wingedbeast (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wingedbeast) wrote2019-10-10 10:46 pm
wingedbeast) wrote2019-10-10 10:46 pm
Joker and Benign Violation Theory
I'll say two things to start... three if you include the spoiler warning. Spoilers, by the way, below the cut.
I watched Joker this past Sunday and I enjoyed it quite a lot... Well, "enjoy" may be the wrong word. But, I found the story engaging and something I both identified with and was horrified by. Where some don't see the point, I think I do... or rather I think I see a very good point that the director, himself, did not see, based on a comment you might have heard by now.
I've also heard some criticisms about the movie's politics... And, I agree with those criticism, even though that doesn't hurt the movie as it is, for me. I can see how this story could be done different or better, but I still enjoy what is there.
What I see there is a study of society through a lens of the benign violation theory of comedy. I've written about this, before, and the name is kind of self-explanatory, but here goes anyway. Benign Violation theory has it that laughter is a response to sensing something (or someone) being violated but feeling safe. Slapstick would be an attack, but unrealistic enough to see no real harm done, so safe.
Here come the spoilers.
Our main character, Arthur Fleck, at the beginning of the movie, is assaulted by some youths. It's important to note that these youths are kids having fun. They are not indicated to be in any kind of criminal gang or organized crime. They're not marking territory.
Arthur Fleck is dressed as a clown, spinning a sign in front of a store closing. In a bit of comedic showmanship, he stops the sign upside down, "notices" this, then rights it. He's willing to be the butt of the joke. But, then those kids, having fun, steal his sign and run away with it. Arthur gives chase and, when he catches up with them, they hit him across the face with the sign, breaking it. Then, they proceed to kick him while he's down.
Nothing's funny about this. Not to us. But, the kids are laughing. Benign violation says they sense him being harmed while they're safe.
This leads, not immediately but inevitably, to an interaction with Arthur Fleck's boss. That boss wants Fleck to give back the sign. He's not willing to accept that some youths stole it then broke it, because that doesn't make sense. When Arthur asks why he would steal the sign at all, the boss responds that he doesn't know why people do anything.
The difference between the unfunny, tragic scene before us and something that would be funny is just a difference of presentation. A bit of distance and that's funny in a dark or cruel way. This need for behavior to be consistent with logical sense is, itself, not consistent and not beholden to any logic save for an excuse to take money out of Fleck's pay.
We also get an early fantasy scene. It's signaled that this is a fantasy because it starts with Fleck watching a late-night comedy show with his mother. In that fantasy, Fleck shouts, in a standard applause moment, "I love you". The late-night comedian puts the spotlight on Fleck, asks a question. Fleck says he lives with his mother and the comedian has the opportunity to get an easy laugh out of Fleck living with his mother. He doesn't. The fantasy is the opportunity to be cruel to him being passed up in order to be kind instead.
As the story progresses, Fleck shows further willingness to be the butt of his own jokes. His stand-up routine has a joke of "people laughed at me when I said I'd be a comedian, but nobody's laughing now". But, he's not included in on a joke at which he is the ostensible butt. He's assaulted again and he's attacked. He's not in on the joke.
Part of why is shown in Thomas Wayne's reaction to his first big crime. Thomas Wayne attributes the deaths of three suit-wearing men (described as Wall-street but we only know that they work for Wayne, himself) to the jealousy of those who did not make anything of themselves, as Wayne believes he did. Again, in different presentation, this would have been a joke because they weren't good men who died of random crime. They had moved from harassing a woman to physically assaulting a man in clown makeup, who then shot in self-defense.
When Arthur Fleck is on as a guest of that same comedian, his hero who had then made fun of him, he asks to be called by the name used to mock him. "Joker". "Joker" tells a knock knock joke. "Knock knock" "Who's there?" "It's the police, your son has been killed by a drunk driver." (I'm typing from memory, may not be exact.)
Of course, everybody's silent. He's told that's not funny. And, he talks about the subjectivity of humor. But, to my mind, he's really talking about who's pain and who's suffering is being acknowledged. After all, just moments prior, "Joker" is being mocked. His persona and identity and value as a human being are all subject to violation with the full knowledge that it's all benign. The audience and the other guests and the comedian are all feel safe when mocking "Joker" for what they don't know is the result of brain damage.
"Joker", in this movie is not criminally insane. He knows what he's doing. He's aware of the consequences. He knows right from wrong. But, he's also spent his life in a state where his basic human worth has been, to those with power of wealth and power of politics and power of fame, invisible. That allowed his violations to be, to them, benign. The same level of violation turned upon them is... well...
If that kind of violation is okay for one person, why not for another?
The answer should be that it isn't okay for either. But, "Joker" doesn't live in a world where that's an option. So, he takes the other option.
The criticism that I come closest to agreeing with comes in the podcast Serious Inquiries Only. The point they made was that this was another aggrieved white guy who felt entitled to success. I'm not sure how much I agree with that, but I at least agree a little. And, I do think this story could have been told as well and possibly better with "Joker" being a black woman who was told to smile more.
But, I think the value is there, still. Who is it okay to violate? Who is it okay to hurt, because some unchosen element of their existence makes it okay to use them for your fun? And, if you keep doing that to an entire subsection of humanity, is it really any single one's fault for sparking an explosion when you packed the keg to bursting with powder?
I watched Joker this past Sunday and I enjoyed it quite a lot... Well, "enjoy" may be the wrong word. But, I found the story engaging and something I both identified with and was horrified by. Where some don't see the point, I think I do... or rather I think I see a very good point that the director, himself, did not see, based on a comment you might have heard by now.
I've also heard some criticisms about the movie's politics... And, I agree with those criticism, even though that doesn't hurt the movie as it is, for me. I can see how this story could be done different or better, but I still enjoy what is there.
What I see there is a study of society through a lens of the benign violation theory of comedy. I've written about this, before, and the name is kind of self-explanatory, but here goes anyway. Benign Violation theory has it that laughter is a response to sensing something (or someone) being violated but feeling safe. Slapstick would be an attack, but unrealistic enough to see no real harm done, so safe.
Here come the spoilers.
Our main character, Arthur Fleck, at the beginning of the movie, is assaulted by some youths. It's important to note that these youths are kids having fun. They are not indicated to be in any kind of criminal gang or organized crime. They're not marking territory.
Arthur Fleck is dressed as a clown, spinning a sign in front of a store closing. In a bit of comedic showmanship, he stops the sign upside down, "notices" this, then rights it. He's willing to be the butt of the joke. But, then those kids, having fun, steal his sign and run away with it. Arthur gives chase and, when he catches up with them, they hit him across the face with the sign, breaking it. Then, they proceed to kick him while he's down.
Nothing's funny about this. Not to us. But, the kids are laughing. Benign violation says they sense him being harmed while they're safe.
This leads, not immediately but inevitably, to an interaction with Arthur Fleck's boss. That boss wants Fleck to give back the sign. He's not willing to accept that some youths stole it then broke it, because that doesn't make sense. When Arthur asks why he would steal the sign at all, the boss responds that he doesn't know why people do anything.
The difference between the unfunny, tragic scene before us and something that would be funny is just a difference of presentation. A bit of distance and that's funny in a dark or cruel way. This need for behavior to be consistent with logical sense is, itself, not consistent and not beholden to any logic save for an excuse to take money out of Fleck's pay.
We also get an early fantasy scene. It's signaled that this is a fantasy because it starts with Fleck watching a late-night comedy show with his mother. In that fantasy, Fleck shouts, in a standard applause moment, "I love you". The late-night comedian puts the spotlight on Fleck, asks a question. Fleck says he lives with his mother and the comedian has the opportunity to get an easy laugh out of Fleck living with his mother. He doesn't. The fantasy is the opportunity to be cruel to him being passed up in order to be kind instead.
As the story progresses, Fleck shows further willingness to be the butt of his own jokes. His stand-up routine has a joke of "people laughed at me when I said I'd be a comedian, but nobody's laughing now". But, he's not included in on a joke at which he is the ostensible butt. He's assaulted again and he's attacked. He's not in on the joke.
Part of why is shown in Thomas Wayne's reaction to his first big crime. Thomas Wayne attributes the deaths of three suit-wearing men (described as Wall-street but we only know that they work for Wayne, himself) to the jealousy of those who did not make anything of themselves, as Wayne believes he did. Again, in different presentation, this would have been a joke because they weren't good men who died of random crime. They had moved from harassing a woman to physically assaulting a man in clown makeup, who then shot in self-defense.
When Arthur Fleck is on as a guest of that same comedian, his hero who had then made fun of him, he asks to be called by the name used to mock him. "Joker". "Joker" tells a knock knock joke. "Knock knock" "Who's there?" "It's the police, your son has been killed by a drunk driver." (I'm typing from memory, may not be exact.)
Of course, everybody's silent. He's told that's not funny. And, he talks about the subjectivity of humor. But, to my mind, he's really talking about who's pain and who's suffering is being acknowledged. After all, just moments prior, "Joker" is being mocked. His persona and identity and value as a human being are all subject to violation with the full knowledge that it's all benign. The audience and the other guests and the comedian are all feel safe when mocking "Joker" for what they don't know is the result of brain damage.
"Joker", in this movie is not criminally insane. He knows what he's doing. He's aware of the consequences. He knows right from wrong. But, he's also spent his life in a state where his basic human worth has been, to those with power of wealth and power of politics and power of fame, invisible. That allowed his violations to be, to them, benign. The same level of violation turned upon them is... well...
If that kind of violation is okay for one person, why not for another?
The answer should be that it isn't okay for either. But, "Joker" doesn't live in a world where that's an option. So, he takes the other option.
The criticism that I come closest to agreeing with comes in the podcast Serious Inquiries Only. The point they made was that this was another aggrieved white guy who felt entitled to success. I'm not sure how much I agree with that, but I at least agree a little. And, I do think this story could have been told as well and possibly better with "Joker" being a black woman who was told to smile more.
But, I think the value is there, still. Who is it okay to violate? Who is it okay to hurt, because some unchosen element of their existence makes it okay to use them for your fun? And, if you keep doing that to an entire subsection of humanity, is it really any single one's fault for sparking an explosion when you packed the keg to bursting with powder?
Seed of Bismuth
Re: Seed of Bismuth
Arthur Fleck didn't want to kill. You could see him wanting to be relevant. And, it's easy to think that his desire to make people laugh was an extention of that effort to make himself relevant. But, that's still his desire to make people laugh.
What's more, you can see ample opportunities for things to go different in just a couple ways to make Arthur Fleck become a hero rather than a villain. And, a couple places where, should he become a villain, he would have been an ineffectual villain for all of that.
All it would have taken would have been seeing either him or the crowd that made him into a symbol for something other than threat or tool, someone who is gets enough empathy that it isn't so safe to violate them.