A deleted scene from Matt Reeves’ The Batman has been posted online, showing Batman talking to the Joker in Arkham. Technically the Joker was in the full movie, though only for one short scene, credited as Unknown Arkham Prisoner, but this is the first time we’ve seen the character in action. The clip was deliberately released by Warner Bros. as opposed to being leaked online, which adds some extra context I’ll get into below, but first I want to discuss the clip on merit.
First off, the casting. Barry Keoghan is an inspired choice to play Joker. He avoids the stunt casting of a big name, which is crucial for the Joker given how much pressure there is on the role. I personally don’t consider him the most compelling villain - having no motivation is a bit of a one-note gag - but he is far and away the most popular and most open to actor interpretation. Two of the previous three actors to play Joker won an Oscar for their turn, one of whom won posthumously, piling yet more pressure on the role, while the third is (probably unfairly) maligned as the worst villain in comic book history. There is no such thing as an ‘okay’ Joker.
While Keoghan’s name as one of the biggest emerging talents throws off some of the pressure than had Joker been, say, Brad Pitt, he still has to actually do the job. Having already played an intensely ‘Joker’ character in the unsettling The Killing of a Sacred Deer, he feels perfectly equipped for the role. Having seen him in action, it’s safe to say he pulls it off. It’s difficult to judge the character on the context of a deleted scene, and unusually for the Joker, it’s a minor supporting role as opposed to the lead antagonist of Ledger’s - or the straight up lead of Phoenix’s - but given what we have to go on, Keoghan does a fantastic job. That’s part of the reason I’m so conflicted.
Taken on its own, this is A Good Scene. Like most of The Batman, I think the dim lighting gives it a grungy, crackling atmosphere without overselling the darkness and obscuring the details. The shots, alternating across the glass and never really settling on Joker’s face, also do a fantastic job of symbolising how difficult he is to look at, both in terms of his fearsome intensity and grotesque appearance. Both actors perform well. It’s well written. There is good direction. As I said, A Good Scene. I’m also appreciative that the world of The Batman feels like a real world, and not a movie. In a movie, you wouldn’t have the most legendary, fearsome villain in franchise history be locked up before it starts, only to then not escape and only have two conversations in the entire three hour runtime. That Joker exists, that Gotham is a sprawling city with past scars, and that Batman has had fights we did not see on camera makes for a better, richer movie. Since the scene was deleted however, it does seem a little strange that when weird goings on began happening, no one said “here, maybe it’s that weird fucking clown guy who did [insert whatever completely unhinged thing Joker did]”.
I think the scene is great. I’m glad it exists, because it shows the world was created from the ground up, rather than being written as a movie primarily. Sometimes I want movies to just be movies - not everything has to be a cinematic universe - but when Gotham is such a rich tapestry it seems a shame that the movies have been so standalone. This scene, even if it didn’t make its way into the movie, seems to have an appreciation of that. Plus, Joker is still in the movie, just in a much smaller role. Even though I’m glad it was shot, I’m also glad it was cut.
This movie was three hours long, and the director cut out five whole minutes, almost completely eliminating a legendary character in the process. That’s extreme restraint shown in a movie that often rejects the ideal. It’s also likely the scene would have come in the late-middle section, when Bruce visits Alfred, in what is commonly agreed to be the movie’s lull. Introducing Joker might have injected some life, but only because he’s Joker, because of what the character has done in other stories. This scene, in isolation, would have only served to deepen the lull if you’re not the type to get excited about the mere fact Joker exists. Given how grounded the interpretations of each of these characters are, it’s smart that Reeves did not bank on character name alone carrying the movie.
So, good scene, and good job cutting it. But releasing it? Bad job. The Batman is still in theatres. It feels weird that we’re meeting Keoghan’s Joker, who may yet return, via a deleted scene posted on Facebook. I know it would eventually have come out on the DVD and be posted to social media immediately, but having deleted scenes freely posted while the movie is still showing feels oddly disrespectful to everyone concerned. Disrespectful to audiences to disregard those who have not yet seen it, and to transparently force those who have to make it the topic of conversation, disrespectful to Reeves to use deliberately cut content for promotion, disrespectful to Keoghan to reduce his take on an iconic character to an Easter Egg on Facebook, and disrespectful to the main cast that a movie without the Joker in is trying to lure in more fans by using the Joker’s name.
Then, finally, there is the Joker himself. Reeves has explained that his appearance comes from a congenital disease that means he can’t stop smiling, apparently devised to differentiate him from the typical acid story and the unknown scars of Nolan’s character. Only ‘he has a disease’ sounds a lot like Phoenix’s Joker, and this version sounds worse. Apparently based on David Lynch’s The Elephant Man (which itself was a true story), it seems like a gross sensationalisation of disease and disability, as well as quite a glib interpretation of the Joker. ‘He literally can’t stop smiling and he’s disease ridden’ just feels a little flat, given how layered the Riddler-as-incel character writing was.
Ultimately, cutting it feels like the right call, even if I think it’s a great scene (admittedly with dubious origins that might not sustain a whole movie), but it’s a shame that this is how we got to see it. Maybe it should have been locked up forever, allowing Keoghan’s performance in the sequel - if that is to be the case - more room to breathe. This might lead to more bums on seats this weekend though, and that’s what the business is all about. It’s a shame everyone is so transparent about it these days.