A Cultural Analysis of JOKER

Recently announced as the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time, and what has been considered one of-if not the most polarizing movie of 2019, Joker is a compelling mediated text that will be critiqued, debated, and studied by media scholars for many years to come. This film was polarizing for a variety of reasons: the lead actor’s chilling performance, the dark nature of the film itself, the message that the film presented, and perhaps most importantly, the fear that it struck into bloggers and journalists, as the media exacerbated the controversy that was already surrounding the film itself. All in all, the build-up to this movie was a cultural spectacle, with its cinematic and box office success proving that it is well-deserving of a cultural analysis. Though some might dismiss Joker’s cultural significance, to quote Arthur Fleck (Joker), one thing is for sure: “No one’s laughing now.”

Before we delve into a detailed analysis of this movie, it is important to first briefly discuss what this movie is about, with-unfortunately-giving away some spoilers. To begin, Joker is the origin story of the supervillain “The Joker”, who is known as Batman’s archrival. Though Joker has often been depicted as a criminal mastermind, he is shown in this origin story movie as a struggling mentally-ill man who has slipped through the cracks in society. Arthur Fleck, before going on Murray Franklin’s talk show and asking Murray to introduce him as Joker, is a man who works as a sign holder dressed up as a clown that lives with his mother. Arthur regularly gets picked on by his coworkers who also dress up as circus people, and additionally had his sign stolen by mischievous teenagers who then later jumped him in the movie’s opening sequence. Not only did Arthur endure a whooping from the teens as well as regular verbal abuse and jeering from his counterparts, but his coworkers set him up when one coworker hands him a pistol to “protect himself”, which results in Arthur getting fired altogether because the pistol fell out of his pants when he was performing a gig at a children’s hospital. On top of that, Arthur has a condition in which he laughs uncontrollably, which only makes strangers who encounter him in Gotham dislike him even more. For instance, it is Arthur’s uncontrollable laughter that leads to him getting beaten on a train ride home by three affluent white men, which results in Arthur shooting and killing the men in self-defense, followed by creepy, mysterious dancing in a nearby bathroom which sets the wheels into motion of Arthur’s transition into Joker.

Another contributing factor to Arthur’s descendance into Joker was societal jeering. For instance, Arthur often tells people in the movie that his mother always told him that he was put on earth to make people smile. Since Arthur takes this to heart, he attempts and miserably fails at being a comedian, largely because he cannot even get his jokes out, which is largely due to his uncontrollable laughing condition. However, Arthur earns some fame when a short clip of his lone standup act was featured on the Murray Franklin Show. At first, Arthur is very excited that he is featured on television and that people are finally noticing him, however, quickly realizes that Murray showed the clip to make fun of him instead of praising his comedic genius, and he becomes very angry. Although we shouldn’t say that this particular instance was the straw that broke the Camel’s back for Arthur, as that would probably be more when Arthur found out that his mother had lied to him and allowed him to be abused when he was younger, it’s damn near close and comes right before Arthur truly stops caring and becomes Joker.

Joker is filled with distress and despair. Arthur already has a tough time as it already is, trying to just survive and make ends meet in a cruel, unforgiving society within Gotham City, but to add insult to injury, he is kicked around and taken advantage of by essentially everyone he comes into contact with. In addition to individual action, the city of Gotham itself does Arthur no favors when it announced that it would be cutting some public services due to financial strain, effectively terminating his shrink’s employment, and ending Arthur’s weekly therapy session. Arthur realizes the immediate ramifications that this decision will have on him personally, as he asks his shrink questions such as “Where do I go now?”, “How do I know which meds I have to get?” etc. His shrink’s response to his questions is very blunt, telling him “They don’t care about people like you Arthur, and they don’t care about people like me either.” This quote is extremely salient, as it establishes a theme that is central to the entire movie, which is the displacement and discarding of mentally-ill people in society. Not only is Arthur mocked and cast away by “normal” people within the cruel society, economically displaced by getting fired from his job, and every now and then has his teeth kicked in by a relentless stranger, but he is also told that he doesn’t matter by the city itself when it terminates the programs keeping him somewhat afloat, depriving him of the resources he needs to not go completely insane. This particular instance highlights the rejection that Arthur endured medically. Arthur was clearly a mentally-ill man who needed professional help, and most likely did not belong out on the streets. Rather, he most likely belonged in a mental hospital, which still existed in the time period this movie was based in, around the late 1970s. As noted in Conjuring the Insane: “Foucault observes that the figure of the ‘madman’ had shifted from being an insider to an outsider from society. Consequently, the ‘insane’ became an outcast who must be confined, studied, and treated as a medical object” (Venkatesan-SajiArthur, 2019, pg. 525). Arthur was indeed a person on the outside looking in, but more importantly, was indeed a madman that needed to be carefully watched, treated, and not allowed to maneuver through society on his own. Though in that time period mental illness wasn’t necessarily treated, as people like Arthur were just thrown into insane asylums, one can argue that it is better to hold those people in facilities as opposed to letting them live amongst regular people where they can potentially be a menace to society and cause trouble, which is what Arthur ended up doing. These tragic series of events listed display the societal conditions that create nihilistic madmen such as Arthur, who, through their interactions with individuals and lived experiences, come to the conclusion that taking their rage out on a society and the people in it is rational and justified, and that they have nothing else to lose. Furthermore, this film shows why people like Arthur descend into madness, which is due to a catastrophic combination of mental illness and harsh rejection by society, or as Joker famously said on the Murray Franklin Show: “What do you get when you cross a mentally-ill loner with a SOCIETY that abandons him and treats him like trash?”

Without getting too far ahead of ourselves and jumping ahead to discuss certain aspects of this movie that we can dissect such as its political undertones, it is notable to first examine how this film pertains to cultural studies with special focus on the mental illness component to the film. As Douglas Kellner notes, “Cultural studies is valuable because it provides some tools that enable one to read and interpret one’s culture critically. It also subverts distinctions between “high” and “low” culture by considering a wide continuum of cultural artifacts ranging from novels to television and by refusing to erect any specific cultural hierarchies or canons” (Kellner, 2010, pg. 10). Just like cultural studies allows us to dissect and interpret our culture, Joker does the same by giving us a visual representation of culture in a different light, offering audiences the opportunity to experience life in a big city through a mentally-ill man’s perspective. Although Joker is an origin story for a supervillain, which, at the end of the day is pure fiction, the content of the movie is very real and is a critique on American society in a number of ways. As the movie depicts the challenges that mentally-ill people like Arthur face in everyday life, the audience feels his pain and the abuse that he endures, not just because it is sad, but also because we know that things such as Arthur’s situation occur in real life. This film makes the audience feel uncomfortable for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because they realize that real people are bullied, rejected, and cast away by society, and that real people are pushed to the brink until they lash back out at society, just like Arthur did. Moreover, this film shows the catastrophic consequences that come with neglecting care and compassion to people who feel that society has failed them. Although it is cliché to talk about mental illness in our society, and although some people view blaming mental illness for violence as a political talking point to evade gun control discussion, deep down, we know that it is a problem and that mentally-ill people who go unchecked or are alienated enough are capable of self-implosion and carrying out awful acts of violence. Joker allows us to look ourselves in the mirror and examine our modern-day culture and its handling of people with mental illness.

Even though there were a few socio-political undertones to Joker, the movie as a whole was not political and did not espouse any message of that kind. Interestingly enough, there is a peculiar dynamic between some of the criticisms the movie faced, and the criticisms that Arthur faced when he became Joker. For instance, as we will expand upon this topic later on in this paper, this movie was charged with being political, given that the crux of the movie was detailing the struggles that mentally ill people face, and that casting away those people and not keeping them in check can have destructive ramifications. Furthermore, the main character’s race combined with his mental illness plays into the political discussion surrounding mental health and gun violence that the movie has been reprimanded for. Similarly, Arthur accidentally became the face of a socio-political movement and was questioned if he had any political motives on occasion. After the subway killings in which Arthur shot three affluent white men (no one knew who committed the murder at the time), an unexpected rift was ignited between the upper-middle class/elite and the disenfranchised lower class in Gotham City. While people on television and mayoral candidate Thomas Wayne (Bruce Wayne, aka Batman’s father) were bemoaning the “nonsensical” deaths of three “educated young men with promising futures”, the lower class was rejoicing in the death of rich people, and anti-rich sentiments massively grew, creating a new social movement which prompted several protests. Since people knew that the person who killed the three men was dressed as a clown, as Arthur was in his clown makeup and outfit when the incident on the subway occurred, the supporters of this newfound movement donned clown masks. At these protests, some protestors even held signs that said “resist”, “kill the rich”, “we’re the 99%”, etc., which are political clichés when dealing with class and socioeconomic conflict. Because of the ongoing protests which brought high tensions to the city, and especially since Arthur wore clown makeup when he made his appearance on the Murray Franklin Show, he was questioned if he saw himself as a political figure or if he had any political motives, unto which Arthur denied.

Despite Joker not centrally being a political movie and despite Joker not being a political character, the particular political undertone of class conflict/socioeconomic inequality that was present in the movie is a compelling piece to the film as a cultural artifact, especially when examined from a cultural studies perspective. Noted in Critical Approaches to Television, “Cultural studies, then, is centrally concerned with hegemony; this makes it an audience-centered kind of study. However, in contrast to ideological criticism, cultural studies criticism often focuses on the ways in which groups and individuals read culture and cultural texts “’against the grain,’” creating what Stuart Hall (1980) calls negotiated or oppositional readings…contemporary cultural studies arguably has been focused on studying the empowering meanings and pleasures individuals and social groups create from popular culture (television) texts. Put another way, unlike ideological criticism, cultural studies criticism has been interested in resistance as in domination” (Vande Berg, 1998, pg. 395). Likewise, Joker concentrated on hegemony politically and culturally, especially during scenes in which conflict occurred between the authorities and the lower class, all started by Arthur. Although some inaccurate conclusions were made about this movie in terms of which groups represented which sides of the political spectrum, a notable underlying theme of this movie was going against the grain and the people in charge; a theme that has been present in almost every society, with modern-day America being no exception. This movie was a rebuke of the system in several aspects, from Arthur’s shrink telling him they (the people in power) don’t care about people like him, to the clown protests against the wealthy and powerful in Gotham, to the outright uprising that ensued in the city after Joker shot Murray Franklin on live television. Although Joker himself was not a political character, he rose to prominence in Gotham and people “finally started to notice him” as a result of being a figurehead of a socio-political movement that he didn’t intend to create.

Moreover, another theme that Joker displayed were the attitudes disenfranchised people possesses towards the elite and society as a whole. In the buildup leading to Joker killing Murray on his own program, Joker admits that he was the one who killed the three men on the subway, and then proceeds to go on a monologue that echoes an attitude that many disenfranchised people feel, whether they think it is because of their race, class, or mental state. During the monologue, Joker specifically talks about how the wealthy elite such as Thomas Wayne favor and only care about those in his own economic class, and that in contrast, if it were someone like Arthur who was murdered, as opposed to rich, educated young men, men like Thomas Wayne would walk right over him and not even notice. He also highlights Murray’s elitism, questioning him if he’s ever been outside of the studio, going onto say: “Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be me, to be someone but themselves? They don’t!” Joker sees that the people on television think it’s a tragedy when someone with what looks to be a promising future is senselessly murdered, but not when it is someone who would be considered by society as a nobody. The people supporting him feel the same way, and feel that the people running society don’t care about people like them. Whether they feel this way because of their living conditions, their economic prospects, etc., the subway killings were enough to make them rise up and revolt, because-like Joker-they feel as though they have nothing else to lose. According to Rebellion, Violence, and Revolution: “A reasonable starting point is the assumption that deprived actors, i.e. the masses, attach a higher utility to overcoming the status quo than privileged actors, i.e. the elite…On one hand, deprivation and utility considerations should drive the masses towards rebellion because they have nothing to lose but their chains” (Weede, 1998, pg. 45). Whether it be because they were deprived of resources, felt trapped, or most likely because of a variety of factors and attitudes held towards the system and the elite, the lower-class saw the subway killings as their window of opportunity to raise hell.

Now to get into the fun stuff about Joker: the hype behind this movie leading up to its release, partly fueled by the coordinated attacks it received from a media that wanted it to fail. To start, journalists and media correspondents were weary of this movie because many held the belief that there was a possibility that Joker could inspire copy cat attacks or mass violence. These fears of course partly stemmed from the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Aurora, Colorado in 2012, in which a man dressed up as The Joker (Dark Knight version), went into a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises, and shot and killed twelve people. Given this past fatal event, mass shootings from this year, and the violent nature of the film which is solely centered around Joker, several media publications ran stories warning that Joker could have deadly consequences. For instance, some sample headlines include: “’Joker’ Movie Sparking Fears Among Victims of Mass Shootings”, “’Joker’ movie prompts mass shooting threat at theaters”, and “US Military Warns Troopers About Violence at ‘Joker’ Screenings”. In addition, there were not only warnings of gun violence at Joker screenings, but there were specific warnings of possible violence from ‘incels’, or involuntary celibate men who are often cast away by society, because of the striking resemblance between them and Joker, although Joker’s sex life isn’t particularly disclosed in the film. Nevertheless, these were the main tactics in which the media used to discourage people from attending this movie, whether it be because they truly believed mass violence would happen or possibly because they had other motives that we will explore soon. The media used fearmongering tactics to capitalize off of recent mass shootings to sell an agenda that this movie was dangerous and to scare people into not seeing it, for fear that they might get shot. As noted in Narrative Techniques of Fear Mongering: “Instead, in a culture of fear, politicians and advocacy groups use and abuse collective anxieties for narrow political gains. Having helped to instill fears, they capitalize upon them to win elections, to solicit campaign contributions, and to push through pet programs that tend to increase the coercive power of the state” (Glassner, 2004, pg. 826). Despite this excerpt referencing politicians, some media groups still work in tandem with politicians or political advocacy groups to instill fears that shape public discourse, which help push policy.

Another reason why this movie received large amounts of criticism was twofold: the movie was constructed in a way that makes the viewer sympathize with Arthur for most of the duration of the movie, and mental illness was once again a component in depicting a mass murderer who happens to be white. Due to these factors, some journalists would imply that this movie was problematic, implying that the point of the movie was to make you feel sorry for a white guy who ends up killing people, or that it reinforces the sympathy given to white mass shooters, blaming the violence on their mental illness instead of other possible factors such as racism. This question of whether there is a disproportionate usage of mental health blame for white mass shooters is not uncommon, as Scott W. Duxbury notes: “Further, academic and public coverage of mass shootings focuses on events with young white perpetrators, and the dominant narrative for the causes of mass shootings has fixated overwhelmingly on shooters’ mental health” (Duxbury, 2018, pg. 767). While this is a valid criticism that does in fact need addressing, the school of thought this observation originates from generally denies that there is a link between mental illness and some mass shooters, or even sometimes goes as far to say that mental illness plays no role whatsoever. Furthermore, questions asking why white men are rarely labeled as terrorists in mass shooting events are brought up by similar forces, despite the definition of terrorism equaling violence committed to achieve a political goal, not solely an incident resulting in mass casualties.

Interpretations such as these are welcomed, as everyone perceives everything differently. However, it is reasonable to suspect that interpretations like so are politically driven, and that intended concepts or messages of the movie are ignored, and rather journalists’ political worldviews are projected while being masqueraded around as analysis or movie reviews. For example, in a review piece from The Telegraph, the author makes a comparison between the clown protests and Trump MAGA rallies: “Joker, without remotely trying, becomes the figurehead for a protest movement that broadly mimics a Trump MAGA rally.” Sorry, but what movie was this person watching? In scenes featuring the clown protests, protestors were fighting with police, protesting capitalism, protesting the rich, holding up signs saying “Resist!”, “Thomas Wayne is a fascist!”, so on and so forth. Knowing Trump’s stances on free market capitalism amongst other things, the rhetoric and behavior of the protestors sounds like the exact opposite of a Trump rally, proving that some reviews and analysis are influenced by personal politics, manifesting wildly inaccurate comparisons. Noted by Erick Elejalde: “As the media grows in power, the political and economic interests of news outlets and the ones who control it have grown as well, which has its impact on the news that the population of a territory gets served” (Elejalde, 2018, pg. 2). Although the author of the given example or other journalists might feel inclined to incorporate his/her politics into pieces focused on Joker, it would not be surprising if those political views were representative of the outlets that employ them, given that there was a sizeable assault on the movie for various reasons.

Finally, a very real possibility as to why Joker was met with vehement opposition from the majority of media outlets was the fact that it did not present an overt biased political message of any kind, and was just a movie to watch and enjoy. In an era of American culture in which social justice is highly emphasized, celebrities, athletes, musicians, millionaires, billionaires, and anyone or anything with a large platform is encouraged to use that platform to speak on or illustrate social issues, raise awareness to certain causes or groups, or espouse a message that would be considered progressive. There is a substantial amount of pressure fixated upon them and respective brands to deliver these messages, and if they choose to use the platform to espouse other messages or remain neutral, cancel culture will commence, and people will call for the boycott or cancellation of the person/brand. Given this current cultural precedent, one could infer that Joker was disliked and opposed simply for not containing progressive values. For example, Joker did not make an effort to include an undefined number of people of color, make a woman of color a contributing character, or to shine a spotlight on LGBTQ representation. Rather, it was solely focused on telling the story, and was not interested in satisfying the complex representation demands or political ideologies of woke progressives in charge of publications. By the same token, “The personal liberalism of journalists has been demonstrated by numerous surveys, which also show that liberal perspectives are most pronounced at prominent media outlets and on social and cultural issues…these findings hold for editors as well as reporters” (Lichter, 2014, pg. 6). As liberalism in movies is celebrated, lack of liberalism can be subject to criticism from liberal bloggers at outlets where such bias is profound.

In conclusion, Joker was a dark, intense film that was polarizing because of its messages and themes, in addition to the cinematic experience itself. It stirred controversy for several different reasons, such as its portrayal of how society mistreats and alienates mentally-ill people, and illustrates the devastating consequences that can result in discarding those people. Warnings of potential threats of mass violence surrounded this film, which injected a scary element to the film’s hype before its release, and the media exacerbated the fear surrounding this movie due to suspected political motivations. Joker is in no way a victim for murdering people and for setting Gotham ablaze, but society’s handling of him created a madman such as himself, and we as a society take the chance of creating people like him when mental health is not seriously addressed. If you couldn’t see the true message of this movie, that’s okay. “You wouldn’t get it.”

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sweetha, Saji. (2019). “Conjuring the ‘Insane’: Representations of Mental Illness in Medical and Popular Discourses” Media Watch pg. 525.

This article discusses in length about the representations of the mentally ill in medical literature and other discourses, as well as in media. It also talks about how mentally-ill patients are medical subjects that need to be under constant supervision and care, which I incorporate to reinforce a particular point made, which is that the mentally-ill cannot be neglected.

Kellner, Douglas. (2013). “Cultural Studies, Multiculturalism, and Media Culture” A Cultural Studies Approach. Pp. 9–19.

The focus of this journal is that media shape our worldviews and our sense of social constructs/demographics whether we know it or not. It also discusses what cultural studies is all about, such as the fact that it provides some tools that enable one to read and interpret one’s culture critically, which I relate to Joker and how the movie allows us to analyze our culture.

Vandeberg, Wenner. (1998). “Critical Approaches to Television” Cultural Criticism Approach Pg. 395

This journal partly discusses cultural criticism and how it pertains to cultural studies. Specifically, I pulled the part where it talks about how cultural criticism is hegemonically centered, and how it is concerned with the resistance of dominant ideologies in one’s culture.

Weede, Erich. (1998). “Rebellion, Violence, and Revolution: A Rational Choice Perspective” Journal of Peace Research pg. 45

This article discusses organized rebellion or revolution, and what is required for certain groups derived from the masses to have a successful revolution on the elite. Also talks about how having people with resources joining the rebellion helps respective sides.

Duxbury, Scott. (2018). “Mental Illness, the Media, and the Moral Politics of Mass Violence” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Pg. 767

This article aimed to examine why assumptions of mental illness are thrown around more for white mass shooters as compared to ethnic minority mass shooters. It examines a data set of 433 news documents covering 219 mass shootings between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015.

Glassner, Barry. (2004). “Narrative Techniques of Fear Mongering” Social Research Pg. 826

This article discusses how fear is sold in the media for profit and to push policy that certain politicians are behind. It also talks about how politicians use fear and fear-based tactics on a variety of issues to win elections.

Elejalde, Erick. (2018). “On the nature of real and perceived bias in the mainstream media” Plos One pg. 2

This article talks about the ever-expanding amount of evidence that suggests bias in media lies within underlying political and socio-economic viewpoints. Providing several charts in addition, this article also aims to empower readers to reflect on the content they consume.

Lichter, Robert. (2014). “Theories of Media Bias” The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication pg. 6

This article talks about bias in the media from conservative bias, to liberal bias, to the rise of openly-political leaning networks and outlets. It also talks about different conclusions are reached of which bias is more prominent when using different research methods.

Parker, Sam. (2019). “Male rage hits the multiplex: what Joker tells us about ‘incel’ culture” The Telegraph

This review discusses the alleged “incel” culture surrounding Joker and the potential threats of mass violence from these incels at this movie. It also includes the laughable comparison of the clown protests in the film to Donald Trump’s rallies.