A critic is right to look at the details. Camera angles, cinematography and pacing are all important. However, when a critic looks too much at these details, these cracks in the overall product, they risk losing sight of the most important part of a movie: the story it tells and the audience it attempts to reach.

“Joker” is a masterful reflection on our treatment of the mentally ill in our society. Does the average guy chase a well-meaning mentally ill man and beat him with his own sign? Probably not. But does he give a single care about the resources that are devoted to the mentally ill in this country? Equally unlikely. And that is the dramatized world Arthur Fleck battles. At the beginning of the movie, he’s just trying to do the best he can in his situation. He even actively wants to help himself and improve his situation. But given budget cuts, and his profession as a clown, he just cannot make ends meet as he is closed out of his psychiatrist. In no way am I defending Fleck’s behavior in any manner. Not all poor decisions can be written off to mental illness, and Arthur clearly demonstrates some wholly evil behavior.

Indeed, part of the reason critics have been so harsh is they believe “Joker” will inspire future terrorist attacks by marginalized, white school shooters. I would agree that the character of Arthur Fleck does relate to this archetype on some levels. But I think this movie is a reaction and critique to these terrorist attacks, not something that will inspire future shooters. As a society we have been hesitant to address any cause of these attacks, whether it be mental health or availability of guns. “Joker” pushes this issue in the face of the people of America, reminding them that while they may ignore the monthly shooting, it is not something that should ever be normalized.

Aside from its message, “Joker” truly was one of the better movies of 2019. All the components of a film were very well done. The cinematography was absolutely beautiful throughout the film, the writing sufficed (the Wayne parts were good but not fantastic while the scenes displaying Fleck slowly losing his grip were done very well), and it truly did justice to the comic book character whilst displaying a more grounded tone.

The one complaint I have is that “Joker” did suffer some lapses in pacing. However, the tension of the best scenes made the uneventful ones worth the wait. The apartment scene – if you’ve seen the movie – provides a masterclass in how to write a scene with tension, truly having the viewer on the edge of their seat. The viewer truly had no idea what deranged Arthur would do, but the mix of sheer brutality and mercy offered was an interesting place to take it.
If nothing else, “Joker” was semi-revolutionary. In an era where superhero movies were at first unheard of, and now are embraced by studios as a monstrous PG-13 rated cash cow, “Joker” was one of the first movies, alongside “Logan” and “Deadpool,” to provide an accurate portrayal of adult comic book stories for those who grew up with comics. As such, Warner Bros. deserves credit for taking that leap.

That said, their risk certainly paid off. “Joker” became the first R-rated film to pass the $1 billion mark in the global office, proving a smash hit among audiences. Reception was more divided among critics, measured in one way by top critics on Rotten Tomatoes, where it earned a 48%. Although frowned upon by roughly half of critics, the fact that so many people were attracted to watching a comic book movie about a man’s life that truly only plummets shows the impact of the film.