Understanding normalcy (or abnormalcy) through art.

And in this case, the art is . . . film.

Talking about, of course, the film everyone's talking about now and even a few months before: Joker.

Admittedly, the maniacal (oh, man, I hear the cards and letters of protest coming already), albeit fictional (whew.  Saved myself; or did I? 😯) archenemy of DC Comics' Batman, The Joker has been, admittedly, a recent focus of the label's cinematic arm—very recent.  Take the late Heath Ledger's brilliant posthumous Oscar-winning performance in 2008's The Dark Knight.  Ledger played the character with many noting the particular unnerving demeanor and near "unrecognizeability" of the actor himself.  Unnerved a few viewers, even a longtime Batman fan like me.

The next cinematic incarnation of the character was played by Jared Leto in 2016's Suicide Squad.  Admittedly, and this is not only because the major villain was relegated to a bit of a cameo role in the film, the proverbial "ultra-insanity" of The Joker just wasn't there.  Was more like a love interest of Harley Quinn and more of a gangster boss type.  But, even with THAT, you saw what a crazed character can do in terms of turning people's heads, both characters and moviegoers.

And NOW we have a standalone film for the villain . . . Joker, and played by already-being-touted-to-win-Best Actor-at-the-Oscars-overdue-for-a-Best Actor-at-the-Oscars Joaquin Phoenix.  And again, with this performance of the infamous character, moviegoers are leaving theatres disturbed; but, this time with more understanding of what the character is about—check out Cheatsheet's write-up about it.

One sidenote before we continue . . . Joker even impressed tough film critic Rex Reed.

So . . . the point of all of this is, quite actually, not for me to wax poetic about Batman's favorite enemy.  But it is this: with all of the constant, sadly, regular mass shootings around America (I almost feel sickened saying, "whew.  Thank goodness there hasn't been one too recently."), is the recent (especially current film) focus on The Joker—no matter the reason for so much focus by the Clown Prince of Crime's movie studio Warner Bros.—has public fear and psyche-affected-by-the-sad-regularity of mass shootings (to pick on ONE crime) seemingly seeped into the motives and decisions of the masters of those who create the escapism from that evil reality?

I mean, think about it.  After that The Dark Knight Returns theatre shooting in 2012, you'd think DC Comics would take a good, say, decade-long break from any property involving the centering of a major, (here comes that word again) maniacal character.  The Joker KILLS; this essentially fact-within-fiction.  And DC has been doing absolutely GREAT with films featuring heroic characters from their HUGE catalogue of heroic characters: more recent has been Aquaman and Shazam.  Family-friendly presentations.

But, they are kicking more butt, both commercially and critically, with their less-than-week-old Joker.  

More questions:

• Is it fair to even involve popular, mega-hit film and their studios in the discussion of evil mass shootings in America?  Think about it . . . no matter how many murders, bullets fired, explosion, and other violence committed in a film, that film is still a metaphor.  Ar imitates life, not the other around.  And, damnit, there is NO evil criminal EVER that has a piece of art, film, what have you as his or her SOLE (or even MAJOR) motivation to commit the evil that they end up doing, before, now, or ever.  The brain doesn't work that way.

• On the other hand, is this kind of film a springboard toward "understanding the madman-in-real-life."  SHOULD we understand the "madman-in-real-life"?  What purpose does that serve if we cannot STOP the "madman-in-real-life"?

• Is it moral to try to UNDERSTAND "the madman-in-real-life"?

• Do you think major film studios are beginning to feel obligated to try to explain this kind of evil in the world?  OR do they recognize and think, "man.  This is a moneymaker.  Let's roll with it!" (remember, they are ONLY responsible for creating film/art).

• And if I can underscore it . . . when you think about those who have committed (and, sadly, others who might continue to commit, as if we haven't emphasized it enough in this write-up) the evil acts of mass shootings and other seemingly "popped out of the 21st century version of Pandora's box" . . . do they need to be understood?  Is that the first step?  Is any amount of effective communication to stop their very violent and permanent deeds going to help?

• How do we go about "incorporating this kind of madman (evildoer????)" into society so that he or she or they no longer hurt the rest of us?  Are WE doing anything to encourage this kind of change-the-life-of-others individual(s)?

• And your thoughts and views on the morals and ethics of involving "art and the madman"?