I can definitely attest that trying to disentangle the discordant thoughts and emotions Joker inspires is an incredibly difficult task to undertake. Multiple viewings are needed to more assiduously parse the intricacies in the film’s portrayal of the Joker, its themes, and the political undercurrent influencing the character of Gotham and its populace. There are numerous applicable frameworks through which this film and its impact can be analyzed, which is undoubtedly a testament both to its quality and complexity as well as the irrevocable significance of movies in general as a medium capable of anatomizing humanity itself as the subject of discourse.
With respect to the controversy, it seems that the intrinsic conversation pertains to the extent of the responsibility imparted upon filmmakers and writers to consider the cultural climate into which their work will be incorporated and contextualized, and to ensure the perspicuous conveyance of their actually intended message or themes. From one perspective, the innate subjectivity of art renders it malleable to the projected interpretations and meanings each individual imposes upon it, and what we personally distill from a piece remains the prerogative of the audience to determine for ourselves, no matter the original desires of the creators. Every written work therefore has the potential to be distorted and extruded into an unrecognizable form that can somehow inspire or justify unconscionable actions, such as Charles Manson’s obsession with The Beatles’ White Album, which is an entirely unpredictable consequence that the writers should not be held accountable for. However, artistic mediums don’t exist in a vacuum, and instead are both reflective and constituent elements of their encompassing society. For example, collectively, films are somewhat of sociological artifacts, often depicting and affirming the permissible values and attitudes that were pervasive within a culture during the time period in which they were produced. They have the capacity to profoundly influence opinions and perspectives for better or worse, which is in part why expanding diversity and proper representation in storytelling is so exceedingly important and a fair litmus test for societal paradigm shifts.
To relate this back to the specific example of Joker in particular, it seems that an exceptional amount of tact and delicacy must be employed with the presentation of topics that have resounding resonance with sensitive current issues, especially when electing to convey these elements through an uncompromisingly realistic, grim, and visceral lens. I personally think the film was able to carefully and purposefully navigate the precarious situations and mentalities that it intended to expound upon, with perhaps the sole exception of a few moments comprising its ending.
I’ve always adored narratives that are predominantly centralized on exposing the complex interiority of an individual’s mind and the philosophies, experiences, and neurological dispositions that predicate the motivations and behaviors they exhibit. In particular, I find it compelling when these attributes are entrenched in an ethically nebulous atmosphere whereby the story avoids explicitly contextualizing the character as an indisputably righteous or heroic protagonist and instead aims to portray the events of their arc in an amoral, unbiased manner to allow the audience to confront the categorical ambiguities overshadowing a person’s life and decide how they wish to feel about this individual for themselves. In this sense, Joker succeeds at representing the pitiable, inescapable depravity that pursues Arthur and the mounting volatility which results in his fits and the sudden dispensation of violent retribution. The severity of his mental illness and its direct correlation to the constancy of his victimization, delusional expectations, and inability to properly control or channel his emotional responses to external stressors were, from my limited understanding of this somber subject, rather accurately depicted. Consequently, the film’s tone seemed primarily depressive and hopeless in consideration of the unfortunate reality of society’s treatment and perception of the mentally ill, especially in the early nineteen-eighties, and the desperation wrought by living amidst a system willing to discard and abandon its own citizens, leaving them alone to contend with poverty and ostracizing stigma through whatever pernicious means they can rely on. For Arthur, this eventually becomes exacting murderous revenge. Joaquin Phoenix’s nuanced and meticulously constructed embodiment of Arthur was able to showcase, through the idiosyncrasies and physicality of his performance, the precise differentiation between Arthur’s responses to emotional triggers throughout the duration of his journey. When confronted by a challenging or anxiety-inducing circumstance, Arthur’s frail frame would be wracked with irrepressible laughter, which seemed to serve as a conduit to externally release the neurological distress that he was unable to reconcile and suppress inside his mind. However, in the latter parts of the film, his condition mostly ceases, and instead of being rendered rigid and breathless from the experience of murder, for instance, after he kills the men on the subway, he dances. Dancing replaces painful laughter as Arthur’s physical manifestation of his inner emotional state, which, in its calm fluidity, can be interpreted as demonstrating the sensation of peace and control that brutal punishment has afforded him where passivity and resignation could not.
Concerning the overall culmination of the film, I did feel as though the brilliant subtlety previously characterizing the incremental development and execution of Arthur’s arc was somewhat supplanted in the end by a more strident and overt enumeration of his beliefs about the society that had always derided him. As a taciturn man, Arthur’s mental state and motivations were visually represented and implicitly understood throughout the film, and he never really articulated his thoughts on what he recently endured, nor seemed to unify these incidents into an encompassing statement on the current status of income inequality, corruption, stigma against the mentally ill, or incipient public dissension. His story exists concurrently and is inextricably intertwined with the stability of Gotham itself, yet, his conception of his experiences is extraordinarily apolitical and almost entirely self-concerned. For instance, his fixation on Thomas Wayne wasn’t spurred by some ideological hatred of a man symbolic for the pecuniary and systemic issues eroding Gotham’s fragile structure, but rather a personal desire to speak to the man he initially believed to be his father. In consideration of this, the expression of frigid composure that Arthur dons while on TV and the pronounced lucidity with which he dramatically excoriates society for its depravity seems like quite the departure from the distant, socially insulated, and almost dissociative state he was previously mired in. I suppose that the identity of Joker could represent the personified encapsulation of the liberating and affirming joviality, clarity, dominance, and deference he experiences after committing murder, which could partially explain the profound escalation in his political awareness and confidence in the righteousness of his sanguinary exaction of justice.
Following the incendiary events in the TV studio, the film continues to crescendo the scale and ferocity of the virulent disaffection overtaking Gotham, culminating in the burning of the city and idealization of Joker. These scenes in particular were a little bothersome to me from a thematic standpoint, specifically in their characterization of the rioters and the interrelation between these anguished, ignored contingents of Gotham’s populace and Joker himself. Essentially, though it’s rather fitting to have Joker serve as the instigator of chaos, and both arson and violence can be concomitant with protests, I thought that it somewhat compromised the sympathy for their legitimate, reasonable grievances to solely showcase the excessive devolution of the social movement that, realistically, would have found support amongst average, peaceful working-class citizens, the same citizens that Batman usually defends and ardently believes in moralistically. Additionally, to relate back to the aforementioned discussion on cultural responsibility, I can see where people would take issue with the film’s overarching message on the basis of its treatment of Joker’s legacy. Personal manifestoes of mass killers have expounded on their supposed worthlessness and isolation, which incentivizes them to seek means of attaining recognition and to be noticed, understood, remembered, and lauded. Joker could be interpreted as confirming the veracity of this mentality, considering Arthur solidifies his will and sense of purpose through inflicting brutal revenge, is subsequently glorified for his murders, and finally receives the adoring audience he always aspired to have. Apparently, according to the director, it’s possible to view these arguably problematic scenes as delusions of grandeur that are simply manifestations of Arthur’s impotent dreams and degrading mental stability, given his established propensity to project and truly believe his own fantasies. Though discussions pertaining to the intentional open-endedness of the writing are surely intriguing and enjoyable to partake in, I do think that most casual audiences might perceive these events as straightforward and literal, without meticulously searching for potential evidence that could suggest otherwise. From a completely personal perspective, a stronger indication or even the definitive confirmation of the falsity in these scenes could have still served the narrative by having the image of Joker become a symbol, paralleling Batman in a way, that inspires only certain suggestible minds to continue his supposedly politically-motivated atrocities against the rich while Arthur himself is primarily condemned for his actions and left to the confines of Arkham where he formally retreats into the comforting persona of Joker.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the film for its depth and the harrowing reality of its explored themes. In a sense, it affirms why there exists such a cultural and generational fascination with the character of the Joker, and how, through his numerous incarnations and their respective philosophies, he remains a reflection of the darker facets of humanity and the tantalizing prospect of forgoing the fallibility and restraints of conventional social order to jovially pursue one’s own agenda or self-interest.