Joker reviews

Post Reply
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Joker reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

In the course of an article about Joker's Oscar prospects, Mark Harris articulates a lot of my mixed feelings about the movie. The whole article is at this link:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... in-phoenix

...but this is the paragraph that I think gets at it:

"Joker represents, depending on who’s making the argument, one or more of the following: (a) the belligerence of an entitled, largely male fan base demanding that its preferred genre be rewarded; (b) the most stentorian case yet that comic-book-based movies can be grim, dystopian, R-rated, spandex-free CINEMAAAHH; (c) an example of the kind of high-grossing smash the Oscars must nominate in order to stay relevant; (d) exactly the kind of movie Martin Scorsese is complaining about; (e) exactly the kind of movie Martin Scorsese would be making if he were 40 years younger; (f) a shallow, cosmetic appropriation of 1970s New Hollywood style; (g) a reactionary sneer at anti-capitalist protests; (h) an embodiment of the Trump era in its vague, loud, constantly shifting rage; (i) the kind of risk that too few studios are willing to take with their precious intellectual property; or (j) being the victim of people reading too much into something. (I believe about half of these.)"
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Joker reviews

Post by Reza »

Mister Tee wrote:But I have no idea what I'm supposed to feel about this person -- why he does certain generous things (like spare the midget) and not others
Wasn't there a moment when the midget is good to him during a scene set in their office locker room?
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Joker reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

I saw this about 10 days ago, and have held back on discussing because I wasn't really sure how to articulate a reaction. It's certainly SOMETHING. It's way better made/visualized than I'd have expected from Todd Phillips; there are many striking images, especially in the latter portions. And it's got raw power; you know you've seen something. But I'm very unsure if the film's got anything to say, and whether that power amounts to much without a governing intelligence.

It starts with the setting. Back last Spring, I had a significant high school reunion. A good friend from those days, whose life has gone in much more suburban directions than mine, offered to pick me up on the way. When I got in the car, he marveled at how nice my block looked. My upper West side neighborhood is pretty bucolic -- has been for decades -- but he still carried the view from a late 70s movie, and expected something like a war zone. It struck me that the creators of Joker had the same time-warp view, with every element of the city (like the graffiti-covered subway cars) portrayed as it was back then and hasn't been for a long time. Now, it happens that, VERY late in the film -- during the final street rampage -- a movie marquee establishes that the story has been taking place in that bygone era. But if that's the case, the Gotham populace's rage at bankers/investors is very much out of key -- it wasn't till the crash of '08, or Occupy Wall Street, that anger at the financial sector blossomed (in 1981, it had barely begun to exert its muscle). Phillips and company seem to have just mashed together the urban anxieties of the late 70s with the inchoate anger of our current times and hope they add up to a coherent critique. But they don't; rather than expressing something about the times we live in, the film just seems to embrace alienation for its own sake -- personified by a mentally ill character, but echoed, it seems, by a good chunk of society.

The filmmakers seem to feel that, by doing this, they are following in Scorsese's footsteps. The Scorsese influence could hardly be more pronounced, with liberal borrowings from both Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, and DeNiro in the flesh taking on the Jerry Lewis role from the latter. Believe me: there were plenty of people accusing Scorsese of similarly mainlining despair without offering serious insight in those films, particularly in the less-than-successful King of Comedy. But there was the always voluptuous dreaminess of his images, and the in-your-faceness of the performances, to make counter-arguments for their value.

Which brings me to the Phoenix performance, the clear heart of the movie, the element that causes such inner confusion for me. I think the performance is, like much of Phoenix's work this decade, truly remarkable -- fleshed out, full of nuance, tender and lunatic (sometimes simultaneously). But I have no idea what I'm supposed to feel about this person -- why he does certain generous things (like spare the midget) and not others, why he feels a mad rampage is the only answer. In many ways, I found Heath Ledger's Joker more comprehensible. This doesn't detract from Phoenix's work -- I think it's incredibly impressive -- but it does prevent my having a fully positive reaction to the film that contains it.

I like a few incidental things about the film -- the way the plotting converges so the clown rally lines up with the talk show appearance (making for a wonderful subway chase that pays homage to The French Connection); the way the well-worn "Bruce Wayne's parents die" scene is given new context; the score, one of the most emotionally engaging I've heard in some time. Though I probably could have done with fewer laughing/smiling/clown songs on the soundtrack (Smokey Robinson must have felt left out that Tears of a Clown wasn't used); however, I did find amusing the film doing for Sondheim what Clockwork Orange did for Singin' in the Rain.

I have absolutely no idea how this will go over with Oscar voters. I could see it being limited to Phoenix only, and his falling short because older voters find it too weird. But let's see how it does with critics before we jump that far.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Joker reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

From these reactions, it's as if 70s Scorsese did a Batman movie. With all the critical excitement and controversy that entails. These three reviews are raves -- especially for Phoenix, who has vaulted into the best actor race -- but there are also tweets out there from people who LOATHE the film. Again: like Scorsese in his prime.

ON EDIT: To underscore -- the film has five 100's on Metacritic (none of them the reviews cited below), but Stephanie Zacharek at Time gave it a 20. Divisive as hell.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/revie ... ew-1235309

https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/j ... 203317033/

https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/jok ... 12.article
Post Reply

Return to “2019”