Neoliberalism Is the True Villain of ‘Joker’

Editor’s note: How do we know this movie is about neoliberalism? Just watch the celebrity rich folks co-opt Joker to make more money and fame for themselves. This how we know the film works to expose the every-body-is-a-commodity main feature of neoliberal capitalism

Miley Cyrus Touching Tongues With Some Guy Using the Joker to Promote Themselves in Bed on Social Media

miley-clown

joker-tear.jpg

by Leslie Lee edited by O Society October 12, 2019

After 11 years of inundating cineplexes with status-quo defending super cops and soldiers, Hollywood finally gives us a blockbuster movie with a protagonist willing to fight for common people against the economic system oppressing them. He just happens to be a comic book villain.

Joker” is, at best, tenuously related to its DC Comics source material. In an homage to Martin Scorsese’s early work, Todd Phillips’ film serves as a dark character study of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a professional clown living with his ailing mother in a tumultuous early 1980s Gotham City.

The film follows Arthur as he tries and fails to smile through his fight against mental illness, poverty, loneliness, and severe depression. He is utterly powerless to slow down the decay of his mental state and at one point even considers committing a crime in hopes of being recommitted to Arkham State Hospital.

clown.jpg

Arthur’s only moments of happiness come from entertaining children and watching television with his mother—specifically a late-night show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro), a nod to Rupert Pupkin’s idol Jerry Langford in “The King of Comedy” (1982). When the machinery of capitalism strips Arthur of even those modest pleasures (along with his access to therapy and medication), the movie reveals its true nature—not as a prestige drama but a pulpy revenge thriller.

Much is written about the politics of “Joker,” and almost all of it wrong. It is certainly not a “toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels,” as David Ehrlich mislabels it. Fleck’s anger is not aimed at women or people of color but specifically at those who wrong him: the billionaire his mother used to work for, a trio of Wall Street goons on the subway, and finally the celebrity who mocks his disability on national television.

trump-lighting

The violence of “Joker” is similarly pilloried. It is truly shocking because the film takes human life seriously. Only a handful of people killed during the film—far less than you’d see Iron Man or Captain America kill in an opening fight scene—and each is genuinely disturbing. But Fleck does not commit murder because he’s mentally ill.

race card

Instead, his violence is a response to that which he experiences as a result of his mental illness. Beatrice Adler-Bolton  of Death Panel calls the film the “I Spit on Your Grave of medicalization.” It’s a revenge flick for those pulverized by a system which renders people invisible.

I-Spit-on-your-Grave.jpg

The true political implications of “Joker” center on Bruce Wayne’s father and the film’s antagonist, Thomas Wayne. Whereas the comic book character is a generous philanthropist, the Wayne of “Joker” is recast as a Mitt Romney-like figure who uses his immense and unearned riches to push his way into politics. His sneering disdain for those who haven’t “made something of themselves,” with its faint echoes of the then-Republican candidate for president’s 47% remarks, severs the film from the Batman lore. No longer is wealth a tool for Gotham’s benefactors to help the less fortunate but a means to a sinister, real-world end—the power to control, dominate, mock, abuse and scorn those who don’t have it.

MittRomney-whypoorbuymoremoneyjpg.jpg

“Joker” subverts the Batman mythos by suggesting the Waynes were not the innocent victims of a robbery gone wrong. Rather they are killed in a deliberate act to stop billionaire Thomas Wayne from becoming mayor and exerting still more power over the working-class people. The Bruce Wayne in this “Joker” universe does not need to hunt criminals in hopes of finding the person responsible for his parents’ death, because the person is his father.

For much of the film, Fleck is bemused by but disconnected from the anti-wealth demonstrations his killing of three Wall Street brokers (and Wayne employees) inadvertently inspire. “KILL THE RICH: A New Movement?” one newspaper headline asks as masked “clowns” riot against the wealthy and hold signs demanding an end to their predation.

joker-steps.jpg

Fleck doesn’t quite see his part in all this, even as the funding for his treatment is cut by austerity measures and a billionaire ignores pleading from Fleck’s mother for financial assistance. As the film reaches its climax, Arthur is literally and metaphorically embraced by this mass movement. No longer is his alienation atomized; Fleck and the audience understand he channels the righteous anger of the sick, the poor, and the downtrodden.

In a dream-like sequence—it may or me not be one of Arthur’s many fantasies—a crowd of clown-faced protesters wills the injured Arthur to his feet and he begins to dance, blood streaming out of the corners of his mouth, as he smiles in classic Joker fashion. Arthur looks in wonder at a new world creates in which people are no longer invisible because we’re ill, no longer crushed because we’re poor, no longer forced to smile through the violence we suffer. We are no longer powerless.

jodie-foster.jpgSetting the film in 1981 serves the dual purpose of grounding it in the gritty New York of “Taxi Driver” and placing the film in the early days of our current global neoliberal order. Although Arthur Fleck declares he is not political, it’s impossible to view the film as anything other than a condemnation of the austerity and immiseration ushered in by corporations like Wayne Enterprises with the aid of politicians like Ronald Reagan.

Ronald-Reagan-giving-camp.jpg

The film makes clear when people are only as valued as their ability to produce profit, they will invariably fight back. “The greater danger to society may be if you DON’T go see this movie,” writes documentarian Michael Moore:

“Because the story it tells and the issues it raises are so profound, so necessary, that if you look away from the genius of this work of art, you will miss the gift of the mirror it is offering us.”

Why_So_Serious_large.jpg

Todd Phillips smuggles this deeply scornful view of the established order into a comic book movie underwritten by a major corporation. This is what makes “Joker” so subversive. It is increasingly uncommon for blockbuster fare to challenge audiences on a moral or political scale. By conceiving this film as a throwback to rebellious New Hollywood cinema, Phillips makes perhaps the most left-leaning major release of 2019.

With a recession on the horizon, unchecked climate change propelling us toward global catastrophe, and a political system unwilling and/or incapable of addressing the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, we likely will look back on the controversy surrounding “Joker” as quaint one day. While the film is set in the past, the class-based uprising it depicts is an optimistic glimpse into a future in which the invisible and marginalized rise up and take to the streets.

Joker-dance-fire.jpg

 

 

5 thoughts on “Neoliberalism Is the True Villain of ‘Joker’

  1. This is probably the best review I’ve read so far. Initially, I didn’t know that a new movie was being made about the Batman mythos. And so I wasn’t excited about it or anything. But because of all the attention it’s getting, I’ll have to watch it to make up my own mind about it. An early showing today might be good. Have you seen it yet?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have not seen it yet. Any movie with Joaquin Phoenix is going to have some depth the average person is going to miss.

      For example, this movie Her is fantastic.

      https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/
      ent.

      Not sure the average person can/will sit through Her because it isn’t action blowing shit up nor rom-com cliche. It’s just different.

      This is probably why so many of the reviewers mistakenly think Joker is meant to be a documentary of incel culture, whatever the hell that is. Incel culture reminds me of when I found out this guy I know is a “Brony,” meaning he likes to dress up as My Little Pony. The guy is 30 something. He ended up marrying a cis/trans woman who’s into the whole cross dressing cosplay thing as a lifestyle.

      In other words, I wish I didn’t know anything about any of it. People can force us to lookit their shit now because of the internet. This is what movies like Joker and Her are for. Seeing the creepiness which dwells among the average American’s mind and life.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Then again, if we learn anything from Donald Trump, it should be trolling and triggering and PC outrage is the best way to win money, fame and power.

    So although Joaquin Phoenix is an outstanding actor and probably qualifies as a real artist, Joker (the movie itself) is really just another commodity attention gimmick, nothing sells like controversy, as admitted by its director, Todd Phillips:

    “Outrage is a commodity, I think it’s something that has been a commodity for a while. What’s outstanding to me in this discourse in this movie is how easily the far left can sound like the far right when it suits their agenda. It’s really been eye opening for me.”

    https://www.thewrap.com/joker-director-todd-phillips-rebuffs-criticism-of-dark-tone-we-didnt-make-the-movie-to-push-buttons-exclusive/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is an interesting thought, that outrage is a commodity. It makes sense in these reactionary times. Isn’t that what Edmund Burke was selling? Outrage has been a major force in our society at least since the early modern revolutionary era. This goes along with the dark ‘moral’ imagination and violent fantasies of the reactionary mind, something I’ve written about before based on my readings of Corey Robin.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. It isn’t just outrage. Attention is the biggest commodity in the economy now.

    https://medium.economist.com/has-our-attention-been-commodified-abc178e34826

    The main point to get here is the powers that be – including Trump (reality TV & WWF wrasslin’) and Phillips (comic books and Hollywood) know the commodity they sell is human.

    Human outrage (politcal correctness). Resentment and schadenfreude (Trumpets, fail videos). Lust (porn). Social status (Facebook). Addiction and craving (OxyContin and Phentanyl, nicotine, alcohol).

    What’s new is people like Zuckerberg and the Silicon Valley nerds like Bezos and Musk realize they don’t need a physical product such as exogenous chemicals to peddle now. They sell virtual reality, virtue signalling, racism and misogyny and violence, fantasy, the reality based community; they sell HyperNormalization.

    And they sell it through drama intentionally manufactured on our phones and TVs and Twitter in the pseudo-news.

    And it all works because it makes people FEEL GOOD!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s