ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 Dancing between Charisma and Politics: An Analysis of Joker (2019) RITIKA KAUSHIK Ritika Kaushik ([email protected]) is a doctoral scholar at the Department of Cinema and Media Studies, University of Chicago. Vol. 55, Issue No. 12, 21 Mar, 2020 The author is thankful to the anonymous reviewer and would also like to thank Sean Batton (at the University of Chicago) for his generous feedback. Joker (2019) is set against an exterior world mirroring the New York City of the 1980s, with its crumbling economy and neo-liberal policies, woven together with the interior world of the rapidly deteriorating mind of its protagonist Arthur Fleck, who has a mental health condition. The article analyses the mild-mannered Fleck’s transition into the slick and charismatic Joker by tracing acts of violence inflicted on him and those that he commits violence upon. Interrogating violent scenes in the film reveals how Joker glorifies and legitimises specific forms of violence, situating the story in a backdrop devoid of historical and political rootedness. Joker (2019) opens with its protagonist Arthur Fleck, played by the virtuosic Joaquin Phoenix, putting on clown face paint, while the radio is abuzz describing the impending state of emergency in the city of Gotham. Modelled on the New York City of the 1980s, Gotham is facing the consequences of policies of “trickle-down” economics—as taxes on the wealthy were reduced to “spur” economic growth, and the country witnessed a reduction in government spending on social services. Against this gritty setting, the film tracks the journey of the awkward and mild persona of Fleck turning into the slick and stylish figure of ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 the Joker—the supervillain from the DC Comics. Broadly, Fleck faces multiple levels of discrimination and violence in society, lashes back with acts of violence, and subsequently becomes a symbol of mass protests. Indeed, by the end of the film, Fleck is hailed as the hero of anti-establishment forces—a crowd of protestors, who have fashioned their face to mirror his persona, cheer him on. Given that the film’s popularity has increased immensely since its release, the iconic clown face paint and mask have been sighted in many anti- government or anti-establishment protests around the world (Du Cane 2020; Clark 2019). At the same time, some reviewers and audiences have criticized the film, arguing that it has presented a sympathetic account of a perpetrator of violence. In fact, one of the film’s most caustic critics, David Ehrlich (2019) called the film “a toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels,” saying that the film appears to justify its protagonist’s kill drive as a refusal to be a “punchline.” So, how can we understand the film’s fluid ability to draw associations ranging from promoting incel violence to being a critique of neoliberalism, while being a film about a comic book villain? Violence and its Discontents The glorified images of an armed white man on a rampage in the city is an unsettling one, owing to the exponential rise of mass shootings in American cities and towns alongside its correlation to incel subcultures.[1] The family members of the victims of a mass shooting on 20 July 2012, in Aurora, Colorado expressed serious concerns over Joker’s portrayal of a murderer, especially in light of erroneous reports that claimed that the shooter James Holmes had referred to himself as “the Joker” (Desta 2019; Parker 2019). The victims’ family members urged the film-makers to openly support the cause for gun reform while criticising the cinematic correlations between Holmes and Fleck. While sympathetic to the victims’ family members, the film-makers maintained the position that the film does not seek to justify violence in any way. The film’s director (Todd Philips) felt that the film had been unfairly criticised for promoting violence, and defended it by saying that the display of violence in Joker is nothing new. He argued that the film does not come close to representations of violence by other famous Hollywood films such as John Wick: Chapter 3 Parabellum (2019) in which the protagonist kills 300 people (Sharf 2019). However, while Joker has been criticised for its potential to incite violent behaviour, it cannot be equated to films like the latest John Wick sequel as they both differ in their treatment of violence. The John Wick series is a carefully concocted thriller-genre film series that alludes to “Spaghetti Westerns like the works of Sergio Leone and South Korean thrillers by directors like Park Chan-wook and Lee Jeong-beom” (Donaldson 2019). It is based on a man’s hyperbolic quest for revenge against his dog’s death and features highly stylised fight sequences. On the other hand, Joker’s scenes of violence are firmly entrenched in a socio-historical setting and are intended to be hyperrealistic. Unlike the disproportionate reaction of John Wick to his dog’s death, Fleck’s murders begin as supposedly proportionate retaliation against violence inflicted upon him. The comparison to John Wick by the film-maker seems to raise the question: Are there instances in which ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 screen violence is seen as justifiable? I argue that we need to pay attention not only to how the film portrays violence cinematically, but also how it is sutured within the film’s narrative and aesthetic setting. By situating itself in the gritty setting of New York in the 1980s, Joker borrows from real-life situations and problems, inviting itself to be read as a critique of neo-liberalism. It shows repeated instances of violence upon Fleck, till he retaliates by killing the people who seem to have harmed him or even used or ridiculed him, sparing only those who were nice to him. The film shows Fleck’s transformation into Joker in multiple stages by taking the viewers through the various acts of violence and discrimination he encounters, while at the same time, marking changes in his personality. But, as I will show, Fleck’s transition to Joker is not a direct product of the violence he encounters; rather, it is the acts of violence he himself commits that cause a change in his charismatic abilities to turn into Joker. It is crucial to note this difference as it allows a separation between Fleck’s acts of violence and his charismatic presence as Joker—indirectly glorifying as well as legitimizing his violent streaks while leaving aside the stakes of its historical setting. Why Does Joker Dance? The film begins by showing Fleck, dressed as a clown, on a busy street, advertising a sale at a store that is going out of business. Fleck’s uncharismatic clownish ensemble attracts the attention of a group of teenagers who steal the sign from him, corner him in an alley, and mercilessly beat him. In a scene right after, Fleck is sitting barebacked, fixing his oversized clown shoe, as the nasty marks of the beatings on his underweight body are highlighted. The framing and angle of the shot exaggerate his frame’s incongruities and alert viewers about his crumbling body as well as mind beneath the clown costume. Fleck has a disorder that makes him burst into laughter with no relation to the emotions he may be experiencing—a pseudo-bulbar condition—most likely caused by physical abuse he encountered as a child. Governed by the policies of austerity, the city cuts off the funding to the public health programme, directly affecting Fleck as he can no longer access a counsellor or get medication. Thus, the film’s setting—the exterior world of a late capitalist city collapsing on its own structures—is interrelated with the rapidly deteriorating landscape of the interior world of its protagonist with a mental health condition. The film shows Fleck’s transformation into Joker in multiple stages by taking viewers through the acts of violence and discrimination he encounters, while at the same time marking shifts in his personality. Fleck’s first act of violence begins amidst flickering lights of a graffiti-strewn subway car, where he encounters three men harassing a woman. Dressed in his everyday work ensemble—the joker costume—Fleck seems sympathetic to her but realized that he cannot do much to help her. As his fate would have it, he gets a bout of uncontrollable laughter, owing to his condition. The woman seizes the moment and escapes for another car of the subway, leading the men to direct their aggression toward Fleck. The three men start to attack him violently, and in self-defence, Fleck pulls the trigger of his gun at them. He manages to shoot two of them, and as the train comes to a halt, the third man runs out of ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 the car. Instead of running away himself, Fleck runs after him and shoots him down multiple times until his body goes limp on the station staircase. From retaliating against violence to chasing down and lethally killing the third man, Fleck changes his position from being a victim to a perpetrator here. After murdering these three people, (whose deaths are portrayed as a welcome respite from all the violence inflicted upon him) Fleck runs to escape the police. He takes to the streets, and hides in a dilapidated bathroom. Suddenly, the film changes a beat, as the camera steadily tilts down to his feet, and reveals that Fleck has, surprisingly, started to dance. This scene marks a key moment in the film. The film’s theme music starts, harkening back to the music played during the earlier scene where Fleck was beaten by teenagers in the alley.