Plot Fix: 7 ways to make “Joker” even Better
Joker is, without a doubt, a top ten film for me.
Joaquin Phoenix’s acting is simply sublime. The direction, aesthetic, music, cinematography, and pacing are masterful. I mean, this was almost the perfect movie. Could it have been #1 in my eyes? With a few tweaks, certainly.
I have the unique perspective of watching the first half of the movie, leaving, and finishing the second half at a later time. At the 45 minute mark, my partner, rattled by the sudden burst of violence, decided we needed to leave the theater. I left thinking, “Damn, that was the best first half of a movie I might have ever seen.”
The second half was strong but does not stay as tight with its plot points. As I don’t like to criticize without offering a solution, here are a few fixes based on my humble opinions.
(SPOILER WARNING: If that was not obvious enough)
——————————
I’ll start with what I see as the greatest missed opportunity: The Late-Night Talk show with Murray Franklin (Robert DeNiro).
The overriding motif with the Arthur character, to me, was the vacillation between three distinct personalities. Whether we could call these components of the Freudian Tripartite, I’m not entirely sure.
As an “Adult”, he takes care of his mother and confronts aspects of his lifelong sadness. As the “Child”, he is awkward, immature, has difficulty understanding social cues, and wants to be understood. As the “Joker”, he is a confident, dancing, self-righteous showman.
Keeping this in mind, by the time we start seeing the true and deep commitment of Arthur to his own tragedy, I think it would have been more satisfying seeing him bring more and more of the Joker character to the forefront. There are at least three scenes that are broken by their juxtaposition of these personalities, but again, by the end, the Joker should have been shining through. Instead of being the “Child” as a guest with his comic-hero, he should have been fully in the “Joker” frame.
Contrast his entrance versus the actual interview: As he comes out from the curtains, he is charming and we’re drawn to him as an entertainer. He comes in pirouetting, prancing, and kissing a guest. While there is probably a conscious decision to have a salient gap between Arthur’s physical presence and verbal skills, this is the precise scene to close that gap. A few minutes of poignance from an otherwise nervous and down-trodden human being.
This could be demonstrated by:
Arthur throwing his notebook away; He’s going “off script”. Considering how often he referred to the notebook, and how often he writes in it, this would be a huge tell to the audience.
Arthur using his “Adult Voice”. The same voice he has when he is charming his neighbor Sophie in his fantasies.
Arthur laughing at a joke at the appropriate time, WITH the crowd. The entire movie has his ‘fake laugh’ pop up when he’s trying to behave normally in social situations. This is the opportunity to demonstrate to the viewers that something has clicked - or broken- within Arthur.
Closely related to this is the quality of the laugh. For the laughter that we normally hear: It is piercing, and as Phoenix breathes in, we see that it is an expression of deep sadness. Now, before or after he kills Franklin, could be the moment to show a laugh that does not have a melancholy pause or shades of a sob. A true, joyous laugh.
As a plot point, he can still kill Murray Franklin (Arthur’s “Father Figure” in the movie), but I would have preferred to see Arthur, again, as the ‘misunderstood good guy’. Something that guided the conversation toward “I killed those three men, but I was defending myself.” and then turning Franklin into the momentary unsympathetic ‘bad guy’:
“Why would three Ivy League educated brokers attack you?” Deniro’s line could have been, “If they attacked you, you must have done something to provoke them.”
As it exists now, Arthur’s transformation is not dissimilar to Daenerys going “Mad Queen” in Season 8 of Game of Thrones. The same “mad” conclusion could have been reached, we just need more evidence to convince us.
To wrap it up, I’ll go over the more nerdy plot lapses that seemed obvious to me:
5. The point of no return was when Arthur decides to kill his mother. It was difficult to watch, but it’s also a huge red flag. ICU staff know almost exactly when people die. In this case, they would also know that Arthur was there at the same time. If they hadn’t detained him outright.
6. Arthur has two coworkers visit him to offer their condolences. How did they know? Had the dwarf character gone to the police after his friend was murdered?
7. So he commits the murder in #2, finishes putting his make up on, and dances down a stairwell. Let’s say the dwarf character calls the police immediately. Police are dispatched. “Armed and dangerous” is yelled all over the radio. The two cops that are on the train killings case just happen to show up? How would a wanted man end up on TV?
Solutions for each of the above?
5. Make him inject something into her drip. This might require a setup scene earlier in the film that shows medication, perhaps insulin, being administered when they are at home.
6. Either Arthur ties the dwarf character up, or swears him to secrecy with coercion.
7. This is maybe unavoidable. Arthur has at this point murdered his mother and ex-colleague (with witness) after already being previously suspected. He would be found and arrested unless there is some care taken (above)
There is, of course, the possibility that it was ALL a vivid fantasy within the mind of Arthur, and none of the occurrences within the film actually happened. An extreme narrative cop-out, but I suppose that’s up for interpretation.
Joker is one of those films that haunted me for a week. Immersive aesthetics, a well-thought-out script, incisive social commentary, bits of narrative ambiguity (“was he adopted?”), and acting skill that will be studied for decades to come. I was so glad to witness it and so glad that only through nit-picking could it be improved.
Bravo.