Joker (2019)

I was thinking about which tagline would sound better: "from Road Trip to Joker" or "much ado about nothing", but both are bit unfair, although also both hold some truth.

Does it make any sense to do a synopsis of the story? Let's do like that: this is not a superhero universe movie. I don't even think it has DC Comics mentioned in the opening titles, which are very '70s - including the Warner Bros logo of that time. That was promising. At least for me, who I'm fed up with the most successful recipe to cash in from cinema in the last 15 years. Well... correction... -this does not seem- to be the same superhero universe as the latest Justice League or Avengers (oh yes, I've put them in the same sentence - not much difference). Of course we are set in Gotham, when Bruce Wayne was living his childhood and wasn't using his bat wings yet. Arthur Fleck is a lonely guy, with a neurological problem, periodically generating hysterical laughing, kept under control with plenty of medication, besides probably many other psychiatric issues. The guy lives with his mother, and has a lousy job as a clown hired on various events. Predictably, when it seems that things going wrong will go even more wrong, that happens. The job is lost, the social assistance also, the medication along it, as well as the self-control, followed by several murders and like that from Arthur Fleck we get to Joker. Well, I finally did a sort of synopsis... Probably not a very comprehensive one, but that wasn't my intention.

And it wasn't my intention because the movie is very very linear. That's the main issue. You have some little mystery, with a scent of soap-opera at some time concerning the abandoned mother who sent letters all her life to Thomas Wayne, the father of the future Batman, but it doesn't take long to have that mystery solved. And since this is pretty much the single digression from a line where you know at least 5 minutes ahead what's gonna happen, I'll refrain from more spoilers. Besides that, as a story at least, doesn't bring any surprise. And now, the taglines...

"From Road Trip to Joker": Todd Phillips has been directing almost only light comedies since year 2000. His association to Joker (no pun intended) was somehow surprising, and the critics rushed a bit on lowering the expectancy, at least until the title role was attributed to Joaquin Phoenix. Obviously neither "Road Trip", neither "Hangover", not even "Borat" where Phillips wrote the script, aren't the best references to guarantee a powerful drama as "Joker" wanted to be, and it actually is. So, that's why I was saying that the tagline sounds a bit unfair. If you've seen "War Dogs", the last movie made by Phillips before "Joker", despite all the comic line present there, you can feel already some drama nuances that are quite strong. Although the movie is heavily linear here, from the directing perspective, I highly doubt it could've been done much better. And the script for a "story" like this... well... I would even say that Phillips made wonders with the base material. From a story that can be summarized in three words = crazy guy snaps - he somehow managed to squeeze a sufficiently solid character (obviously the acting has its role here) to make some noise with it. And like that we're getting to...

"Much ado about nothing": Or what are the critics complaining of after release. The American at least, because in Europe the movie was better received. It's said that the movie is dangerous, that it's pushing to violence, that's pro-guns, and others. I'm curious how far can go the degree of filtering a movie through the social-political perspective. Well, I have the luxury of not being a resident of the American continent, where maybe the daily pressure of this factor might have went so far that distinguishing between a movie release and a political declaration is not done anymore. A movie is a movie, is art and should be first an escape from reality not a reference to it. I'll stick to that belief, although there are nuances. I doubt that Todd Phillips wanted to "positivise" the character, or to justify some violence, although it might seem so. A complex character is complex because it has its good and its bad, and here we have a solid construction that includes both, but that's something to appreciate not to criticize + after all, in the end, bottom line, what's left is a negative character. Even more, I doubt there was any intention for a movie associated with any left or right wing protests or movement. It doesn't even deserve debating. But well... For who's not smart enough and takes directly the idea of solving an issue with a gun, or connects what you can see in a fictive Gotham city and what's near you in the real life, then... well... it's indeed a movie that's harsh and strong enough to exert a direct influence. And that might make it dangerous indeed. But that depends on how smart is the viewer and doesn't throw any blame on the director ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (prea liniar...)