With the timeline of ‘Joker‘ not quite matching up with the DC Universe, there has been a theory running around that Joaquin Phoenix didn’t actually play the iconic Batman villain but rather a precursor to The Clown Prince of Crime. With Bruce Wayne barely a child and his parents alive at the start of the film, that would put this take on Joker being quite a bit older than The Caped Crusader. That, and the lack fo a dunk in a chemical tank are just a couple of the reasons that fans have been pushing the alternate narrative.
As to Phoenix’s take on who he played? “I mean, to me, yes, he is [the Joker].”
While the actor who is having his portrayal gushed over believes he played Joker, he is also open to others having a different interpretation:
“There was something that was great about the mystery of it. Todd and I talked a lot about how this is one of the few opportunities that you have where people don’t expect to know the definitive truth of the character — and not only that, they probably don’t want it. Usually, the demands of the movie are the opposite. I said, ‘We have to take advantage of that. Why would we not?'”
The fuzzy nature of Arthur Fleck’s grasp on reality makes it so the character could just as easily have evolved into Joker to not having even committed half of what viewers ended up seeing on the big screen. These leaves the narrative of who Fleck is just as mysterious as Joker’s past and could mean that either of these scenarios can still stand up.
That being said, I’m pretty sure if a sequel were ever to be made to this billion-dollar movie that we would end up seeing that Fleck is Joker. The annoying part is that we’ll likely never see him square off against The Dark Knight.
Do you feel that Joaquin Phoenix actually played the Clown Prince of Crime in ‘The Joker’, or is he just an inspiration to the real one? Does the age difference between Joker and Batman bother you at all from this origin story? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Source: Heroic Hollywood