KARACHI: In one episode of Batman: The Animated Series (BTAS), which was wildly popular in the ’90s, the Joker, believing Batman to be dead, exclaims: “Without Batman, crime has no punchline.”
As absurd as that line is, it rings true for Todd Phillips’ Joker. Not only is the film utterly morose and humourless, but without the Dark Knight as a foil, the titular character loses much of his point as well.
The Joker, it should be explained, is not like other villainous characters in and outside of comics. The character, in the most iconic of Batman story arcs, exists as a philosophical counterpoint to the superhero.
That is not to say the Joker should be written as a philosopher, of course. Rather, the villain exists as an extreme archetype of the absurd – a Meursalt driven to derangement for those familiar with Albert Camus’ The Stranger.
Where Batman, driven by pure altruism, maintains steadfast faith in human salvation, the Joker exists beyond the possibility of redemption. For the villain, the very fabric of society and the various contracts that govern it are a hilarious farce. In his mind, all that separates him from the average Joe is a really bad day. Simply put, he commits acts of evil because he can and because they entertain him.
Phillips’ Joker gets the villain wrong the same way Christopher Nolan did with The Dark Night. Both filmmakers betray derision for the source material in the way they handle it. Their films seek to ‘elevate’ the story and characters by grounding them in ‘reality’. In doing so, however, they end up robbing their versions of the Joker of the philosophical underpinnings described above.
There is also another more fundamental problem with Phillips’ Joker. Unlike most other comicbook characters, including Batman himself, the Joker has no definitive origin. Far from being a drawback though, this imbibes the Joker with a certain charm. By choosing to focus an entire movie on the character’s origin, Warner Bros has robbed him of much of his mystique.
Some may argue as to what the big deal is when the much lauded graphic novel Batman: The Killing Joke did a Joker origin story first. But here too, the movie makes a misstep. Where the graphic novel grounded the origin in the absurdity and futility of the character’s past life, the movie opts to portray the villain as a victim of mental illness, abuse and poverty. The Joker’s menacing laugh is turned into a nervous tic, and the character is presented as more pitiable than threatening.
Phillips’ Joker also exists in a weird twilight zone for film. One can see the filmmaker intended to create a comic adaptation that could be viewed as a serious work of art. The result, however, appears neither here nor there. The comic pedigree of Joker does seem to keep it mired in ‘kitsch’. At the same time, its art house pretensions prevent the movie from exploiting any potential for spectacle.
That said, the film is by no means a bad one if viewed without preconceived judgments. The narrative structure of the movie is, for the most part, taut and the cinematography on display is top notch. Although, much fuss has been made about the film glorifying ‘incels’ – a problematic moniker in its own right – the story alludes more to class struggle than alt-right reactionaries. The true highlight, however, is the acting on display with Joaquin Phoenix delivering a masterclass at various points.
Mark Hamill, whose rendition of the Joker in BTAS to this day stands as the most spot on, once called the character the Hamlet of supervillains. His analogy certainly rings true given the high profile acting talent the last three big screen renditions of the Joker have attracted.
While Phoenix’s version of the villain may not be best, it is not for lack of trying on his part. As a study of a vulnerable psychologically troubled man driven to violence by a vicious abuse, to say the part is well played would be an understatement.
All in all, Joker is a movie that best caters to newcomers rather than old fans. There is nothing wrong with reinventing characters, but for those familiar with previous renditions of the villain, the latest iteration simply feels amiss.
Verdict: For the performances alone, Joker is a must watch. However, the film is best viewed on its own merits without allowing preconceived notions to interfere. For hardcore fans, there are better Jokers out there.
Rating: 3.5/5
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ