Why I Hate The Joker

I wasn’t going to write this post. After The Lego Batman Movie, I thought about waxing poetic on my abhorrence for the Clown Prince of Crime, but I decided against it. I feared it would come off petty and self-absorbed to rant about a character I, personally, loathe, or worse, that I would come off as ignorant and aggrandizing if I put the reasons I dislike the character so much into a larger societal and moral context. But then Warner Brothers announced that they have not one but TWO Joker-centric films scheduled to come out, one of which would be replacing the Gotham City Sirens film on the DCEU slate, and so here we are.

DC has great villains. Clark, Bruce, and Barry alone have impressive galleries of rogues, all with different abilities and compelling motivations and complex personalities. So why, oh why, do WB and DC keep going back to the Joker? How has he become the big kahuna – pop culturally speaking – amongst all the DC baddies?

I guess one could argue that the Joker’s popularity is tied to Batman’s. Batman is (arguably) the most popular comic book hero, and the Joker is Bruce’s archenemy, ergo the Joker is the most popular comic book villain. If you define archenemy as the bad guy the good guy fights the most, then, yes, the Joker is Batman’s archenemy. But why do Batman's stories pit Bruce against the Joker so often? From a character perspective, it doesn’t quite make sense.

As a counterpoint, I get why Clark and Lex are such iconic foes. Clark is Superman not because he can fly or lift a city or shoot lasers out of his eyes. Clark’s superpower is his humility; he always, always, ALWAYS will put others in front of himself. No matter how big or small, Clark is there with empathy for those around him.

Lex, on the other hand, is narcissistic to the extreme. Everything he does, even the public works of goodwill, is to serve himself, to give himself an edge, to flatter his ego, to prove to himself and everybody else that he is the most important and impressive person on the planet. Putting two characters with such diametrically different world-views against each other makes for compelling storytelling.

“It's the same thing with the Joker and Batman. They are compelling together because Batman is a symbol of order and Joker is a symbol for chaos.” I'll admit that if one conceded that Batman’s defining characteristic is order, then, yeah, the Joker being the incarnation of chaos could make for some compelling story telling. Problem is I don’t concede that order is Batman’s defining characteristic. “But he has a code!” you scream. So? The Vikings had a code, and they were absolute harbingers of chaos. Also, Batman is a vigilante. He interferes with the work of the criminal justice system constantly. I’m not making a moral judgment on that action (in the world of comics; in real life I very much make moral judgments about vigilantism), but I hardly think it indicates a respect for law and order.

“Okay, Miss Nit-Pick, then what exactly would you call Batman’s defining characteristic?” you ask. So happy you asked. I would say what makes Bruce Batman is his pathological need to make right the tragedy of his past. Sure, Bruce is brilliant and a detective and wears a funny hat, but so does Sherlock Holmes. The reason why Batman is more than a Holmes knock-off is that while Sherlock solves mysteries out of boredom, Batman solves crimes out of a need to make sure that no one experiences what he did that night on Crime Alley.

Putting on the cowl night after night is Bruce’s way of trying to rewrite history – to save his parents. There’s a reason why we can’t get a Batman movie without showing his parents’ death. The filmmakers know that Thomas and Martha’s death is what made Batman. Also, make all the jokes about Robin that you want, but there’s a reason why Bruce has a habit of fostering kids. (Yes, I get that a lot of heroes had sidekicks as a way for kid readers to self-insert themselves into the adventures. I’d still argue that few sidekicks are as memorable as the Robins & Batgirls, and that is because they are crucial to Bruce’s narrative and psyche.)

The Joker’s character has no intrinsic connection to this hallmark of Bruce’s character. You know who does? Bane. The course of Bane’s life was irrevocably altered when he was imprisoned as a child in the stead of his father. Bane’s innocence and childhood were stolen from him by a corrupt criminal justice system. He dedicated his life and his considerable skills, both intellectual and physical, to make sure that he was never in a place of vulnerability like that again.

His villainy is in direct connection with his childhood trauma, just as Batman’s heroism is in direct connection with his childhood trauma. Batman tries to undo his past by saving others. Bane tries to undo his past by hurting others so they can’t ever hurt him. That makes for a compelling dynamic, and I can’t help but wonder why Bane isn’t given more story time with Bruce. In my humble opinion, Bane should be Batman’s archenemy, not the Joker.

None of this is to say that the Joker is a bad villain or that a villain is only good when their character has a direct connection to the protagonist’s character. There are plenty of great villains whose internal logic has no parallels to that of their heroes. But those villains don’t make for great archenemies if that makes sense. Consequently I disagree with the thought that the Joker's status is pop culture ties to his status as Batman's archenemy, because Joker doesn't make sense as Batman's archenemy. So, again, the question remains, why do we see the Joker so often? Why do creatives keep going back to this particular villain.

"Because he's a great villain," you say. Great? That's debatable. However, I can admit that, as much as I abhor the Joker, he makes for a decent enough villain – if he’s used in small doses. The Joker isn’t so much a man as he is a natural disaster, a horror made flesh. This makes him rather uninteresting to me, personally, but I could see why someone else would find that kind of antagonism compelling.

"Wait, what do you mean the Joker's not a man. He's clearly a man!" you protest. Okay, yes, the Joker is a man, but he's more of an anthropomorphized ideal than a flesh and blood person. Look, I know that, technically, the Joker does have an origin story, where once upon a time in Gotham the Joker was a flesh and blood man who fell into a life of petty crime, walked into a warehouse where he had an altercation with Batman that ended with him falling into a vat of toxic chemicals and walking out having gained white skin, green hair, and a horrifying smile and having lost his mind and his conscience. I also know that this origin is suspect canonically (read why here). Readers can't be sure the Joker was ever really just a man, at least not with the certainty that they know he is now a monster. With most villains, making them nuanced, giving them motivations and humanity all work to improve their role, but the Joker is an exception, (read more on why here) and the proof of this is found in Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight.

One of the brilliant things about Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker is that he came from nowhere. He has no motivation, no internal logic. He just wants to watch the world burn. He never pets a dog. He burns money and blows up hospitals. He’s not a person. He’s what’s inside Pandora’s box. Watching Bruce fight the Joker is like watching a him fight a tornado. You don’t need to ask whether or not the tornado has a point and you don’t have to wonder why a Bruce would fight a tornado. The tornado happens because the laws of nature dictate so, and Bruce fights the tornado in order to not die. Man vs. Nature is a time honored conflict in storytelling, and it works. Thing is, I think it’s great to watch Bruce fight a tornado once, but I don’t want to watch Bruce fight a tornado every time some new actor dons the cowl. I am sick to death of tornadoes in my comic book movies. I want to know why this blasted purple and green tornado is so freaking popular.

“Well," you say. "The Joker’s popular because he’s cool!” To which I say, how? How is the Joker cool? How is a purple suit wearing, green haired, pasty-faced string bean who laughs all the time cool? None of that is cool. I doubt anyone begs for more stories with the Joker because they love his aesthetic. I think the Joker wins his fans with her personality. The Joker is cool in a revenge of the nerds kind of way. He’s the skinny kid with bad clothes and worse hair who still gets the one up on brilliant, buff, billionaire, Bruce Wayne, and all he had to do "win" was kill, torture, and rape. The Joker’s cool because he has the uber-sexy, up for anything girlfriend, Harley Quinn, who will give him anything he wants whenever he wants even while he beats and bruises both her body and her mind whenever the mood strikes. The Joker is cool because he kills widely and indiscriminately and callously. The Joker is a power fantasy for the school shooter set. I don’t say that to be crass or sensationalist. I make that statement because I genuinely believe it’s true.

What makes the Joker the Joker isn't isn’t the skin or the hair or the suit. His defining characteristics are that he has a dark whirlpool where his heart should be and his conviction that the rest of the world is just like him if only they’d let themselves be. He tries to prove this conviction that all the world just wants to be as evil and cruel as he is by breaking Batman, taking the symbol of hope in Gotham and perverting it into a symbol of nihilism. The Joker isn't a baddie to contend with. He's the demon whispering to give in, to indulge in the freedom of being horrible and cruel and sadistic. And fans love him.

Look, I’m not saying everyone who likes the Joker is or wants to be a mass murderer. Maybe they're just a kid who likes the Joker solely for his green hair, or they're some Heath Ledger fangirl who loves all his work, or they're some guy who thinks Mark Hamill is crazy talented. There are lots of reasons to be a fan of the Joker that have nothing to do with having sadistic urges. I’m not picking on any fans individually. However, the fact that this character has such cultural resonance when he’s little more than toxic waste stuffed into purple polyester is troubling.

Why do so many fans flock to see the Joker on the screen? Why do creatives salivate at the chance to get to give their take on the Clown Prince of Crime? What kind of satisfaction are fans getting by watching the Joker’s brutality and nihilism over and over again? Why is a major production studio banking on two Joker-centric movies, one of which will be focused on the domestic abuse poster couple of the Joker and Harley Quinn? Why is WB scrapping a film with three complex female anti-heroines to spend more time focusing on the worst part of a bad movie (Joker in Suicide Squad)? How does any of this make sense?

You know why I hate the Joker? It’s not that I find his character underwhelming and tedious (though I do). It’s not that every time I see him anywhere near Harley Quinn it makes my skin crawl (though it does). It’s not that he’s greatly over saturated throughout DC media (though he is). It’s not even how much it makes me want to pull my hair out whenever fans (and Lego movies for that matter) say that Batman needs the Joker and how much that sentiment makes me want to scrub my brain with bleach. No, the reason why I hate the Joker so much is this:

The Joker doesn’t scare me. The hate and the depravity of man that he represents don't scare me. Because I see him for what he is – a clown. Because I know he loses – not because Batman throws him into Arkham, but because I know that hell and hate were defeated the day the veil was torn. I’m not scared because I know the Truth and I know that the Joker is a lie. What scares me is that so many choose to believe in that lie. They think the lie’s great.

Wouldn’t it be great to be the Joker? Wouldn’t it be great to not care? Wouldn’t it be great to give in to our worst desires? Look how fun, how cool! And if anyone says we’re wrong, we can shrug it off, because it’s just a comic character. It’s just some hair dye and makeup on a kid. It’s just a laugh.

I’m not laughing.

Call me puritanical and pearl-clutching, if you want. I don't mind, and, honestly, it's probably true. And I don't want censorship. I do believe there can be a benefit to staring at the darkness, artistically speaking, on occasion. We can't see darkness defeated without seeing darkness at all. But what happens when we start rooting for the darkness, when we revel and revere it?

When confined to the pages of a book or trapped behind a screen, the Joker serves his purpose. But when that character, and all the filth he represents, starts seeping into the real world, into the hearts of real people? That’s not a joke to me.

Images: Absolute All-Star Superman #10 written by Grant Morrison illustrated by Frank Quitely; Batman: Year One written by Frank Miller illustrated by David Mazzucchelli; Batman: Vengeance of Bane written by Chuck Dixon illustrated by Graham Nolan; IMDb; Getty Images; Twitter

#comics #fandemonium