Disclaimer: This film discusses very sensitive topics, such as mental illness and vulnerable groups, in a way that can be viewed as insensitive by certain viewers. Please note that while we do not agree with some of the elements of the film, it is important to discuss it as a piece of art/media in an objective manner.
Could a Joker film without Batman still work? That's the question that director/writer Todd Philips set out to answer, along with a myriad of other queries. By positioning the iconic character of The Joker within the framework of a loose adaptation from DC Comics, he is able to explore the inner struggle of the man behind the clown makeup. That man is Arthur Fleck, a skulking figure with eroding social skills who dreams of one day being a stand up comic. His pursuit of being a "somebody" worthy of respect, instead of another face in the crowd of Gotham City, is at the crux of this character study.
But The Joker has rarely been able to exist apart from the Batman mythos. The characters have been traditionally very closely tied, with either one or the other being the cause of the other's very existence. If Joker gets a sequel, what part will Batman play in it? Is his presence even necessary? If he does appear, it will most likely be in a very different way than we've seen him before, because Joaquin Phoenix plays a very different Joker. Below are 5 reasons the sequel needs Batman, and 5 why it doesn't.
NEEDS BATMAN: TO GROUND IT IN THE DC UNIVERSE
Since Ben Affleck has recently exited the role of the Caped Crusader in the DCEU, Robert Pattinson has taken up the mantle as a younger Batman in The Batman, a Matt Reeves film currently in production about the period of time when Bruce Wayne first dons the cape and cowl.
It's possible that Joaquin Phoenix's Joker and Pattinson's Batman could cross paths at a certain point in the cinematic future, especially considering Pattinson's film is rumored to be set in the '90s. It would take Joker from a DCEU-adjacent film to a full-fledged DCEU contribution. That may not be the route that Warner Brothers or Todd Philips want to take with Joker, but the sequel will need Batman to give it credibility in the larger DC Universe if they do.
DOESN'T: IT WILL BE MORE REALISTIC
Todd Philip's Joker is a gritty, brutally visceral film with references to Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. It's a descent into one man's personal madness yes, but it's also a "slice of life" story that feels very grounded, almost claustrophobically so. Even at its most edgy, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy didn't capture this level of dereliction and purification.
Nolan's movies, though deserving of praise for making the superhero movie genre more "realistic" and positioned in the world of the viewer, still feel too epic in scale. What sort of Batman could feature in a sequel to Joker that wouldn't seem ridiculous or self-indulgent? A member of the 1%, terrified that Gotham City's citizens are going to "eat the rich"?
NEEDS BATMAN: TO GIVE ARTHUR FLECK PURPOSE
Traditionally, The Joker's character has always been the direct result of Batman. His origin story and reason for being has been either directly caused by Batman or in response to his presence. Whether it's charming crook Jack Napier falling into a vat of chemicals and holding The Bat personally responsible, a la Tim Burton's Batman, or his origin from the comic The Killing Joke, they serve the same purpose in explaining that The Joker wouldn't exist without Batman.
Even though Heath Ledger's Joker boldly appeared out of nowhere in The Dark Knight, he existed to see how far a self-righteous hero in a mask would go to stop him. Batman's presence in a Joker sequel would give Joaquin Phoenix's Joker a purpose, considering the film leaves it open for interpretation at the end.Where does he go from here?
DOESN'T: HE WOULD BE TOO YOUNG/JOKER TOO OLD
Without being tied directly to the DCEU, this film is still "based on characters from DC comics". It uses mainly Thomas and Bruce Wayne. Thomas Wayne is one of the wealthiest, most influential men in Gotham City, and his son Bruce is still much too young to be taking on the family business. If Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is the same age as he is (44), he'd be a senior citizen by the time Bruce donned the mask.
In fact, since the movie positions itself within the time frame of eight-year old Bruce Wayne witnessing his parent's death one fateful night outside a movie theater, it stands to reason that Phoenix's Joker would be 61 by the time Bruce Wayne began his first year as Batman, canonically 18 years later (at age 26, according tot he comics).
NEEDS BATMAN: TO REPRESENT THE STATUS QUO
Viewers are keenly made aware as they watch Joker that the status quo in Gotham City is in jeopardy. Thomas Wayne, Bruce Wayne's famous father, is not the kind visionary assisting Gotham with its public transit and funneling money into its health care and infrastructure. He's a business mogul, and a member of the wealthy elite.
Phoenix's Joker, through various subversive acts in the film, shifts that status quo. Not only that, but at the same time Gotham City takes a nose-dive into chaotic depravity, Thomas Wayne is taken out of the picture. The status quo would need to be returned with Batman, who will surely this time around represent The Establishment to Joker's disbanding demolition.
DOESN'T: THE JOKER'S EXISTENCE IS NOT A DIRECT RESPONSE TO BATMAN
While most origin stories for The Joker involve his being a direct response to Batman, Joker posits that Batman will be a direct response to him. He inspired the teeming masses of Gotham's sullied citizens to riot, a riot which inspired a hoodlum to stalk Bruce Wayne's parents into a dark alley and murder them in front of his eight-year old face.
Since The Joker came into being apart from Batman, without Batman already being in existence, a sequel Joker film could just as easily not include Batman. His presence isn't integral to the plot, and wouldn't necessarily make it more provocative, unless he was completely re-imagined as a character.
NEEDS BATMAN: FOR HIS CONTRASTING PERSPECTIVE
The Joker's long-held belief that the world has no meaning and would, perhaps even should inevitably plunge into chaos is one of his driving forces in the comics and in Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight. Phoenix's utter devotion to destroying the very society that turned its back on him directly contrasts Batman's fanatical devotion to societal justice.
Batman should only appear in a Joker sequel to offer a contrasting (but no less zealous) perspective to Phoenix's Joker. They have traditionally been two sides of the same coin, and in some ways more similar than different. It's a point driven home in Joker with frequent and ambiguous references to "cowardly clowns in masks" which, from a certain perspective, could describe them both.
DOESN'T: IF IT CONTINUES TO NOT FEATURE SUPERHEROES
It's difficult to determine exactly what sort of Batman could flourish in the Gotham City that Joker envisions. What physical manifestation of Batman would go up against Phoenix's Joker? Considering Batman is traditionally a physically fit, expertly trained martial artist with a plethora of gadgets and endless monetary resources.
Arthur Fleck, the lonely, isolated would-be comedian that becomes Joker once he fully embraces his pathological condition seems far too broken down as a human to be able to square off against a bona-fide superhero. A Batman featured in a film that doesn't the traditional superhero genre would appear unintentionally ridiculous.
NEEDS BATMAN: SO JOKER FEELS SPECIAL
In the comics and most film depictions, The Joker and Batman need each other. Heath Ledger put it best in The Dark Knight when he referenced their relationship as "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object". They "complete each other" to such an extent that The Joker has even gotten sad when Batman wasn't around because life "had no punchline".
One of the reoccurring messages rippling through Joker is that Arthur Fleck feels continuously unnoticed. He isn't listened to, isn't even thought of, until he starts to go against the grain. Only then do people start to realize he's there, which helps him feel more alive. A Batman figure would undoubtedly make Phoenix's Joker feel the most special, especially when Batman would devote all his resources to his capture and downfall.
DOESN'T: IT STANDS ON ITS OWN TWO (CLOWN) FEET
Ultimately, the fact that the Joker exists, and exists well, indicates it doesn't need Batman. It manages to tell its story without his presence, framed within the confines of a loosely adapted DC world. It gets along just fine without needing him as an opposing force because society is the opposing force.
The Joker is a character that tends to need opposition to work. Phoenix's Joker rages against the unfairness of the hand his life was dealt, rages against a dismissive and cold society, and rages against an absentee father and a mentally unstable mother. It works as a wonderful, encapsulating character study that doesn't need to be tethered to a franchise to be successful.
