3 Nov, 2019 20:31 /
Updated 18 hours ago
Seen as a potential validation
for violent glory seekers, the 'Joker' movie turns out to be not an incitement
for violence but a judgement on the modern political system's flaws,
philosopher Slavoj Zizek says.
The much acclaimed Todd
Phillips movie starring Joaquin Phoenix has received its fair share of
criticism from almost everyone, from the woke community to the US Army, who all
believed it could prompt some "evil" people to commit acts of
violence.
Yet, the film's critics have
apparently overlooked the underlying message of the movie, world-renowned
philosopher Zizek told RT, adding that it is not about some mentally-challenged
person, but about the "hopelessness" of our "best ever"
political order itself, which many still simply refuse to accept.
Daily life has become a horror
movie
We should congratulate
Hollywood and the viewers on two things: that such a film that, let's face it,
gives a very dark image of highly developed capitalism, a nightmarish image
which led some critics to designate it a 'social horror film', came out.
Usually, we have social films, which depict social problems, and then we have
horror films. To bring these two genres together, it is only possible when many
phenomena in our ordinary social life become phenomena which belong to horror
films.
It is even more interesting to
see how reactions to the film provide a whole specter of political cohesions in
the US. On the one hand, conservatives were afraid that this film would incite
violence. It was an absurd claim. No violence was triggered by this film. On
the contrary, the film depicts violence and awakens you to the danger of
violence.
As it is always the case, some
politically correct people feared that the film used racist clichés and
celebrates violence. It is also unfair. One of the most interesting positions
was that of Michael Moore, a leftist documentarist, who celebrated the film as
an honest depiction of reality of those poor, excluded and not covered by
healthcare in the US.
His idea is that the film
explains how figures like Joker can arise. It is a critical portrayal of
reality in the US, which can give birth to people like Joker. I agree with him
but I would also like to go a bit further.
'Deadlock of nihilism'
I think what is important is
that the figure of Joker in the end, when he identifies with his mask, is a
figure of extreme nihilism, self-destructive violence and a crazy laughter at
others' despair. There is not positive political project.
The way we should read 'Joker' is
that it very wisely abstains from providing a positive image. A leftist
critique of 'Joker' could have been: "Yes, it is a good
portrayal of reality in the poor slums of the US but where is the positive
force? Where are democratic socialists, where are ordinary people organizing
themselves?" In this case, it would have been a totally different and a
pretty boring film.
The logic of this film is that
it leaves it to the spectators to do this. The movie shows sad social reality
and a deadlock of the nihilist reaction. In the end, Joker is not free. He is
only free in a sense of arriving at a point of total nihilism.
It is up to us to decide what
we should do.
I designated the figure of
Joker in a kind of Kazimir Malevich, the Russian avangardist, position when he
did this famous painting of the Black Square. It is a kind of minimal protest –
a reduction to nothing. Joker simply mocks every authority. It is destructive
but lacks a positive project. We have to go through this path of despair.
It is not enough to play the
game of those in power. That is the message of 'Joker'. The fact that they
could be charitable like Bruce Wayne's father in this latest movie is just a
part of the game. You have to get rid of all these liberal stupidities that
obfuscate the despair of the situation.
Yet, it is not the final step
but a zero level of clearing the table to open up the space for something new.
This is how I read the film. It is not a final decadent vision. We have to go
through this hell. Now, it is up to us to go further.
Social alarm clock
The danger of explaining just
the backstory is to give a kind of a rational explanation that we should
understand the figure of Joker. But Joker does not need this. Joker is a
creative person in some sense. The crucial moment in the film for his subjective
change is when he says: "I used to think my life was a tragedy. But now I
realize, it's a comedy."
Comedy means for me that at
that point he accepts himself in all his despair as a comical figure and gets
rid of the last constraints of the old world. That is what he does for us. He
is not a figure to imitate. It is wrong to think that what we see towards the
end of the film – Joker celebrated by others – is the beginning of some new
emancipatory movement. No, it is an ultimate deadlock of the existing system; a
society bent on its self-destruction.
The elegance of the film is
that it leaves the next step of building a positive alternative to it to us. It
is a dark nihilist image meant to awaken us.
Are we ready to face reality?
The leftists who are disturbed
by 'Joker' are 'Fukuyama leftists'; those who think that
the liberal democratic order is the best possible order and we should just make
it more tolerant. In this sense, everyone is a socialist today. Bill Gates says
he is for socialism, Mark Zuckerberg says he is for socialism.
The lesson of 'Joker' is that
a more radical change is needed; that this is not enough. And that is what all
those democratic leftists are not aware of. This dissatisfaction that grows up
today is a serious one. The system cannot deal with it with gradual reforms,
more tolerance or better healthcare.
These are signs of the need
for more radical change.
The true problem is whether we
are ready to really experience the hopelessness of our situation. As Joker
himself said at a certain moment in the film: "I laugh because I have
nothing to lose, I am nobody."
No comments:
Post a Comment