The argument claiming Joker is a product of meaningless plagiarism off of Martin Scorsese’s previous achievements has been around since it released in theaters over one year ago. Although despite my bias of thinking Phillips’ chilling comic-book movie is an utter and complete masterpiece, I will try my best to compare and contrast Joker, The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, hopefully arriving to a conclusion that suggests that it was more than plain derivative.

PREMISES:

JOKER: Set in 1981, it follows Arthur Fleck, a failed clown and stand-up comedian whose descent into insanity and nihilism inspires a violent counter-cultural revolution against the wealthy in a decaying Gotham City.

THE KING OF COMEDY: Rupert Pupkin (Robert De Niro) is a failure in life but a celebrity in his own mind, hosting an imaginary talk show in his mother's basement. When he meets actual talk show host Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis), he's convinced it will provide his big break, but Langford isn't interested in the would-be comedian. Undaunted, Pupkin effectively stalks Langford -- and when that doesn't work, he kidnaps him, offering his release in exchange for a guest spot on Langford's show.

TAXI DRIVER: Suffering from insomnia, disturbed loner Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) takes a job as a New York City cabbie, haunting the streets nightly, growing increasingly detached from reality as he dreams of cleaning up the filthy city. When Travis meets pretty campaign worker Betsy (Cybill Shepherd), he becomes obsessed with the idea of saving the world, first plotting to assassinate a presidential candidate, then directing his attentions toward rescuing 12-year-old prostitute Iris (Jodie Foster).

SIMILARITIES:

Before we begin comparing these three movies, think about their premises again. Do they sound familiar in anything but the most remote sense? Returning back on topic, I would point out that Joker does borrow the general dirty and gritty aesthetic from Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, albeit making the atmosphere visually superior due to the modern technology behind it. Gotham in Joker is somewhat similar to New York City in the other two films, but to be honest, it seems more inspiration than plagiarism. Secondly, both Arthur Fleck in Joker and Rupert Pupkin in The King of Comedy are begging to meet their dream celebrity, who happens to be a famous stand-up comedian in both movies. I’ll elaborate more on why this isn’t exactly stealing either in the meantime. Thirdly, all three characters, now including Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, despise the society they are living in, and want to rise up and lead some sort of revolution. Overall, in terms of true comparisons that I can make, that is about all I can think of. Think to yourself before moving on, is that truly stealing someone else’s work, or is it admiring there achievements?

DIFFERENCES:

Now here is where I am likely going to get slammed in the comments section for disrespecting Scorsese. Guys, remember, if you’re reading this, the entire post is simply my opinion and is in no way objective. For me, Joker is almost entirely its own creation, merely inspired in a few aspects from classics that its director grew up with. The characters, although vaguely similar, differ from one another. Arthur Fleck is a shelled, afraid, depressed and disrespected individual who cares for his mother, and, well, isn’t exactly a bad person at the start of the movie. We feel actual sympathy for him, which is sort of an example of better writing in Joker. On the other hand, Bickle is just a straight-up confident douche bag who was a ticking time bomb all along. He wasn’t disrespected. His mental illness leads him to believe that he was wronged by society, when it’s really him taking out his own childish anger. The only real thing he points out against New York was the fact that it smelled foul. We feel absolutely zero sympathy for him, and I’m worried about those who do. Additionally, Pupkin is quite similar to Bickle in this respect. He’s a mentally unstable, pushy and irritating individual who wasn’t necessarily treated poorly, but his lack of stability in the head convinced him to go on a rampage, leading him to kidnapping. Fleck is consistently pushed away and stomped on by society until his emotional breaking point. He is thrown in with a cheap therapist that doesn’t help him, put on medications. His coworkers think he’s a freak and a lie from one of them gets him fired. The stand-up comedian he idolizes plays a tape in front of a massive audience of him failing in one of his shows. Everything that happens to him is awful, and although he’s obviously mentally ill, he at least has legitimate character motivations that people can understand.

In terms of how Joker differs from the other two, it isn’t only with types of characters, but also with creative choices. I adore how this movie makes it a mystery on whether everything took place in Arthur’s head. The movie constantly pulls the rug out from under you and makes you question whether it’s reality or not. Furthermore, I also appreciated the subplot with Thomas Wayne, which was extremely well-written and added to the sense of ambiguity. Thirdly, supporting characters and love interests were wildly different. In Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, our main characters’ confidence leads them to getting a girlfriend easily, albeit before treating them like complete crap. Their arrogance and inability to have a healthy social life drowns any sense of love in the respective films. In Joker, Fleck and his introverted self leads him to making up a loving, nice and empathetic relationship with his neighbor in his mind. I’m not justifying Fleck’s actions in any way, and he is definitely insane, but his relationships with other characters aren’t very similar to Pupkin and Bickle’s. To conclude this bit of the essay, I respect any opinion on this matter, but at least realize some of the clever choices Joker makes to have substantial distinctions from its counterparts.

WHY JOKER (AND THE OTHER TWO) sUCCEED:

I at least like all three of these movies. The King of Comedy is a strong and solidly funny movie about how obsession with celebrities can go over the edge. Taxi Driver, cutting out that incessant soundtrack, is a fantastic character study of someone who was just bound to break loose and go stark raving mad. Joker, which likely tops any Scorsese movie I’ve seen at the moment, is masterful in every respect. An emotionally complex, gorgeously directed, shot and acted movie that reinvents the comic-book genre. However, within all three, I cannot deny that they easily succeed in their own respective ways.

IN CONCLUSION:

Readers must pay attention to the vital fact that getting inspired is far different to literally plagiarizing. Just because Joker borrowed some sense of aesthetic and vague plot points means that it was more of Phillips paying homage to Scorsese, a filmmaker who he clearly looks up to. Outright stealing would be drawing on the same plot, motivations and themes without stating that it was a remake. Ironically, people commonly criticize Joker for being an “unofficial remake”, yet the only similarities are vague references to Scorsese movies. Every single filmmaker gets inspired. Take me for example. If I ever have a future career in the industry, my work would pay homage to my favorite directors including Denis Villeneuve, Paul Thomas Anderson, the Coen Brothers and Charlie Kaufman. No work nowadays is entirely original. There’s always a piece of the puzzle that’s taken, and to me, that’s completely ok.