured over seventy people in Colorado after a screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises' in 2012.

Again, I reserved judgement until after watching the film.

We went to see it at Star City in Birmingham, courtesy of Cara's old man buying me a cinema voucher. Three weeks after release, and it was still packed to the rafters. The media reporting that it's STILL the number one film in the USA isn't an exaggeration, trust me !!!

Make no mistake, Phoenix's portrayal of a man descending into madness is an Oscar worthy performance. It really is excellent, and right from the outset the audience knows that this is a man who is on a knife edge. There have been comparisons with Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver', which I think Phoenix deserves.

Would 'Joker' inspire another Colorado shooting ?

My honest answer would be to say yes. As much as Joaquin Phoenix has denied it in interviews, this is the study of a loner who essentially rises to fame by killing the bullies and oppressors in his life. The character is a slowly simmering pressure cooker just ready to blow, and the film plays fan service to that on several occasions. This isn't a criticism of the film though, this essentially, is the nature of the beast playing a character who put quite simply, loses the plot.

Is Phoenix a better Joker than Heath Ledger ? You can't compare the two roles. Batman plays no part in this, and as such it's more of character study. Phoenix is really only the Joker for the last twenty minutes of the film, so essentially, comparisons are odious.

I recommend this film as a Joker origins story. It easily stands against Nolan's 'Batman Begin's' that was the Batman origins story, but I worry it plays fan service to the hoards of loners who will lap up a loner relishing in crowds worshipping an anti hero.

Four stars.

Footnote from Cara....

I have slightly different thoughts on this film. In no particular order...

• The first hour is a total snooze fest and I was disappointed The Joker wasn’t featured for longer. It only really hots up when The Joker comes into being. 

• I felt an element of sympathy for Arthur - he is a survivor of childhood abuse and struggles to cope with adult life. One could argue he is a victim of the failing society that is Gotham. Conversely, he then goes on, as The Joker, to become a driving force behind that very same failing society. 

• The Joker meets a young Bruce Wayne. This scene has great significance and I found it the most interesting part of the film, but... what type of age difference is there between these characters?! This led me to ponder the possibility that time travel exists in Gotham; perhaps Superman left Metropolis and flew around the planet anti-clockwise to turn back time. Or perhaps Arthur really is 3 decades older than Bruce. Who knows, eh. 

• The thing I appreciated most about this film is that Arthur had ‘normal’ teeth. Hollywood and America are obsessed with dazzling pearly whites and, as someone with less-than-perfect nashers myself, it made a refreshing change. I suspect deliberately giving him imperfect teeth is a visual representation of his imperfect character (in the way classic baddies are portrayed deformed or ugly or dressed in black), but I liked it. Normal teeth brought a subtle element of believable realism to the character. (Ray the scavenger in Star Wars take note!) Normal teeth FTW!

Overall, nowt to write home about. 2 stars.