JOKER (and film derivation)

Few films have stirred up the media and tapped into the zeitgeist as extremely as Todd Phillip's 2019 comic book film Joker. The box office performance, which has so far shown impressive legs with its very small percentage drops, is evidence that people are seeing this film just to be part of the conversation surrounding the violence and messages the film presents. One nagging question I have had is whether Joker is the result of a progression on from other superhero films, or whether it is a direct reaction to the current climate of interchangeable, big budget spectacles.
There have been a couple of notable blockbusters in recent years that have taken much inspiration from older classic films: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, with its casting of Robert Redford and a tense elevator scene, pays homage and takes inspiration from 1970s political thrillers like Three Days of the Condor (1975); 2017's Logan burrows heavily from 1953's Shane (a scene from the film is shown, and later quoted) and 1992's elegiac masterpiece Unforgiven; 2017's War for the Planet of the Apes takes heavy inspiration from a batch of classics: its story has elements of Apocalypse Now (1979), The Great Escape (1963, and both of which are punned in some on-screen graffiti), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957). These films in particular wore these inspirations on their sleeves whilst also telling a story that was its own thing.
Joker follows suit, riffing on two Martin Scorsese pictures (he was originally on-board as a producer): Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Robert De Niro stars in both, as an unhinged man driven to potentially political violence in one, and as a mentally unsound wannabe comedian who idolises an American talk show host in the second. Joker is the birth child of these two films, with Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck (aka the Joker) being the unhinged 'stand-up comic' whose dark path inevitably leads to violence, and De Niro is actually cast as the talk show host, paying homage to his The King of Comedy performance.
Phoenix makes for a magnetic Joker. Uncomfortable is the correct feeling in viewing many of his scenes, his sporadic laughter and chesty nicotine induced cough afterwards make for an interesting take on the iconic villain, whilst his eyes and smiles are terrifying. One scene early on sees the camera slowly zoom in on his face, the complexion changing bit by bit into an unsettling smile. It is more terrifying than anything Pennywise got up to recently. Yes, he is worthy of an Oscar nomination, and hopefully the selected scene that goes with the nomination is his first stand up performance, trying to desperately to suppress his laughter and tell the first joke. It is a riveting piece of acting.There are numerous other zoom ins which do an excellent job of isolating Fleck from everything else.
In fact, by and large the cinematography is fantastic. The use of lighting is wonderful, particularly on a subway train where the flickering lights allow antagonists to move seen and unseen, and also in the film's third act which inevitably sees the titular character on the talk show he once fantasised about being on.
There grim reality of the film, with its mucky exteriors juxtaposed to the extravaganza of the elites watching Modern Times in a deluxe cinema, makes everything hit so much harder. Previous incarnations of the Joker have seen the clown wipe out dozens, sometimes hundreds of people in one go. Violence in this film is sparing, but when it comes it is horrifying. There is something far more threatening with killing one person in a room with a pistol than with killing a hundred with gas. Because the violence Joker presents is unflinchingly real, never straying into the colourful possibilities of comic book action and staying firmly in modern America. It is violence that could happen and has happened.
It has been refreshing to see Al Pacino have a small role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and it is refreshing to see Robert De Niro also have fun in a solid if small role in Joker (before both actors make their proper returns next month in The Irishman). The supporting cast is pretty solid throughout, and the musical score is utterly murky, brooding with sinister energy. It is most effective.

Then there is the film's message. Joker is a troubling film; at times it feels like a call to arms against the wealthy politically elite. The newspaper headlines and riots feel all too real that the downtrodden and poor could very easily rise up. Whilst not setting out to be, this is the Taxi Driver of this generation, a film with the ability to brainwash those vulnerable to the film's ideas. I did feel concerned watching some scenes, but overall my take is that rather then calling for political and social justice by force, it is invoking a theory I believe that is called 'noblesse oblige' - it means that the wealthy and powerful in society have a duty to look after and help the poor and disenfranchised. The events of this film show two things: society does not cater or understand mental illness as well as it should, and because of this rejection it stirs up the darker side of the downtrodden, ensuring the hate the system that should be aiding them.
It does derive an awful lot from The King of Comedy, especially with the black girlfriend that may or may not be real, the living at home with his mum set up and the idolisation of a celebrity. Luckily it isn't a scene for scene retelling, and it has enough of its own energy and stance to be its own force to be reckoned with. And hey, if this movie encourages people to watch those two Scorsese films, then that's great.
An unsettling, powerfully made and visceral piece of cinema that promises a new wave of character study superhero films.