I'm not entirely sure how to judge this film. I wasn't initially looking forward to a solo movie definitively explaining the Jokers origin, and not having a proper character to oppose him, like Batman. But it was a competently written story, well-directed, and Interesting. So I'm not sure what to think.
Joker feels like an indie character study in the disguise of a Comic Book film. It takes the base elements that people know about the Joker and finds a way to explain it in a real-world, devoid of the disbelief one has when watching Comic Book films. Taking every liberty on the source material to offer the most realistic interpretation of the Joker; it uses the bare minimum to justify the "Joker" branding and being a DC film. If it didn't have the name, "Joker," half as many people would have seen it, known it existed, or cared.
Todd Phillips' approach to the film was a Taxi Driver/The King Of Comedy, 80s style film, then chuck a DC character into it. The intention was never to be a Comic Book film. He succeeded in making that. Does that make it a bad Comic Book film?
The reason people see these movies are to see adaptations of the characters they like. There's a particular expectation of source material, references, and likeness to the character and universe to care about watching a film on it. In saying that, you would never get new stories, expanded ideas, and new interpretations of characters if everyone had 1:1 adaptations of characters. Comics, for one, don't always.
Thinking of it as a film unrelated to comics: it's a well-made character study of a mentally ill guy dressed as a clown who finally breaks. Starting with a sympathetic background, you begin to understand he's not a guy you should like at the end of the film.
As a movie related to comics? I don't know how to judge it. It was never the intention to make a comic movie, nor is it. References feel thrown in only to warrant its relation to DC Comics, and for fans to go "ah, I know that thing;" that's it.
I did have two problems with the editing. The introduction to the world and the character didn't seem to flow as well as it could have. Things happening just seemed stitched together. In theory, this is how you write the introduction to a film. In reality, it didn't feel as good as it could have been. The other was the transition from Gary Glitter's Rock & Roll to Hildur Guðnadóttir score on the stairs. They wanted a cool moment as well as an emotional moment in the same scene, and it just didn't work. Choose one or the other.
I have no solid opinion on the politics of this film. Gun violence, political statements, and diversity aren't glorified or played up, upon my first viewing. It seemed fine. All the outrage seemed pointless and over nothing.
Let me know what you think down below or on Twitter @AfterHoursMedYT
No comments:
Post a Comment