Joker and the Importance of Respecting Individual Problems behind Mass Protests
It almost seems deliberate just how Joker is timed to match the real-world protests happening around the world. The recently premiered film that traces the origin of the most famous villain of Batman features a growing tension of the rich and the poor in a Gotham that has seen public services fall apart as conservative politicians cut back government funding to supposedly help the poor stand on their own feet. The movie begins with one mentally problematic man's journey to navigate a city that seems to be turning its back on people like him by the day but ends with thousands of anarchists taking to the streets to destroy the physical symbols of the powerful and the rich monopolizing the power to dedicate the city's future.
The comparison to real-world events can certainly be uncanny even for the most casual followers of recent events around the world. Aside from the months-long Hong Kong protests that are quickly supplanted by increasing levels of violence, the world is also seeing street protests in locations as varied as Ecuador, Iraq, and France. Despite happening on different continents for different specific concerns, all protests share a central theme of those under the mercy of the political and economic elites finally letting the said elites know that they are not happy with how things are going.
Like the titular character in Joker, real-world protestors are not necessarily making a political statement, at least initially. Joker just wanted some respect from the world at large, after suffering from beatings and being made a public laughingstock. Likewise, protestors in Ecuador and Iraq are not looking to overthrow the government but just hoping for the alleviation of material hardships that make it so difficult to even feed their own families. In all these cases, the interpretation of the media and the confrontational handling of government authorities have largely turned small requests into supposed antiestablishmentarian political statements.
That political interpretation of individual travails makes what can be resolved simply by helping people with their unique issues into larger structural problems with no easy answers. It is much easier giving Arthur Fleck, a troubled young man, his medicine to keep him calm and sane. But when the man turned into the Joker, a criminal mastermind that others look upon as the embodiment of anarchism, then removing his influence is no longer possible by just giving the man a bit of respect. At that point, what he represents become something that goes far beyond what he has suffered, but a statement against the distaining attitude of the elites, a point his newfound followers picked up with gusto.
The comparison to real-world events can certainly be uncanny even for the most casual followers of recent events around the world. Aside from the months-long Hong Kong protests that are quickly supplanted by increasing levels of violence, the world is also seeing street protests in locations as varied as Ecuador, Iraq, and France. Despite happening on different continents for different specific concerns, all protests share a central theme of those under the mercy of the political and economic elites finally letting the said elites know that they are not happy with how things are going.
Like the titular character in Joker, real-world protestors are not necessarily making a political statement, at least initially. Joker just wanted some respect from the world at large, after suffering from beatings and being made a public laughingstock. Likewise, protestors in Ecuador and Iraq are not looking to overthrow the government but just hoping for the alleviation of material hardships that make it so difficult to even feed their own families. In all these cases, the interpretation of the media and the confrontational handling of government authorities have largely turned small requests into supposed antiestablishmentarian political statements.
That political interpretation of individual travails makes what can be resolved simply by helping people with their unique issues into larger structural problems with no easy answers. It is much easier giving Arthur Fleck, a troubled young man, his medicine to keep him calm and sane. But when the man turned into the Joker, a criminal mastermind that others look upon as the embodiment of anarchism, then removing his influence is no longer possible by just giving the man a bit of respect. At that point, what he represents become something that goes far beyond what he has suffered, but a statement against the distaining attitude of the elites, a point his newfound followers picked up with gusto.
Joker's transformation shows that one does not have to be explicitly political to become a political symbol. In the movie, the Joker showed no interest in politics, and explicitly said he has no intention to make a political statement. But his simple quest to earn his place in society and some respect for others have proven to be so hard that his goals ended up requiring a political solution of confronting the ruling class in violent ways. As long as the ruling class perceive one as political and use institutional means, especially the police and the military, to suppress protests, non-political acts by come political, even against the desires of the protestors.
Such a result resonates with street protestors across the world. In essence, when people come out to the streets, each is fighting his or her own battles. Each struggle for different reasons and require individual solutions. But the failure of authorities to provide any solutions to any person brought everyone together in coincidental but concerted calls for reforms that break the uncaring attitudes of the authorities. In such a situation, it is only too easy for one person taking drastic actions, as the case of Arthur Fleck with his unintended murders, to be hailed as a leader and a hero, inspiring others to take more radical actions to get what they want.
The viewers of Joker reports that it is difficult to determine whether they should feel sympathy or hatred toward the main character. Indeed, reviews of the movie among professional critics have also been extremely bipolar, largely for the same reasons. Perhaps inducing such a complex feeling from the audience was intended by those who created the movie. In any protest, there is never one side that is 100% and another that is 100% failure, and there is no demand that is 100% legitimate or 100% bogus. As such, respecting even the most reviled, or even mentally questionable viewpoint of the most marginalized character is necessary and worthwhile if a truly lasting solution can be provided that satisfies even one person.
That willingness to dig into the particularities of individuals behind larger movements is the reason that real-world protests have persisted for so long. Each side has taken to sweeping generalizations that ultimately failed to show any sort of respect for individual difficulties. But the often delusional thinking that some sort of grand bargain exist that can be a win-win situation not only for the larger two "sides" of a confrontation but also every single person within those sides, ensure that complaints persist and elites continue to hold all the cards while radical attitudes fester at the grassroots levels.
The viewers of Joker reports that it is difficult to determine whether they should feel sympathy or hatred toward the main character. Indeed, reviews of the movie among professional critics have also been extremely bipolar, largely for the same reasons. Perhaps inducing such a complex feeling from the audience was intended by those who created the movie. In any protest, there is never one side that is 100% and another that is 100% failure, and there is no demand that is 100% legitimate or 100% bogus. As such, respecting even the most reviled, or even mentally questionable viewpoint of the most marginalized character is necessary and worthwhile if a truly lasting solution can be provided that satisfies even one person.
That willingness to dig into the particularities of individuals behind larger movements is the reason that real-world protests have persisted for so long. Each side has taken to sweeping generalizations that ultimately failed to show any sort of respect for individual difficulties. But the often delusional thinking that some sort of grand bargain exist that can be a win-win situation not only for the larger two "sides" of a confrontation but also every single person within those sides, ensure that complaints persist and elites continue to hold all the cards while radical attitudes fester at the grassroots levels.
Comments
Post a Comment