The Visual Similarities Between Joker and Taxi Driver and the Role of the Antihero
The films Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese) and Joker (2019, Todd Philips) both provide the audience with a view inside New York City during the tumultuous period of the 1970s and 80s respectively. The film Taxi Driver(1976) follows the character of Travis Bickle who works as a taxi driver in New York City. Travis is a Vietnam veteran who has been struggling with insomnia and bouts of depression. The film uses Travis to portray the degradation of the city’s infrastructure. On one occasion, after seeing the state of the city through the eyes of a taxi driver, Bickle remarks “All the animals come out at night – whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”[1] The movie Joker (2019) depicts the character of Arthur Fleck, a man at the end of his tether working as a clown in Gotham City. Arthur is a “mentally ill loner”[2]who suffers from a condition similar to the pseudobulbar effect. In other words, he has a tendency to break out in uncontrollable fits of laughter that does not coordinate with how he feels. At first glance, there are many similarities between the two films concerning not only setting, but also ambience, time period, and especially the mental turmoil that is experienced by the primary characters of Travis Bickle, played by Robert De Niro, and Arthur Fleck, played by Joaquin Phoenix. There are, however, far deeper claims on the functioning of society, particularly the impact that members of the establishment have on those who are less fortunate. Through the use of mise en scène the makers of both these films manage to capture a sense of despair that reflects not only the surrounding environment during the given era in the United States, but also accentuates the mental conflicts taking place within the characters as a result of their disorders. Additionally, given the lack of a clear protagonist and antagonist, the films manage to make the audience question the line between “hero” and “villain” and eventually reflect these terms in the context of corresponding social movements.
The most visually similar factor between both these films is the use of cinematography to set the mood of the surrounding environment as one of despondency mirroring that of the mental despair of each of the main characters in their respective films. The root of this correlation is likely the fact that both films are set in an analogous environment and at a similar time. The murky and overall filthy setting of New York City during the late 1970s is reflected by the extent of garbage and pollution present in the city’s streets. In Joker (2019), audiences come to understand that there has been a garbage collection strike leading to and excessive number of trash bags piling up at each street corner. In addition to the exorbitant amount of garbage, the filmmakers chose to present the city of Gotham, an area in New York City, and particularly the apartment building in which Arthur Fleck lives as a dilapidated environment surrounded by factors that create imagery of a treacherous neighborhood. These elements can be things like graffiti on walls, low amounts of lighting, and dysfunctional elevators to name specifics.[3] The elements of mise en scène in Arthur’s apartment, especially the amount of prescription drugs, reflects the inner mental turmoil that he is going through as a result of his affliction. As mentioned by John Belton in his chapter “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Style”, the physical components that make up the scene “draw attention to, underline, and point out what it is that the audience needs to see or hear in order to read or understand the scene.”[4] An additional element concerning the cinematography of Joker is the attention to lighting. The use of low-key lighting[5] which creates the uneven distribution of light throughout the shot, is particularly evident when Arthur’s face is not clearly visible due to the shadow that is cast on his face. Similar to the urban decay of the setting, the use of low-key lighting and the ambiguity of his physical appearance reflects his inner dilemma as he is trying to decipher his past and gain a sense of identity. This sentiment is reflected in his conversation with his therapist when Arthur says that “For my whole life, I didn’t know if I even really existed.”[6]Looking at the use of set design and overall ambience in the film Taxi Driver (1976) the viewer will find many similarities concerning the visual language that is used in both this film and in Joker (2019). The most prominent factor that is noticeable between the two motion pictures is the overall state of the setting. There is a moment in Taxi Driver(1976) when Travis Bickle exclaims, “Thank God for the rain to wash the trash off the sidewalk”.[7] In addition to the filth piling up in the streets of New York City, there is an abundant number of pornographic movie theaters, prostitutes, and brothels throughout the city. The combination of all of these factors form the morbid feeling that is resonated by the environment in which Travis Bickle works every day. As a taxi driver with a case of insomnia, he works 12 hours a day driving throughout the city experiencing the gloom that seems to be emanating from the city itself. This constant sense of despair leads Travis to tell one of his passengers, “I think someone should just take this city and just … just flush it down the fuckin’ toilet.”[8] The visual representation of the city is not the only similarity between Taxi Driver (1976) and Joker (2019). The congruency continues when the audience is exposed to Travis’ apartment. Similar to that of Arthur Fleck’s residence, Travis lives in an extremely rundown apartment reflecting his inner mental struggles with loneliness and depression. This is exemplified by the several entries that he writes in his journal such as, “Loneliness has followed me my whole life. Everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There’s no escape.”[9]Each of the films depict the mental trauma faced by both Arthur Fleck and Travis Bickle by externalizing their inner states through an expressive use of mise en scène.
Along with the cinematic aspects of these films, an added component that can be seen in both motion pictures is the ambiguity of a traditional “hero” and “villain” and how the change in this perception reflects a larger social shift in the United States of America. As written by Nicole Hahn Rafter in the chapter “The Heroes of Crime Films”, “Good-guy heroes please us by out-tricking the tricky, tracking down psychos, solving impossible mysteries. Bad-guy heroes appeal by being bolder, nastier, crueler, and tougher than we dare to be.”[10] After watching both these films, it is almost impossible for the audience to classify either of the main characters as “good” or “bad” as is mentioned by Rafter. Both these films make viewers question the norms of crime movies concerning the identity of the protagonist and the antagonist. In Joker (2019), the viewer is immediately made to sympathize with the character of Arthur Fleck. For example, in the first scene of the movie, Arthur is shown spinning a sign outside of a closing business. While he is trying to do his job as a clown-for-hire, a group of adolescents runs up to him and steal his sign for no tangible reason other than as a means to bully him. As Arthur chases after the boys pleading for someone to help him get his sign back, the bullies lure him into an alley and knock him to the ground. As he struggles to get back up in his clown shoes, the kids run up to him and kick him repeatedly while shouting “kick him harder”.[11] After they are finished with their twisted sense of amusement, they leave Arthur on the street gasping for breath. This is the first point in the film during which the actions of unprovoked violence against Arthur trigger the emotional response of pity from the audience. This emotion goes through the snowball effect after the viewers are exposed to Arthur’s mental illnesses and living condition. The defining scene that makes the audience question the morality of Arthur’s character is the scene in which he is returning home via the subway. There are four other people in the subway compartment with Arthur. One of them is a woman and three are members of an investment firm. The conflict starts when the three guys start harassing the woman by trying to get her attention and then throwing food at her. When the woman leaves the compartment, it is evident that Arthur feels a sense of remorse for not doing anything to aid her. Unable to express himself, Arthur bursts out in laughter as a result of his psychological condition thereby providing the three bullies with another target for their incessant harassment. One of the guys asks Arthur “What’s so fucking funny?”[12] before progressing to beat and kick him along with the other two. The investors do not hesitate to harm Arthur even as he is trying to explain that he has a mental condition. Suddenly, a shot rings out and the viewers see blood spray across the compartment as one of the guys drops dead. A few more gunshots ring out killing the other two investors.[13] As I experienced this in the theater, I was exposed to a whirlwind of emotions. I was saddened by the blatant cruelty portrayed by the three guys against Arthur and I was immediately astonished at the sound of the shots. I remember that there was an eloquent gasp in the theater reflecting the bewilderment as to the sudden turn of events. Even though it is obvious that killing people is wrong and unwarranted, this scene created a moment in the mind of the viewer that justified Arthur’s actions as retribution however heinous they might seem in any other setting. This particular moment in the film paints the three investors as the “bad guys” and Arthur as the “good guy”. The resulting debate concerning whether or not Arthur’s actions were sanctioned creates a considerable rift between the higher and lower social groups in the city. The low-income population of the city takes Arthur’s position and justifies his action of “killing those three Wall Street guys”.[14] The establishment and elite class, led by candidate for mayor and millionaire Thomas Wayne, marks anyone who supports Arthur’s actions as “clowns” demeaning their opinion solely because he does not agree with it. As the divide between the people on either side of the issue grows, so does the difficulty in coming to a conclusion about the morality of Arthur’s actions and the classification of his character as either a “hero” or “villain”. This tug-of-war between right and wrong is a similar quality in the film Taxi Driver (1976) exemplified through the character of Travis Bickle. There are several times in the film where Travis’ actions cannot be summarized as either “good” or “bad”. Travis can be considered as a vigilante due to his blatant disregard for intervention by law enforcement. The viewers get a window into the mind of Travis during his monologues when he says what he writes in his journal. One such occasion is when he writes “Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up.”[15] He justifies his actions by believing in his cause for creating a better society by cleaning up the “scum” in the city. The most obvious example of the dilapidation of the city was the alarming extent of prostitution occurring on the streets of New York City. Being a taxi driver, Travis was one of the few people who had truly seen the entirety of the city at night. He had also witnessed the forced prostitution of women who were not even of legal age to engage in activities of sexual intercourse. The most stark example of this was portrayed by the situation of Iris, played by Jodie Foster. She was working as a prostitute for a brothel run by “pimps” who were aware that she was underage. After realizing the extent of injustice faced by Iris, Travis arrives at the brothel and kills the owners.[16] At this moment, Travis acts on what he thinks will benefit the state of the city. He is correct in the sense that the brothel owners were part of the major problem concerning the thriving of prostitution. However, he still murders them without allowing them any of the rights that they would have received if they had been arrested. This conundrum between the justification for his actions and his actual action is the defining factor that makes it almost impossible for the audience to pinpoint Travis as either a “hero” or “villain”. The consequences of his actions are similar to those of Arthur’s when he shoots the three investors in the subway. By killing the brothel owners and freeing Iris, Travis saves Iris from a life of working as a prostitute showing the audience that there was a sense of righteousness or purpose involved in the violent event. Similarly, when Arthur kills the men attacking him, he might not be acting as a savior for anyone, but he does act in self-defense. The difference between Travis and Arthur is the fact that Travis has a deep desire to clean up the city by eliminating the people who profit from its demise making him judge, jury, and executioner. Arthur, on the other hand, has no intention of helping the city but instead acts in a way that protects himself from the immediate danger of the three bullies. The area of the most difference between Travis and Arthur is the reception of the public concerning their actions. Both characters commit the crime of murder but the reactions of the people in the city are completely different. Near the end of Taxi Driver (1976), Travis is regarded as a kind of local hero for killing the brothel owners. Arthur’s actions, contrarily, are extensively debated and cause a drastic fissure between the levels of the social hierarchy. Each of these films use their respective main characters to highlight the enigmatic nature between good and evil and how there are several instances in which these qualities are not mutually exclusive. The role of antiheroes like Arthur Fleck and Travis Bickle has been to point out the civil injustice in society from the point of view of an outcast. These characters are convinced about the shortcomings of society and are determined to correct them. This tendency is more prominent in the situation of Travis Bickle and his behavior as a vigilante taking the law into his own hands. In Travis’ case, he has marked the dregs of the city as the brothel owners who he eventually murders and is trying to rid the city of the scourge of prostitution. It is, however, a bit more complicated in Arthur’s situation since he is not, initially, the entity who wants to eliminate the problems of the city. His action of murdering the three investors in the subway pours gasoline on the kindling animosity between the rich and the poor. This tension between social classes is further aggravated by the response of Thomas Wayne in defense of the investors without pausing to understand the situation that took place on the subway. Both this blind defense of the elitist establishment class and insult towards those less fortunate, spark mass protests in the streets of Gotham by citizens who support the Joker’s actions. As Arthur mentions in his interview near the end of the film, “I killed those guys because they were awful. […] If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me! I pass you every day and you don’t notice me but these guys! Why because Thomas Wayne went and cried about them on TV? […] You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t!”[17] This mass divide between the elite and working class is highlighted in Joker’s tirade and the resulting violence that ensues in the streets. In both films, the main characters are trying to project what they think society’s faults are. During the 1970s when the film Taxi Driver (1976) was released, one of the main problems in New York City was the proliferation of sex workers and prostitution, responsible for a large portion of the crime and unrest in the city. In more contemporary times, the political climate which has shined a light on the economic injustice in the nation, has directed many individuals to put fault on the wealthy members of society as seen in Joker (2019). The significance of this transition is the fact that there has been an emergence of a faction in American society that favors a more socialist agenda promoting wealth to the many instead of the few directing blame away from normal criminals and onto affluent businessmen. This phenomenon is shown from the transition of the villains of the story being the brothel owners in Taxi Driver (1976) to them being members of the establishment in Joker (2019).
Even though both films are from different time periods in American history, there are several factors that bind them together concerning both the visual elements and the comments they make on the social tensions at the time. Through the use of production components like cinematography and mise en scène, the makers of both these films manage to externalize the inner mental trauma faced by their respective main characters into the surrounding environment. Both films employ a dreary and dilapidated setting of New York City in the 1970s to reflect the depressive tendencies of the main character. In addition to the visual component, both films use morally ambiguous characters to reflect the social movements occurring during the time when the films were released. This disparity between the two films concerning the characterization of the villain reflects the transition of social perception to different socioeconomic classes. Taxi Driver (1976) depicts the traditional “bad guy” as the brothel owners perpetuating prostitution in the city. Joker (2019), on the other hand, characterizes the members of the elite establishment as the bane of society.
Bibliography
Belton, John. “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Style” Chapter 3 American Cinema / American Culture, 5thEdition 41-59, McGraw Hill Education, 2018.
Joker. Directed by Todd Philips, Warner Bros. Pictures, 2019.
Rafter, Nicole Hahn. “The Heroes of Crime Films”, Chapter 6 Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society141-164, EBSCO Publishing, 2000.
Taxi Driver. Directed by Martin Scorsese, Columbia Pictures, 1976.
[1] Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
[2] Joker (2019, Todd Phillips)
[3] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)
[4] Belton, John. “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Style” Chapter 3 American Cinema / American Culture, 5th Edition 41-59, McGraw Hill Education, 2018.
[5] Belton, John. “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Style” Chapter 3 American Cinema / American Culture, 5th Edition 41-59, McGraw Hill Education, 2018.
[6] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)
[7] Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
[8] Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
[9] Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
[10] Rafter, Nicole Hahn. “The Heroes of Crime Films”, Chapter 6 Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society 141-164, EBSCO Publishing, 2000.
[11] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)
[12] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)
[13] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)
[14] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)
[15] Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
[16] Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)
[17] Joker (2019, Todd Philips)