Joker
2.5/4
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Conroy, Zazie Beetz, Robert DeNiro, Brett Cullen
Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence, Disturbing Behavior, Language and Brief Sexual Images
"Joker" is a frustrating film. While there is no denying that it will get under your skin and features a brilliant lead performance, the film as a whole feels incomplete. The screenplay is underwritten and while it deserves props for its unique approach, it feels a bit like the emperor with no clothes.
Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) is an odd duck. He's ostracized at work, has no friends, and lives with his invalid mother Penny (Conroy). Arthur is determined to make his way in the world as a stand-up comic, but his severe personality flaws and the cruel reality of the world turn a harmless weirdo into a murderous maniac.
This is a character study of a man's descent into madness. That's fine, especially considering that the central figure is one of the most famous villains in literary history. There's plenty of room to explore his psyche. Unfortunately the limitations of the screenplay result in an incomplete vision of the Joker. Arthur never becomes a fully realized individual, so the circumstances that propel him into a monster feel contrived and artificial. Further holding the film back is the fact that we've seen this story before many times. It is not a new idea for a person to turn into a villain because of personal hurts and the fact that the world seems against him. It's been done before and will be done again. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to have him start out as a monster and feel joy in the mayhem he causes? Turning him into a tortured antihero that the world discarded is a cliche, and Todd Phillips doesn't find a way to bring new life into it.
Todd Phillips is clearly drawing from Martin Scorcese for his approach to the film. The influences from "Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy" are obvious (fittingly, Robert DeNiro appears as the antithesis of the characters he played in those earlier films). Arthur's relationship with his mother owes more than a small debt to "Psycho." However, while Todd Phillips is a competent director, he's no Scorcese or Hitchcock (how many people are?). I'll give him credit for the tone he creates, as the sense of decay and sleaze in the city of Gotham is palpable. Phillips has the setting and tone right, but he doesn't have a fully thought-out lead character.
Whatever problems "Joker" has, they aren't with Joaquin Phoenix. His performance as the demented Arthur is as heroic and daring as anything the actor has done. It's actually better than the screenplay deserves, as Phoenix gives the character depths and quirks that are most definitely not in the screenplay. It would be unfair to measure him up to Heath Ledger's performance in "The Dark Knight," since the character has a different purpose here than in Christopher Nolan's masterpiece. That said, Ledger's rendition remains definitive. But Phoenix deserves all the credit and acclaim that he is getting, and if an Oscar nomination is forthcoming, it will be earned. Frances Conroy and last year's breakout star Zazie Beetz make appearances, but this is all Joaquin Phoenix. He's present in every scene, so the film rests on his shoulders, and he hits it out of the park. Robert DeNiro plays a Johnny Carson/Jay Leno clone, who is simultaneously Arthur's foil, object of envy and nemesis. DeNiro is in fine form, reminding us just how compelling he can be with a good script and when he isn't phoning it in.
Phillips is ambitious. While the film take place in the early 80's and is influenced by film classics from a decade earlier, he adds in social commentary on today's world. Phillips opens fire on the shoddy state of our mental health system, wealth inequality and the arrogance of the super rich. While these themes are noble and appropriate for the film, they don't feel adequately wedded into the story. That Arthur explains his philosophy and grievances on national TV is indicative of the screenplay's weakness. It's so on the nose that it borders on patronizing.
I am of two minds about this film. On the one hand, the film is undeniably effective at what it seeks to do. It's always compelling and difficult to shake. The film is as gritty and violent as you'd think. Under no circumstances should you ever take the kids to this movie. This is a hard R movie. Or perhaps more. On the other hand, the lead character is half-realized and the plot developments feel like they were shoehorned into the script to make sure Arthur ends up where we know he will. I can't in good conscience recommend this film, but at the same time, if you want to see this movie or are curious, I won't stop you.
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Conroy, Zazie Beetz, Robert DeNiro, Brett Cullen
Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence, Disturbing Behavior, Language and Brief Sexual Images
"Joker" is a frustrating film. While there is no denying that it will get under your skin and features a brilliant lead performance, the film as a whole feels incomplete. The screenplay is underwritten and while it deserves props for its unique approach, it feels a bit like the emperor with no clothes.
Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) is an odd duck. He's ostracized at work, has no friends, and lives with his invalid mother Penny (Conroy). Arthur is determined to make his way in the world as a stand-up comic, but his severe personality flaws and the cruel reality of the world turn a harmless weirdo into a murderous maniac.
This is a character study of a man's descent into madness. That's fine, especially considering that the central figure is one of the most famous villains in literary history. There's plenty of room to explore his psyche. Unfortunately the limitations of the screenplay result in an incomplete vision of the Joker. Arthur never becomes a fully realized individual, so the circumstances that propel him into a monster feel contrived and artificial. Further holding the film back is the fact that we've seen this story before many times. It is not a new idea for a person to turn into a villain because of personal hurts and the fact that the world seems against him. It's been done before and will be done again. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to have him start out as a monster and feel joy in the mayhem he causes? Turning him into a tortured antihero that the world discarded is a cliche, and Todd Phillips doesn't find a way to bring new life into it.
Todd Phillips is clearly drawing from Martin Scorcese for his approach to the film. The influences from "Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy" are obvious (fittingly, Robert DeNiro appears as the antithesis of the characters he played in those earlier films). Arthur's relationship with his mother owes more than a small debt to "Psycho." However, while Todd Phillips is a competent director, he's no Scorcese or Hitchcock (how many people are?). I'll give him credit for the tone he creates, as the sense of decay and sleaze in the city of Gotham is palpable. Phillips has the setting and tone right, but he doesn't have a fully thought-out lead character.
Whatever problems "Joker" has, they aren't with Joaquin Phoenix. His performance as the demented Arthur is as heroic and daring as anything the actor has done. It's actually better than the screenplay deserves, as Phoenix gives the character depths and quirks that are most definitely not in the screenplay. It would be unfair to measure him up to Heath Ledger's performance in "The Dark Knight," since the character has a different purpose here than in Christopher Nolan's masterpiece. That said, Ledger's rendition remains definitive. But Phoenix deserves all the credit and acclaim that he is getting, and if an Oscar nomination is forthcoming, it will be earned. Frances Conroy and last year's breakout star Zazie Beetz make appearances, but this is all Joaquin Phoenix. He's present in every scene, so the film rests on his shoulders, and he hits it out of the park. Robert DeNiro plays a Johnny Carson/Jay Leno clone, who is simultaneously Arthur's foil, object of envy and nemesis. DeNiro is in fine form, reminding us just how compelling he can be with a good script and when he isn't phoning it in.
Phillips is ambitious. While the film take place in the early 80's and is influenced by film classics from a decade earlier, he adds in social commentary on today's world. Phillips opens fire on the shoddy state of our mental health system, wealth inequality and the arrogance of the super rich. While these themes are noble and appropriate for the film, they don't feel adequately wedded into the story. That Arthur explains his philosophy and grievances on national TV is indicative of the screenplay's weakness. It's so on the nose that it borders on patronizing.
I am of two minds about this film. On the one hand, the film is undeniably effective at what it seeks to do. It's always compelling and difficult to shake. The film is as gritty and violent as you'd think. Under no circumstances should you ever take the kids to this movie. This is a hard R movie. Or perhaps more. On the other hand, the lead character is half-realized and the plot developments feel like they were shoehorned into the script to make sure Arthur ends up where we know he will. I can't in good conscience recommend this film, but at the same time, if you want to see this movie or are curious, I won't stop you.
ok
ReplyDelete