News

'Joker' - Review News: other

Posted By	Film
Posted On	13th Feb 2020
Author	Daniel Sheridan
Location	John Hume, Lecture Hall 2

'Joker' - Reviewed by Daniel Sheridan

In Todd Philips's controversial film Joker, we learn the past of the most infamous characters in comic book history. With an amazing performance at the centre of the film, Joker has a lot of amazing qualities going for it, yet it is too bad that these are held down by its many flaws.

I have always been a Joaquin Phoenix apologist from his strange performance art documentary I’m Still Here and his beautiful performance in The Master. Phoenix has proven to be one of the worlds most versatile actors and no more does it shine than in his performance of Arthur Fleck. His portrayal of a man broken down by society in this film is nothing short of mesmerizing. We follow his transformation from a man who only wanted to make people laugh to the sadistic character we all know from previous iterations. While I love Phoenix’s performance in this film I think he gave a far more realistic and nuanced performance of a man forgotten by society in Lynn Ramsey’s 2018 film You Were Never Really Here. Sometimes Fleck felt a bit uneven on his motives throughout the film, yet I do not put that down to Phoenix’s performance rather down to Todd Phillips and Scott Silvers script.

Two other aspects of the film I really enjoyed were the score and the cinematography. The way Lawerence Sher framed Gotham made it feel like a lived-in world. The gritty colour grading and close-ups made us more engrossed in Fleck’s struggles, while it moves out too well choreographed wide shots at moments of his triumph. Similarly, Hildur Guðnadóttir’s score added to both the claustrophobic nature of Gotham city and the dreamlike perception Fleck has on reality. It is so hard to find composers who use their music to drive forward the story through their music alone, yet that is how I felt every time Guðnadóttir’s haunting violins creep into your ears.

Where I feel the film falls flat is within its script and its direction. It is hard to separate Joker from the intertextual references that inspired its narrative as it is so ingrained in its DNA. When I watch Joker I never feel like I am watching something new, interesting or innovative because I have seen the same form of narrative done better in two Scorsese flicks. I am not saying it is wrong to have intertextual references and influences within works of art, for example, most of Hozier’s songs reference different Jazz standard artists that influenced his work and Yargos Lanthamos uses techniques similar to Stanley Kubrick to tell a story on the screen. Yet the difference between the likes of Hozier/Lanthimos and Phillips Is that they take their intertextual knowledge in order to create something new, which Joker never feels. Philips had nothing new to say so he called on films like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy to say something for him.

While I think you should see Joker I feel like it's not the masterpiece you have come to believe it to be. There is talent working on this film, yet they are squandered on a director that bit off more than he could chew.