What doubt could we have left that The Joker is a prestidigitation maneuver. What doubt could we possibly have that this reinterpretation only took the name (with its followers), the atmosphere and the universe: the basics items to reproduce as we all know the character comes from the comics, genre that is strictly graphic (I wonder if we could pull up an analogy with the terms ‘’copy-paste’’). However, any appearance of preserving the essence is spoiled when the script, abandoning the deep and irreducible opposition that confronts two rival psychologies, confuses, childishly, the origin with the cause. That’s how the Batman and the Joker are presented to us, sliding down a plot that emphasizes that the problems of self-esteem are meaningful (like if it were about high-school teenagers), reducing the dark tension of the confrontation of both subjectivities in conflict, destined to a duel to death, to a mere succession of personal grievances. The Batman and the Joker, in my opinion, incarnate both archetypal personalities, historical and socially defined, among many others. The first one stands for the commitment to order in chaos, the other, the constant flirtation of chaos in a world that claims desperately for order.!
They symbolize, eternally united (like an example, the well-known figure of the ‘two faces of the same corner’), the battle between two symbiotic ‘cosmos’, two antithetical forms of! action-thinking, antagonistic in shaping the order of the world, and that, by its adverse attributes, they define each other: they are who they are because they’re not the other one. Because of that, how painful it is to watch a movie that whisks away the ideological hate, the one that’s lead by a cold, harsh reflexion, held for a pure subsistence reason, that abstracts itself of feeding on small daily miseries and, instead, strikes us with the low blow of the easy emotion, the primary appeal, forced, of feeling sorry for the one who suffers!
From there, everything in the plot is dragged by the rattling motto of the empathy, with whose impact, the dramatic complexity has been replaced. Now we know it: The Joker is a villain because he suffered as a boy…and was poor. Any spectator that’s thirsty to witness an epic contest for a transcendent objective, that is, for a result that directs the order of the world in one direction or another, will feel impatient and frustrated here; to this point comes the intention of the authors of the film committed to saturate the plot with an endless succession of common places and acts, not for violent, less empty of meaning.! To the obvious narrative is added the plus of the literal speech (the reiterated preaching that Arthur Flake fires to our faces before the criminal act like, the one before shooting the tv Presenter played by Robert DeNiro) that tops off the persistent operation of the emotional attacks that the viewer has to deal with. Here is the mistake: if the Joker is a figure dragged into the radical anti-social field (‘I only want to see the world burn’), it’s not acceptable that large dosis of verbal self-pity are injected, and that this leads to popular identification (ergo, ‘the clown revolution’): the actions of the fictional mass give validity to this ‘Joker’ in the eyes of the real mass. And that’s how scriptwriters try, by fiddling, to prove themselves right!
We are thus induced to total simplification, the mechanical union of cause and effect, an image in which the mixture of poverty, violence and madness is packaged and ready to be consumed as “the origin of evil” (concept that has been circulating since the first American noirs of the fifties, which places this piece in a position far away from its “revolutionary” claim). This film leads us to the comfortable and trivial conclusion that the bad guys are not that bad and the good ones are not that good!