Well, The Joker just hit theatres, and honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm going to see it.
Quite a few cultural critics I admire and respect have panned it, still others have said it was boring and unambitious - and frankly, it's no secret that I'm not the biggest fan of comics, for a variety of reasons. I'm curious, sure, but based on what I've heard from various podcasts and Youtube shows, as well as friends' chatter and Twitter, it's basically a dumbed-down Taxi Driver or Fight Club, without realising that those movies were critical of the main character's perception of the world.
Of course, there's also the problem that the director, Todd Phillips, talked about "triggering people" dismissively in some interviews, and both he and Warner Brothers seem to want to have it both ways - to upset people, to flirt with inciting violence, and to insist that it's just art, which cannot be censored (and that criticism is the same as censorship...which it isn't, by the way.) Phillips also complains about "woke culture" with the sort of embittered smugness that generally demarcates other failing comedians - such as Dave Chappelle, Louis C.K, Jerry Seinfeld, and other men who have mistaken their own prestige for talent.
Joaquin Phoenix, the twee, breathy method acting star, also seems to have made the same mistake. "I wasn't comfortable while making the film," he insisted. But while I really loved his acting and the movie Her in general, I can't help rolling my eyes at this take.
There's this idea in art and cultural commentary, and particularly in the zeitgeist, that because art is supposed to evoke emotion, evoking emotion constitutes art in and of itself. Quite frankly, stepping in a dog turd and breaking one's ankle also elicits emotion, but it generally isn't considered an artistic performance. Now, if said event is filmed and uploaded to Youtube, is it art then? Academics and Smart Internet People are ready and waiting to explain both how it is, and isn't art.
The thing is, the Joker movie isn't an unfortunate or hilarious accident. Great effort went into it, as well as a hefty budget and substantial promotional energy. This isn't some accidental, daring indie darling coming out of nowhere. It is very much commerce in the trappings of art. Now, can that still be art? Sure. But let's call a card a card, shall we?
This movie has an agenda...and above else, that's making money. The controversy over it - which, as much as I hate it, I am writing about and therefore contributing to - basically functions as a marketing push.
Rather, we should express how terribly bored we are about the whole thing, and we shouldn't fund the damned enterprise. Go see it in the cheap seats, or undertake alternative measures to see it, if you absolutely must. Or, do what I sometimes do when I want to hear about content but not suffer through it, and read, watch, or listen to a bunch of different thinkpieces about it.
But honestly, there's nothing more to say about this virulent, nasty, boring movie. What I'd rather talk about is the central premise - that upsetting people is somehow artistically virtuous.
There's sort of a corollary to the whole "If people are upset, they'll think!" argument, and that is that happiness is an opiod, something that dulls the senses. That's as absurd as it is untrue. First of all, happiness and contentment are not the enemy, and in a world such as ours, rife with inequality, we ought not treat them as such cheap currency. They're rare, and they ought to be treasured. That's not to say that we should lull ourselves into thinking everything is all right - but that's not what happiness is about.
Rather, happiness comes from change, achievement, new experiences, and appreciating what we have. And good art - say, the book series beginning with A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle - will certainly do this. Yes, those books make me happy, but they also fill me with wonder and admiration. Art that makes us happy also makes us connected to others, and might even encourage us to make art ourselves, try to be good at something, or try something new.
A friend of mine is really into Lois Bujold's Vorkosagian series, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice trilogy. Some of those books are hard on the heart, sure, but nobody who's advocating for happy art is saying it needs to be, say, forced positivity art or pablum. And, sure, all these writers are ladies - but that doesn't mean men can't (or don't!) write nurturing, empathetic books with characters who are more than angry, lost boys. Not to mention that the most recent Hugo and other fantasy and writing awards are really showing a wonderful sea change - Mary Robinette Kowal, for instance, or The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet or Space Opera being fine examples. As far as empathetic male writers, I must always recommend Zig Zag Claybourne's The Brothers Jetstream, Ari Marmell's Mick Oberon series, or Chuck Wendig's writing.
And yeah, we do need to give empathy and kindness to these lost boys who relate to these movies - but the way to do that isn't to enable their bad habits. It's to give them a better world, access to therapy and medication if needed, and fight toxic mental habits. That's what the rest of us have to do - but the good news is? It works.
 |
| Art by Michelle Browne. |
Quite a few cultural critics I admire and respect have panned it, still others have said it was boring and unambitious - and frankly, it's no secret that I'm not the biggest fan of comics, for a variety of reasons. I'm curious, sure, but based on what I've heard from various podcasts and Youtube shows, as well as friends' chatter and Twitter, it's basically a dumbed-down Taxi Driver or Fight Club, without realising that those movies were critical of the main character's perception of the world.
Of course, there's also the problem that the director, Todd Phillips, talked about "triggering people" dismissively in some interviews, and both he and Warner Brothers seem to want to have it both ways - to upset people, to flirt with inciting violence, and to insist that it's just art, which cannot be censored (and that criticism is the same as censorship...which it isn't, by the way.) Phillips also complains about "woke culture" with the sort of embittered smugness that generally demarcates other failing comedians - such as Dave Chappelle, Louis C.K, Jerry Seinfeld, and other men who have mistaken their own prestige for talent.
Joaquin Phoenix, the twee, breathy method acting star, also seems to have made the same mistake. "I wasn't comfortable while making the film," he insisted. But while I really loved his acting and the movie Her in general, I can't help rolling my eyes at this take.
Upsetting people is not art
There's this idea in art and cultural commentary, and particularly in the zeitgeist, that because art is supposed to evoke emotion, evoking emotion constitutes art in and of itself. Quite frankly, stepping in a dog turd and breaking one's ankle also elicits emotion, but it generally isn't considered an artistic performance. Now, if said event is filmed and uploaded to Youtube, is it art then? Academics and Smart Internet People are ready and waiting to explain both how it is, and isn't art.
The thing is, the Joker movie isn't an unfortunate or hilarious accident. Great effort went into it, as well as a hefty budget and substantial promotional energy. This isn't some accidental, daring indie darling coming out of nowhere. It is very much commerce in the trappings of art. Now, can that still be art? Sure. But let's call a card a card, shall we?
Art qua art? Try Art qua money.
This movie has an agenda...and above else, that's making money. The controversy over it - which, as much as I hate it, I am writing about and therefore contributing to - basically functions as a marketing push.
Rather, we should express how terribly bored we are about the whole thing, and we shouldn't fund the damned enterprise. Go see it in the cheap seats, or undertake alternative measures to see it, if you absolutely must. Or, do what I sometimes do when I want to hear about content but not suffer through it, and read, watch, or listen to a bunch of different thinkpieces about it.
But honestly, there's nothing more to say about this virulent, nasty, boring movie. What I'd rather talk about is the central premise - that upsetting people is somehow artistically virtuous.
Good art makes people think too
There's sort of a corollary to the whole "If people are upset, they'll think!" argument, and that is that happiness is an opiod, something that dulls the senses. That's as absurd as it is untrue. First of all, happiness and contentment are not the enemy, and in a world such as ours, rife with inequality, we ought not treat them as such cheap currency. They're rare, and they ought to be treasured. That's not to say that we should lull ourselves into thinking everything is all right - but that's not what happiness is about.
Rather, happiness comes from change, achievement, new experiences, and appreciating what we have. And good art - say, the book series beginning with A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle - will certainly do this. Yes, those books make me happy, but they also fill me with wonder and admiration. Art that makes us happy also makes us connected to others, and might even encourage us to make art ourselves, try to be good at something, or try something new.
A friend of mine is really into Lois Bujold's Vorkosagian series, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice trilogy. Some of those books are hard on the heart, sure, but nobody who's advocating for happy art is saying it needs to be, say, forced positivity art or pablum. And, sure, all these writers are ladies - but that doesn't mean men can't (or don't!) write nurturing, empathetic books with characters who are more than angry, lost boys. Not to mention that the most recent Hugo and other fantasy and writing awards are really showing a wonderful sea change - Mary Robinette Kowal, for instance, or The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet or Space Opera being fine examples. As far as empathetic male writers, I must always recommend Zig Zag Claybourne's The Brothers Jetstream, Ari Marmell's Mick Oberon series, or Chuck Wendig's writing.
And yeah, we do need to give empathy and kindness to these lost boys who relate to these movies - but the way to do that isn't to enable their bad habits. It's to give them a better world, access to therapy and medication if needed, and fight toxic mental habits. That's what the rest of us have to do - but the good news is? It works.
***
Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and Max the cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people's manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.
Find her all over the internet:
* OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Ko-fi
* OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Ko-fi
No comments:
Post a Comment
As always, be excellent unto others, and don't be a dick.