You just can’t trust an unreliable narrator

Joker isn’t like any other comic book movie. There are no eye popping visual effects or memorable action set pieces. Instead, director Todd Phillips and lead actor Joaquin Phoenix have served up a character study that leaves a lot to interpretation.

The most intriguing element of the film is it’s use of a classic trope – Arthur Fleck is an unreliable narrator. That’s a theme that is played with directly at times, as we learn that the unlikely relationship between Arthur and his neighbour Sophie (Zazie Beetz) is simply a figment of his imagination.

But what if that’s not the only time that Arthur pulled the wool over the audience’s eyes? How unreliable is the narrative of the movie?

Here’s my theory. The “Joker” we see isn’t actually the Joker we know from the Batman comics, animated series or films. Arthur Fleck isn’t the Joker at all.

Yeah, I know that the movie’s called Joker, but hear me out.

Arthur Fleck doesn’t cause the clown movement

A key component to the theory that I only picked up on during my second viewing was the fact that there is a strong case to say that the clown movement wasn’t even started by Arthur.

Sure, the subway murders triggered hysteria among the Gotham residents, bringing to light the rich and poor divide and in Arthur’s interpretation, effectively made clown masks the must have fashion accessory around the city.

But that was only the case after an interview with Gotham elitist and wannabee-mayor Thomas Wayne was broadcast, in which he branded a portion of the city’s community as clowns – political strategy clearly not his strong point.

That statement was a direct response to the fact that reports had suggested the subway murderer was wearing clown makeup but the fact that the clown protest specifically followed Wayne to both the Charlie Chaplin movie screening and later City Hall, it is a fair assumption that the movement was a direct result of Wayne’s inflammatory interview, rather than Arthur’s actions.

But what about the rioters who pulled him from the police car? They clearly noticed his contribution.

Did they though? The Gotham riots that followed weren’t just a figment of Arthur’s imagination, but could have been triggered by the well-documented train scuffle between the NYPD and clown folk. The riots weren’t all in Arthur’s head, but the scene in which he is pulled out of the damaged police car by rioters? – I smell a rat.

Immediately after the bizarre follow-up scene in which Arthur is cheered by what are portrayed as his clown masked army, we see him in Arkham Asylum which is presumably where the police were taking him.

This is another case of the unreliable narrator – Arthur was never pulled from the wreckage and never treated like the leader he imagined himself to be.

The Joker that becomes the arch-villain of Bruce Wayne might have been in the rioting crowd. But based on what we learn about Arthur Fleck during the movie and the stark contrast between his character and that of the criminal mastermind who provides so many headaches for Batman to deal with, it’s highly unlikely that this is the guy.

The End

If it’s an origin story for the Joker, and he is yet to complete his most dastardly deeds, the closing screen card “The End” seems a little out of place unless this is indeed “The End” of Arthur Fleck’s story.

He will never battle Batman

Outside of the content of the film, further credence is given to the theory by Phillips. In an interview with the LA Times, he stated that Phoenix’s Joker would never be pitched against Batman in a movie. He was pretty adamant; “We would never do that. No, no.”

Now, Warner Bros has an October Box Office record that might change the course of the future regarding this, but at least from the information provided so far, it follows that Arthur Fleck isn’t intended to be a direct villain to Batman.

In the words of the aggrieved teacher from The Incredibles;

Coincidence, I THINK NOT!