SPOILER WARNING! This review discusses and/or mentions a few important plot points. If you would prefer not to have these spoiled, please stop reading now and come back once you've seen the film.
Afflicted with a condition which causes sudden and uncontrollable laughter, Arthur Fleck makes his living as a clown, although he aspires to be a stand-up comedian. However, when he is sacked from his job then gets into an altercation with three Wall Street douchebags on the subway, Arthur begins a spiral to becoming... the Joker.
This film was always going to be a tough sell for me. As I've said in previous reviews, I'm not a massive fan of Joaquin Phoenix so the film already had that going against it. Also, I was wary about any kind of origin story for the character, as the Joker always works better as an enigma, an agent of chaos and anarchy, rather than there being a man with a past behind it (the obvious exception to that is The Killing Joke, but even that's not definitive). So, the film had a bit of an uphill climb before it even started. But I suppose director and co-writer Todd Phillips (The Hangover, Due Date) and co-writer Scott Silver should be congratulated. They've done something I never thought possible: they've made the Joker dull.
I'll give Phoenix this: his performance as Arthur/Joker is certainly committed. Losing over 50lbs, his body looks ravaged, angular, and frankly unwell. It's a physical transformation up there with Christian Bale's in The Machinist, and it does make for a striking visual image. But the script is bland, tedious, self-important, and over-reliant on Phoenix's tics and tricks which (had they been used sparingly) would have been more effective. Take the laughter, for instance. The first time you hear it, it's unnerving. Not so much, the fifth or sixth. It loses its impact quickly. Similarly with all the dancing; the first time it happens, it's quite striking (although goes on too long). But that is used and overused to the point of absurdity.
Arthur/Joker describes himself as a "mentally ill loner" but the illness is never specified, and frankly the screenwriters are playing a dangerous game tying mental illness to villainy. Jesus, as if it needs saying, but not everyone with a mental illness is an unhinged obsessive with a streak of sadistic violence lurking just under the surface. See? You've made me go all 'Not all men...' on this issue, Phillips! Similarly, the script goes for the most low-hanging fruit to give some kind of explanation for Arthur's mindset (child abuse), which is frankly insulting. At least they (sort of) undo the 'Arthur-is-Thomas-Wayne's-illegitimate-son' angle which had more than one audience member scoffing with derision (although there's still a maddening hint at the end that it could still be true) and they don't pull a Batman (1989) with having Arthur as the Waynes' killer which looked glaringly like the case at one point.
The main problem I have is that Arthur never feels like the Joker. If you look back at other versions of the character (specifically Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson), there's a tension, a menace, every time they're on the screen. At any moment, they could erupt into an act of hideous violence then continue as if nothing had happened. That danger makes them enthralling. Not once, never once, did I feel that about Phoenix. There was a hint of it in the final scene when he gets on to Murray Franklin's chat-show, but by that point it was too little too late. Phoenix does a better job at the character than Jared Leto did in Suicide Squad, but if that isn't damning him with faint praise, I don't know what is.
In the press interviews for Joker, one of the main influences that has been talked about a lot is late 70s/early 80s Scorsese, specifically Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and The King Of Comedy. So it's no surprise that Robert De Niro turns up to try and give the film a bit of legitimacy by having him as talk-show host Murray Franklin who initially mocks Arthur (and even gives him the name 'Joker', although not as a compliment). It's a solid turn by De Niro, but the role of Murray Franklin could have been played by literally any other actor.
Zazie Beetz (Deadpool 2) gets massively underused as Sophie, a nascent love interest for Arthur, but there's a clue from the off that things aren't quite right; when Sophie goes to Arthur's door to ask whether he had been following her to work (because nothing says romance like stalking, am I right?), she decides to forgive him this massively creepy behaviour because he's 'funny'. Frances Conroy- another great character actress- is wasted as Arthur's overbearing mother Penny, although she does get one or two good lines, especially one where she asks Arthur 'don't you have to be funny?' to do stand-up.
The film isn't a complete let-down: there were some bits I liked. The scene where you see why Arthur gets fired (for bringing a gun to a performance at a children's hospital) is well done. I liked Brett Cullen's unexpectedly hard-man turn as Thomas Wayne; Thomas always seems to be presented as a kind of wimpy milquetoast, but here he's got some guts. The Modern Times sequence (where Arthur infiltrates a gala showing of the Chaplin film then confronts Thomas in the men's room) is strong. Plus the sequence towards the end, where he's driven through the rioting streets of Gotham, surveying the madness that he's wrought, is pretty effective. It's just a shame that the 'Kill The Rich'/us-v-them/destroy the 1% now feels a bit like going over old ground; had the film been released a few years ago, say around the time of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it might have felt a bit more relevant.
All said, Joker was a letdown. A few interesting moment shine through amidst the self-indulgent claptrap but they're few and far between. There was no real need for this film to be made at all, and even less need for a sequel. Let this end here. For the love of God, please.
Rating: 2 out of 5
Tez
No comments:
Post a Comment