“Joker” is not a superhero film. It’s a heist film. Or at least that’s what director Todd Philips said in a recent interview. It’s a heist because, “We’re gonna take $55 million from Warner Bros. and do whatever the hell we want.”

“Joker” is an interesting movie—both a throwback to character-driven 70s filmmaking while also part of the DC comics Batman sandbox. Not a lot of filmmakers in Hollywood get to do “whatever the hell” they want without studio oversight and meddling.

The film is also a microcosm for the struggle in the film industry: the need for familiarity for profit and filmmakers’ and audiences’ need for originality. More often than not, familiarity wins. A recent example of the latter is Jordan Peele’s “Us”, released in early 2019.

“Joker” is a combination of familiarity, originality and audience baiting. After all, the movie-going audience has been craving a stellar Joker performance since Heath Ledger’s departure. Jared Leto, who?

Hollywood has always strived to repackage the familiar for audience consumption. Early on, it indulged in sequels and prequels. The ‘80s and ‘90s were all about remakes. J.J. Abrams and Christopher Nolan revolutionized the reboot with “Star Trek” and “Batman Begins” respectively in the early 2000s.

However, “Joker” is an entirely different beast. Three-fourths of the movie’s runtime is focused on the character-driven tone of the ‘70s. The audience is steeped in the life of Arthur Fleck, and it is only within the last 30 minutes that he transforms into the all-familiar Joker.

At times, the tension between the film being both familiar and original is evident. Philips does his best to infuse Batman mythology into the overall theme and tone of the film. As a viewer, one can forget just exactly what they’re watching. You come for the Joker and other Batman allusions but become invested in the dark character drama being unspooled.

If “Joker” is a heist film, it not only is a heist on the studio, but also on the audience and its attention span. Would the audience and general public care about “Joker” if it didn’t include all the world-building ties?

I don’t think so. But then again, maybe. Hollywood rarely invests in artists anymore but when they do, it can be quite profitable, such as the aforementioned film “Us” or director Christopher Nolan.

There’s now a generation of audiences who haven’t grown up with character-driven films. Instead, their appetite has been influenced by the franchise-growing films of the present. Filmmakers, conversely, did grow up with such films. “Joker” is successful because it mixes both appetites of the creators and the audience.

Since character dramas are financed few and far between, these “original re-imaginings” of familiar characters may be the way forward. Or at least they will be after “Joker” and its $248.2 million worldwide box office gross. More original character-driven stories will follow. As long as they fit within a franchise box.

True Dabill can be reached at dabi7280@stthomas.edu.