Who’s To Blame for the Fear Leading Up To Joker? [OPINION]

On Oct. 4, Joker opened to public viewing. Since its release, it grossed over $737 million in box office revenue. However, the release of this film has not gone without controversy. The controversy stems from the main subject of the film. The fictional character of the Joker is the arch nemesis to Batman and one of the most recognizable comic villains in the world. The Joker embodies evil masked in the mystery of his origins within the fictional world of Gotham City.

Todd Phillip’s Joker unravels a take on a Joker origin story. The media frenzied on the fear surrounding the film’s release. Fear that should not be blamed on the character of the Joker or Phillip’s film. The fear stemmed from past national tragedy. The tragedy of the Aurora theater shooting in 2012. During the tragedy, the media feasted on misinformation for the case and pushed misinformation into truth. 

On July 20, 2012 at a Century 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes set off tear gas and began firing different firearms into the audience of the midnight premiere of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. The film featured the Joker as the main nemesis as well. Media coverage of the tragedy fed into the belief that Holmes was dressed as the Joker during the attack. There was another belief that Holmes, in police interrogation, stated he was the Joker or identified as/with the character. It is simple to disprove the first of these claims. The evidence photos from Colorado DA picture the combat gear that Holmes wore. It consisted of a black helmet, ammunition slings, and other tactical equipment. He had short brown hair at the time of his arrest. Despite the facts of Holmes never associating with the character, the story of the Joker costume stuck. The second claim came from responders and jail mates of Holmes later on. Responders  that night speculating Holmes thought he was the Joker. Holmes colored his hair later in jail and for court. However, his jailmates nicknamed him ‘Joker’. The media latched to these essential myths around the shooting and its aggressor. Thus, the speculations became truth to the basic knowledge a majority had of the tragedy at the time.

Seven years later, the media feasted on those speculations which produced anticipatory fear around the publicization of the Joker character. This time the story did not only feature the character in another superhero action film but as the main centerpiece. The victims of the shooting did speak out against the film and sent a letter to Warner Brothers to remind them of the social responsibility they have to keep moviegoers safe. The police insisted they had credible threats and shut down premiere screenings in Los Angeles. Undercover cops filtered within the public as screenings happened nationwide. The security for the film was ‘amped’ up. The violence within the film is there. There is also questionable dialogue and messages presented in the writing. The use of the character and giving a more developed outlook to him is not the central issue. The film does not idolize the character. There is a problem with audiences conflating detailed depiction with relatability but that is for another time. The concern is not unfounded but the source is greatly misunderstood. It is misunderstood so much that even the victims of a tragedy fall into this blame game. 

The actual source for this fear is not the Joker or the film itself which has taken the blame. There are plenty of films with more violence and more questionable morality. Holmes never connected himself and his horrible deeds to the character. The media uses whatever is closest to latch our fear of shootings and potential shooters in this country. It provides scapegoat after scapegoat to a bigger problem that it needs to face. The media does not want to own up to their contribution to the potentiality of mass shootings. The reality that gun control is so ineffective in this country which has led to shootings being commonplace. The Joker has always been an insidious figure in pop culture. That is nothing new as the character has been around since the 1940s. The practically guaranteed promise of media fame is a bigger motivator than the existence of a beloved fictional villain.