Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Perhaps Canadians are temperamentally less inclined to shout Bravissimo!
for operatic celebrations of psychosis.
The thinking behind the film is very conventional.
Thats scary on a lot of different levels.
But theres a key difference: Hes a victim, more sinned against than sinning.
You have to admire Arthur for his self-actualization.
It sure beats impotence or nonexistence, which is the ultimate impotence.
We need Joker, if only to end the slow, masochistic trajectory.
Kill someone, anyone!
If Arthur could be Pupkins sibling, hes cousin at least to Charles Bronsons urban vigilante inDeath Wish.
But here theres no exorcist in sight.
We think, Come into Arthur, Captain Howdy!
Hes the best unhinged movie actor in the world.
Take that, normalcy!
The downside to the performance is the downside to the whole movie: Its essentially repetitive.
It goes nowhere you cant predict.
And the other actors offer no relief.
Jokerhas been called an anthem for incels, which isnt wrong.
I agree withTimes Stephanie Zacharek thats its less an exploration of a modern pathology than a symptom of it.
In response, they cultivated a charismatic malevolence and put modern technology to creatively annihilative uses.
They aggrandized themselves as Mephistophelean.
In other words, make them look like the loser schmucks they are.
Arthur/Joker might be repulsive, but in a topsy-turvy universe, repulsive is attractive.
Its a one-joke movie.
