Works of art have the power to change us. They move something inside us, physically and emotionally, in ways we can't yet understand or explain. They can inspire gestures of absolute nobility or throw us into an abyss.
It is on the basis of this reflection that the observations on “Joker” are born, the film that Warner Bros sent to theaters after the triumph of the Golden Lion in Venice.
“Joker” tells the genesis of the evil and psychopathic enemy of the superhero Batman: a deranged sadist with a disfigured clown face, who enjoys the suffering of others.
Masterfully represented in 2008 by an incredible acting performance by Heath Ledger, awarded with a posthumous Oscar, Joker sees his return to theaters with a dedicated film. The interpretation of the villain is entrusted to Joaquin Phoenix, protagonist of another extraordinary artistic performance.
In the era of the almost viral spread of firefights or mass murders by people with mental disorders, in the United States it is not the best time for a film of this kind, and the great controversies following its release are tangible proof of this.
The letter from Aurora
The families of the victims of a 2012 mass murder in the town of Aurora, Colorado, wrote an open letter to Warner Bros.
In Aurora, 12 deaths and over 70 injuries were the result of an attack on a cinema hall where they were showing "The Dark Knight Rises", the sequel to the Batman film starring Ledger.
In the letter, the victims' families express concern that "Joker" could inspire other mass murders. Aurora's killer, James Holmes, was initially associated with the Joker character due to his clothing at the time of the attack. Today, they write from Aurora, there could be even worse problems, there could be a strong identification with a character “socially isolated who feels unfairly attacked by society.” A symbol, in short, for anyone who wants to take justice into their own hands to redeem a life of innate or induced social problems. The hero of potential mass murderers.
“My fear is that someone out there (and who knows how many there are) bordering on madness is encouraged by this film,” says Sandy Phillips, the mother of Jessica Ghawi, one of the victims. “I'm terrified of this.”
It is not the only one
This week the army warned the Services about the concrete risks that watching “Joker” could potentially provoke acts of violence by radicalized people. At risk are people with mental problems, a misogynistic personality and a perception of "voluntary celibacy", a condition of loneliness caused by society.
Elliott Rodger, mass murderer in the Isla Vista attack (6 people killed and 14 injured in 2014 in a gun attack near the University of California Campus) was perfectly recognizable in the description of "involuntary celibate".
Aurora's murderer himself frequented conversations between "involuntary celibates" on the web and considered himself a spokesperson for their thirst for revenge.
In the same online environments, belligerent conversations are circulating today which have as their object the concomitance of the release of "Joker".
For this reason, the FBI has issued an absolute ban on going to theaters wearing cosplay clothes or camouflage of any kind, "for security reasons", and has alerted the army.
Gasoline on the fire
To the fierce debate unleashed around the film is added the hasty response of both the director and the protagonist of the film. Both (sure, legitimately but perhaps with little sense of reality) they gloss over the feared risks by declaring themselves simply "perplexed" at the idea that some sociopath could elevate the figure of the super villain with the clown's face to a hero and symbol.
Phoenix avoided questions about the film's effects, while director Todd Phillips said that “Joker” and its tale of how an ordinary man decides to become a mass murderer is not that different from “John Wick,” a action movie about a killer who exterminates hordes of mercenaries to punish the murder of his dog.
What Phillips and perhaps even Phoenix seem to ignore is that the number of deaths in the film is not what constitutes the discriminating factor.
Polarizing the debate
It is no secret that America's permissiveness in gun licensing, combined with its relative sloppiness in its approach to mental disorders, is the combination that causes the country's "epidemic" of mass murder.
In spite of a facade support, both problems have been left to themselves for years, and in the American sociopolitical framework the solution to both appears almost a utopia.
On the other hand, as survivors of the Aurora shootings and other events write, the power to inspire, create opinion, and incite action is part of every art form. The debate on "Joker" has polarized public opinion: on the one hand those who fear a resurgence of the phenomenon linked to mass murders, on the other hand those who call for creative freedom and expression.
Reasons to sell for both positions, which however quickly turned into wrongs due to the virulence of the forms with which these reasons were transformed into the usual, useless game of opposition.
A slippery ground
It is one of the reasons that during the presentation of "Joker" they did not involve test rooms and "popular" audiences, but circulated the film in the various film festivals (including Venice, where it triumphed, defeating the competition). Viewing limited to the most knowledgeable cinephiles has focused attention on the creativity and not on the social potential or cultural implications of the film.
But the film maintains its power to inspire audiences, and even makes it difficult for film critics to define the film and its possible impact.
In an era in which the need to listen to the weak, to the victims of violence (individual and mass) due to racism, abuse, bullying and other injustices, the somewhat careless reaction to the victims of Aurora marks another point against of society, and perhaps an unconscious argument in support of those who feel excluded from it.
There are no easy ways out
This is the weekend when the film will hit theaters around the world, and also in the US. How should this be dealt with? Postponing the release of the film while waiting for "better times" is a cul de sac: when could sensitivity on the topic of mass murders end? On the other hand, even leaving the entire set of opinions, fears, controversies and background to a topic of this kind trivializes the problem.
A good option would be to empower whoever made the film to the fact that this no longer represents, unfortunately, a comic reality, but a damn real phenomenon. The director and the protagonist of the film can take advantage of this release to bring everyone the right message to accompany it, and not escape interviews or minimize it for mere economic or artistic reasons.
The responsibility of the public
The release of this film affects us all: if as a society we are indifferent to the potential “Jokers” living in our cities, or we dismiss everything as a simple film, we are exactly part of the causes that provoke these mass killings, indifferent as long as the thing does not concern us and incapable of analyzing a phenomenon objectively.
Yes, today's society resembles too closely the dystopian one told by the comics born last century. The cities of the world are beginning to subtly resemble dark places like Gotham City, full of potential super enemies, outcasts and deranged of all sorts who transform from victims to murderers in general silence.
