The Incongruous Philosophy of the Anti-Hero

In colloquial contexts, superheroes are heralded in indefinite glory; they constitute unnatural, infallible saviors of justice, who exist in a moral vacuum, and sacrificially embody the attainment of 'good', over 'evil; of 'right', over 'wrong'.

One may discover however, in reminiscing over their exalted characters and legacies, that while they attract their fiction's 'centre of gravity' (an idea described, by the literary theorist Northrop Fyre), they remain forever elusive to the practical imagination. Hybrid creatures, Symbiote parasites, and radiation-infused behemoths are innately falsifications; they may be aesthetic at first - but their emergence is of forgettable consequence, in the context of human psychology.

Historically, they have always been birthed in stark juxtapositions to their antagonized arch-nemeses - whose motives and potentialities are converse to theirs. Truthfully, the whole of their identity is predicated on aspersions to superficial conceptualizations of justice, and would by definition disintegrate without them; heroes thrive on villains, and villains on them.

Over their development, nevertheless, they've been paralleled (albeit rarely) by a less perfervid, protagonist - the anti-hero. They aren't ubiquitous, but are nonetheless substantive counterparts in their own right, being responsible for the determination of countless thrilling, cinematic paradigms. Arthur Fleck, as enacted by the phenomenal Joaquin Phoenix, perhaps embodies the quintessential anti-hero - for he foretells a narrative that is ultimately characteristic, of the forgotten commoner.

In having been abnegated by his social periphery, terminated of employment, and deprived of every semblance of his happiness - he seeks not retribution, but fulfilment. After having deified his mother over the course of his life, he's subjected to the unlivable truth of her falsehoods, and his own adoption. He's also assaulted by three bankers, consequent to his psychologically anomalous, uncontrollable laughter. And yet, whilst he retaliates in a manner that is homicidal, one can't quite ascribe to him the state of a villain. In retrospect, this isn't attributable to the film's character-centric structure, or for that matter, its cinematographic maneuvering.

Arthur, in all his adversity, is a reflection of human suffering.

Anti-heroes, and their origins, are predominantly engendered by circumstantial fate.

Arthur's laughter and mental illness, his lack of a fatherly figure, and (implied) socioeconomic distresses, are intractable to his influence. He's the recipient of sins that aren't his own, and misfortune he's never sought. Amidst this, nevertheless, he refrains from ignoble ends: he aspires to instill laughter, and never once emanates moral connivance, at the expense of others. He's not an idealist, by any conceivable standard; he solely seeks to commiserate with himself, and sustain his being.

Until his impending descent into insanity, he continually battles his nihilistic proclivities, Although not infatuated with the notion of setting ablaze an anarchic cultural revolution, that is precisely what he accomplishes. Admittedly, in re-instantiating societal civility, he tentatively desecrates it.

What's far more intriguing, nonetheless, is the reactive apathy his acts attract. It's not as though he isn't acting in a manner utterly defiant of canonical value structures, or faithful covenants. Of course, a straightforward interpretation might cite the discriminated beneficiaries and victims of his killings; restoring justice and closing wealth chasms, long overdue. One can't contend that proposition vehemently, for it is, in part, thematically consistent with the film.

Alternatively, one may construe his unhinged machinations, and their ramifications, as being enactments of collectivistic proclivities. In the aftermath of Bill Murray's gruesome demise, droves of individuals swarm Gotham city's streets, and flock to venerate Arthur. Once obscure, he finds himself cast into a symbolic hero with a permanent smile - his transformation into the 'Joker', is rendered complete. He's not a dream-like figure, but rather a standalone human being, whom everyone understands. Analytically, his life encompasses the exact phases of meaninglessness - mapping one's evolution from suffering and ailment, to delusion and disappointment, to collective atonement.

Therein, perhaps, lies the inescapable dichotomy that separates anti-heroes from their enamoured counterparts.

Heroes, are manifest encapsulations of the human imagination.

Anti-Heroes, are manifest encapsulations of the human psyche.