My Review of 'Joker'

For some reason I keep thinking today's Sunday, probably because I wasn't working and I went to the movies this afternoon; activities and situations that, to me, have always been associated with a Sunday afternoon.

Anyway, it's Thursday, and I saw Joker. Holy fucking mother of God hopping up and down on a pogo stick fitted with an outboard motor and shaving her legs at the same time, this was a mind-blowing experience. This would have to be Joaquin Phoenix's consummate and superlative performance. I'm trying to think of adjectives: mesmerising, flawless, engrossing, bewitching, poetry-in-motion, dazzling, bonzer...

You probably know it's not in the traditional DC comics vein, but more a character study of the person who become the archvillain Joker. To say the character is flawed and disturbed is an understatement on par with saying Cyclone Tracy was a bit of wind and rain, but I felt pity for the character, which I think is testimony to the acting. This movie is in no way uplifting, and you're not going to hug the person next to you when the lights come up; however, if you want to watch a pinnacle performance, then this is the movie to see. Phoenix, you 've come a long way since you played that kid just learning to jack off in Parenthood, when you were billed as Leaf Phoenix.

Soundtrack features clown-related songs like Send in the Clowns and Everybody Plays the Fool (wow, haven't heard that one in years!). There's also a scene where he's skipping down the steps to Rock and Roll Part 2. Well, doesn't that choice just have the Perpetually Outraged having a bitch? Headlines along the lines of Joker Movie Could Earn Convicted Paedophile Thousands of Dollars.  Apparently, there have been calls to boycott the movie on this point. To this, I say: Pffffft! I will type this as slowly as I can:

1. Yes, there is a chance Gary Glitter could earn income from it. He sold publishing rights to his songs, but he is likely still eligible for royalties in the appropriate circumstances. Being paid a royalty is not being paid from the proceeds of a crime; a royalty is payment to an artist for a piece of art. Whether you would consider Gary Glitter particularly artistic is a non-issue. The principle remains the same.

2. Gary Glitter is not the only one who would draw income from the choice to use the song in the soundtrack. The estate of his co-author Mike Leander and the Glitter Band are also interested parties, and why should they be punished for this vile cretin's hideous actions?

3. The song's awesome. If you like the music, just listen to it. Nobody in their right minds condones what Gary Glitter did, but it doesn't mean you can't enjoy music to your taste. Many musicians and other artists have been very flawed, and in some cases monstrous, people. I still enjoy the music because I like glam rock. I also listen to a lot of the wonderful music produced by Phil Spector, but I don't support murder in the second degree.

Anyway, 4.5 stars out of 5 from me.