IT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN TO A FILM JOURNALIST
editor-at-Large Jamie graham lifts the lid on film journalism.
Jamie dares to engage in the Joker Discourse™.
Back in the ’80s and ’90s, when James Ferman was director of the BBFC, Mary Whitehouse led the charge to ban video nasties and Michael Medved published Hollywood Vs. America: Popular Culture And The War On Traditional Values, the argument that movies would spawn copycat violence raged. That had all calmed down, or so I thought, until Joker debuted at the Venice Film Festival and everyone lost their shit: respected film critics hollered that Todd Phillips’ movie might lead to real-life killings, and pockets of Film Twitter – 99.9 per cent of which hadn’t seen the movie – tossed out words like “irresponsible”, “reactionary” and “right wing”.
So while this column usually aims to provide TF readers with a peek into how the film industry works and is garnished with anecdotes of my Mr. Bean-like (or, as I prefer to think of it, Monsieur Hulot-like) bumbling through it, I’m going to this month play it straight. Why so serious? Because this stuff is important. Just think of it as my inverse riff on Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker leering, “I used to think my life was a tragedy. Now I realise it’s a fucking comedy.”
The F-word
Many think-pieces have drawn a straight line between Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck, living at home with his mum, and the Incel movement (‘involuntary celibates’). Might Arthur, whose sadness sours into rage, become a folk hero to these lonely, angry (mostly) men? Clickbait journalists pointed out that the Joker incites a volatile uprising, and proclaimed the film flirts with fascism – the same f-word that was spat at Fight Club.
Incels, at their most deranged, discuss a desire to exact violence upon those they deem responsible for their sexual drought. There have been examples of their toxic fantasies spilling into reality: the Isla Vista murders of 2014, and last year’s Toronto van attack. That Warner Bros should release Joker, an apologia masquerading as comic-book entertainment, is ghastly. Or so shuddered the moral guardians, forcing the studio to release a statement saying its film is not “an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind”.
But here’s the thing: Joker never identifies Arthur as an Incel, and Fleck’s rage is triggered by being abandoned by the healthcare system, losing his job and the death of his mum. Yes, he’s besotted with his neighbour (Zazie Beetz) and crosses boundaries in his efforts to interact with her, but Phillips isn’t thinking about Incels – he’s penning a love-letter to Scorsese’s classic loner-tales Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy.
Ban This sick FilTh
Aha! But what of Taxi Driverobsessed John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981? Sure… but movies are one of a million influences in our daily lives; can we really censor art because one person reacts in a certain way? For me, critics saying they like Joker but worry some people will really like Joker is like Ferman opining The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is “fine playing for middle-class intellectual audiences at the NFT, but imagine the effect it might have on the average car worker in Birmingham.”
Yes, we’re back to the same debate that raged in the ’80s, with people’s eagerness to castigate movies once more distracting from the real issues. As Phillips pointed out to me in the October issue, Joker promotes discussion on America’s failing healthcare system, gun culture, and the socioeconomic divide – far more pertinent talking points, surely?
Joker is terrific, and exactly as troubling as it should be. It makes us feel for Arthur Fleck and then repulses us with his actions. To censor or censure it is nothing short of irresponsible, reactionary and right wing.
Jamie will return next issue… For more misadventures, follow: @jamie_graham9 on Twitter.
‘TODD PHILLIPS ISN’T THINKING ABOUT INCELS – HE’S PENNING A LOVE-LETTER TO SCORSESE’