AN OPEN LETTER TO: Todd Phillips

Hello, Todd.  I trusts this find you well.

I thought we can talk a bit about why I’m so down on your film, Joker.  After all, I have publicly said on Twitter, and I quote, “If Joker, that Martin Scorsese fanfic, wins anything but Best Actor, I riot.”

To be fair, I’m not a fan of your previous work.  I’m just not down with the style of comedy you produce...which is fine.  One of the things you learn with age is that not everything has to be made for you, and obviously loads of people like that kind of comedy.  More power to them for finding something they like, and more power to you for identifying what they want and giving it to them.

Joker was, however, in my wheelhouse.  I’m a lifelong super-hero fan, even thought I feel the Batman franchise needs to be put into hibernation for a while; after all, how are we going to miss you if don’t go away?  Furthermore, everything I heard about it was that it was going to address mental illness--and I’ve become something of an advocate for mental illness in media over the last few years.  While I was skeptical of the project as it neared completion, I will admit I found the trailer kind of intriguing.

I didn’t care for the film.  I actually disliked it, truth be told.  But I was willing to live and let live...until the Academy slathered all these nominations on it, ignoring a legion of other, more worthy candidates.  I recognize that’s not your fault at all--it’s the fault of the Academy, who has no real conception of true quality...or diversity...or the changing face of how we consume cinema as a whole.  I’ve been boycotting the Oscars ever since Raging Bull was snubbed for Best Picture, and it seems almost every year there’s a new outrage--like when last year they overlooked two superior films, one on race relations (which should have won), to deify a safe and condescending approach to the same subject.

Once you got that fistful of noms, I lost it.

I will give you Joaquin Pheonix as Best Actor, even though he has played this persona better in earlier films such as The Master and You Were Never Really Here.  To be fair, I would look at him winning as more an acknowledgment for those earlier films, which were too 'edgy' and rough for the out-of-touch Academy.

But there are two reason I am upset that people are praising your film as exceptional when it is really just okay, a film that plays it safe and doesn’t rock the boat while proclaiming it is transgressive and innovative and new.

One of the reasons is presented pretty bald-facedly in that tweet I quoted above...namely that Joker, to a person even casually familiar with the history of cinema, is fanfic.  You haven’t tried to create a new story; you’ve grafted equal parts of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver onto a super-hero movie template.  And there’s nothing wrong with utilizing previously existing art to inform your own; watching the entire cv of Quentin Tarantino is akin to browsing through his Blu-Ray collection.  But Tarantino finds ways to mix and match different elements to create something new.  Frankly, you just retell these Scorsese stories with no elaboration--in some cases you don’t even display an understanding of the texts you’re aping.  In Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle is able to interface with the real world up to a point--mentally healthy people could assume he was mentally healthy as well if their interaction is superficially; it’s only with more intimate interaction that others realize how ill he is.  There is no sense that Fleck could pass.  Cybill Shepherd’s Betsy agrees to go out with Travis in Scorsese’s original, seeing nothing wrong; she’d run screaming from Fleck.

...and this brings me to my other problem with your film, Todd.  Just so you understand where I’m coming from, I have suffered from Bipolar Type Two and Explosive Mood Disorder my whole life.  Before 2014, I was not medicated and actively avoided treatment because of the way mental illness and its treatment was portrayed in the media.  In the years since, I’ve become something of an advocate for mental illness and its treatment--Hell, I actively regret that I did not get treatment sooner.

And to be fair, you do acknowledge the need for mental health care...except that that’s all you do.  You recognize it’s a necessary thing, then promptly ignore it.  I understand why; there’s no reason for Fleck to become the Joker if he is properly treated....but you could have done more than just handwave it away, say ‘it’s such a shame’ and get on with the Scorcese fanfic. 

To another extent, you end up committing what is to me a mortal sin--namely, you use mental illness as an excuse for Fleck’s evil behavior.  It’s like you’re saying ‘he’s sick; of course he turned out to be a diabolical mastermind who punches Batman.’  There are many, many people who suffer from mental illness and do not give in to evil impulses....you seem to say Fleck’s mental illness is the reason for his evil.  And instead of addressing the cultural stigma of seeking out help--which is a real thing, and something that realistically fit in a movie that purports to treat comic book subjects as ‘realistic’--you just tsk-tsk it and go back to blaming the illness, blaming society, everything except blaming the sufferer for his actions.  It’s a very superficial treatment of something that you, and the film’s fans, claim it’s presenting a deep and disturbing take on.

Look, I’m glad you’ve found success with this.  There were obviously people who wanted this.  But claiming that ‘reskinning’ and dumbing down an object and calling it something unique, let alone revolutionary is not really helping anything.

Parasite is doing something of value with cinema while addressing class in a novel way.  JoJo Rabbit is recasting a situation in a different light to emphasize and open up a conversation about the subject.  1917 is trying to tell its story in an unusual way.  Hell, The Irishman--the film by the man who desperately want to emulate--approaches a subject the filmmaker is identified with from a new angle.  All of these are more deserving of Oscar attention than Joker is. 

Joker has already gotten its award; it’s called financial and popular success.  It will be a part of the conversation among casual movie goers for years and years when some of its contemporaries have faded.  Since it does nothing new with its subject matter or its theme--since it’s actually imitating the work of another filmmaker without building on that filmmaker's work--it does not deserve to be held up as ‘groundbreaking’ or ‘revolutionary.’  It certainly does not deserve to be declared the gold standard by giving it an award.

I hope you take this cred you’ve gotten from this film and create what you want.  I hope you continue creating, and creating films that address concerns that are special to you.  If you are interested in mental health, I hope you create a work of art that is specifically personal to you and is not built solely on other people’s work, both in terms of content and style. 

You have talent, you have proven you are able to connect with an audience, and you now have the ability to do whatever you want next.  That’s something a lot of people wish they had.  I hope you use your power wisely, because I’m excited whenever a creator can use that level of power to communicate with his audience.

I just don’t think this film needs to be celebrated as a high water mark, especially not after this year in film.

Sincerely,

Thomas Deja