“Joker”: there are no superheroes, and there are sick people
“The Joker” is perhaps the most caressed film festivals, the center of which is a comic book character. And it’s understandable why: it doesn’t look like a comic book movie. On the other hand, why tie him to Batman?
Clearly, why: to go to him comic book fans and made him a bigger box office. If the character of such a film was some left-wing uncle, and not the future main antagonist of Batman, I would not go to him. I don’t like movies like that.There are films, you know, heavy, but the severity is different. It can be thick, viscous, as if not yet properly frozen jelly, and this boring. From such a sticky weight you want to get rid of as soon as possible — and it’s easy to do, you can exit the session or close the player window. “Joker” – not dense, it oppressive terrible hopelessness of the broken destiny and romanticization of mental disorders and violence. There is no escape from this hopelessness.Like any self-respecting comic book character that has existed for decades, the Joker has several origin stories. And none of the comics are the same as what Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix showed in the film.Phillips told the story of a sick man. He has real problems with his head, he has no money, he has a disabled mother, and around him is a cruel world that either does not notice him or wipes its feet on him. The tie is banal. Stories in which a little man starts a revolution, angry at the system, the car and the little cart. Unlike the “Joker” in that here the revolution began quite by accident. And the purpose of the film at all in it.
The main word that was spinning in my head during the viewing is “painful”. It was painful to see what was happening on the screen, painful to hear the excessively raised whistling tops in the cinema, slightly muffled by the thundering bass of the Hildur Gudnadottir soundtrack, painful to understand where everything leads and how it will end.
Thanks, by the way, Warner Bros. for what refused in” the Joker ” from corporate ragged installation and slightly desaturated picture, adding softness and correct shades of the eighties era. From this point of view, it was nice to watch the film. Perhaps this was the only pleasant moment in the whole picture.Plus kinokontrol that they, no matter how motivating and pseudoglobulin was, unreal. There are no geniuses who build nuclear reactors in their chests, and there are no supersoldiers, magicians, demons, parallel dimensions, and all that (at least, until science has proved or made public the existence of all these things). Therefore, kenogamissi is entertainment pure water window non-existent in the world for a couple of hours while watching, even if raise any important or critical issues.
And if there are no superheroes, then there are sick people. Arthur Fleck, played by Joaquin Phoenix and reincarnated as the Joker in the finale, becomes frighteningly close to reality in Todd Phillips ‘ interpretation. There are such people nearby. Walk the same streets, maybe live on the same landing or work in the same building.
The film is good. Through and through secondary, it is compared everywhere with “taxi Driver” with De Niro and similar pictures, and not for nothing-there are a lot of common points. But in “Joker” the plot, the picture and the sound are intertwined in so integral, uniform lump of pain and despair that it is simply terrible.Do I need it?
The problem is that this film does not need to be a movie about the Joker. In network literature often meets the term “any two guys” – them denote history, in which can be replace names characters on any other and nothing from this not will change. With the film “Joker” the story is similar: you can substitute any names instead of the Joker, Thomas Wayne, other characters-and nothing, nothing, not a bit will change neither in the plot, nor in the message, nor in the gravity of the story. Yes, you can still make the main character some other symbol of the revolution instead of a clown, so that copywriters do not eat with giblets. It is possible to leave without problems all threads connecting the film with DC comics — and then attentive viewers will accumulate a thousand articles about Easter eggs, references and “possible connection of the new film with the comic giant”.
And the film would have remained good. I think he would have been better. And he would not be afraid to put in the festival program and award more often than now.
I mean, Yes, you come out of the session like a dust bag. And then you sit and think: why? Why comic world deprived of comicshot? Why is such a real story, found in any major city (if you exclude the moment of the revolution), tied to the comics references and Easter eggs, colors and names? Why mix flies and cutlets?
Again, of course, why: money. The audience of psychological thrillers briefly grew and increased by the number of fans of comics. It was the first time I’d been to a late-night premiere session with subtitles, where there wasn’t a single empty seat in the room. At the moment when the credits began, in the silence there was a cry of ” Masterpiece!”and no one objected to the screaming man. Someone even applauded.Perhaps this is an indicator of a good movie — how strong emotions it causes after watching, it does not matter whether it is delight or disgust. Or how many questions come up in your head.In General, I have such verdict: the film-a good. A film based on the comic book — bad.
PS: Count how many times the word “revolution”is mentioned in the text. It’s a little strong to describe what’s going on in the Joker, but still. I’m surprised that the film is not banned for hire in Russia.