Any blockbuster film from the past couple of years is almost guaranteed to feature some form of violence. Superhero films, in particular, have made waves in cinema over the past decade, and, while almost all feature some sort of murderous villain, none have sparked as much conversation as Joker.
Many have framed the film, directed by Todd Phillips, as a glorification of the protagonist and his psychopathic tendencies. The movie follows Arthur Fleck’s descent into madness as he becomes the Joker, with his dark, intimate character causing many to feel as if the film validates violent behavior from deranged individuals.
Of course, the protagonist is a terrible person—but, the Joker has evolved to become darker and more insane over the years, with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy introducing the grittiest version of the character (played by the late Heath Ledger). Joker’s incarnation of the character is the first to really examine the mental health issues behind the villain’s actions, something he suffers from for the duration of the film.
Parents of gun violence victims shared concerns that the film could influence others to commit acts of violence, including mass shootings. It’s an understandable fear, as mass shootings have been all too common in the States as of late. Even so, I can’t help but equate the controversy with the “video games create mass shooters” argument—a theory that many gun rights supporters have used to shift blame from the easy access to firearms in this country to the media that thousands consume.
However, it’s easy to see why the film caused concern—we follow Arthur as he’s repeatedly victimized by society: he’s mugged by a group of kids, dismissed by almost everybody in his life; he slowly loses everything and feels invisible. When he launches into a speech about his struggles towards the end of the film, he speaks to the “lone wolves” of the world, declaring he has nothing left to lose before committing cold-blooded murder. It’s eerily similar to stories of how school shooters were driven to commit acts of violence, and the film knows it.
The most troubling part of the plot is Arthur’s turning point. He’s shown being stepped on by society over and over again before going insane, when he realizes that committing violent acts is the only way he can capture people’s attention. The portrayal of that realization is exactly what the film’s critics are afraid of: telling the invisible that they must take drastic measures to be seen.
It should be noted that the public associates the Joker with gun violence due to the 2012 shooting at a screening of the Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, despite the character not appearing in that film.
I’d be more concerned about the film if it had ended on the Joker’s highest note, when the character has captured Gotham City’s attention with his crimes. Instead, we see the character locked up in an insane asylum at the end of the movie, just as unhappy as he was before. The subtext is that all of the Joker’s evil was for nothing: he’s had his five minutes of fame and is now locked up, invisible once again.
Joaquin Phoenix, who plays the film’s titular character, has been quick to defend the film, saying, “I don’t think it’s the responsibility of a filmmaker to teach the audience morality or the difference between right or wrong.” He makes a compelling point: art is subjective. Ultimately, audience members will have their own interpretations of the movie, which makes the controversy so tricky. Will vulnerable viewers watching the movie be able to identify the Joker’s horrific actions as wrong? Or will they see them as empowering?
More importantly, the criticism begs the question: Should art be censored to protect society’s values? If a work of fiction demands it, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with depicting a character who may strike a nerve with audiences. Obviously, it’s a sensitive time for a film featuring mental health issues and violence to be released, but why shouldn’t that story be told?
Ultimately, Joker isn’t a popcorn flick. It’s a raw portrayal of what happens when a mentally ill individual, who feels rejected by society, reaches his breaking point. For many, it may feel too real, but I think that’s the point the film is trying to make, asking audiences to ponder what they can do to reach out to alienated individuals before they do something everyone regrets.
