BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Why 'Joker' Is Not Toxic, And How Those Concerns About It Are Wrong

Following
This article is more than 4 years old.

As reviews for Todd Phillips' comic book villain origin film Joker arrive this morning (you can read my own review here) and talk of Joaquin Phoenix's Oscar-worthy performance heats up, there continues to be debate and controversy over the film's "sympathetic" depiction of the homicidal clown. Much of the complaints are based on assumptions the film presents his slide into psychosis as caused by society neglecting and abusing him — and to be sure, the Joker has tremendous resentments and hatreds in the film — but those complaints and assumptions are flawed. The truth is, the claim that the film glorifies or sympathizes with toxic behavior and angry-loner violence are mistaken.

A story about a monster, from the monster's viewpoint, requires a certain degree of inherent sympathetic perspective. If you made a film about Charles Manson's "origin" as an eventual mass murdering cult leader, it would necessarily include early scenes depicting the abuse, torture, rape, and other traumas Manson experienced in his youth, the ways in which he was institutionalized through incarceration, how adults in his life were mostly criminals who set horrible examples for him and often engaged him in their own criminal behavior, and how by the time he was 18 he had been through a process likely to have turned anybody into a deranged homicidal maniac.

The point isn't to make you feel bad for him or to justify his later rapes and assaults and murders, nor is it to glamorize Manson. No sane, decent person could know who Manson is, see his crimes depicted, and feel true sympathy for him in his actions or root for him, or perceive him as some sort of folk hero to emulate. But indeed, there were members of his cult who did just that, and there are surely disturbed people in society who might see a film about his life and idolize him anyway. The film would not glamorize or glorify, nor would it's message be that we should understand and empathize with Manson.

Now imagine Manson is a fictional character. Imagine he is such a famous villain, just his name is enough for most mainstream folks to immediately understand who it is and that he is one of the most popular villains in all of entertainment. Imagine previous incarnations of this villain portrayed him as cool, funny, smart, and what could in fact be called glamorizing to the extent many people dressed up as him, wore shirts featuring his face, and praised him as being a great villain precisely because he's so idealized and resplendent and successful at what he does.

Then imagine a depiction of him in which he's weak, embarrassing, dishonest, creepy, stalking, selfish, whiny, and cruel to people you actually sympathize with. Imagine that — unlike previous versions where his murders were either off-screen or depicted with minimum disturbing violence and blood — you have to see his victims scared and begging, crying, and desperately helpless. Imagine you have to see the disgusting bloody mess he creates. Imagine that when he acts "glorified" and when others idealize him, you remind yourself he's an unreliable narrator, and anyway even Manson had his followers and still has admirers to this day. Imagine he doesn't care at all about why other people admire him, and that he has no real purpose or point of view other than wanting to inflict pain and suffering on everyone around him — because some men just want to watch the world burn, after all.

Does that sound glorified to you? Does it sound glamorous? Does it seem like anyone in their right mind would experience such a thing and walk away admiring that character? I certainly hope not.

And therein lies the point. Joker will be accused of making the villainous murderer sympathetic, and some will misread it as suggesting he has an agenda or that he was "made" into a monster by society. There is concern that it makes psychosis look "cool." Which is all very much the opposite of what Joker shows and says.

And if you go that route, I certainly hope you aren't a fan of The Dark Knight's Joker, or of The Silence of the Lambs with its "he's cool and smart and sexy" characterization of Hannibal Lecter. Or other serial killer movies that treat the homicidal maniacs as folk heroes. Or Star Wars and its uber-cool child-killer Darth Vader. Or Die Hard and its mega-popular villain Hans. Or Pulp Fiction and all of its stylized cool, glamorous bad guys you are supposed to laugh with and root for. Or Loki from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, who mass-murdered all sorts of people before evolving into the sheepish "bad boy" who redeems himself and gets forgiven for all of that previous massacring and brutal dictatorship stuff.

Everyone loves to talk about the villains they love. Everyone loves to point to homicidal cannibals, terrorist-thieves, space-fascists, and cut-smile clowns as examples of great ways to depict cool, glamorous, funny, lovable baddies. So I'm not inclined to agree with the notion that somehow Joker is crossing a boundary — especially since this is frankly the LEAST (to the point of "not at all") glamorized or cool or likable version of the character. The degree of sympathetic perspective is due to the framing of this as an origin story, but in which we are always reminded he is psychotic and violent and everything we see is up for debate.

And as I said earlier, audiences KNOW this is the Joker, they know what he is and what he's going to do, and they watch him do creepy things and cruel things and insane murderous things over and over in the film.

Even his particular victims who are unsympathetic are, in fact, no more unsympathetic than the Joker himself in the film, and several of them are in fact sympathetic unless you choose to ignore the context and background, and unless you are unwilling to grant even a sliver of the same degree of benefit of the doubt to them that you grant the Joker. This is a movie about a specific character, who has a specific future and is a specific type of violent terroristic lunatic seeking to destroy society for his own amusement. Remember that, and remember how you and other people feel and talk about other villains in other films, before you take too seriously the more extreme complaints and negative analysis of this movie that's largely being made by people who didn't even see it yet.

If Joker is sending bad messages or being irresponsible regarding violence and gunplay, what are we to think of the praise for this year's films like John Wick 3 with its likable assassin characters who shoot up everyone and everything around them, or Hobbs & Shaw with its hero who murdered one of the series' previous heroes and who is generally a mercenary terrorist? So much shooting and killing and "antiheroes" and "villain protagonists" get praised or simply ignored when it's in entertainment people happen to personally enjoy. And when video games or movies or music get blamed for causing shootings and inspiring horrible things, most of the time the film press and Hollywood and progressives unite in their rebuttal of such oversimplifications and rightly point out society is full of immediate and real causes and enabling of violence and toxic behaviors.

None of which is to bash the other films I mentioned, or to simply engage in "whataboutism." I'm not saying "but what about those other bad things," I'm saying "you probably don't consider those other films bad, and you probably think similar complaints about them are wrong, so you should apply that same logic here as well."

We can and should talk about ways art can depict things problematically, and the context in which messages being misunderstood can be increased or decreased depending on social circumstances. I don't at all give a pass to films that harbor toxic messages, and I don't deny that even films that don't have overtly toxic messages can send mixed signals or otherwise feed broader social narratives that are harmful. But I also don't pretend that the ignorant misreading of a film by a toxic group of viewers makes the film itself toxic or wrong, especially when it in fact is something entirely different than what those toxic people think it is, or — as is the case here — when the film is making us aware the character's behavior is not only toxic but horrifyingly evil.

In this case, Joker is so clearly about a deranged evil maniac, I think it's simply crazy to hold it accountable for the potential toxic fans who might idealize this Joker. And let me say again, this Joker is MUCH less glamorous or cool or relatable in any "messaging" sense than The Dark Knight's version of the character (and I don't remotely consider that version bad or dangerous or toxic, either). When you watch this film, I assure you you're not going to be thinking he's glamorized or fetishized the way he's been in most previous incarnations.

You can't make a movie about the Joker without being faithful to his personality and traits, and in turn you cannot accomplish those things without some degree of portraying him as enjoying what he does and being rather good at it. Joker demonstrates how he gets better and better at his deranged homicidal behavior, and it shows that yes some people initially misunderstand the "why" of what he's doing, and eventually some people inclined toward similar behavior seek to join him — just as in the comics, just as in the Joker's every other film appearance.

Joker is a tremendous film. It is Todd Phillips' best work to date, it is Joaquin Phoenix's finest performance, it is Scott Silver's best writing (alongside Phillips himself), it is Lawrence Sher's greatest cinematography, and it is a contender for status as the best on-screen portrayal of the Joker. This is one of the year's best films, and will be in the running for multiple Academy Awards.

Talking about Joker and these issues is worthwhile, and many people will have complicated feelings about it and interpret certain aspects differently. I respect that, and I understand some of where they might be coming from. However, I believe such discussion should be fully informed and consistent, and should avoid oversimplifying or mischaracterizing what happens in the film and how it is presented. In particular, I hope people will watch it and notice the film's presentation of his psychosis and behavior and life is pretty careful to avoid making him seem cool or relatable, and as the story progresses you'll see the tricks the filmmakers have up their sleeves and the way new scenes suddenly peel back the layers of previous scenes to demonstrate just how severely horrible and creepy he truly is — and how untrustworthy, to boot.

Likewise, those who defend the film should not engage in toxic behavior or disingenuously use the points about Joker to justify or excuse other overt forms of toxic behavior in other films and among fans. I've seen social media discussions in which I (as someone who read the script and actually saw the film) disagreed with the accusations and complaints being directed at Joker, yet where I also saw people attempting to "defend" the film not by offering serious counter-points or saying the complaints were actually mistaken, but rather by defending the very sort of behavior and messaging that was being (mistakenly) presumed exist in the film.

Joker is going to be a film people talk about for the rest of the year, one we debate about and rewatch and reassess. I hope those who still have complaints and concerns give it at least a couple of viewings, just as I will personally be rewatching it many times to evaluate my own positions — and simply to re-experience the sheer brilliance of the filmmaking by all involved.

Follow me on Twitter