October 2019

Arts & Letters

No one’s laughing now: Todd Phillips’ ‘Joker’

By Shane Danielsen
A gripping psychological study of psychosis offers a surprising change of pace in the superhero genre

So there’s this guy. Solitary, a bit of a misfit. Shares a flat with his ailing mother, in a city rapidly descending into chaos. Like all of us, he nurtures hopes, has things in his life he’d like to achieve – a successful career, someone to love. But even these modest dreams are so remote as to seem ludicrous. He tries in vain to make his therapist understand (“You just ask the same questions every week: ‘How’s your job?’ ‘Are you having any negative thoughts?’ All I have are negative thoughts”), but she has no answers either. Nothing changes, or seems likely to.

Until one day, a chance encounter shows him another way. He dons a costume, devises a new identity…

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Clearly, we’re going to be bombarded with superhero movies from now until the extinction of humanity – that is, for about the next 50 years. The reasons for this are at once practical (digital effects have enabled and encouraged a particular kind of storytelling), social (ours is an ever-more juvenile culture, and these, for better or worse, are its myths) and, above all, financial. With their subordination of dialogue to action, and their rollout potential as global, brand-driven “events”, these films play as well in Mumbai and Guangzhou and Lagos as they do in London or New York. And studios, bless them, tend to like that sort of thing.

Given this fact, the question then becomes: is there the possibility of making personal work within this genre? To be subversive, idiosyncratic? It’s not impossible: James Gunn managed it with the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, which, Marvel credentials aside, is very much a James Gunn movie. Hell, even Zach Snyder did it with his titanically awful Man of Steel: the auteur as 14-year-old Objectivist. But for the most part, a deadening sameness prevails. Try to find a spark of life in the assembly-line proficiency of Ant-Man and the Wasp or Justice League.

Todd Phillips, though, has pulled it off. Destined to be one of the most divisive movies of the year, Joker is something wholly unexpected – a downbeat, occasionally confused but mostly gripping study of psychosis on both a personal and a societal level. Loosely inspired by Alan Moore’s landmark graphic novel The Killing Joke, it dives deep into the Batman mythos to comment on the state of contemporary America. As such, it will be both adored and reviled – and only sometimes for the right reasons. 

From the opening seconds, and the use of Saul Bass’s “modular” 1972 Warner Bros logo instead of the familiar Warner’s shield, it’s clear that, stylistically, this is a film in conversation with a particular moment in American cinema. Its vision of Gotham as a lawless, rat-infested hellhole chimes with the tone of New York City in the 1970s: the power blackouts, the random killings, the breakdown of social services. Even its first action sequence – a frenzied chase through downtown – seems inspired by a film from that period: Peter Hyams’ 1974 cop thriller Busting.

But by far its most obvious borrowings are from Scorsese – specifically from Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, two Robert De Niro vehicles about damaged outsiders yearning to leave their mark on a society that has ignored them. It’s a debt Phillips’ film makes clear by casting that actor here, as a TV talk-show host – the very job his King of Comedy character, Rupert Pupkin, longed for. Rupert, it seems, has finally passed through the screen and into the spotlight; what has replaced him, in the darkness on the other side, is far, far worse.


When Joker was announced, back in 2017, no one expected much. DC Comics fanboys were suspicious. (A Batman story without Batman? From the guy who made The Hangover?) Industry pundits were sceptical. (Budgeted at “just” US$55 million, how could it hope to deliver the scale associated with superhero movies?) Its first trailer looked intriguing, but as we’ve learnt, that’s no guarantee of anything. 

Also… you know… Heath Ledger. Not exactly a small pair of boots to fill.

But then it screened at the Venice Film Festival, and most critics (myself included) were astonished; that night, at its official premiere, it earned a nearly 10-minute standing ovation. And then, a week later, it won the Golden Lion for Best Film, joining the ranks of Last Year in Marienbad and Ivan’s Childhood and Three Colours Blue. We’d expected a joke, another in the string of misfires that have characterised DC’s mostly sub-par movie universe. But to quote the man in the makeup, “No one’s laughing now.”

In a way it makes sense: a superhero film, after all, is only as good as its villain – something those first Avengers films, in particular, didn’t seem to comprehend, pitting their heroes against anonymous clouds of pixels. If The Dark Knight remains the best comic-book adaptation to date – and it does – that’s mostly because Ledger gives one of the greatest film performances of the past quarter-century; every time I watch him in it I find new things to admire, new little shadings and inflections. 

But his Joker is also something other than human – less a character than a phenomenon, a channel through which chaos might flood the world. His real name, where he came from – none of this is important (as the character himself more or less acknowledges, with his multiple, contradictory accounts of how he got his facial scars). All that matters, ultimately, is that he is.

Phillips’ Joker is the opposite: an origin story. And so he and star Joaquin Phoenix burrow deep into the character of one Arthur Fleck, aspiring stand-up and part-time children’s clown, the saddest of Pagliaccis. They dig into the psyche of this seemingly insignificant man, into his loneliness, paranoia, self-loathing and rage, and emerge with a study of a decent, severely disturbed individual on his way to becoming a monster: Joker avant le deluge

As if his life were not depressing enough, Fleck suffers from pseudobulbar affect, a neurological condition that subjects him to fits of sudden, uncontrollable laughter, and so strenuously does Phoenix execute these convulsions, one is never quite sure whether he’s laughing or crying. It’s typical of the bruising physicality of his performance (the actor shed 24 kilograms for the role, and without his shirt, contorted in front of his bedroom mirror, looks like something drawn by Egon Schiele), and part of the pleasure of this film is watching how its star’s body language alters over the course of the narrative, as Fleck first defines and then fully inhabits a space of his own. Initially circumscribed, his gestures become grander, more florid; his voice deepens. Nervy and recessive at first, he achieves, in the film’s final moments, a sovereign stillness. The object, at last, of every gaze.

But that attention is itself problematic. And so, mere hours after the first raves for Phillips’ achievement came the inevitable backlash. Not merely a bad film, these critics alleged, Joker was a dangerous one: a rallying cry for incels and Proud Boys and every wretched strain of angry white dude who might see himself reflected in its dirty mirror. (According to IndieWire, the film speaks “to the people in our world who are predisposed to think of Arthur as a role model: lonely, creatively impotent white men who are drawn to hateful ideologies because of the angry communities that foment around them.”)

Let’s pause to acknowledge the quite staggering elitism of this critique. The unspoken belief that, while we understand this film perfectly well, being the educated, sophisticated viewers that we are, the masses – those “creatively impotent” drones the writer encounters whenever he boldly ventures beyond Brooklyn – might not. They may get the wrong message, might draw the wrong conclusions. Breathtaking in its arrogance, it positions these liberal critics alongside the kind of right-wingers who blame video games for gun violence.

In fact, one of the remarkable things about Joker is precisely its slipperiness. It refuses to tell you where to stand or how to feel, and it doesn’t take a single position itself. On the contrary, it keeps shifting and realigning – much like its protagonist, who goes from loser to outcast to victim to aggressor, yet is never exclusively any one of these things at any one time. When Fleck commits his most public act of violence, he’s also arguing a moral case – and happens, up until the very moment he crosses the line, to be in the right. 

Also, I’m not convinced that the film exalts its subject, or his methods, at all – unless, of course, you happen to believe that the overthrow of Gotham’s elite by gangs of murderous, mask-wearing vigilantes constitutes an improvement. The revolution the film depicts is not the victory of The People against the One Per Cent; it’s a howling mob lashing out against the rule of law, and is depicted as such, in scenes of anarchy, confusion and violence. In fact, one key moment here – of a hoodlum in a Joker mask sitting in the back of a yellow cab, and Phoenix/Fleck smiling slightly as he sees him go by – suggested to me nothing so much as Osama bin Laden, watching with satisfaction as his agents, inculcated with his madness, go forth into the world.

Is Joker a great movie? No. But it is audacious and provocative and thrilling, all qualities in short supply among Hollywood releases. Its direction is muscular and assured (two sequences aboard subway trains – one packed with commuters, the other unnervingly empty – are especially well executed), and its craftsmanship immaculate. Special mention should also be made of the grimy, dark-hued cinematography of Lawrence Sher, Phillips’ collaborator on the Hangover films, and the droning, majestic music of composer Hildur Guðnadóttir, who also scored HBO’s superb Chernobyl. Though set in the early 1980s, it’s a film for right now, with all the difficulty and contradictions that statement entails. It has no answers for what has befallen us; it simply holds up a mirror and says, look. And this, too, is the purpose of art.

Shane Danielsen

Shane Danielsen is a screenwriter and former artistic director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival.

From the front page

Image of Anthony Albanese

How to be a prime minister

The task ahead for Anthony Albanese in restoring the idea that governments should seek to make the country better

Image of the Kiama Blowhole, New South Wales

The edge of their seats

Lessons from Gilmore, Australia’s most marginal electorate

Image of Peter Dutton and Sussan Ley

The future of the Liberal Party

Peter Dutton doesn’t just have a talent problem on his hands

Image of Australian Army Cadets on parade. Image via Alamy

Ghosts in the war machine

Does the military attract violent misanthropists, or are they forged in murky theatres of war?

In This Issue

The Monthly Awards 2019

Highlights of the year in Australian arts and culture

‘The weekend’ cover

‘The Weekend’ by Charlotte Wood

The Stella Prize–winner returns with a stylish character study of women surprised by age

‘Act og Grace’ cover

‘Act of Grace’ by Anna Krien

The journalist’s propulsive debut novel tackles the aftermath of the Iraq War

Action Comic cover

Len Lawson: Australia’s most infamous comic artist

The tragic story of the creator of the Lone Avenger


More in Arts & Letters

Image of Fonofono o le nuanua: Patches of the rainbow (After Gauguin), 2020. Image courtesy of Yuki Kihara and Milford Galleries, Aotearoa New Zealand

The dream machine: The 59th Venice Biennale

Curator Cecilia Alemani’s long overdue Biennale overwhelmingly features female artists and champions indigenous voices and other minorities

Image of Daniel Boyd, ‘Untitled (TBOMB)’, 2020

Mission statement: Daniel Boyd’s ‘Treasure Island’

An AGNSW exhibition traces the development of the Indigenous artist’s idiosyncratic technique, which questions ideas of perception

Image of Bundanon

Shades of grey: Kerstin Thompson Architects

The lauded Melbourne-based architectural firm showcase a rare ability to sensitively mediate between the old and the new

Still from ‘Men’

Fear as folk: ‘Men’

Writer/director Alex Garland’s latest film is an unsubtle but ambitious pastoral horror, mixing the Christian with the classical


More in Film

Still from ‘Men’

Fear as folk: ‘Men’

Writer/director Alex Garland’s latest film is an unsubtle but ambitious pastoral horror, mixing the Christian with the classical

Image of Tom Cruise, circa 1980

Sixty business: Tom Cruise

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ hits screens as its ruthlessly career-oriented star turns 60

Still from ‘Apollo 10½: A Space Age Childhood’

One small step: ‘Apollo 10½: A Space Age Childhood’ and ‘Deep Water’

Richard Linklater’s rotoscoped film evokes the optimism of late-1960s America, while Patricia Highsmith’s thriller gets another disappointing adaptation

Publicity still from ‘The Duke’

Maturity breach: ‘The Duke’ and ‘Big Bug’

While Roger Michell’s final film pairs Jim Broadbent with Helen Mirren in a dignified, grown-up cinema, Jean-Pierre Jeunet returns with a juvenile sci-fi sex-comedy


Online exclusives

Image of Australian Army Cadets on parade. Image via Alamy

Ghosts in the war machine

Does the military attract violent misanthropists, or are they forged in murky theatres of war?

Composite image showing John Hughes (image via Giramondo Publishing) and the cover of his novel The Dogs (Upswell Publishing)

A dog’s breakfast

Notes on John Hughes’s plagiarism scandal

Image of Erin Doherty as Becky Green in Chloe. Image supplied

App trap: ‘Chloe’

‘Sex Education’ writer Alice Seabright’s new psychological thriller probing social media leads this month’s streaming highlights

Pablo Picasso, Figures by the sea (Figures au bord de la mer), January 12, 1931, oil on canvas, 130.0 × 195.0 cm, Musée national Picasso-Paris. © Succession Picasso/Copyright Agency, 2022. Photo: © RMN - Grand Palais - Mathieu Rabeau

‘The Picasso Century’ at the NGV

The NGV’s exhibition offers a fascinating history of the avant-garde across the Spanish artist’s lifetime