Joke's on YOU - The real punchline in Todd Phillips Joker
Score: 9|10 Cheeseburgers
In 2019 the world of story fanatics was absolutely saturated and enthralled by Todd Phillips' Joker, taking home two of the total nominated eleven Oscars in 2020. But that's not what this is about! It's almost been two years since its' release and one still has to wonder if anyone got the big joke. Showered in "on the fence" reviews, but soaring audience scores, it would appear that what most people have to say about Joker is in regards to the messaging. Following the films release, the internet was not short of controversial reviews, praise and damnation all at the same time, called out for it's "dangerous" and "provocative" mixed tones. Everyone was scurrying to unravel the overall message. But how far did the film really go as a mechanism in itself? Follow me as I propose the hidden meaning and expose the real punchline in Todd Phillips Joker.
"It's really just a story about one man with a whole lot of conflating problems, and given the performance Phoenix puts on as Arthur, that one man carries the film, even as Gotham crumbles with its violent societal issues in the background" ~ Paul Tassi, Forbes
Not wrong, but definitely only skipping the surface if anything.
"'Joker' isn't a drama about one isolated, festering demographic of hatred in our society. Like all great pop fantasies, it's a dream. It works by expressing something about all of us." ~ Owen Gleiberman, Variety
Getting warmer, but still not hot enough.
In fact, the only person who has said anything remotely close to the truth about what Joker accomplishes would be another provocative filmmaker, famous for the violence he depicts in his work.
"Okay so, now, subversion on a massive level. Audience response. Cause and effect on the screen. Feeling the atmosphere in the theatre change. Getting to where you're going as far as a movies' concerned. We've talked about all these things. The talk show sequence in the Joker encompasses all of these things on a profound level." ~ Quentin Tarantino, The Empire Movie Podcast
He says it, but does he say it all? Not really. The subversion Tarantino mentions, this is the key. However, it is encompassed far beyond just the one violent scene with Murray. The film achieves subversion on a scale which is unique and stands alone. No other film has accomplished what Joker has in recent film history and perhaps ever, but we'll get to just what that accomplishment is shortly.
Here's the thing, in contrast to what many took away from Joker and the "mixed messaging" affiliated with it's release, there is a clear message that Joker portrays, but seldom does anyone actually retain it. It's a message which is clear, but not in plain view. It is not the simple story of Arthur Flecks fall into chaos, psychosis and villainy... no, that is only what the surface of the film reflects; a traditional, dramatic story arc acting as a guide to understanding this character. The message is so much more existential that it is hard for anyone to comprehend who does not know the history of this character. It's not that complex though. Follow me along...
Let's entertain a bit of a different idea. What exactly happened in Joker? More specifically, what was the role of the audience? We are exposed to the elements which drove Arthur Fleck mad and transformed him from one terrible comedian into one terrible psychopath. Okay, got it. We know that Joker heavily extrapolates themes from films like Scorsese's Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Knowing this, we can comprehend how the film revolves around aspects of the common person and mental health. But again, this is not the bigger picture. This is a tool to help the audience bond with Arthur Fleck on an emotional scale, as the audience has shown us can happen which we have seen occur with the aforementioned films.
See, you really need to understand some things about who the Joker was and what he did within the mythos of Batman. We are going to explore this through one very important character, whom was a large part of Joker but did not appear in it at all, not even by name. This character is Dr. Harleen Quinzel, or Harley Quinn and rest assured, this character is plays a role, just not in a way we are open to see so easily. Her conditioning is very relevant for the role it plays in Joker.
Harley Quinn was first introduced in Batman: The Animated Series and quickly became a very popular icon within the mythos. This provoked a bit of a backtrack in order to create an origin story for Quinn. It was in 1994 that two of the animated series producers, Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, took to the pages and told us the story of how Dr. Harleen Quinzel fell into madness and became the Harley Quinn that infatuates fans today. It is here that we learn of the background characteristics of Quinzel. She comes from a broken home. She is a gymnast and a student criminal psychiatrist working at Arkham Asylum where she volunteers obsessively to treat the Joker as a patient. When her wish is finally granted, a few things happen to her.
While many believe that the Joker is best serving mayhem, destruction and acts of terror, these are only things he is good at. For what happens to Quinzel really outlines the thing for which Joker is truly a master among men; brainwashing, trickery. Where Quinzel believed she was treating the Joker, it was really he who was putting her through a sort of "treatment". Gaining her sympathies in a series of woven lies, The Joker wins over Quinzels' heart and sanity. She falls deeply in love with him. She now understands and empathizes with all of the bullying the Joker has endured and believes herself to comprehend the reasonable side of why he is the way he is. A sort of Stockholm Syndrome in a way where the victim does not realize they are a victim yet, and may never. Her obsession and sympathies for the Joker provoke her to aid in his escape from Arkham, a deed which lands her bound to Arkham, as a prisoner herself. Eventually, she is branded in her new image as Harley Quinn, a play on the word harlequin. We've seen all of this happen (with much liberty) in Quinns' backstory from David Ayer's Suicide Squad.
While many were perplexed, excited, hyped and curious, it was quick for media outlets and fans alike to point out that the message in the film was one that was troublesome as a mental health expo, and mostly because of what an entertaining and provocative film it is to watch for the audience. This is something I can agree with. However, that doesn't make it good or bad.
"As social commentary, 'Joker' is pernicious garbage" ~ Glenn Kenny, RogerEbert.com
Here's the nuts if you haven't figured it out just yet; Joker is a film which successfully evokes a character out of the audience. You are Dr. Harleen Quinzel. You are there, in the theatre or at home, watching this film to take a deep dive into the inner workings of what made this criminal come about. And in your search, you fall victim to the same type of sob story as did Quinzel. The audience falls in love with Joker until you hate him, much in the same way Qunzel did. The most interesting thing, is that like Quinzel, we all left the theatre completely unaware that this had actually occurred the same way she, or any of the Jokers victims for that matter, left Arkham.
The evidence is all in the clock. Yes, the clocks that everyone talks about which places the big clue to the cryptic meaning of the film smack dab in front of us. And even after almost two years of debating what this clock actually meant, still no one understood the very specific mechanism to which it played. Not only were Arthurs co-workers, mother and society lying to him, creating his rebirth... no in fact, all of this was a lie in itself. We are in the hospital the entire time, this we know. This was also part of the lie. The entire story from opening to fading out, was one massively woven layer upon layer of lies. We are the audience, as Harleen Quinzel was, falling for this character and all of those lies. Think about it. He's the Joker... this is his story... who does that make the audience?
This is more probable to comprehend from an outsiders perspective when considering the Jokers character overall, what he does to his victims and how he brainwashed Harleen Quinzel. Nothing depicted in the film was meant to act as true reality in his origin story. The purpose of this lie was to win over you, the audience, to gain your empathy and your hearts. To love his performance and justify his murderous transformation and behavior. This is all just theory and bar talk of course. Wouldn't that make this film is indeed one brilliant masterpiece? If not, well then it's a hunk of trash that rolled in an interesting way thanks mostly to the wind.
"With clear evidence of foul play in the logic of this movie, it is fair to question everything." ~ Erik Voss, New Rockstars
It is my personal takeaway that Arthur, or Joker, wasn't trying to "Harley Quinn" the social worker, who was actually the psychiatrist, whom he supposedly kills if you believe what the film is telling you. No, instead Todd Philips was trying to "Harley Quinn" YOU... and boy did he succeed. Perhaps this is the most important aspect that the film community should observe; Joker successfully threads the audience into the same type of psychosis that a victim like Harley Quinn would endure, alluring her to fall madly in Love with him. Pretty nifty, eh? Therefore, the audience experiencing the arc of the character Harley Quinn is the real punchline in Todd Phillips Joker.
And what a fitting twist to an approach in reinventing the origin story of someone like Harley Quinn. Once told as the story of a desperate and vulnerable Arkham criminal psychiatrist becoming a Stockholm butterfly, now an innocent member of the audience interested in the innerworkings of a psychotic, villainous mind. In a world where the consumption of true crime and serial killer documentaries dominates, this does not feel so far fetched.
Aside from all of the investigative and strikingly violent docu-crime content we are exposed to today, audiences have sipped along for a certain niche genre of super hero film. Cinephiles enjoy the realistic substance of super hero franchises that are believable, like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight franchise, or even further back to Hensleigh's The Punisher. This concept is known all to well for M. Knight. Sayamalan and his super hero franchise, but even Unbreakable, Split and Glass push their respective realism to the limit.
These live-action films exist to make us believe that super heroes can exist off of the screen, nearly as we see them on the screen, I'm talking to you "Cave Spelunkers". If there can be realistic super heroes... then what does that mean of realistic super villains? Kind of a scary thought.
After seeing Joker for the first time in theatres (AMC) I remember exiting with this material on my mind, and today I write about it. It still holds up to me, and that makes me realize why critics were a little bit worried about the "mixed messaging". However, regardless of intent, none of this makes Joker any less brilliant in what it accomplishes in my mind as a film; successfully delivering the audience through the psychosis of a character from within the fictional mythos and cosmogony seamlessly, whether or not intended.
At the very least the film is iconic. The only question you need to ask yourself is; how did the film make you feel about Arthur Fleck? I for one, felt pretty sorry for the guy throughout most of the story... in a sort of M.K. Ultra kind of way.
"Here's to Gothams Commissioner G. you lock up the weirdos, the crooks and the geeks. You're a hero to all the boys in blue, but this time baby, the jokes on you." ~ Harley Quinn, Batman: The Animated Series
Comments