by Chris Churilla

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of comic books knows how the Joker, Batman’s nemesis, came to be: falling into a vat of chemicals turned him from an ordinary man into the always smiling mockery of a man. However, the film's director, Todd Phillips, director of comedies such as The Hangover trilogy (2009-2013) and Road Trip (2000) gives his own idea of the criminal’s origins, which in some ways is much more unsettling.

The Joker, the archenemy and super-villain to the fictional superhero Batman appeared in DC Comics’ debut issue Batman on April 25, 1940, and has appeared in various films since his inception. Created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, the character first starred in two serial films in the 1940s and continues through his most recent incarnation in Joker (2019).

DANCING JOYFULLY DOWN A DARK PATH

As the film opens, it is the early 80s in Gotham, and it is a sad state of affairs. A strike by sanitation workers has left piles of garbage in the streets, the most obvious of the numerous problems plaguing the city.

The film focuses on Arthur Fleck, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who works as a clown for a small-time entertainment company and sees a social worker employed by the city. Trauma earlier in life has left him with a condition that makes him prone to outbursts of laughter at any time, even when there is nothing apparently funny.

Fleck dreams of being a comedian, to make people smile and laugh. He idolizes Murray Franklin, a late-night talk show host, and hopes of one day appearing on the show. He makes friends with a woman who lives in the same apartment building, and even invites her to a performance of his as a comedian; maybe there is a chance for romance?

But we all know the end; the only question is how does he get there? People and events combine to push him down a dark path, one, in the end, he gleefully walks—no, runs—down. 

SURPRISES ABOUND IN A SATURATED FIELD

This is the third different live-action portrayal of the Clown Prince of Crime in just over a decade, joining Heath Ledger’s Academy Award-winning performance in The Dark Knight (2008) and Jared Leto’s in Suicide Squad (2016). I dare say this is another performance worthy of an Academy Award.

Looking at this film’s cast and crew, I believe many people were skeptical, given the backgrounds of Phillips and Phoenix; Phillips had done comedies up until now and Phoenix, while not an A-list movie star, had been nominated for an Academy Award three times, so what were they doing making a comic book movie?

But such thinking also happened when Ledger was cast in Dark Knight, and he ended up surprising everyone.

There have been the inevitable comparisons and arguments over which performance was better, but I will not join the fray; as with most things artistic, it all comes down to individual opinion. As far as I am concerned, it is cinematic apples and oranges; the interpretations by the actors are different, so how can they be judged equally?

While I was certainly surprised by Phoenix’s performance, in another way I wasn’t. In my opinion, he is an actor with an incredible range in the same vein as Christian Bale, and one only needs to look at his resume: the brilliant but troubled Commodus in Gladiator (2000) to country music legend Johnny Cash in Walk the Line (2005) to nerdy gift card writer Theodore in Her (2013) to name a few.

Just in the first scene, in which Fleck is preparing himself for a job and practices his smiles, one can see the brokenness in his eyes; right then I knew this was going to be a great performance.

This brokenness is further shown in his laugh, one of Joker’s signatures. Mark Hamill’s portrayal of an animated Joker in several TV series and movies is considered the standard by which all other performers of the role are measured, and his madness-filled laugh is a good one.

But Phoenix’s laugh--something he admitted was the most difficult part of developing the role--comes out full of pain as if he was choking on glass. This is not a laugh that conveys joy or madness, rather just another symptom of how deeply damaged he is.

Just in case anyone missed these signs, Fleck comes right out and says it during one of his sessions with the social worker, claiming he has nothing but negative thoughts.

As bold as Phoenix’s performance was, the real surprise here was Phillips, previously known for his comedic work. His script and direction were brave, taking the character into new areas not previously covered in the Batman mythos and even managing—at least for me—some level of sympathy for the doomed man.

Seeing Fleck struggle to make a good life for himself, seeing him struggle to succeed in his chosen career, it’s hard not to root for him a little bit, even if it is ultimately a wasted effort.

I think the strength of a movie lies in its antagonist; but when the protagonist is, in fact, a villain, then the struggle is to somehow make the character relatable to moviegoers so while they may not root for the villain to win then at least understand where such people are coming from and why they are doing what they do.

I thought this was brilliantly illustrated by the character of Zemo in the film Captain America: Civil War (2016). His plan to destroy the Avengers was not out of some mad plan for world domination but rather simply out of grief; he lost his entire family in the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), and he blamed the Avengers for it.

Another bold choice was a subplot running through most of the movie. Arthur shares his apartment with his invalid mother, who keeps saying Thomas Wayne will help them. She later reveals Wayne is, in fact, Arthur’s father.

When that reveal happened, I was absolutely stunned; this added to a whole new level to the Batman/Joker conflict. Rather than simply being a battle between order and chaos, it now threw sibling rivalry into the mix, even if the two of them were unaware of it.

Later on, it is revealed Arthur and Bruce are in fact not half-brothers; Arthur’s mother suffered from delusions, and Thomas’ siring of Arthur was just another one. While ultimately disappointing, I did enjoy such a prospect for the short time it existed.

I also like while this movie dealt with comic book characters, it was very much grounded in reality. There are no superpowers on display, just people muddling about their lives.

What I also noticed is there are also no heroes in this movie, no knights in shining armor. Most of the people fall on the darker side of the morality scale. Even Thomas Wayne, who has a small role in the film, is not shown through the golden lens of remembered childhood but rather shown as someone whose wealth has caused him to fall out of touch with the common man.

THE ABSENCE OF GOD? 

It certainly is easier to accept a vat of chemicals for creating Joker; that has been the case in such portrayals as Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) as well as Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke, a graphic novel about the criminal’s origin.

But in this version, society is what makes him. Adopted by a woman who was already mentally ill, abused by her boyfriend, and then left to the care of an underfunded and seemingly indifferent bureaucracy, is there any other way this story could have ended?

As with any tale which features a villain as the protagonist who gets away with his crimes, there comes the natural hand-wringing of those who are concerned it will inspire real-life crimes. The most obvious incident that comes to mind is the mass shooting incident at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in which the perpetrator initially identified himself as the Joker after being arrested; coincidentally, the shooting took place during a showing of the film The Dark Knight Rises (2012).

Surprisingly, Phoenix was not one of the people who thought the film might inspire further incidents. When asked such a question in an interview, he was so surprised by it he walked out, suggesting such a thought had never occurred to him.

It is amazing such ignorance on Phoenix’s part is still present today; we live in such an interconnected world, how can one not know their words and actions impact others, especially in the case of celebrities?

The movie itself was not the only source of controversy; even its soundtrack was brought into question. In one pivotal scene, Fleck, in the Joker persona, dances down a set of stairs to “Rock and Roll (Part 2)”, performed by Gary Glitter, who is currently serving a prison sentence for possession of child pornography and sexual crimes against children.

While such a choice can be considered in poor taste and insensitive to victims of such crimes, the argument can be made the choice in music and more specifically the musician performing it is in keeping with the themes of the movie, namely Fleck’s abuse he received as a child.

In watching this film and Fleck succumbing to his dark impulses, one might wonder why this happened; while never specifically addressed in the movie, there is very little goodness present in this version of Gotham and one might wonder if it suggested there is no God. Some more daring thinkers may even go so far as to suggest this is some form of Hell; it seems everyone in this film is suffering somehow.

I believe we all have free will and must decide the paths we will choose to take in life. Buddhism teaches that we have no control over what happens, only how we react to it. This puts the responsibility on us, rather than putting it all on Him. God puts things and situations into our lives to help us, just as Satan puts things in our lives to tempt us, and ultimately it is up to us how we choose to respond. No one can make that decision except us, uncomfortable and difficult as it may be.

Fleck just wants to be happy—but who doesn’t?—yet he is constantly thwarted in this simple goal, so is there any wonder he finally lashes out?

To paraphrase the film Apocalypse Now (1979), within every human heart a battle takes place between good and evil, and good does not always win. Joker shows what happens when good loses, when evil finally spills over the barriers of self-control and drowns everyone in its path.

Resources

We’ve created a free downloadable PDF to explore the article deeper. It contains discussion questions about the topic in general terms that will give you a jumping-off point for beginning a conversation.

The second page contains a way to see the topic from a biblical perspective.

And finally, to go deeper into the subject, we have chosen a few curated resources to explore from other authors’ and thinkers’ research or perspectives.

Read. Engage. Enjoy!

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Depending on how a gem is held, light refracts differently. At B+PC we engage in Pop Culture topics to see ideas from a new angle, to bring us to a deeper understanding. And like Pastor Shane Willard notes, we want “…Jesus to get bigger, the cross to get clearer, the Resurrection to be central…” Instead of approaching a topic from “I don’t want to be wrong,“ we strive for the alternative “I want to expand my perspective.” 

So, we invite you to engage with us here. What piqued your curiosity to dig deeper? What line inspired you to action? What idea made you ask, “Hmmm?” Let’s join with our community to wrestle with our thoughts in love in the Comment Section! See you there!