One of the important and rather interesting aspects of Joker is Arthur’s position of an unreliable narrator. He invents an entire relationship with a female character in the film, which makes the question of his paternity that arises later even more interesting, with questions around whether his mother did the same, based on the reaction from the Waynes when he attempts to investigate. Arthur’s lack of reliability also seems to suit the typical murky origins of the Joker character, as having appeared out of nowhere and not really having a clear “origin” compared to the other characters in the DC universe.
A big part of the Joker’s appeal is that, as an agent of chaos, he’s defined by indefinability. In a genre that prizes origin stories as key building blocks in its storytelling, the Joker’s refusal to be pinned down to any one starting point is unique.
In the beginning of the film, we see Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck, a misunderstood weirdo, pushed to the very edge of sanity until, with a smile and some face paint, he finally steps over it. Simple and definitive.
It’s all a little… off. Fitting for a character who we know always lies, and if this crucial trait is adhered to in the film, that makes Arthur an unreliable narrator. It could well be that we’re not necessarily watching the Joker, but a Joker. If that clown-faced mob is anything to go by, he’s already inspiring copycats. Again, it’s the “one bad day” rationale. Anyone can become the Joker, a Joker, if they’re given enough of a push.
My main debate about Joker is the unreliability of its narrative. I had to watch the film twice to complete my review about it. There is no doubt that the film is great and the performance of Joaquin Phoenix was outstanding that made him deserve the Oscar. However, I was questioning myself “Did Arthur need help and understanding due to his mental problems?”; “Is he innocent and the bad community around him pushed him to become the Joker?”; “What is right and what is wrong?”. Is there any absolute truthful answer? There is no absolute truth!
In my opinion, everything that happened in the film may have happened to Arthur but not in the same way that the film shows us. He is delusional and during the film we, the audience, cannot know when things are really happening or when they are only merely a figment of Arthur’s imagination. We understand this when we see him in the restaurant with Sophie but she is not there.
Also, in the hospital when we realise that he is alone with his mother and she never went there. All the flashbacks for those scenes were crucial to deliver that message. Although we would understand when Sophie tells him to leave, denying their relationship the layout of the plot should be like this to make us understand clearly that these things happened but not as we have seen them in the beginning.
Audience sees what Arthur wanted the things to look like. And this is the key of the film narrative. Everything that happened wasn’t in relation with Arthur but in his illusion, it happened for his own benefit. For that reason, the duplication is very obvious in the plot and in Arthur’s personality. It started to appear when he got the gun from his co-worker Randall. In the scene, we see Randall persuading Arthur to take the gun for protection and he acts like he cares about him and says “You are my boy”, as they are close friends. Then, in the next scene, when Arthur speaks to the manager, he has been told that no one from his colleagues like him and they think that he is “ a freak”. The joker emphasises this later after he kills Randall and leaves Gary unharmed because he is the only one who was treating him well. So, who is lying? Randall or the manager? Or It’s just an unbelievable narrative?
Randall tells the police that Arthur bought the gun himself, and Arthur is fired after the gun falls out of his pocket while entertaining at a children’s hospital. In fact, Arthur bothered Randall for weeks to get the gun from him. All the conversation between them when he got it was imagined by Arthur that creates a feeling of love and pertinence. This makes him irresponsible for having the gun! The proof that the conversation was an illusion is that Arthur never had such a kind conversation like that. Even in the beginning of the film, we have seen an imagined conversation between him and Murray that is kind and creates a feeling of love and pertinence in Arthur’s heart. Once the conversation is done with Randall, they all laugh at a joke and Arthur stops laughing at the corner so do they, which is up-normal. In real life, nobody weirdly laughs like this. His illusion ends when he meets the manager and hears the truth.
This is not the only situation that is a figment of Arthur’s imagination. In the subway, he created the fight in his mind and the businessmen never beated him but he images that to give himself an excuse for that murder. Later, in Murray’s show he confesses to that murder and explains that the only reason for doing it is that they are “awful” and he doesn’t mention the self-defending excuse. Maybe the only bad thing that they did is singing the clown’s song to insult him. After the murder, the mayoral candidate Thomas Wayne appears on TV and calls those envious of more successful people “clowns.” Is it possible for a successful businessman and genius politician to give such a speech. Most people in Gotham are poor. So, he wouldn’t lose a wide range of proponents and describes them by “clowns”. It’s just the imagination of Arthur that made us see it like this. He wants to convince himself that he can influence the people and start a huge revolution.
The demonstrations were already started in the beginning because of the waste crisis as we hear on the radio, and have nothing to do with Arthur at all. Moreover, all people in Gotham are shown wearing the same mask during the film, which is not possible. This is the mask that Arthur wears in his job and is hung on his mirror, in the early scenes. He is not the only clown in the city and it’s impossible that they have only one design for the clown masks. This means that all of this is just part of his illusion that connects what is happening with his inner changes. Then, at the backstage of the show, the Joker, in full make up, is asked by Murray if the clown make up is related to the demonstrations, and he denies. If the oppositions were clowns they wouldn’t let the Joker be in the show with his make up. Nobody wears ISIS’s flag because they like black colour!
After the Joker murders Murray and is arrested while riots break out across Gotham, an accident happens and Arthur has been rescued out of the car. The way that he was carried was very professional and looks like trained medical crew are doing it. Of course he has never been carried by that huge group of people, with the same clown mask, to celebrate him as a hero then put him in Arkham. Yes it was an accident, but then, he was moved to Arkham by an ambulance and none of that imagined scene really happened.
In conclusion, Joker is not a story of a rejected person who suffers from a mental disorder. It’s a development of a villain who bought a gun and used it in the first opportunity that he faced. All that illusion and imagined scenes are made by him to make himself live the feeling of being loved and accepted. This is actually all he wants but unfortunately he couldn’t reach it. All the changes and development in his character is true and the growth of his confidence is true. Finally, in the end, he could control his laugh after it was uncontrollable and caused him many problems all over the film.
Bibliography:
- (2020). The art of the unreliable narrator in Joke. Available: https://the-artifice.com/the-art-of-the-unreliable-narrator-in-joker/. Last accessed 01/06/20.
- HANNAH COLLINS. (2019). The Joker Might Be An Origin Story, But Not THE Joker Origin Story. Available: https://www.cbr.com/joker-movie-origin-not-definitive/. Last accessed 01/06/20.
Deeper Thoughts in Films 