How He Got His Scars: Exploring Madness and Mental Health in Filmic Representations of the Joker

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I especially enjoyed the opportunity to review this manuscript because I enjoyed reading it very much! It is interesting, logical, well-presented, and well-argued. The manuscript could almost be published in its current form, although I note the following for the authors to consider:

1. I’m not sure there’s a need to mention the “emergent” nature of the fields of disability studies and mad studies (p. 1 line 34). Disability studies particularly has been around for several decades. I would just drop the word “emergent”.

2. “Sanism” is introduced but not defined (p. 2 line 55). I think a brief definition is warranted.

3. Scholars appear to be moving away from “seminal” (p. 2 line 84) given its etymological roots with “semen/male/masculine”. Depicts semen/maleness as progenitor of ideas. “Foundational” would work fine instead.

4. It is “Josh Dohmen” rather than “Dohem” (p. 3 line 130, 133).

5. “The Joker and Childhood Trauma” section (commencing p. 7 line 324) – this section discusses the ways in which madness is often linked with childhood trauma. It is not until the final 6 lines of this section (p. 7 line 361-366) that this discourse is challenged. I think this section would be more persuasive if the critique was integrated within the body of this section, rather than simply left to the end. I just think too many points go unchallenged, and it makes more sense to critique as you go.

6. The same can be said for the following section (“The Oedipus Complex and the Joker’s Childhood Trauma” commencing p. 8 line 368), although it doesn’t appear to stick out as awkwardly/noticeably. And again in “Mental Illness and (Sexual) Contamination” commencing p. 10 line 485, but again, less awkward/noticeable.

7. Is “tether/tethered/tethering” over-used throughout the manuscript?

8. On p. 12 line 579 I would add “and dangerous” following “contagious” (i.e. “…perpetuate the belief that mentally ill people are contagious and dangerous…”)

9. “When the police discover his dead body, the camera zooms in on the Joker’s face revealing an unsettling smile with his eyes wide open—a disturbing moment of abjection” (p. 14 line 686-688). For me, there is not enough context in the comment following the em dash for this passage to be well understood. Does the abjection stem from the cadaver (as Kristeva would say), or in the blurring between life(smile)/death(dead body)?

10. This occurs again later down the page (“Instead, it is revealed that his capture is what he wanted all along—a suggestion that the justice system is woefully prepared to handle someone like him” p. 14 line 697-698). For me this passage is a little ambiguous (perhaps I’m tripping up on the word “woefully” here?).

11. I wonder whether the conclusion (starting p. 14 line 728) is a little too pessimistic. The authors suggest “the Joker’s character naturalizes and reinforces harmful anxieties about mental illness” (line 730-1), and note the “harmful beliefs of mental illness that continue to circulate in popular culture” (p. 15 line 751). I think the authors do point to sites of resistance earlier in the paper, and I think that could be acknowledged also in the Conclusion. For example, the “Mental Illness and (Sexual) Contamination” section (starting p. 10 line 485) contain many examples:

- “An animated drama for most of the films is whether we, the audience, are to agree with the Joker. Is the Joker crazy or does he hold important outsider knowledge? Other characters similarly oscillate between acceptance and denial of the Joker’s world view and, in more than one text, the central focus of the Joker appears to be his desire to spread his mad perspective” (p. 10 line 488-492)

- “for the world to go a little crazy” (p. 10 line 500)

- “the Joker goes on releasing poisonous gas on the revellers, claiming he is relieving people of ‘the burden of their useless lives’ (p. 10 line 521-22)

- “the Joker must first infect Dent, explaining ‘madness, as you know, is like gravity: all it takes is a little push’” (p. 11 line 539-40)

- “it can be argued that Gotham city contaminated him first. Although it is evident that Arthur suffers from childhood trauma, the film seems to imply that it is the degradation of Gotham’s social order that provokes his descent” (p. 11 line 559-62)

- “The film appears to suggest that if Gotham city was more welcoming, Arthur’s story may have played out differently” (p. 11 line 564-5)

- “successfully spreading with his view that the city must be torn down and re-built” (p. 11 line 573-4)

It strikes me that many of these passages foreground the ways in which the Joker is turning the lens from ‘his’ problems to problems with broader society. And as the authors note, one critical question is whether we “are to agree with the Joker”? (p. 10 line 489). In a sense, the Joker may be an anti-hero (in some ways), and the overall conclusion may not be as doom and gloom as the authors originally suggest. I think there is space to take some of the sentiments from above and include some of that in the Conclusion. To put the argument slightly differently: the authors construct the mad figure as abject, and at the end of the paper they are still abject—so perhaps there is some merit in identifying a space in which that could (or should?) be resisted.

12. Finally, I expect the copy-editing phase will pick many of these up, but there are a few too many errors within the text. Here are some examples:

- “fourth” not “forth” (p. 3 line 100)

- “as a result of his” (p. 5 line 235)

- “In these” (p. 6 line 296)

“at what he sees” (p. 7 line 317)  

- “the Joker as mental illness” (p. 7 line 341)

- “tethered”? (p. 8 line 377)

- “eventually” (p. 9 line 433)

- “appropriately” (p. 9 line 445)

- p. 10 line 510-512 – appears to be missing word and comma in this sentence?

- p. 12 line 608-611 – this sentence is ambiguous.

- “potential” not “potentially” (p. 13 line 650)

- “pose” not “poise” (p. 13 line 656)

- p. 13 line 673 – edit to: “Batman: The Movie (1966) concludes with the Joker arrested…”

- “lose” not “loses” (p. 14 line 684)

- “to play” not “the play” (p. 14 line 722)

- “accentuating” not “accentuated” (p. 15 line 743)

I have provided the above commentary all with the aim of helping the authors improve the quality of their manuscript. I commend them on producing a very fine piece of work, and I think with a few small alterations, it will be ready for publication.

Author Response

We wanted to take a second to sincerely thank you for this extremely detailed and constructive evaluation of the article. It's always really special to have someone look so closely at our work and offering such thoughtful recommendations so thank you!

The proposed changes are are quite helpful and we are supportive of them. We had been going back and forth on whether or not the critique should be folded in or left to concluding paragraphs so that point was appreciated. We have similarly wondering about the pessimistic ending and whether there is benefit in seeing the Joker as anti-hero. To be honest, I think we are still looking for an answer to that question. Considering the question from the perspective of internal vs external problem is an interesting approach though which helps sidestep some of our existential wonderings. Here's hoping Todd Phillips will help all of us out with a more definitive answer in Joker: Folie à Deux...?

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your work, which is a highly original contribution to the study of madness. 

In general, the paper is well written, the use of the bibliography is very appropriate and relevant to the area, and the conclusions add value. Therefore, I will recommend its publication. However, I would like to make a few suggestions that I believe may help you to improve your manuscript: 

First, since you have decided that this paper should be framed in the article category, I would recommend that you explain in greater depth the model of analysis, and how it has been carried out, possible categories, etc..

Finally, I recommend that you review the references in the paper, paying attention to the mdpi format. 

Best wishes, 

Reviewer

Author Response

We really appreciate you taking the time to read through our article and offering constructive feedback. We have struggled a bit with the MDPI style (and it not playing nicely with zotero) but we hopefully have it resolved now after re-downloading the format from MDPI's website and doing some manual editing where it seemed necesary. If not, we will need some additional support at the copy editing phase.

Thank you again!