.png)
what is art meant to achieve?
Joker has erupted copious controversy and internet discourse since its release in 2019. Told in the perspective of the villain of the Batman franchise, this Academy Award nominee sympathizes with the perceived evil in order to show that evil perhaps is not born, but made. Joker, a children’s birthday party entertainer by day and subpar comedian by night is named Arthur Fleck. The Warner Bros. film directed by Todd Phillips shows Fleck beaten up and ridiculed by random people on the street, attending lackluster government-provided therapy for his mental illness, caring for the only family he has: his mother who teeters on the brink of life and death, all while struggling to make ends meet as he attempts to pursue love and a career in stand-up comedy. Fleck, played incredibly by Joaquin Phoenix, is what most people would consider a loser in life. You know those people you come across from time to time whose situation brings you a combination of polarizing emotions—sympathy for their poor life circumstances, and an embarrassing relief that there is someone out there who is worse off than yourself; schadenfreude if you will. We all have the need to feel like we are a respected and valued member of society, like we are properly upholding the social norms that have been conditioned into us ever since we first saw the light of day. But we also have the need to feel like we are good people with a strong moral compass. Unfortunately, these two needs of ours tend to conflict, as feeling like we are on the right side of society implies that there are others who are on the wrong side of society. It’s easy to look at these people and rationalize our uncomfortability with the fact that our pleasure comes from another’s pain by making up reasons for their poor misfortune—if only he had worked harder, if only he took his education more seriously, if only he put himself out there more, if only he took full advantage of government services—and fall back on the meritocracy myth that is the American Dream. Joker confronts the viewer with their own deep seated biases against those who are less privileged than is and forces us to reconcile with the fact that we are those who, as Ursula K. LeGuin would put it, did not walk away from Omelas.
It would be remiss of me to not address the internet controversy that circled this misunderstood film. Let me first preface this by saying that a decent portion of people who expressed distaste for the film, did so months before its release, before having even seen it. I know it’s not a new phenomenon for people to hold strong opinions of a subject without knowing anything or critically thinking about it, and as much as it frustrates me to witness, I do have some gratitude to express to these “critics” as reflecting on their unfounded claims on a subject help me to understand the thought processes of a diverse range of subgroups in our society. One of the biggest problems people had with Joker is that it sympathizes with a violent white male, in an era (and country) where white male violence reigns rampant, and that they think Joker justifies and encourages their violence. Sandy Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed during the 2012 shooting in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater (during a midnight show of The Dark Knight Rises) states, “My worry is that one person who may be out there—and who knows if it is just one—who is on the edge, who is wanting to be a mass shooter, may be encouraged by this movie. And that terrifies me.” Phillips’s concern is completely understandable—as she is the parent of a victim of gun violence, it is perfectly reasonable why she would feel contentious about movies portraying this horrific crime. But does this mean that movies shouldn’t show any type of crime? It seems intuitive that the idea of someone seeing violence in a movie might inspire them to execute it themselves, however numerous studies show that violent movies don’t actually incite violence. If someone intends to commit an act of mass violence, they would do so anyways regardless of whether they saw it in a movie or not. Gun violence is a serious issue in this country, and as comforting it is to think of the solution being as simple as banning violent media, unfortunately the issue is far more complex and nuanced than that and restricting the type of art people can make is like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping bullet wound. In fact, these portrayals of violence can be a valuable contributor to the conversation of white male violence. When there is an important and pressing issue, when has censorship ever been an effective solution? Art is meant to provoke, to make people feel uncomfortable, and to make people question things they’ve always taken for granted. Instead of glorifying, romanticizing, or justifying white male violence, Joker is a film that shows what kinds of life circumstances would push someone to commit a mass act of violence in the first place. The beautiful thing about this movie is that it takes a rather non-partisan stance. The filmmakers don’t seem to take any particular side—in fact, it is up to the viewer to decide for themselves how they want to perceive these actions, based on their own moral compass. Warner Bros. feels the same way, as they released in their statement, “Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues. Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.” Rather than a justification, think of Joker as an explanation. An explanation of how consistent and brutal social rejection can push a well-meaning individual to violent revenge against the very society that ostracized them. As uncomfortable as it can be for some to watch, Joker wasn’t meant to be a feel-good film in the first place. Art imitates life, and Joker merely mirrors society rather than justifying it. The fact that a dark and depressing film like this has as many real-life parallels as it does is an unfortunate reflection on our society. Just to name a few…
Poor and mentally ill people being disrespected by society
Government programs being underfunded to the point of rendering them ineffective
People who aren’t able to uphold social norms are a laughing-stock and viewed as entertainment
Violent criminals achieving a celebrity status in our true-crime obsessed generation
Glorifying heroes in our society without realizing that to become a hero in the first place, one must have privileged life circumstances
This controversy over Joker raises an interesting question about what art is meant to achieve. Many people think that just because a piece of art shows something, that it condones it. But art serves many purposes. Sure it can promote certain ideas, but it can also condemn ideas, or even portray an idea neutrally, leaving it up to the viewer to decide for themselves how they choose to think about it. And Joker does the final. It’s understandable that a film like this would come under such fire because it’s a perfectly natural human reaction for people to feel offended or defensive when they see an issue presented that they feel strongly about, especially when it’s an issue they have attached their identity to. But the beautiful thing about art is that it can force you to confront the deepest, and sometimes darkest parts of yourself. This can be a daunting process, as we find comfort in having a strong sense of our own identity, and the upheaval of it is natural to cause some resistance, but there is immense personal growth that comes from the questioning and critical thinking art can inspire us to do if we allow it to open our minds. It’s important to separate the art piece’s objective meaning and value from what the viewer personally believes. You can vehemently disagree with the message of a piece of art and still respect it for being an exceptionally well done piece. Additionally, you can agree with an idea, but disagree with its execution.
We live in an era where there is more entertainment and content to consume then ever, where people don’t have to be qualified to broadcast their opinion, where it is a trend to become offended by everything—and these attributes make a fiery trio—and for this reason it is more crucial than ever to think critically about the content we intake. Even if you eat the healthiest meal ever, if you don’t chew slowly, and just gulp it down without giving your body the opportunity to properly process the food, the healthy meal will still be converted to fat and have harmful effects on your body. Similarly, with the art and media you ingest, it is important to let your mind properly digest and ruminate over it, or else you are no better off than if you had spent the last 6 hours zoned out in front of reality TV (the entertainment equivalent of fast food). Joker deals with a tale as old as time, the idea of a person being treated so poorly by society that they set out to destroy it—the same idea presented in Mary Shelley’s 1818 work Frankenstein. Think of Frankenstein’s creature as Joker, and Frankenstein himself as society. We created a monster. Joker serves as a cautionary tale for all of us for how we should treat other people. It is easy to be nice to people who uphold social norms. But the true test of one’s character is how they treat those on the fringes of society, the one who people usually don’t give a second thought about. And if someone thinks they can get away with treating underprivileged people like second-class citizens unscathed, Joker shows they are clearly mistaken.
SOURCES