Joker is nominated for 11 Oscars at the 2020 Academy Awards and that's making some people very, very ... [+] angry. They're wrong. Here's why.
The 2020 Oscars just revealed the full list of nominees and Joker, quite surprisingly, has been nominated for 11more than any other film.
Thats a shock to many, fans and detractors alike. And some people are very, very upset by it. Im more upset that other actors and directors were snubbedGreta Gerwig for Little Women despite it being a Best Picture candidate; Knives Out for Best Picture despite it being excellent; and Lupito Nyongo for her excellent double performance in Us.
But Im pretty happy about Joker which I thought was an excellent film, and a pretty unique comic book movie that isnt about any of the things its detractors claim. Lets take a look at some of the (all too predictable) complaints.
Its entirely reasonable to be upset at this development, writes Kyle Turner at The Washington Post. Joker is, after all, avery dumb movie, even if its a moderately competent one. But one shouldnt besurprised: Joker and the Academy group together like comic book hobos warming their hands around an oil can fire. It is precisely the kind of movie that the Oscars exist to celebrate, a middlebrow film that encourages its middlebrow viewers to think of themselves as thoughtful consumers of elevated entertainment.
Like many other critics of the film, Turner hinges his argument on the idea that Joker has nothing to say. Its a film thats edgy for the sake of edginess, he argues.
Look past the spectacle, and youll get little more than a nonsensical diatribe about something? Maybe society, maybe the 1 percent, maybe how the mentally ill are marginalized in our culture, maybe incivility, maybe how the media is corrupt, maybe reactionary politics. I truly do not know. Its brazenly, profoundly stupid in its imprecision and random, rootless provocations.
But just because you cant find meaning in a story doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. Just because you walk out of a film and dont really understand what its trying to say, doesnt mean it isnt trying to say anything. And maybe Joker isnt saying anything meaningful to Turner; maybe its just an origin story of a villain in Gotham City who goes on to help create Batman. If thats all that its about, does that truly make it a very dumb movie (how un-woke to use the word dumb by the way).
One crucial moment in the film is when Flecks social services are defunded, which I think does say something about our societysomething so starkly obvious that youd need to have an agenda to ignore it.
Joker is a tragedy
I also take umbrage with the idea that Joker is some faux-art film that lets us middlebrow folk bask in the warm glow of a fake highbrow flame. Just because Joker is artsy and Joaquin Phoenix is riveting doesnt mean I have any illusion that this is some highbrow art-house film. It may be more highbrow than Thor or The Fantastic Four but its still comic book fare.
Fun fact: I dont care if my fantasy and comic book movies are highbrow or middlebrow or lowbrow or any-brow-between. Only someone concerned about their precious highbrow gobbledygook would worry that middlebrow peasants might lay claim to it.
Elsewhere, folk are mad that Joker celebrates the angry white male incel stereotype and something about GamerGate. Or as that Buzzfeed article puts it, courts the disaffected and lonely. Why not just call them a basket of deplorables and be done with itdespite this movie doing quite the opposite?
This is like arguing that a cautionary tale about war celebrates war, or that Schindlers List glorifies Nazi Germany. Far from a celebration of the Joker and what he stands for, the movie is a cautionary tale about what can happen when a child is abused and isolated and then never really quite grows into a man. Its about what happens when someone with mental illness is kicked into a corner and abandoned by society. It doesnt glorify the Jokers crimestheyre horrible and disturbing and reprehensible.
Its honestly mind-boggling to me that so many critics, especially on the left, seem to think this movie is a celebration of the Joker instead of an examination of his character. In making him sympathetic, the film isnt justifying his actions, but it is helping us understand them. Besides, showing horrible things does not equal endorsing them, though I swear to god theres an entire contingent out there on social media who seem to confuse the twoperhaps because its easier to be outraged than to think critically. (This would be like saying that Beloved promotes slavery because it illustrates its horrors).
Vanity Fair writes that Three of the four most-nominated moviesThe Irishman,Joker,andOnce Upon a Timein Hollywoodare stories about white men who feel culturally imperiled. The fourth,1917,is about white men who areliterallyimperiled.
This clever, quotable passage is also disingenuous. Of the three, only Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood is really about white men feeling culturally imperiled. Even then, it really only applies to Leonardo DiCaprios Rick Dalton and his failing, booze-addled career.
The Irishman is about white men, sure, but Irish and Italian white men during a time and place where the term white didnt exactly mean what it does today, bandied about so carelessly. For long swaths of American history Italians and Irish were considered minorities. We can no more lump these groups together than we can Chinese and Japanese people, as though history and culture mean nothing and all that matters is pigment.
Robert DeNiro is in two Best Picture nominated films.
Joker, again, has very little to do with whiteness and everything to do with abuse and mental illnessand class, I would argue. Class really does matter. (I havent seen 1917 yet but it looks very good. Full of peril, no doubt. Perhaps even far too perilous.)
Twitter Town
Its even worse on social media, where people just say whatever silly thing pops into their head, and mostly its just social signaling between various factions. Over a comic book movie that has taken far too much significance and importance in some peoples livessimply enjoying or not enjoying something is too easy, I suppose.
Forehead slap emoji or something. Parlance of our times.
Im not sure if the people who made Joker think theyre underdogs or if they simply reacted to all the backlash the film received over nonsense statements like about a man who thinks he is an underdog (but ultimately is not). The film is about a man who is bullied, abused and isolated at every turn and who suffers from mental illness. You cant wipe all that away by hollering white male privilege.
Not all white males are as privileged as the blue check-marks on Twitter think they are. I am a very privileged white male which, I suppose, is one reason Ive never had any of the problems that Phoenixs Arthur Fleck experiences in the movie.
Entitled whiny white dude is . . . not a description of Arthur Fleck at all. People should watch movies before critiquing them. Crazy, I know.
Also, arent we supposed to be talking about masculinity in society and how we can do better? Isnt one way of doing this talking about this kind of broken man and societys role in shaping him?
But even so, I dont think the movie is saying that society alone made Fleck do the things he did. Other people are struggling and poor and have suffered similar or worse outrages and dont become homicidal maniacs. That was his choice, and we are supposed to see that choice as fundamentally eviland the choices of other angry, young white men who shoot up schools or drive over protesters as fundamentally evil as well.
There is no both sides did very bad things hereFleck and those like him may have had a hard life, but they chose to take their pain and anger out on others. Thats the difference between Joker and Batman, between evil and justice, between hatred and compassion. Maybe more compassion in his life would have saved Fleck, but maybe not.
If were going to have an honest conversation about privilege, we cant say that all people of a certain race or gender combination = X. There is a vast gulf between a Bruce Wayne and an Arthur Fleck after all (and even Wayne, a billionaire, suffered the loss of his parentssuffering can afflict us all).
I loved The Dark Knight and Heath Ledgers Joker but come on . . . perfect film? Only if you discount tons of plot holes and a villain whose every plan works flawlessly at every turn no matter how preposterous. Im off point now, arent I? Sorry.
Yeah, thats not a mic-drop. Joker just got 11 Oscar nominations. Thats a mic-drop.
On Second Thought, Lets Not Go To Twitter Its A Silly Place
The whole debate is incredibly stupid and frankly makes a lot of people look deeply childish in the process. Some reactionary fans are also to blame, screeching every bit as loud back at Jokers detractors. Its just a villain origin story, people. Its not glorifying bad guys any more than any other story about the Joker. If anything, its asking society to pay closer attention to the kind of people who might snap and do something awful, because so far weas a societyhave been pretty bad at that.
And I know that crime and violence and mass shootings and all the rest are more complicated than just mental illness, but its one important piece of the puzzle that we ignore at our own peril. Joker is a tragedy. Its not a heroic tragedy. Its a comic tragedy, about a man who only wants to be funny and to be loved and who, like so many other men and women out there, finds only despair. Its not funny and thats the point.
Joker
Sure, Joker isnt a perfect film. But to say that it celebrates toxic masculinity is to misunderstand it not only completely, but willfully. And thats not how it works, people. An honest critique assesses a film based on its merits, not on the biases you seek to fill in the blanks with.
Oh, and if you doubt my bonafides on thisread my colleague Mark Hughess take from when this film first came out. Mark is about as liberal as they come, and he also insists that the movie is the furthest thing from toxic.
I really do think its a shame that more women werent nominated this year and its honestly galling that Kathryn Bigelow is the only woman to ever win an Academy Award for Best Director. Thats a big red flag, frankly, and I wont argue with anyone who says the Oscars are a joke. Clearly there are some deep-seeded issues with the Academy Awards and some serious soul-searching needs to happen. That being said, this is also a reflection of the industry, which has been playing catch-up when it comes to female directors for some time now.
But the controversy over Jokers nominations is misguided and frankly distracts from bigger, more important issues. If you dont like the movie, fine. Thats completely finewe all have our own tastes. Just dont make it something that its not.
P.S. I wonder what these same folk would say about American Psycho or Taxi Driver, two films that are cut from the same cloth and quite powerful examinations of similar issues.
See the original post here:
People Are Upset Over Jokers 11 Oscar Nominations Heres Why Theyre Wrong - Forbes
