I think this “these people wouldn’t laugh at such horrors in real life” distinction which a few have made is flawed. Of course they wouldn’t laugh at the Joker’s actions in real life; the Joker doesn’t exist in real life.
When “Joker-like” actions take place in real life they are much harder to understand because unlike in the world of make believe, those who take them appear to have, as I said, some semblance of reason purpose, structure, and value. Even if that motivation is perverted at it’s base, it is not easily apparent to the average person experiencing it. In fact, it is rarely apparent to the perpetrator himself!
Instead, they look for reasons why the person acted. The actor took the drugs because it is part of the life of a movie star. The person cuts himself because he wants attention. The Islamic totalitarians attacked the United States because of it’s meddling in the Middle East. This is the “real life” equivalent of treating the Joker as if he actually has a sense of humor.
The Joker, ironically, has no sense of humor. In regards to him, because everything is funny, nothing is funny. Trying to be funny - appearing light-hearted himself - is his means of survival. When a sympathetic character, even in a serious film, has a light hearted moment, the audience laughs because they know he is the type of man capable of true, legitimate humor (eg: Bat Man’s witicisms). After nearly two hours of being exposed to the treachery of the Joker, I for one found it impossible to seperate the sight of him in drag from the rest of his role long enough to find it even remotely light-hearted. Him wearing a dress seemed so incidental to what was going on that I almost didn’t notice it. When I did notice it, I expected it.
The purpose of engaging oneself in a work of art is not to “get lost” in a place where one can be free to observe his emotional associations with impugnity from judgement. As if his reactions were that of some disembodied entity which said nothing about his real character. Of course, one shouldn’t fake it and deny what he is feeling, but he should still evaluate himself because of it. The value of a work of art comes from the fact that it crystalizes the ideas those emotions refer to; either directly, or in this case, by implication. If someone has the idea that not every element of a character in a film needs to refer to that character’s theme, then of course they will laugh when they see one which appears not to. It confirms their conviction and brings them pleasure. When someone, having learned some film school verbiage, is able to decide that the viewing of a film is an opportunity for “anything goes” in the realm of emotional meaning, of course they will laugh when they should shudder. It wouldn’t matter either way. Do you see how this, itself, is “Joker-like”?
To point out that directors use seduction techniques which fluctuate between severity and humor in order to draw an otherwise ambivalent audience in is not an explanation. The speeches of dictators fluctuate between terror and flattery to keep their subjects enthralled. The question I raise is what does it say about the audience that such techniques work?
I’d like to ad that by writing this I am not intending to insult those who I disagree with. Possessing an emotional disorganization is not something to be ashamed of. It is not a moral failure until and unless one becomes aware of it yet chooses to do nothing to correct it. Chooses to continue to hide behind one’s rationalizations for it.
)