Suicide Squad is
imminent. Jared Leto’s Joker is figuring into the proceedings somehow, and even
with the movie still a couple months away, what little we’ve seen has become
extremely divisive in terms of how people are responding to his portrayal of
the iconic super-villain. It’s symptomatic of the time we live in, as we’ve
become completely inundated with the amount of information we’re privy to,
Squad in particular being announced as a release two years ago, and every
trailer being picked apart and analyzed to death, with no context or
objectivity to the whole thing. And it’s not just Suicide Squad. Movies are
being hyped sooner, every single little news story or rumor is inflated in its
impact, everyone in every aspect of social media must give their input
immediately, and everyone has to have an exact, polarized opinion – they either
hate it as the worst thing ever, or love it as the best thing ever. There is,
if any, very little middle ground.
That’s an exaggeration, of
course. There’s much in the middle ground, which is where I like to think my
blog and many people lie. You just don’t hear as much from this reasoned middle
ground, because the two extremes are quite literally shouting at each other,
occasionally with death threats (fandoms have almost completely replaced
religious sects in the ideologies department). Nevertheless, it remains true
that people are quick to judge, and that all aspects of our culture,
particularly our entertainment, are more than happy to feed the monster with
teasers, addressing rumors, candid interviews, leaked information, just
anything to build hype. The entire process of building to superhero movies for
me has definitely become wearisome. The movies themselves remain great to
outstanding, but it feels like I live more often these days in constant media
blackout simply because I’m tired of hearing another seven reasons Jared Leto’s
Joker is going to be the worst/best Joker, or someone making a stupid video
about why they’re definitely not going to see a movie.
Leto’s Joker in particular is
especially corrosive. Maybe it’s because years later one of the strongest
things to come out of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy is Heath Ledger’s
unbelievably unsettling performance, maybe it’s because Joker himself is so
iconic and everyone just has a vastly different opinion on who and what he
should be, or hell, and I’m among definitely among these, my most definitive
Joker is Mark Hamill’s from the animated series and the Arkham series, and the
movie portrayals have been so far removed from that that it’s almost like
watching a completely different character. So I can’t tell you for sure what it
is, but the reality is, we can’t have a DC movie-verse without Joker. Someone’s
gotta do it. It just seems though, that from what little we’ve seen of Leto,
some people are so heavily opposed to it that they’ve come up with alternate
theories that basically amount to the actor not playing the Joker as we know
him to be. I’ve heard protesting to the castings before, I remember the vitriol
thrown Heath Ledger’s way before he even made an appearance in the teasers. (I
was confident, I didn’t know he’d end up being so great.) People didn’t like
Henry Cavill for Superman. They were angry about Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. But
I have never seen anyone go to the lengths of proposing alternate theories for
who their character might actually be. This is a recent phenomenon. The only
other one I know, also recent, and
incredibly poorly thought out, was that Ben Affleck in Batman V. Superman
was not Bruce Wayne/Batman, he was actually Deathstroke, taking over the
Bat-mantle. That’s a layered movie beyond the grasp of Hollywood, but more
importantly than that, it’s just dumb.
Similarly, a theory has been
posed that this Joker in Suicide Squad is someone who watched and
idolized the real Joker because of the media’s constant coverage of his
exploits and the subsequent seeming glorification of these grisly deeds. This
one I actually don’t mind. It’s a fun theory, but again, I think too deep of a
thinker for a Hollywood action film (ultimately unnecessary too). The one I’m not as drawn to
though, is specifically cornering Jared Leto’s Joker as a deranged Jason Todd. In
deference to my place in the middle ground, I’ve decided to analyze the pros
and cons of the theory, instead of dismissing it outright. Maybe we’ll discover
some insight. But first, important, who, you might ask, is Jason Todd?
Oh boy.
Batman took up his mantle in
1939. In an effort to appeal more to kids, kid sidekicks became a thing, and
Robin was created for Batman just about a year later, in 1940. This Robin,
Richard “Dick” Grayson, orphaned son of an acrobat family The Flying Graysons
who were killed in an accident during a show of theirs, is the longest-tenured,
most famous, and most linked to the role. Some remember Burt Ward’s “Holy
mashed potatoes!” Robin from the 60s Adam West series. And for the most part he
was the squeaky do-gooder until the 1970s where he grew up and branched off on
his own, eventually becoming Nightwing, like Batman only with a sense of humor,
and the
greatest ass in comics. Jason Todd became Robin in the early 80s. At
this point, he was exactly the same. In-universe, they altered him to look like
Dick too. (Jason had red hair, dyed it black). So he was drawn exactly the same
too. Then Crisis On Infinite Earths happened. The universe got rebooted, and a
new origin for Jason was written, where he became the street kid who was angry,
rebellious, eager for validation from Batman and eager to effectively replace
and even surpass the precedent set by Dick Grayson. The new characterization
proved to be so unpopular that in a storyline called Death In The Family, fans
could vote on whether they wanted Jason to die or live. Being the cynical crowd
we are, Jason was voted to die, and was beaten to death by The Joker. Jason was
resurrected 20 years later, as The Red Hood, a violent, revenge-crazed villain,
later turned anti-hero vigilante.
And I’m sure everyone’s familiar
with The Joker, but just in case you have never been on the internet or watched
a movie, or understand any reference… The Joker has become one of, if not the,
most closely associated villain of Batman’s rogues gallery, his most
ever-present adversary, one of the most recognizable villains ever, and
deadliest and most intimidating villains of the DC universe. The Joker has no
apparent superpowers to speak of, although he does exhibit remarkable
durability and is pretty skilled in hand-to-hand combat. In-continuity, he’s
killed Jason Todd, crippled Barbara Gordon, and most recently had his face
removed and returned a year later to reclaim and wear it like a mask. In the
Adam West series, he was portrayed by the deliriously loony Cesar Romero. He
was first brought to the big screen unforgettably by Jack Nicholson and later
in 2008, some say definitively, by Heath Ledger. Mark Hamill is the most
indelibly linked voice actor for his work on the original animated series in
the 90s, and the Arkham video game series from ’09 and ’15. The laugh is always
unmistakable and scary. The suit is impeccable. The green hair dye is a nightmare
(I know, I’ve done it). Harley Quinn, initially a sidekick on the animated
show, has become a full character in her own right.
So now, the theory. The Joker we
see in
Suicide Squad is not the “real” Joker, it is Jason Todd. There’s
a couple possibilities here, but let’s say it’s not a spirit-breaking
experiment like what happens
Arkham Knight. And let’s say something like
the Dark Knight trilogy happened prior to the Squad movie. So in this
continuity, Ledger’s Joker is responsible for the “killing” of Jason Todd. And
let’s say for the purposes of this scenario, Ben Affleck’s Batman kills
Ledger’s Joker. The real Joker is dead, Jason is presumed dead, Affleck’s Bruce
Wayne retires the Batman. Then, a new Joker crops up, uniting disparate gangs
throughout Gotham under his rule, still unhinged, but looking to be more brutal
and deadly than he was before. It’s confusing, and definitely intimidating, the
idea that your worst and greatest enemy, who also robbed you of your humanity
and destroyed a young man’s innocence, is seemingly back from the dead. The
question is does the theory of that same young man, so broken by his
experience, assuming the mantle of the man whom many believed had killed him in
the first place, only to seek vengeance against his former mentor who failed to
save him?
It’s not a bad theory, at all.
To start, let’s look at its strengths:
- It shows character development – Jason goes
from a rebellious youth, to wanting to prove himself to someone who chose him,
saw potential in him, and took a chance on him, to someone who is abandoned and
left behind which brings him to his breaking point, he goes insane, taking on
the role of his killer, only to return and seek closure for his mentor
abandoning him. It’s a fantastic, poetic arc.
- It keeps the relationships familial – The
best character development is based on the strength of the relationships
between the characters. Having a former sidekick, who we see cared for and
essentially adopted by Batman, succumb to the darkest of dark sides, is a
tragedy in itself, and something that Batman in some way does have to live
with, regardless of how responsible he was for everything.
- It somewhat explains different versions of
the Joker – Well, it really only explains the transition from Heath Ledger
to Jared Leto. There are strong traces of Ledger’s performance in Leto too (for
instance, I think the voices are rather similar) which in-universe can suggest
an “influence” of the former to the latter. But you can’t disregard other parts
of “evidence” to fit your theory. So what about Jack Nicholson’s Joker? What
about Batman himself also looking and acting differently in almost every movie?
So this is a weak pro, but I’ll keep it here nonetheless.
- There are opportunities for interesting
stories to be told – With Jason Todd as The Joker, there is a chance for Batman
to bring Jason to redemption. There’s also a chance he’s dragged deeper into
the darkness. There’s a story in there where he can dismantle the Bat-family,
because of his intimate knowledge of them. So it presents marvelous
storytelling opportunities, and that’s never a bad thing!
One problem though with the last
point, those were all the elements thrown into the game Arkham Knight,
and all of this was accomplished without turning Jason Todd into the Joker.
(Knight’s got other problems too, which we won’t get into here, namely that the
reveal was played as a twist and it should have never been a twist.)
On the other hand:
- It reduces the impact of the character of
the Joker – The Joker is an agent of chaos and uncertainty. His character is
an opposite of Batman’s in many, many ways. We see Batman’s origin explicitly.
A couple details may change with each retelling, but the overall origin remains
the same every time. We saw the birth and beginnings of the character. The
Joker literally just shows up one day. In The Dark Knight, we get one of
my favorite ideas of the Joker: that he himself keeps changing his origins. We
then can’t accept anything for sure, not the origins presented in Joker,
or The Killing Joke, or even this idea of Joe Chill. Basically, what I’m
saying is that The Joker operates strongest when we don’t know his backstory,
we don’t always understand his motivations outside of hurting people, of
breaking Batman, of getting to see the world burn.
- It trivializes the death of Jason Todd
– His eventual resurrection did this anyway, but bringing back the character to
be Batman’s main adversary makes the death less impactful. For me, Jason Todd
is Batman’s greatest failure. It’s a cool progression when you think of the
Robins as a whole: Dick Grayson is his greatest success because he became
better than Batman; Tim Drake is the eventual heir, because he had exactly what
it would take to be Batman; Damian is his true son, his true heir, but he’ll
never be Batman; Jason Todd represents the great failure. Jason was not
entitled to anything, like Damian, he didn’t earn anything like Tim, and he
wasn’t better than Dick Grayson. It became his greatest downfall, attempting to
prove himself better than Dick. The choice of Jason and his subsequent loss
affects Batman permanently for years. It changes how he takes on sidekicks, how
he chooses to train them, how close he allows himself to get to people, and who
he allows into his world in the first place. It closes him off from future
prospects, it makes him double down on protecting his existing family, like
Dick and Barbara. It motivates him in his quest, it serves as a renewal of his
vows to his parents who by this point are long gone. As many storytelling
opportunities it allows with a living Jason Todd, it serves more character
development and allows for even more centered on the psyche of Batman if Jason stays
dead.
- It humanizes the Joker – I admit it: I’m
not a fan of Jason Todd. As you can tell from the previous paragraph, I
preferred he’d stayed dead. I am a huge fan of the Joker. I think he’s a
fascinating character and a huge part of that staying power I touched on in the
first con. He’s such an all-encompassing character, flexible and moldable. Terrifying
in his seeming lack of humanity. Some villains we like because we can relate to
them in some way. Darth Vader. Lex Luthor. But the Joker also operates
precisely because we don’t relate to him. And to give him Jason Todd’s story,
to suddenly make him a man who feels wronged, to give him a personal motivation
in his actions, humanizes the Joker, and whether we agree with him or not, we
now can see his reasoning, we can see what is now motivating him. It’s still
wrong, but it still makes him less interesting. The Joker works because we always have to ask, “Why is he doing
this!?” but Jason gives us the answer. It’s why I don’t like origin stories for
Joker in general.
So there it is, a crash course
into the lives of Jason Todd and The Joker. I’m confident Suicide Squad
isn’t planning some big twist reveal of this. Otherwise, again, it operates
with the same problems that Arkham Knight did. Knight wanted so badly
for this to be the twist of their story, that Jason Todd was the villain all
along, that they hid his identity, but then had to show his origin story
throughout the proceedings, so we as the player knew who he was during the
reveal. Otherwise, there’s no dramatic appeal. Likewise, there’s no dramatic
appeal in this character we don’t know being a character we all know. That’s a,
“Um… Okay.” moment if I’ve ever heard one.
I’m looking forward to Leto’s
Joker. It looks like a really fun, rather unsettling take on the character.
Everyone in the trailers so far make me really excited to see. Can he capture
the electricity and unnerving, disturbing aura of Heath Ledger? Probably not.
But that’s no reason to dismiss him out of hand. There’s room enough in this
world for many Jokers. I have every confidence that Leto will nonetheless be a
spectacle to behold.
