PDA

View Full Version : Joker (Todd Phillips)



Peng
10-01-2019, 12:52 PM
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/029/174/jokerposter.jpg

Peng
10-01-2019, 01:02 PM
Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly, the worst part is the most “respectable” part. The early goings find Todd Phillips execute the somber prestige drama miserablism with such contrived, unsubtle convergence point on our lead and heavy-handed shallowness that it’s almost a small mercy when an incident of villain origin violence finally occurs and changes the film’s tenor out of it partly. There’s a spark of interesting concepts from here on out -- mainly, about what Arthur Fleck’s Joker persona inspires in people -- and a potential for them to be mined with fully charged provocation, such that one wishes Phillips or someone else is able write or direct them more deeply, or at least less wishy-washy that borderlines on centrist in term of Fleck.

But at least Phillips seems more in his element here after that point on, and unexpectedly good at world-building too (I can’t find the tweet that pointed this out first, but to me at least, this is the most unexpected blockbuster and director to have a town that feels so casually, realistically diverse and lived in), to the point where I almost want the focus less on Fleck and more on Gotham, its people, and the powder keg it’s becoming instead.

Speaking of Arthur Fleck, I was disappointed in Joaquin Phoenix at first, mostly because the early miserablism is so surface it allows him no deep insight to play other than mere tics and physical behaviors, as good as he's able to carry them off. But when his Joker persona and backstory start to emerge, he finally has some meaty, big-gesture material to dig in, and he accomplishes it with electrifying aplomb, full of terrifying, unpredictable energy. The last half hour especially, when Fleck spirals up while Gotham spirals down, achieves some real darkly purgative power in spite of the writing, because Phoenix’s performance and Phillips’ direction become fully in synch at last. 6.5/10

TGM
10-01-2019, 01:20 PM
I’ll be seeing this on Thursday. :cool:

kuehnepips
10-01-2019, 02:24 PM
Next week

Dukefrukem
10-01-2019, 02:27 PM
Probably never.

Ivan Drago
10-01-2019, 02:44 PM
Thursday or Monday.

Skitch
10-01-2019, 02:44 PM
Probably never.

:confused:

Dukefrukem
10-01-2019, 04:12 PM
:confused:

I suppose I could get a baby sitter.

Skitch
10-01-2019, 04:46 PM
I suppose I could get a baby sitter.

Ahhhh yes. Welcome to parenting ruining theater trips!! :)

But maybe when it hits streaming?

Ezee E
10-01-2019, 04:59 PM
I suppose I could get a baby sitter.

That's my biggest memory as a kid was going to other people's houses for a few hours while the parents saw movies, lol.

Dukefrukem
10-01-2019, 05:10 PM
I figure Liv will be old enough in May, that I will feel comfortable letting a sitter watch her while I go see Black Widow.

Skitch
10-01-2019, 05:14 PM
I totally understand. The first terror of parenting is "holy shit I have to take care of this thing on my own??" The second terror of newborn parenting is that step of leaving them for any period of time. A big factor (for movie freaks) of the second terror is "for THAT fucking movie?"

Dukefrukem
10-01-2019, 06:17 PM
I totally understand. The first terror of parenting is "holy shit I have to take care of this thing on my own??" The second terror of newborn parenting is that step of leaving them for any period of time. A big factor (for movie freaks) of the second terror is "for THAT fucking movie?"

Bwhahaha exactly. Gotta pick the right movies.

Pop Trash
10-02-2019, 02:25 AM
Bwhahaha exactly. Gotta pick the right movies.

Go with Tarantino and Star Wars.

Dukefrukem
10-02-2019, 02:50 AM
Go with Tarantino and Star Wars.

Weird to say, but I might be skipping both.

Christopher Nolan might be the first director to get me out of the house. But we'll see what happens.

Idioteque Stalker
10-02-2019, 07:21 PM
The Kimmel interview of Phoenix is genius.

[ETM]
10-02-2019, 09:05 PM
So yeah, fuck this movie. Good thing I didn't pay for it.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

Skitch
10-03-2019, 12:01 AM
I would like to know more.

baby doll
10-03-2019, 05:56 AM
Any reactions yet from the juggalos?

Skitch
10-03-2019, 07:42 AM
Any reactions yet from the juggalos?

Why would that be interesting?

Irish
10-03-2019, 07:49 AM
50% fresh from the "top" critics on RT, 73% fresh from the blogging rabble. Unusually big split there and a significant downturn since Venice.

I was gonna see this in the theater, now I'm not sure. Too many people are saying it's over-hyped and absolute crap.

[ETM]
10-03-2019, 08:58 AM
I didn't mean to be flippant but I had to sleep on it. I mean, it looks great and it's well directed. The acting is mostly spot on. Phoenix is amazing. But it's a mess when it comes to everything non-technical. While I was watching it, I kept thinking: "I hope I don't see any Joker/clown cosplays from this, because I would punch the guy out".

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

megladon8
10-03-2019, 12:47 PM
50% fresh from the "top" critics on RT, 73% fresh from the blogging rabble. Unusually big split there and a significant downturn since Venice.

I was gonna see this in the theater, now I'm not sure. Too many people are saying it's over-hyped and absolute crap.


Yeah, this is so weird.

What the hell happened?

baby doll
10-03-2019, 03:26 PM
Why would that be interesting?It seems like something they'd either really love ("This movie gets me") or really hate ("I'm so tired of our community being misrepresented in films made by non-juggalos").

[ETM]
10-03-2019, 06:09 PM
Joker is a cold blooded murderer without remorse. I sincerely hope no one says "this movie gets me".

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

megladon8
10-03-2019, 06:43 PM
;609714']Joker is a cold blooded murderer without remorse. I sincerely hope no one says "this movie gets me".

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk


Incels on the internet are loving him.

Milky Joe
10-03-2019, 07:51 PM
Oh man I can't wait.

Skitch
10-03-2019, 07:53 PM
;609714']Joker is a cold blooded murderer without remorse. I sincerely hope no one says "this movie gets me".

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

I sincerely hope Juggalos stop being a thing.

megladon8
10-03-2019, 10:01 PM
How did this go from being some kind of revelation that got a standing ovation at Venice, to 69% (and dropping) on RT, and most of the positive reviews are barely so?

Milky Joe
10-03-2019, 10:28 PM
virtue signalling

megladon8
10-03-2019, 10:33 PM
Yes, the left sabotaged Joker.

*eyeroll intensifies*

Milky Joe
10-03-2019, 10:48 PM
I didn't say anything about sabotage or the left.

From the first 20 reviews from top critics (through mid-September), it was 50/50 fresh to rotten. So it's actually gone up.

Peng
10-03-2019, 11:26 PM
really brings out the best in people, this film.

[ETM]
10-03-2019, 11:29 PM
I kinda want to get into details but maybe when more people see it. I like it less the more time I have to think about it.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

baby doll
10-03-2019, 11:39 PM
How did this go from being some kind of revelation that got a standing ovation at Venice, to 69% (and dropping) on RT, and most of the positive reviews are barely so?I hadn't read that it got a standing ovation. I did read that it won the top prize from the jury, but that doesn't necessarily mean it went down well with either the premiere audience or reviewers, which are entirely distinct entities (i.e., industry insiders in evening wear attending a gala event versus underpaid freelancers watching the movie at a barebones daytime press screening). In any event, the response of the premiere audience shouldn't be taken as an indication of how the film was received by reviewers there.

Irish
10-03-2019, 11:43 PM
I sincerely hope Juggalos stop being a thing.

I don't. They're their own thing and, from everything I've read, they leave people alone and just do that thing.

Plus, recently I heard that the ICP clown makeup confuses the shit out of facial recognition algorithms.

Imagine a month from now and seeing news footage of Hong Kong crowds ... and it's a bunch of Chinese juggalos running through the streets. :D

Irish
10-03-2019, 11:45 PM
I hadn't read that it got a standing ovation. I did read that it won the top prize from the jury, but that doesn't necessarily mean it went down well with either the premiere audience or reviewers, which are entirely distinct entities (i.e., industry insiders in evening wear attending a gala event versus underpaid freelancers watching the movie at a barebones daytime press screening). In any event, the response of the premiere audience shouldn't be taken as an indication of how the film was received by reviewers there.

Standing ovation + the Lion + an insane amount of hype and praise from seemingly all quarters right after the film premiered. The contrast between then and now is stark.

Skitch
10-03-2019, 11:49 PM
I don't. They're their own thing and, from everything I've read, they leave people alone and just do that thing.

Plus, recently I heard that the ICP clown makeup confuses the shit out of facial recognition algorithms.

Imagine a month from now and seeing news footage of Hong Kong crowds ... and it's a bunch of Chinese juggalos running through the streets. :D

Your pro-Juggalo stance will haunt you forever.

;):p

TGM
10-04-2019, 12:19 AM
I liked it. It’s probably the best movie one could expect to get based off The Joker, and was certainly LEAGUES better than The Killing Joke animated film, as far as cinematic Joker origins stories are concerned. I’ll share my initial thoughts for now, though this is a movie that’s sort of hard to talk about without diving into major spoilers.

Phoenix is a force in this movie. I wouldn’t say he surpasses Ledger’s take, but there are moments where he is truly terrifying (the scissors murder), though there are admittedly times where his delivery doesn’t quite fully altogether work (his rantings of justice and such after he confesses to the murders on the talk show, which comes across as a little awkward. Though it can be argued that he’s still becoming acquainted with his new persona at this point, so it’s not an altogether failure here either). On the whole though, yeah, I dug this. And especially dug the almost American Psycho approach to where we’re left questioning how much of the movie actually happened, and how much of it is in his head. The ambiguity in this regard definitely feels faithful to the mystery aspect behind the character’s true origins, and did a much better job here in presenting the whole “sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another” aspect that again didn’t quite come through in the animated Killing Joke.

I’ll also add, in regards to this movie being considered “problematic”, Joker is indeed portrayed to be the hero of his story, though that’s only because the movie takes place so strictly from his POV. The movie also makes it very clear that the dude is truly psychotic and delusional, and that any perceived heroism is indeed all in his head, and that his actions are seriously the work of a deranged individual. So yeah, again, in that regard, comparisons to movies like Taxi Driver and as I mentioned before, American Psycho, are certainly apt, and the movie works well as a character study in a similar vein. So is it problematic? Well, unless we’re willing to retroactively consider movies like those to also be problematic by today’s standards, then I say no. But then, people have way different standards today then they had back then, so who knows anymore?

Weems
10-04-2019, 12:20 AM
I was bored. The only daring or interesting thing about the movie was the comically straight way they shot some of the gun violence. Everything else is just plagiarized elements of better movies. What the hell was the point of this? It has no thrills, no insight, Ledger destroys Joaquin's one-note sad sack...I just fail to see why someone would think this worth pursuing. It's like a high schooler "emulating" Hemingway's writing style by simply piling on short declarative sentences.

Peng
10-04-2019, 01:29 AM
I’m really fascinated by the rewriting of Zazie Beetz’s character from the trashfire incel-fantasy type in Phillips’ first version of the script to the comparatively graceful presence in the final film. They feel like they are written by two different people; would love to read more about it (Beetz herself said the script was being rewritten everyday during shooting, although the actual trajectory of the film barely changes much, just her character, which may be why she feels that way.)

Dukefrukem
10-04-2019, 12:49 PM
Can we all agree Leto is the worst Joker portrayal?

TGM
10-04-2019, 01:15 PM
Can we all agree Leto is the worst Joker portrayal?

Yup.

Ledger
Phoenix
Nicholson
Leto

TGM
10-04-2019, 01:17 PM
Also, I know it’s still early, but this is sitting quite well with me thus far. The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent to me just how bone chillingly haunting this movie is at its core. Phoenix definitely succeeds at yet again bringing to life a truly terrifying portrayal of the character.

TGM
10-04-2019, 04:56 PM
I’m really fascinated by the rewriting of Zazie Beetz’s character from the trashfire incel-fantasy type in Phillips’ first version of the script to the comparatively graceful presence in the final film. They feel like they are written by two different people; would love to read more about it (Beetz herself said the script was being rewritten everyday during shooting, although the actual trajectory of the film barely changes much, just her character, which may be why she feels that way.)

Honestly, if there was ever a movie where being rewritten during production was not only likely to its benefit, but also totally fitting at that, this is that movie.

Dukefrukem
10-04-2019, 05:43 PM
Joker got an 8 minute standing O?

How about 20 minutes?

https://qz.com/quartzy/1625450/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-and-the-longest-standing-ovations-in-cannes-film-festival-history/

[ETM]
10-04-2019, 07:07 PM
One guy tried to clap at the end of our showing and stopped pretty abruptly.

Skitch
10-04-2019, 08:04 PM
Huh. I remember Clerks 2 got 8 minute standing-O but was mysteriously left off that list.

I don't put much stock in such things. I mean, over 20 minutes of listening to people applaud? I'm not sure any film is that good.

Idioteque Stalker
10-04-2019, 08:05 PM
I don't want to oversell this movie--it's not perfect--but isn't it obvious Joker is the best comic book movie ever made? The controversy is understandable: here is a film that takes some of the most popular IPs of its generation, presents it on a conveyer belt not-too-dissimilar from the MCU, and manages to shock--not so much with its violence, but rather with its message. Just like those poor kids who saw Spring Breakers in Panama City a few years back and suddenly didn't feel so good, hordes of people will see Joker and feel a little queasy about that comment they made to the weird kid down the hall.

To indict your own audience is a bold move. No wonder Joaquin Phoenix was on board. This is less Avengers--or The Dark Knight even--and more Taxi Driver, You Were Never Really Here, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Still, it's a movie that understands the gravity of its own box office potential, and furthermore leverages it to telegraph the message that we, as a society--and at nearly every possible level--are failing people like Arthur Fleck. To claim Joker as either the villain or the hero of this story is to stray from the point.

Yes, the new comic book movie has a point. Through indelible acting, editing, cinematography, costuming and music, it's actually communicating something. Some people aren't going to like that. I don't mean to downplay the successes of the MCU (I've liked many of those movies), but for a lot of people right now there are few things more boring than yet another superhero movie with a 90% tomatometer. Isn't it about time we got something like this? Isn't it about time this genre--which has long since perfected its escapist goals--tried something a little different? Joker turns our gaze from the spectacle on the screen toward something inside ourselves that is messy, even frightening, and begs the question: when the chips are down, do we truly have compassion in our hearts?

[ETM]
10-04-2019, 09:51 PM
That's great, shame none of that was on the screen.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

baby doll
10-04-2019, 10:05 PM
Yup.

Ledger
Phoenix
Nicholson
LetoRomero?

baby doll
10-04-2019, 10:06 PM
isn't it obvious Joker is the best comic book movie ever made?Ghost World?

Idioteque Stalker
10-04-2019, 10:42 PM
Ghost World?

Haven’t seen it in forever, but didn’t love it.

TGM
10-04-2019, 10:55 PM
Romero?

I can’t fairly rate him. It’s been too long since I’ve watched ‘60s Batman. I’d need a refresher. :p

Irish
10-04-2019, 11:15 PM
To hell with Romero. What about Mark Hamill? FFS!

TGM
10-04-2019, 11:25 PM
Was just counting live action Jokers, but alright. Ledger’s still tops, but Hamill perhaps gives Phoenix a run for his money though. I’d have to give the movie and the performance more time to sink in before I could confidently say with that one. :p

megladon8
10-04-2019, 11:59 PM
Romero?

Night is better than Dawn. Which is better than Day.

The rest are trash.

TGM
10-05-2019, 12:07 AM
Night is better than Dawn. Which is better than Day.

The rest are trash.

https://media.giphy.com/media/iurIHLBxms7UQ/giphy.gif

Skitch
10-05-2019, 12:16 AM
Day > all

Irish
10-05-2019, 12:38 AM
Night is better than Dawn. Which is better than Day.

The rest are trash.

Yesssssssss ... with the coda that "Day" isn't worth mentioning in the same breath as the other two.

megladon8
10-05-2019, 02:08 AM
Yesssssssss ... with the coda that "Day" isn't worth mentioning in the same breath as the other two.

Have you ever read about the original script / pitch for Day?

Now THAT could have been something that earned a 20 minute standing ovation.

Irish
10-05-2019, 02:23 AM
Have you ever read about the original script / pitch for Day?

Now THAT could have been something that earned a 20 minute standing ovation.

No, I never have! What was the pitch?

megladon8
10-05-2019, 02:44 AM
No, I never have! What was the pitch?

I can’t recall specific details, but it was quite an epic and would have had a very large budget. It had full casts of characters both above and below ground, with separate (but ultimately connected) story lines.

The sheer scope of it never could have been made, what with it being a horror film and all. But it was ambitious as all heck.

It nears the top of my “movies I wish had happened” list.

Ezee E
10-06-2019, 01:34 AM
This is pretty close to being a horror film.

For an origin of a villain, I found it interesting to see that while the movie never sympathizes our villain, it's certainly shows how he's a product of the environment. The Gotham that's created certainly feels like an area that's going to topple over, already well in need of saving, and it simply takes a figurehead for it all to crumble.

This was good. For a superhero movie, it certainly doesn't follow the tropes that we've been arguing about in the MCU movies. The violence is never fun. Certain moments are very cringe-inducing because we simply don't know what direction will be taken.

And in the end... how much of it is true? I'm sure there'll be plenty of video essays digging apart shot by shot.

Well done.

Peng
10-06-2019, 02:42 AM
And in the end... how much of it is true? I'm sure there'll be plenty of video essays digging apart shot by shot.

I'm all for the Death of the Author and power of interpretation and all that, but Phillips is too literal a writer/director that from his perspective if it's not real or true we would have been shown that. I mean, he replays every single one of Beetz's moment with Phoenix that isn't real, sans her, so there is not a doubt left for everyone in the audience which encounter with her he imagines.

Irish
10-06-2019, 04:12 AM
E, how was the audience?

Ezee E
10-06-2019, 04:55 AM
E, how was the audience?

Small audience. More of the comic book crowd, so not much to speak about.

There was a cop standing at the entrance for the entire time I was there.

I went to the Alamo "Big Show," which they claim to be the best in their screens and sound. Boy are they right about the sound. The screen is also huge. This theater just opened, so I don't think it's quite discovered yet, but I'll def drive an extra 10-15 mins to get to this.

TGM
10-06-2019, 06:41 AM
I'm all for the Death of the Author and power of interpretation and all that, but Phillips is too literal a writer/director that from his perspective if it's not real or true we would have been shown that. I mean, he replays every single one of Beetz's moment with Phoenix that isn't real, sans her, so there is not a doubt left for everyone in the audience which encounter with her he imagines.

He includes that moment to officially introduce the idea that not everything we’re seeing is actually happening. That just happens to be the only overt instance, but afterward, there’s a number of signifiers and teases that even more might also only be in his head, and upon reflection, you realize there’s actually even more verbal clues and such from well earlier in the movie that also imply that not everything is actually happening. Hell, after we jump forward in the end from the riots to the psych ward, he recalls the Wayne murders in a totally different setting than how we literally just saw it. I firmly believe it’s the author’s intent here to imply quite a bit of this film isn’t actually happening how we’re seeing it.

Besides, I really doubt he introduced such a concept only to waste it on solely such a pointless reason as giving him an imaginary girlfriend and nothing else.

[ETM]
10-06-2019, 07:42 AM
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/20899422/joker-movie-review-todd-phillips-joaquin-phoenix-incel-violence-dc-comics-batman

Tasha Robinson of The Verge (of all places) has nicely put into words exactly how I felt about this movie. It's spoilery, of course.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

Ivan Drago
10-06-2019, 07:53 AM
I thought this was a good character study in a solid movie that thinks it’s great. The first two-thirds are one bleak moment after another, and the film’s thesis statement could’ve been emphasized better throughout in scenes that break up the constant dourness rather than an expository generalization of its points for the audience in the climax. And I absolutely loathed a particular red herring that felt way too convenient and was ultimately unnecessary.

And yet, the aesthetic choices here are absolutely stellar. The film works best in its lyrical, intimate moments thanks to Joaquin Phoenix’s riveting performance, as mentioned previously, Hildur Guðnadóttir’s incredible score that elevates the story to a grand tragedy, and great cinematography that’s comic book-y in its own way thanks to a creative use of color and wide shots that leave room for imaginary thought boxes, leaving us to wonder in horror over what Arthur’s thinking at that very moment. I also appreciated its character study of The Joker as a man who just wants to be happy and make people happy in return. Good stuff overall.

Ezee E
10-06-2019, 02:11 PM
He includes that moment to officially introduce the idea that not everything we’re seeing is actually happening. That just happens to be the only overt instance, but afterward, there’s a number of signifiers and teases that even more might also only be in his head, and upon reflection, you realize there’s actually even more verbal clues and such from well earlier in the movie that also imply that not everything is actually happening. Hell, after we jump forward in the end from the riots to the psych ward, he recalls the Wayne murders in a totally different setting than how we literally just saw it. I firmly believe it’s the author’s intent here to imply quite a bit of this film isn’t actually happening how we’re seeing it.

Besides, I really doubt he introduced such a concept only to waste it on solely such a pointless reason as giving him an imaginary girlfriend and nothing else.

Exactly. Another moment is his first imagining of being on the late show. It's obvious that it's a daydream, but there's more instances.

Ezee E
10-06-2019, 02:12 PM
And yeah, it is one of the better scores of the year.

Peng
10-06-2019, 03:35 PM
Ohhh right, somehow I didn't think of that when TGM alluded to it earlier, maybe because I file that one mentally into "The King of Comedy" daydreams (as in, thinking of it belonging to another film entirely) instead of "Joker" daydreams like the Zazie Beetz ones, because the latter functions as a twist to its own story rather than a very direct homage. Still, even Scorsese does it, it's to contrast the very blatant unrealness for maximum black comedy, and reserving ambiguity only to the final scene (thus the one instance of ambiguity becoming much more powerful). The way Phillips uses it is as clearly blunt here too, so both homage and un-homage daydreams signify themselves so much that I'm still not convinced the film intends any ambiguity through its filmmaking. (And to TGM's last point, because it's not so much introducing as the concept being part of "The King of Comedy" homage that Phillips peppers throughout the film, right up to even using Robert De Niro in that role?)

Skitch
10-06-2019, 04:07 PM
Holy crap is this flick banking.

megladon8
10-06-2019, 05:07 PM
And audiences seem to be genuinely loving it, too.

[ETM]
10-06-2019, 09:07 PM
Of course it is. Perfect movie for these times.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

Ezee E
10-07-2019, 12:03 AM
Also, this is a Joker that I can easily see being obsessed with Batman in a jealous type of way later on. While I can't really see him ever being a gang leader, I can always see him getting in the way of Batman trying to do his duty in saving others in what is likely a very crime-ridden Gotham City.

Philip J. Fry
10-07-2019, 01:57 AM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTvI3aeGqQ ibfdwC9ZKRjIcmmxb2iGTdbdDa4Ndy 7JfJatxOQwq
Dyin'.

Pop Trash
10-07-2019, 09:24 AM
Holy crap is this flick banking.

It's been hyped up for months on gamer and comic sites. Every nerd or nerd adjacent person in the world is going to see it. I don't think film people (as in people that see 30+ new movies a year, most of them not even IP movies) get that there's still people that will only see like 10 movies a year (if that) and only certain IP. Smart move by WB to release this in October and treat it like a blockbuster horror movie too.

Irish
10-07-2019, 09:59 AM
Reminder that "Suicide Squad" and "Batman v Superman" had bigger openings. (And before anyone mentions it, I'm not convinced MPAA ratings matter outside box office reporting.)

What exhausts and depresses me is that nobody will care about "Joker" a month from now, unless the convo around Phoenix's Oscar chances pick up, and then they'll only care about it in that context.

Ezee E
10-07-2019, 02:43 PM
Reminder that "Suicide Squad" and "Batman v Superman" had bigger openings. (And before anyone mentions it, I'm not convinced MPAA ratings matter outside box office reporting.)

What exhausts and depresses me is that nobody will care about "Joker" a month from now, unless the convo around Phoenix's Oscar chances pick up, and then they'll only care about it in that context.

Well, they also had triple, if not quadruple the budget.

Batman V Superman - $250 million
Suicide Squad - $175 mill
Joker - $55 million

Have you seen it? Why would it depress you that nobody will talk about it? Not like anyone is really talking about the other two movies.

Irish
10-07-2019, 03:03 PM
Well, they also had triple, if not quadruple the budget.

Not sure how the budget effects the opening?

All 3 movies opened in a comparable number of theaters (4,200-4,300 nationwide).


Have you seen it? Why would it depress you that nobody will talk about it? Not like anyone is really talking about the other two movies.

I haven't and I go back and forth whether I will.

The other was a bit of late night melancholy. I was thinking about how small the distribution window is now, 3 months and done, and how that includes most conversations about any movie. I've seen headlines about "Joker" that called it "controversial" or "contentious," but is it really? (Maybe, but only if one lives and dies by twitter.) So there's a perceived urgency around it, and I think that includes the conversations about it.

At the end of the day it's still a studio film and corporate product and once its run is done, nobody will give a shit about it because they've already long since moved on to The Next Big Thing and The Inevitable Thing After That. It won't cross anyone's mind and it won't influence any semblance of wider culture. It'll sit on an Amazon or Netflix server and collect virtual dust.

There's something about that entire lifecycle now that depresses the fuck out of me.

Ezee E
10-07-2019, 03:14 PM
I can get onboard with that. One thing that Joker does do, which I think I mentioned earlier, is that it does give a different feeling than the MCU movies does. It's very uneasy... Similar to how people probably felt the first time they saw the movies it's trying to emulate. Taxi Driver, Clockwork Orange.... I think the same people bashing this movie would have bashed that upon release because it features a person with no morals. Upon retrospect, they can simply cast Joker off because it's in that realm, but I'm not really sure what the naysayers are critiquing when they say it's a dangerous movie. Perhaps they should've just seen Abominable.

DavidSeven
10-07-2019, 06:21 PM
My thoughts are similar to Weems's from earlier in the thread. The film is deeply derivative of The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, which I suppose isn't a negative in itself, but I'm not sure there was any point to it besides being able to market itself as a "really serious movie." I thought Phoenix's portrayal, while fine, didn't hit the levels of nuance that Ledger's performance did. Maybe not fair, but it's an inevitable comparison. The brilliance of Ledger's performance was that he didn't just present a credible loon; he presented a credible crime lord as well. Phoenix gets the first part, but misses on the second. I thought one of the most brilliant things that Ledger did with the Joker was to portray him as athletic and nimble. This is a stark contrast to Phoenix's feeble and melancholic take. In the end, it's hard to believe this pensive loner becomes a legitimate foil to Batman.

From a general entertainment standpoint, it's a pretty unpleasant movie to sit through. My tolerance for this type of thing is high if it appears that the film has something interesting to say, but that wasn't the impression I got. Putting the Joker in a 70s Scorsese movie seemed to be the end in itself, and I'm not sure why that is so compelling, at least not compelling enough to forgive a film that is not otherwise very entertaining.

Ezee E
10-07-2019, 06:54 PM
My thoughts are similar to Weems's from earlier in the thread. The film is deeply derivative of The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, which I suppose isn't a negative in itself, but I'm not sure there was any point to it besides being able to market itself as a "really serious movie." I thought Phoenix's portrayal, while fine, didn't hit the levels of nuance that Ledger's performance did. Maybe not fair, but it's an inevitable comparison. The brilliance of Ledger's performance was that he didn't just present a credible loon; he presented a credible crime lord as well. Phoenix gets the first part, but misses on the second. I thought one of the most brilliant things that Ledger did with the Joker was to portray him as athletic and nimble. This is a stark contrast to Phoenix's feeble and melancholy take. In the end, it's hard to believe this guy becomes a legitimate foil to Batman.

From a general entertainment standpoint, it's a pretty unpleasant movie to sit through. My tolerance for this type of thing is high if it appears that the film has something interesting to say, but that wasn't the impression I got. Putting the Joker in a 70s Scorsese movie seemed to be the end in itself, and I'm not sure why that is so compelling, at least not compelling enough to forgive a film that is not otherwise very entertaining.

This definitely isn't a Joker that's going to become a crimelord.

baby doll
10-07-2019, 08:33 PM
The film is deeply derivative of The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, which I suppose isn't a negative in itself...Derivativeness is always a negative in itself.

DavidSeven
10-07-2019, 08:39 PM
Derivativeness is always a negative in itself.

I suppose this is true, but I've been more forgiving of it in other contexts. Boogie Nights (Goodfellas) and Magnolia (Short Cuts), for example, where I felt PTA brought something to those projects that rose above pure mimicry and made the films unique in spite of vast superficial similarities. The Joker, on the other hand, feels very much like the character was dropped into a literal mash-up of the two Scorsese films (with some obvious bits of Batman fan service sprinkled in).

Pop Trash
10-07-2019, 09:55 PM
Derivativeness is always a negative in itself.

I don't know. Being derivative is part of the DNA of Brian De Palma and Tarantino [cue baby doll trashin' both of them]. I think there's a moviemovie quality to derivative pastiche if it's done well. Under the Silver Lake from this year is another example. Simultaneously derivative of dozens of different movies, in yet contextualized in a unique way (mainly because it gets millennial ennui).

baby doll
10-07-2019, 11:29 PM
I don't know. Being derivative is part of the DNA of Brian De Palma and Tarantino [cue baby doll trashin' both of them]. I think there's a moviemovie quality to derivative pastiche if it's done well.What I like about both of those filmmakers (and Paul Thomas Anderson) at their best is how they revise inherited schemas rather than merely replicating them.


Under the Silver Lake from this year is another example. Simultaneously derivative of dozens of different movies, in yet contextualized in a unique way (mainly because it gets millennial ennui).If you wanted to rob me of any lingering desire I might've had to see this film, you've succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

Milky Joe
10-08-2019, 02:37 AM
I don't want to oversell this movie--it's not perfect--but isn't it obvious Joker is the best comic book movie ever made?

Yes.

megladon8
10-08-2019, 04:31 PM
Not sure what to think about Joaquin’s “prank” outburst on the set.

Feel like everyone scrambled to make up a cover story to save face.

Ezee E
10-08-2019, 08:38 PM
The prank that was shown on Kimmel? Didn't seem like one.

Pop Trash
10-09-2019, 03:00 AM
Reminder that "Suicide Squad" and "Batman v Superman" had bigger openings. (And before anyone mentions it, I'm not convinced MPAA ratings matter outside box office reporting.)


They sure as hell matter to (most) parents and goin' to the movies still acts as a glorified babysitter or "something to do" on the weekends with your kids. Look at the b/o for Disney movies over the last ten years or so for further proof.

Idioteque Stalker
10-09-2019, 06:53 PM
I don't think his outburst on set was a prank. I assumed that's real. But the Kimmel bit was a Kaufman-esque prank.

Skitch
10-13-2019, 05:32 PM
Holy crap is this flick banking.

Still

Ezee E
10-13-2019, 06:43 PM
Going to easily outgross Justice League.

Skitch
10-13-2019, 07:01 PM
I tried to preorder from 3 different theaters this weekend. All had main seats sold out (sorry I'm not sitting in first 2 rows).

Pop Trash
10-14-2019, 06:24 AM
C is for clever, SNL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpak5lFxvs

kuehnepips
10-15-2019, 10:48 AM
... I thought Phoenix's portrayal, while fine, didn't hit the levels of nuance that Ledger's performance did...

I thought the same.

Grouchy
10-15-2019, 03:50 PM
Well, this is a great film and I hope it becomes the blueprint for the future of comic book adaptations, not in the sense that I want more movies similar to this one in particular (and I sure as hell don't want a sequel), but in that it frees itself from the burdens of an "extended universe" continuity/franchise to present a story that stands on its own, chooses the genre it wants to play in instead of just flirting with it and uses the comic book characters for its own ends without worrying about future installments. The complaint that this Joker wouldn't become a good crime lord is irrelevant - this is an origin story for the character. Where he'll go from here is left to our imaginations.

The movie clearly and knowingly uses Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy as inspirations and the aforementioned comparisons with the way De Palma and PTA used Hitchcock, Scorsese or Altman are apt - Phillips uses our knowledge and familiarity with those films to his advantage and builds something different. And it's just a masterful work. I know people hold the Nolan films in high regard as if they stand on a higher echelon than the more commercial MCU films... I think that's bullshit, they're just as dumb and shallow if not a lot worse, but Joker is the real deal, a movie set in a superhero universe that's truly affecting and inspiring as a work of art. Joaquin Phoenix's performance, the atmosphere (this is the best Gotham City in a live action film since Burton's) and a story that's both heartbreaking, darkly funny and thought provoking make it so. The scene where Joker kills his colleague in front of the midget is just a genius double punch of suspense and comedy. The stand up scene is also a highlight.

As for the concerns with violence or the character's moral compass (God forbid a movie lead us to empathize with someone different than what we wish to become) there will always be unintelligent people who don't get art and catharsis or, worse, use them to justify their selfish, dangerous behavior. There will always be censorship cloaked in good intentions. Those same "concerned citizens" already existed when Taxi Driver was released as well as the nutjob who tried to kill Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. It's part of humanity.

EDIT: I disliked only two things about it. The Fight Club montage where they show us the neighbouring girl wasn't always there was unsubtle and jarred badly with the rest of the film's language. And the Arkham epilogue after the cop car scene was redundant, it would have been better to end the movie with the same song on its highest dramatic point. Another, very minor, nitpick is that there's no way a guy with a film camera would be found shooting a stand up routine in a darkened nightclub in the 1970s.

Dukefrukem
10-15-2019, 05:50 PM
I love reading about the behind the scene stuff when movies get the green light. I guess WB was so scared of this movie, they decided to co-finance it to reduce risk. And now they have to split the profits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/movies/joker-movie.html

Ezee E
10-15-2019, 09:56 PM
I'll say this much... I'd be way more interested in this extended universe than the one given in Justice League/Suicide Squad.

Grouchy
10-18-2019, 04:23 AM
Here's my (hopefully) controversial list of theatrically released Batman movies, best to worst.

1. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
2. Joker
3. Batman Returns
4. Batman Begins
5. Batman (1989)
6. Batman (1966)
7. The Dark Knight
8. Batman Forever
9. The Dark Knight Rises
10. Batman and Robin
11. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
12. Justice League
13. Suicide Squad

Peng
10-18-2019, 06:03 AM
1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 & 2
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. Batman Begins
5. Batman Returns
6. Joker
7. Batman Forever (This one really needs a rewatch, but my distant memory of it is of a fun, colorful if slight romp)
8. Batman (1989)
9. Justice League
10. Justice League: War
11. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
12. Suicide Squad

Skitch
10-18-2019, 06:20 AM
Guys, you're using internet random list generators all wrong.

Ivan Drago
10-18-2019, 06:32 AM
1. Batman Returns
2. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
3. The Dark Knight
4. Batman Begins
5. Batman (1989)
6. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 & 2
7. Batman (1966)
8. The Dark Knight Rises
9. Joker
10. Batman Forever
11. Justice League
12. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
13. Batman and Robin
14. Suicide Squad

transmogrifier
10-19-2019, 01:51 AM
1. Batman Returns
2. Batman (1989)
3. The Dark Knight Rises

Everything else is below 60 and not worth talking about. (Haven't seen Joker or the animated movies or B vs. S)

Skitch
10-19-2019, 01:03 PM
Okay, I've seen Joker now. I'm surprised everyone seems to be leaning hard into the Taxi Driver comparison with no mention of Network. I'd say its a mix of the two.

Pop Trash
10-19-2019, 02:41 PM
Okay, I've seen Joker now. I'm surprised everyone seems to be leaning hard into the Taxi Driver comparison with no mention of Network. I'd say its a mix of the two.

Well, it's King of Comedy more than anything. I find the discourse both positive and negative around Joker to be fascinating. It's wild that a film that feels closer to Rob Zombie in tone than eg. Chris Nolan or Tim Burton (or even Zack Snyder) can be this big of a hit. It's also weird reading the negative reviews from critics (and more than a few them utterly hated it) since I think a lot of extratextual shit is in play here. "Who" is this movie for? Can a movie directed by the Hangover and Old School guy be that good?

megladon8
10-19-2019, 02:56 PM
Batman 89 is one of the first movies where I actively noticed editing.

To this day it’s one of the worst edited movies I’ve ever seen get a wide release.

Peng
10-19-2019, 03:48 PM
I changed my mind and now rate this film 10/10 and rank this #1 in the Batmanverse.

1185567552690425859

Ezee E
10-19-2019, 04:05 PM
Well, it's King of Comedy more than anything. I find the discourse both positive and negative around Joker to be fascinating. It's wild that a film that feels closer to Rob Zombie in tone than eg. Chris Nolan or Tim Burton (or even Zack Snyder) can be this big of a hit. It's also weird reading the negative reviews from critics (and more than a few them utterly hated it) since I think a lot of extratextual shit is in play here. "Who" is this movie for? Can a movie directed by the Hangover and Old School guy be that good?

I haven't understood some of the critical hate to the movie that use those questions as a negative hit. It's only the biggest known villain in all of comics... And we shouldn't be expecting positive morals out of him either.

I also have no idea how to respond to the thought of, "Well, if you remove the Joker and Bruce Wayne stuff, then the movie sucks..."

I can certainly buy on that the movie uses other movies to exist. This criticism hits Tarantino too, but it doesn't affect my own personal experience.

Quite the weird approach ot this one.

Skitch
10-19-2019, 04:11 PM
Agreed, E. This seems to be one of those movies where some of the people that hate it just seem to be utterly baffled by every single thing, when in other movies they don't nearly flip that critical an eye to every character's decision.

Not looking at anyone on MC. Generalizing.

[ETM]
10-19-2019, 09:27 PM
I disagree. I was merely put off by the movie, and for precise reasons. I'm baffled and somewhat surprised and even disgusted by some of the positive hyperbole and "analysis" that I've seen online since.
When we left the theatre, my wife likened the experience to watching a gangrenous wound: sure, the colors are pretty, but it smells of death and is about as pleasant.

Grouchy
10-19-2019, 09:47 PM
;610368']I disagree. I was merely put off by the movie, and for precise reasons. I'm baffled and somewhat surprised and even disgusted by some of the positive hyperbole and "analysis" that I've seen online since.
When we left the theatre, my wife likened the experience to watching a gangrenous wound: sure, the colors are pretty, but it smells of death and is about as pleasant.
I assume you're talking about the message you find reprehensible or something like that, but how do you feel about it as a movie?

transmogrifier
10-19-2019, 11:11 PM
.
I also have no idea how to respond to the thought of, "Well, if you remove the Joker and Bruce Wayne stuff, then the movie sucks..."
.

Somewhat unrelated, but this reminded me of someone online (Letterboxd I think) saying that Joker is kind a sad reflection of where mainstream movies have ended up - this exact same movie about someone not the Joker probably wouldn’t have been greenlit, let alone make any money. So going forward, all our adult genre films need to have a superhero angle? A romantic comedy starring Catwoman? A regular legal thriller but with Harvey Dent the main character? We are deep in an era of pandering to references. “I recognize that!”

Skitch
10-19-2019, 11:21 PM
;610368']
When we left the theatre, my wife likened the experience to watching a gangrenous wound: sure, the colors are pretty, but it smells of death and is about as pleasant.

Yep. She nailed it. I dont think anyone is saying its a happy happy fun time. Doesnt mean its bad.

transmogrifier
10-19-2019, 11:25 PM
I'm seeing this today in after I see Blood Simple for the first time on the big screen. The only reason I want to see Joker is how divisive it is. Then I get to tell half of them that they are wrong. That's just good business.

Milky Joe
10-20-2019, 01:04 AM
I predict a 62/100

transmogrifier
10-20-2019, 02:22 AM
I predict a 62/100

That’s close to my lifetime average, so good guess!

transmogrifier
10-20-2019, 08:26 AM
55/100

Mental illness can be scary to an outsider, and that is the case here, with a few isolated scenes of creepy fear (sitting in Beetz' apartment, for example) and tense moments of calm before the explosion. But Phillips undercuts a lot of these moments with stuff that doesn't really make a lot of sense (Fleck doesn't seem to be all that clued into pop culture, so the music cues (e.g., Gary Glitter on the stairs) seem artificial and audience pandering rather than reflecting anything going on inside the character) or that treats the audience like imbeciles (the flashbacks on his interactions with Beetz), and for all the fear of this sparking violence within a certain segment of the audience, this has almost zero political savvy at all - it's just a bunch of shit happening to push Fleck around the gameboard to reach the inevitable conclusion. Worst of all though, and this is my own bias here, but flat-out mentally ill protagonists who act unpredictably from start to finish are inherently dramatically uninteresting to me.

So it sum, a a number of isolated interesting scenes encased in dramatic lethargy and artificial posturing.

Skitch
10-20-2019, 08:47 AM
But...how do you feel about it compared to MCU films? :p

transmogrifier
10-20-2019, 08:59 AM
But...how do you feel about it compared to MCU films? :p

More ambitious but more self-conscious about it. Much more interesting to discuss in terms of its motivations, (attempts at) meaning etc. than literally anything the MCU has produced.

Skitch
10-20-2019, 10:02 AM
So in the pantheon of all comic book related films, sounds like slightly upper mid tier?

[ETM]
10-20-2019, 10:55 AM
Yep. She nailed it. I dont think anyone is saying its a happy happy fun time. Doesnt mean its bad.

Well, if it was an unpleasant experience that engaged you it can be good. But Joker doesn't ask any real questions nor does it offer any insight beyond generic tidbits about inequality and abuse. Sure, it is handsomely packaged, like I said in my first post, but the veneer is too thin to cover up the clumsy innards.

transmogrifier
10-20-2019, 11:06 AM
So in the pantheon of all comic book related films, sounds like slightly upper mid tier?

In terms of how much I actually liked it? Middle. In terms of appreciation for at least trying something outside of the norm, upper tier. I'm happier to have watched this than to have watched, say Ant Man 2, even though I liked Ant Man 2 more and it is more successful at what it attempts. Probably doesn't make sense, but there you have it.

Skitch
10-20-2019, 11:50 AM
Makes sense. I'm not arguing your points, just curious.

Skitch
10-20-2019, 12:00 PM
;610383']Well, if it was an unpleasant experience that engaged you it can be good. But Joker doesn't ask any real questions nor does it offer any insight beyond generic tidbits about inequality and abuse. Sure, it is handsomely packaged, like I said in my first post, but the veneer is too thin to cover up the clumsy innards.

I'm gonna have to disagree with that bit wholeheartedly as I've been questioning my own thoughts about mental illness since ive watched it. As for offering any insight, does it have to? It's a movie, not a college course.

For the record, I dont even know if I'm putting this flick upper tier. I know its problematic. I dont care if people hate it, but seems like some are expecting it to be the most perfect mindblowing perfection ever or go fuck itself.

Ezee E
10-20-2019, 04:30 PM
Somewhat unrelated, but this reminded me of someone online (Letterboxd I think) saying that Joker is kind a sad reflection of where mainstream movies have ended up - this exact same movie about someone not the Joker probably wouldn’t have been greenlit, let alone make any money. So going forward, all our adult genre films need to have a superhero angle? A romantic comedy starring Catwoman? A regular legal thriller but with Harvey Dent the main character? We are deep in an era of pandering to references. “I recognize that!”

That is a sad reflection of the movie business right now, and why I think more and more of the "adult" movies will just end up on Netflix instead of in a theater.

transmogrifier
10-20-2019, 10:36 PM
The more I think about it, the more this seems like a dumber comic-book version of Fight Club that spends far too much time on watching Tyler Durden do stupid shit just because, you know, Batman!, and not enough time on the environment that (a) allowed loonies like Tyler Durden to seem like an attractive alternative and (b) the ramifications of allowing loonies like Tyler Durden to take power. Basically this seems like one of those silly movie pitches - it's DC meets Fight Club, but 70s! - that you see pitched in a Hollywood satire, but made real.

Skitch
10-21-2019, 01:29 AM
Watched this in theater tonight. I absolutely got that Great Value Fight Club vibe. Even at the first (pertinant) scene, my wife looked and me whispered "that's in his head, right?" At least those scenes were shot in such a way that you could pick up on it, instead of flat out lying to you. That's an even worse technique imo.

Still have issues with that ending.

Idioteque Stalker
10-21-2019, 01:49 AM
(Fleck doesn't seem to be all that clued into pop culture, so the music cues (e.g., Gary Glitter on the stairs) seem artificial and audience pandering rather than reflecting anything going on inside the character)

This is a great point. Feels like an iconic scene, but I didn't love the music choice here. Should've been opera.

transmogrifier
10-21-2019, 02:10 AM
Watched this in theater tonight. I absolutely got that Great Value Fight Club vibe. Even at the first (pertinant) scene, my wife looked and me whispered "that's in his head, right?" At least those scenes were shot in such a way that you could pick up on it, instead of flat out lying to you. That's an even worse technique imo.

Still have issues with that ending.

In Fight Club's case, the film is expressly driven by Edward Norton's character's narration (he is in every scene), and because he is equally in the dark regarding the big reveal, it justifies both the "deception" on the film-maker's part and the use of the flashbacks to recontextualize what the narrator had told us before the reveal because Norton's character is literally doing the same thing at the same time, and we have been in his head the whole time. But in the Joker, the filmmakers are literally just inserting the flashbacks for the slow kids down the back.

Skitch
10-21-2019, 02:13 AM
In Fight Club's case, the film is expressly driven by Edward Norton's character's narration (he is in every scene), and because he is equally in the dark regarding the big reveal, it justifies both the "deception" on the film-maker's part and the use of the flashbacks to recontextualize what the narrator had told us before the reveal because Norton's character is literally doing the same thing at the same time, and we have been in his head the whole time. But in the Joker, the filmmakers are literally just inserting the flashbacks for the slow kids down the back.

Yep I totally agree.

StuSmallz
10-21-2019, 05:24 AM
1. Batman ReturnsHad no idea you were a fan too, trans https://i.imgur.com/S0jJRG4.gif

Grouchy
10-21-2019, 07:09 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHJxsDwWkAAhIqK.jpg:large

https://www.tomatazos.com/uploads/images/236702_600x336.jpg

This is happening in Chile right now. Every sanctimonious concerned citizen was afraid this movie was going to spawn massacres and serial killers. Instead, the people seem to have picked up on the social message of the film and turned Joker into a Guy Fawkes figure. Absolutely love it.

Pop Trash
10-21-2019, 08:45 PM
In Fight Club's case, the film is expressly driven by Edward Norton's character's narration (he is in every scene), and because he is equally in the dark regarding the big reveal, it justifies both the "deception" on the film-maker's part and the use of the flashbacks to recontextualize what the narrator had told us before the reveal because Norton's character is literally doing the same thing at the same time, and we have been in his head the whole time. But in the Joker, the filmmakers are literally just inserting the flashbacks for the slow kids down the back.

That "reveal" was one of my big issues w/ the film (the other being the very last scene). For a good hour or so, I thought they were going to leave his "relationship" ambiguous, even though it seemed obvious to me what was being presented. It actually reminded me of the final scene in First Reformed ... but nope ... gotta hand hold for the cheap seats in the audience.

I actually think it's one rewrite or even re-edit away from being a very strong film.

Peng
10-21-2019, 10:09 PM
I myself want some rewrites/edits of the first act; I rewrote my first paragraph a few times because I wanted a better wording of how the subway wallstreet bros scene makes me feel, after that thick miserablist pretension of a first act, rather than "yessss finally SOME violence!" I got a bit frustrated that I skipped a fair share of awardbait miserablism films, that many trusted people/critics I follow don't care for, only to get a full heavy dose of a particularly shallow version here. As I was feeling a bit apologetic for the unseen-by-me likes of Biutiful and Capernaum, that scene came along and pushed the film into pulpier and/or more varied tones, and I was into the film much better.

Milky Joe
10-21-2019, 11:27 PM
There's no heckin way he could have left that relationship ambiguous. It had to be spelled out because ambiguity is dead in the mind of the public, and it would have been interpreted as real and then thoroughly shit upon.

Grouchy
10-22-2019, 12:13 AM
That "reveal" was one of my big issues w/ the film (the other being the very last scene). For a good hour or so, I thought they were going to leave his "relationship" ambiguous, even though it seemed obvious to me what was being presented. It actually reminded me of the final scene in First Reformed ... but nope ... gotta hand hold for the cheap seats in the audience.

I actually think it's one rewrite or even re-edit away from being a very strong film.
My feelings exactly. Take away the dumb cutaways overexplaining the black girl wasn't there, a bit of the heavy-handed writing (like that "What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner...?" line, I really hated that bit), show the Wayne murder more elliptically and end the movie with Joker on top of the police car and the Sinatra song on the soundtrack. It's almost a masterpiece.

Wryan
10-22-2019, 02:52 AM
Thought the climax on Murray's show was quite good. Phoenix does some fine work, tho the camera sometimes lingers too much too often. The movie certainly doesn't trust the audience much. There's one shot, though, toward the end after Fleck gets off the clown-stuffed subway and huffs and strides while leaving, and the camera slowly zeros in on Fleck's icy, zoned-out stare. Really wonderful bit from Phoenix. After all the hullabaloo about Society and maybe-shooters, this turned out to be merely alright. De Niro didn't bring much, unfortunately. They used him for the texture, the winking nod, and that's kind of obnoxious.

[ETM]
10-23-2019, 08:48 PM
Every sanctimonious concerned citizen was afraid this movie was going to spawn massacres and serial killers. Instead, the people seem to have picked up on the social message of the film and turned Joker into a Guy Fawkes figure. Absolutely love it.

Are you sure you're not reading into it as much as the sanctimonious concerned citizens, though? "Picking up on the social message" sounds cooler than "stir shit up while masked the latest popular anarchist from a movie".

To be clear, I'm glad people in Chile are standing up for themselves, but I feel that any connection to Joker lessens what they are doing.

I mean, Fawkes was a failed terrorist, the "Guy Fawkes figure" is actually V from "V for Vendetta". The mask is part of a long tradition that celebrates his failure and death, not as an iconic symbol. That's all comic.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Grouchy
10-23-2019, 09:15 PM
Yeah but Fawkes was already a contradictory symbol of iconography in Britain before Alan Moore took on him. I'm reading on the Gunpowder Plot and it was basically meant to be a coup-d-etat against King James I (a protestant king) and put a Catholic queen as head of state - and by the way, the custom to refer to these dolls as "guys" developed into the modern use of the term. What I mean is that he's a valid symbol reconfigured by pop culture into something else. Same as Joker.

And what is happening in Chile is fucking unheard of and terrible. The media doesn't cover it all and, although I take everything on the internet with a grain of salt, I've seen enough terrible pictures and videos to know what's real and what's not. Piñera, the president, declared a state of war and sent the military to what basically amounts to shoot at the citizens and, if they resist, kill and/or rape them. It's mayhem over there.

Irish
10-24-2019, 08:09 AM
This is happening in Chile right now. Every sanctimonious concerned citizen was afraid this movie was going to spawn massacres and serial killers. Instead, the people seem to have picked up on the social message of the film and turned Joker into a Guy Fawkes figure. Absolutely love it.

The first photo you posted appears to be from Beirut, not Chile. (I saw it in another context, but look closely and you'll see the Lebanese flag.)

I dunno if I'd call Fawkes a "contradictory symbol of iconography" when he's burned in effigy every November.

(But then I wouldn't call him a terrorist, either, unless one really wanted to align oneself with the Church of England and the court of James I. Which would be a considerably odd thing to do in the 21st century.)

Grouchy
10-24-2019, 01:31 PM
The first photo you posted appears to be from Beirut, not Chile. (I saw it in another context, but look closely and you'll see the Lebanese flag.)
Damn you're right, and it's not even necessary to look that closely.

[ETM]
10-25-2019, 05:08 PM
But then I wouldn't call him a terrorist, either, unless one really wanted to align oneself with the Church of England and the court of James I. Which would be a considerably odd thing to do in the 21st century.)

I meant in the context of his own time.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Irish
10-25-2019, 06:13 PM
In the context of his own time, he wouldn't have been considered a terrorist in France, Spain, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, either.

How surprising it is that you're a Royalist, ETM.

[ETM]
10-25-2019, 06:19 PM
*sigh*

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Irish
10-25-2019, 06:20 PM
LOL

[ETM]
10-25-2019, 07:17 PM
;)

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Ezee E
10-26-2019, 02:47 AM
Highest Grossing R-Rated Movie Worldwide (https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/10/25/joker-box-office-oscars-r-rated-dc-films-joaquin-phoenix-warner-bros-venom-logan-deadpool/#51a5cde17b61)

Irish
10-26-2019, 06:16 AM
This is happening in Chile right now.

Play the vid. It's pretty amazing.

1187878571710255104

Irish
11-10-2019, 03:23 PM
Oof. This was so completely artless. How the hell did it win Venice?

My expectations were high because on some level I bought into the hype. I also hoped they'd do something interesting with the character and maybe oh maybe have something to say about him. But they didn't.

In short: Ledger > Phoenix, and by a long mile.

Gonna read through the thread. More thoughts later, maybe.

Irish
11-11-2019, 01:44 PM
Well. This has already leaked out my ears so I'm just gonna nitpick the hell out of what I remember.

- The movie had no characters. This was far and away its biggest problem. Phoenix was totally invested, but his performance was a series of fluid tics and obvious gestures. It wasn't based on anything real. Everybody else is so underwritten they can barely be talked about.

- Misread its main character, its references, and its themes, similar to the way Snyder misread "Watchmen." Everything played at a superficial level. Every line of dialogue was horribly on the nose.

- The story had no spine, no animating force, and Fleck, as the protagonist, lacked motivation. His only ambition was to be a stand-up comic, but that goal was too vaguely stated and Fleck barely did anything to achieve it. Elsewhere, he didn't make active choices so much as get pinballed around the plot for 90 minutes as the script worked waaaay too hard to justify its final scenes.

- Fleck isn't interesting because of who he is as a person, but because the audience knows he'll become The Joker. This was the laziest, shallowest choice the writers could have made --- banking the movie on dramatic irony.

- The second laziest choice was to pile mental illness on the character so we immediately understand how fucked up he is --- without the pesky bother of, ya know, dramatizing any of it. The bored shrink, the 7 meds, the kooky mother, the weird laugh. I'm surprised they didn't nail him with myopia and a limp, just for the helluva it.

- The daydreams and fantasies undercut the movie elsewhere. I was never quite sure, with each new scene, whether it would turn out to be a bait-and-switch, too.

- You could remove Baetz's character entirely and it would make no difference to the story. That was the bigger problem there, not the reveal (which was dumb, yes, but it's dumb because it had no narrative weight).

- Robert DeNiro is far too heavy a presence to pass as a comedian and late night talk show host. (This is something Scorsese understood, and the heart of "King of Comedy's" main gag, but apparently something Phillips missed in his eagerness to make a cheap reference.)

- I disliked how this movie revised the character of the Joker -- and is presumably now canon -- and undercut everything good and interesting about him. They transformed him from cypher to costume (and literally!). He needn't have been a master criminal, but it would have helped if he had appeared at all competent. I wouldn't trust Arthur Fleck to successfully order his own lunch, with a menu in one hand and $20 in the other.

- Ditto for what the film said about Thomas Wayne and the Wayne family. Phillips fucked up Batman's origin story, too.

Grouchy
11-11-2019, 10:07 PM
I'm gonna do this so you can never call me a chicken again. Let's see how far we're able to take it.


- The movie had no characters. This was far and away its biggest problem. Phoenix was totally invested, but his performance was a series of fluid tics and obvious gestures. It wasn't based on anything real. Everybody else is so underwritten they can barely be talked about.
I'd argue Arthur Fleck is a well developed character all around - I'll get more into this on the next bit. The others I would take on a case-by-case basis, specially considering the whole film has a completely unreliable POV. But the Wayne family (including Alfred) is well developed for their short time on screen, just to name one example.


- Misread its main character, its references, and its themes, similar to the way Snyder misread "Watchmen." Everything played at a superficial level. Every line of dialogue was horribly on the nose.
That comparison just does not stand. Watchmen is a graphic novel with a fixed number of pages, or at least it was until DC finally stooped low enough to milk it. The Joker and Batman have been re-envisioned by what must already be thousands of writers for the better part of a century. They are not so much characters as concepts and archetypes, and many of their versions contradict one another, a point Grant Morrison expanded upon on his Batman run. A new interpretation can certainly be considered bad, but... misreading? A misreading of what?


- The story had no spine, no animating force, and Fleck, as the protagonist, lacked motivation. His only ambition was to be a stand-up comic, but that goal was too vaguely stated and Fleck barely did anything to achieve it. Elsewhere, he didn't make active choices so much as get pinballed around the plot for 90 minutes as the script worked waaaay too hard to justify its final scenes.
Whaaaaaaaat? You're right that part of his motivation is becoming a stand up comic (which besides being Killing Joke canon, fits perfectly well with his particular disability and his alienation from a common sense of humor) but that's not all of it - he later wants justice for his mother, he wants to meet his real father... If there is one thing this film and its protagonist are not in a lack of that is drive.


- Fleck isn't interesting because of who he is as a person, but because the audience knows he'll become The Joker. This was the laziest, shallowest choice the writers could have made --- banking the movie on dramatic irony.
Eh, dude, of course it's entirely subjective in a way whether you found Fleck compelling or not, but I believe any origin story for the Joker of all characters could be accused of that. You know, I went to see Batman Begins to see how he became Batman as well.


- The second laziest choice was to pile mental illness on the character so we immediately understand how fucked up he is --- without the pesky bother of, ya know, dramatizing any of it. The bored shrink, the 7 meds, the kooky mother, the weird laugh. I'm surprised they didn't nail him with myopia and a limp, just for the helluva it.

Well, he's either already crazy or he has to become crazy as in The Killing Joke, Lovers and Madmen (which is awful) and any other of the Joker's origin stories. Measuring my earlier point about the Joker being an archetype-like character, one of his constants is that the tragedies on his life drive him insane. An accumulation of personal tragedies is inherent to the story - it's OK if you found it lame, but come on, it has to be there.


- The daydreams and fantasies undercut the movie elsewhere. I was never quite sure, with each new scene, whether it would turn out to be a bait-and-switch, too.
I don't think the movie handled its unreliable narrator completely well which is one of my nitpicks with it, but this statement is still wildly hyperbolic. If I understand what you are referring to correctly, they only did it once with the romantic interest.


- You could remove Baetz's character entirely and it would make no difference to the story. That was the bigger problem there, not the reveal (which was dumb, yes, but it's dumb because it had no narrative weight).
What? Besides this being a gimmicky way to criticize a screenplay (as the common complaint against Raiders of the Lost Ark proved) it's also not true. Fleck clearly uses his fantasies about his neighbour to validate himself when none else does. She's the only one that laughs at his jokes at the comedy club, man.


- Robert DeNiro is far too heavy a presence to pass as a comedian and late night talk show host. (This is something Scorsese understood, and the heart of "King of Comedy's" main gag, but apparently something Phillips missed in his eagerness to make a cheap reference.)
I could grant you this point but I do think the casting choice also served to inform the potential cinephile viewer that Phillips aping Scorsese was not something meant to fly under their radar. Not many movies could have cast Bob De Niro just to make that point, but... there you go.


- I disliked how this movie revised the character of the Joker -- and is presumably now canon -- and undercut everything good and interesting about him. They transformed him from cypher to costume (and literally!). He needn't have been a master criminal, but it would have helped if he had appeared at all competent. I wouldn't trust Arthur Fleck to successfully order his own lunch, with a menu in one hand and $20 in the other.
I don't think Joker was meant to launch a continuity or a new canon and its creators seem to agree with me. We'll see what the money people have to say because this flick surpassed all monetary expectations. I mentioned this point that he doesn't seem like an organized loon that could eventually become a mastermind in my initial appraisal of the film, but if it's meant to be a stand-alone Elseworld, I'm down with it.


- Ditto for what the film said about Thomas Wayne and the Wayne family. Phillips fucked up Batman's origin story, too.
No, I will fight you hard on this one. Joker's take on the Wayne family is its most subversive element and I'm curious what DC editorial had to say about it. Here we have this inmensely rich hero who spends all of his time punching poor people in the face, and while many specific comics have been about him fighting rich menaces, the Wayne family is rarely accountable for any mischiefs. And the movie proposes that they are inmensely guilty for the social gap that drives Gotham City into chaos. I find that a beautiful twist and it sounds like something you'd appreciate from your fiction.

Irish
11-12-2019, 03:09 AM
- You believe Arthur to be well developed, but based on what, exactly?

- Alfred is in the movie for 1 scene and has about 3 lines. That's barely an actable part much less a character.

- Re: "Watchmen," Phillips literalizes character elements and ideas the way Snyder did. Making The Joker a literal street clown is a superficial read. It's obvious and dumb.

- Re: motivations, what you're describing happens about 1 hour into the picture, it's pure plot, rendered in a linear fashion. He goes from reading his mother's letter, to Wayne's house, to Arkham, and finally back to his mother's hospital bedside, where he kills her. Before that, what do you know about him? What do you know about him at 5 minutes into the movie that's different at 55 minutes?

- I meant mental illness is treated superficially, not that it couldn't be depicted. Phillips takes a shotgun approach; the audience learns about it all at once, in dialogue, at the beginning of the movie. The script doesn't take the opportunity to dramatize it.

- This is a mainstream studio picture. Everything in it must serve some narrative or thematic purpose. To say that Baetz's character serves no purpose, and if you removed her nobody would notice, isn't gimmicky.

- I meant to comics canon. Not the potential for movie sequels. I very strongly suspect the movie will influence the comics one way or another.

- "Immensely rich hero punching poor people in the face" is an interested read on Batman, but I'm not sure it's accurate to describe him that way, especially not based on media outside the comics -- tv shows, cartoons, movies, etc. Changing Thomas Wayne they way they did means an implied change to his relationship to Bruce, and that change would impact the way Bruce saw the world. This in turn would influence the way "Batman" manifested in Bruce's imagination.

Mal
11-17-2019, 10:33 PM
This is probably one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in a movie- a terrible takeoff of something like American Psycho awash in Batman references in Gotham. Sucking in your gut, flexing, and dancing his way through this movie, Joaquin isn’t doing much other than the former attributes. This movie has serious white supremacy optics with a majority of the black characters and Arthur’s inability to control them- even pointing a gun at the tv when black singers are performing. Tonally this could have been worse but at the same time, the score felt like it wavered between scolding this despicable loser and making him the hero the end of the film seems satisfied to deem him despite his mental illness where he just wants to kill people (good god I can’t imagine how offensive and hurtful this is to some). I’m pretty sure I’ll live a happy life if I never have to see Bruce Wayne’s parents ever die on screen for the thousandth time. Rubbish. It looked ok but goodness is Todd Phillips an asshole I hope I never meet.

Grouchy
11-19-2019, 02:33 PM
This movie has serious white supremacy optics with a majority of the black characters and Arthur’s inability to control them- even pointing a gun at the tv when black singers are performing.
I must confess I hadn't considered any racial aspects to Joaquin's anger (at least not in the way Taxi Driver clearly has them) but, I don't understand... how is this a flaw in the movie? If you think Fleck's optic has race problems, well OK, but why would that be a problem for the movie?


despite his mental illness where he just wants to kill people (good god I can’t imagine how offensive and hurtful this is to some)
Your phrasing was convoluted so I'm not sure I caught your meaning, but... what the hell? The movie is set and produced in the United States, home of the deranged mass murdered with no access to proper public mental health.

TGM
11-19-2019, 03:47 PM
I must confess I hadn't considered any racial aspects to Joaquin's anger

That’s probably because they aren’t actually there, and that’s a ridiculous stretch to take away from this film.


Tonally this could have been worse but at the same time, the score felt like it wavered between scolding this despicable loser and making him the hero the end of the film seems satisfied to deem him despite his mental illness where he just wants to kill people (good god I can’t imagine how offensive and hurtful this is to some).

He is the hero, in his own head. So, him being depicted as the hero of this film is appropriate in that regard.

Also, anyone ridiculous enough to take offense by that aspect should perhaps be reminded that they are in fact still watching a comic book movie about the comic book supervillain The Joker. The movie is a glimpse into the mind of evil incarnate. Literally the only thing keeping his evil nature at bay is being numbed out on medication, but as soon as his access goes away, his true nature is free to come out, and only then is he finally happy. This is not a statement that people with mental illness are inherently bad. It’s that this specific person with mental illness, aka the fucking Joker, the guy whose name is in the title, and arguably the most famous and instantly recognizable fictional bad guys in pop culture today, yeah, THIS guy, is inherently bad. That just kinda comes with the territory when it comes to this character. You know, being super evil and laughing about it is sorta this character’s thing.

Seriously, are people really going into this thing somehow expecting that the Joker DOESN’T turn bad??

Pop Trash
11-19-2019, 04:28 PM
Aren't the attacks on Arthur multi racial? And even if he does have "race issues" (and I think that's a bit of a stretch) wouldn't that make his character -and consequently the film- more interesting and multi layered?

Skitch
11-19-2019, 04:36 PM
I have heard the comment before that Arthur's let down or ruined by non-whites. I guess I wouldn't argue people that feel that way, but I didnt see that way. Hell, I saw it as white people being the real ones that fail him. If the argument was HE sees it as ethnic people failing him, I could see that from his messed up POV. But that was not the reality presented in the film.

Grouchy
11-19-2019, 04:47 PM
Wouldn't the Wayne family be the whitest thing there is from a historical standpoint?

TGM
11-19-2019, 04:58 PM
I have heard the comment before that Arthur's let down or ruined by non-whites. I guess I wouldn't argue people that feel that way, but I didnt see that way. Hell, I saw it as white people being the real ones that fail him. If the argument was HE sees it as ethnic people failing him, I could see that from his messed up POV. But that was not the reality presented in the film.

Exactly this.

Skitch
11-19-2019, 05:10 PM
Wouldn't the Wayne family be the whitest thing there is from a historical standpoint?

Yes. Old white money and guilt is the basis of Batman.

MadMan
11-19-2019, 06:12 PM
I thought this was great and yes I got most of the references. It does make me want to watch Taxi Driver again (I still have my copy) and my favorite part was the subway chase-very French Connection.

Phoenix doesn't match Ledger's Joker but I didn't want him to do that anyways. His Joker is a mix of pitty, insanity and a pathetic desire to matter in a world that doesn't care if he exists. To me it's The Joker before he became this unstoppable force of psychotic mayhem. Also Incels are dumb as shit if they worship this guy, but hey expecting them to get the message at this point is foolish.

Mal
11-21-2019, 06:04 AM
I must confess I hadn't considered any racial aspects to Joaquin's anger (at least not in the way Taxi Driver clearly has them) but, I don't understand... how is this a flaw in the movie? If you think Fleck's optic has race problems, well OK, but why would that be a problem for the movie? I don't think Philips was aware he was actually portraying Arthur's privilege in the movie with these characters? Sure, the gun pointing at the black singers on tv, that was the red flag for me and definitely did set me up to view the film this way. Just made me flash right back to numerous times in other movies when a man holds a gun up to someone without their knowledge because he's feeling out his power and potential. It'd be a different discussion if this movie decided to to investigate these notions further, like the films this is imitating. Compare this also with the Joker of Ledger and Nicholson- figures who are intriguing, captivating, and properly horrifying in their bad guy portraits. None of that can be said of Phoenix's Arthur and not even Phillips gives him a chance to be an impactful, menacing figure who came from something, anything other than underdeveloped mopey lonerism now emboldened by bullets. There'd better be one hell of a glow-up if I'm to believe that is the same Joker to actually take on Batman someday, because he's not going to survive more than a week in Arkham without solitary and that gun.



Your phrasing was convoluted so I'm not sure I caught your meaning, but... what the hell? The movie is set and produced in the United States, home of the deranged mass murdered with no access to proper public mental health.
I believe the stat may be that 1 in 4 people have mental illness in the US, though I doubt anyone would like to be characterized as able to just shoot someone who gets them angry the second they go off their meds and are handed a gun.



Seriously, are people really going into this thing somehow expecting that the Joker DOESN’T turn bad??

To be honest, I wasn't expecting a 2-hour cinematic sad trombone. Bad can be fun. This wasn't it.

Grouchy
11-21-2019, 04:32 PM
I don't think Philips was aware he was actually portraying Arthur's privilege in the movie with these characters? Sure, the gun pointing at the black singers on tv, that was the red flag for me and definitely did set me up to view the film this way. Just made me flash right back to numerous times in other movies when a man holds a gun up to someone without their knowledge because he's feeling out his power and potential. It'd be a different discussion if this movie decided to to investigate these notions further, like the films this is imitating.
As a viewer, I wasn't aware of this either - this racial reading is entirely yours to back up. I remember the "pointing the gun at the TV" shot, I just took it as another visual link to Taxi Driver. I'm not sure what you mean by "Fleck's privilege". Are you simply saying that he's white in a roundabout way?


Compare this also with the Joker of Ledger and Nicholson- figures who are intriguing, captivating, and properly horrifying in their bad guy portraits. None of that can be said of Phoenix's Arthur and not even Phillips gives him a chance to be an impactful, menacing figure who came from something, anything other than underdeveloped mopey lonerism now emboldened by bullets. There'd better be one hell of a glow-up if I'm to believe that is the same Joker to actually take on Batman someday, because he's not going to survive more than a week in Arkham without solitary and that gun.
Like I said before, I consider this movie an Elseworlds and therefore I'm willing to accept that the Joker is portrayed as a disturbed individual who is less than a master criminal. Regardless, in the inevitable Joker comparison I think this one is better than Nicholson's and at least as good as Ledger's - the difference being that here he's the protagonist instead of an antagonist and is treated as such.


I believe the stat may be that 1 in 4 people have mental illness in the US, though I doubt anyone would like to be characterized as able to just shoot someone who gets them angry the second they go off their meds and are handed a gun.
That's... a crazy stat. Damn. I'd focus on lowering that instead of blaming and name-calling film directors. I still don't understand the problem with the film, though. Are you saying it's unlikely or unheard of for US citizens to turn to guns when the mental health system fails them?

Grouchy
11-21-2019, 07:58 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjdG5f5OGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjdG5f5OGg

Pop Trash
11-22-2019, 08:24 PM
That's... a crazy stat. Damn. I'd focus on lowering that instead of blaming and name-calling film directors. I still don't understand the problem with the film, though. Are you saying it's unlikely or unheard of for US citizens to turn to guns when the mental health system fails them?

I think (s?)he's saying that in the context of the movie he moves a bit fast from mentally unhealthy but contained to going off his meds to getting a gun and shooting someone. I guess you could say it's a bit contrived but again a) Travis Bickle's descent into homicide or (at first) attempted homicide happens pretty fast in the two hours or so of Taxi Driver and b) no matter how "realistic" this movie is (read: not realism) it still very much has comic book trappings and that a to b to c quick moving structure seems very comic book to me. One of the more fascinating things about this is the push and pull between "realist" '70s gritty movie (and those films were never as "real" as people think either) and the heightened "unreal" comic book trappings.

Grouchy
11-22-2019, 08:36 PM
I think a case could be made for that (like Travis, he also claims his first victims pretty early in the movie), it's true, but I think to take it as a broad commentary on real-life mental illness is, yeah, forgetting it's still a movie about the Joker. Taxi Driver might have seemed "realistic" in a way at the time, because it showed things that didn't usually appear on screen like porn theaters and underage prostitution, but watched today it's nearly surreal in nature.

Irish
11-23-2019, 05:32 AM
I think (s?)he's saying that in the context of the movie he moves a bit fast from mentally unhealthy but contained to going off his meds to getting a gun and shooting someone.

No, it's the entire depiction of mentally ill people as potentially dangerous. This is a recurring trope in movies and television, like fridging, black dude dies first, or bury your gays. ZE's making a pretty straight forward complaint. Once you recognize the trope, you see it everywhere because it is everywhere and holy shit is it tiresome.


a) Travis Bickle's descent into homicide or (at first) attempted homicide happens pretty fast in the two hours or so of Taxi Driver

What? "Taxi Driver" uses violence in a limited way, as an provocation and a dramatic exclamation point. The first bout of real violence doesn't happen until an hour into the movie, and it's a relatively positive view of violence. (Travis stops a liquor store robbery.)

Meanwhile, "Joker" starts with violence. Two minutes in and a buncha kids are beating the hell out of Arthur in an alleyway. Philips then employs a Bernie-Goetz-style subway shooting as his first act climax (at about the 30 minute mark).

TGM
11-23-2019, 01:51 PM
...

I feel like this conversation moved forward with everyone having completely skipped my previous post...

Grouchy
11-23-2019, 04:38 PM
No, it's the entire depiction of mentally ill people as potentially dangerous. This is a recurring trope in movies and television, like fridging, black dude dies first, or bury your gays. ZE's making a pretty straight forward complaint. Once you recognize the trope, you see it everywhere because it is everywhere and holy shit is it tiresome.
Huh... What the hell? Mentally ill people are potentially dangerous. Not all of them, of course, but... why is this even up for discussion?

Irish
11-23-2019, 05:08 PM
Huh... What the hell? Mentally ill people are potentially dangerous.

No, they're not.

From literally 10 seconds of googling:

- The stigma of schizophrenia (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127555/) (Feb 2000). The main complaint from the mental health campaigners was that the media presented mentally ill people as dangerous time bombs waiting to explode, when the reality was quite different. They pointed out that 95% of homicides were committed by people with no mental illness and that mentally ill people were far more likely to harm themselves than others. Sue Baker, head of media relations at Mind, said: “Research published in January 1999 in the British Journal of Psychiatry showed that the proportion of homicides committed by people with mental illness has gone down by 3% a year since 1957. Yet this research was ignored by almost all the newspapers, with the exception of the Guardian.”

- The stigma of mental disorders (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5007563/) (Sept 2016). An important contributor to falsely applied stereotypes is the mass media. Media coverage of mental illnesses has been consistently and overwhelmingly negative and imprecise. Television news and entertainment programs, films and newspapers play a central role in disseminating biased information surrounding mental illness and strengthen negative stereotypes. Sensationalist reports of violence and crimes committed by individuals with these disorders receive much more attention than similar crimes committed by mentally healthy persons. This crystallizes a biased image of patients with mental disorders as threatening persons who endanger society.

- Media and mental health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198586/) (Jan 2018). Unfortunately, the media consistently portrays persons with mental illness as violent, murderous, unpredictable and have themselves to blame for their condition, are gross exaggerations and misrepresentations of reality and completely untrue. This has resulted in the belief in the general population that persons with psychiatric disorders are uncontrollable and dangerous and should be feared and avoided. Research has shown that negative views of individuals with mental illness are directly proportional to the time spent in watching television. Regular viewers hold more negative views compared to those who watch television for very short period.


why is this even up for discussion?

Probably because you're so completely ignorant.

Grouchy
11-23-2019, 05:25 PM
Well, thank you for the data, but Joker is made on the shadow of the small percentage of mentally ill people who turn out to be dangerous for others, one of which shot up a theater showing a Batman movie not so long ago. It's the movie's prerrogative that its protagonist will become dangerous, because... it's a damn Joker movie. It can't be the fucking Care Bears feature film.

Irish
11-23-2019, 05:46 PM
Nobody said it had to be a "Care Bears" film. (Jesus, strawman much?)

We were talking about the artless and unnecessary propagation of socially harmful and narratively boring stereotypes.

Your argument might have some juice outside Gotham, btw, a place where several notable villains are judged insane and sentenced to Arkham but have mentally healthy backstories. Eg: The Joker, Two Face, Poison Ivy, etc.

Pop Trash
11-24-2019, 06:53 PM
Reading Joker discourse is like watching Dems vs. GOP talk about Trump's impeachment. It's like everyone is living in their own manufactured reality. Also, strange people would get irate about the "realistic" portrayal of mental illness in a flippin' Joker movie but here we are. The Punisher is also a heightened, not very realistic portrayal of vigilanteism for those keeping track. Oh and if a cop gets shot up in the field you probably couldn't turn him into a robot either.

Irish
11-24-2019, 08:31 PM
Ooof. That's a terrible argument and badly stated to boot.

Even if you think the criticism isn't warranted, how do you get to "bUt iT's a CoMIc bOoK moViE!" as a defense?

TGM
11-24-2019, 08:39 PM
Ooof. That's a terrible argument and badly stated to boot.

Even if you think the criticism isn't warranted, how do you get to "bUt iT's a CoMIc bOoK moViE!" as a defense?

Because... it... is?? >_>

Ezee E
11-24-2019, 08:53 PM
Because... it... is?? >_>

Guess we're too used to the amusement park films :cool:

Irish
11-24-2019, 08:59 PM
Because... it... is?? >_>

Sure, but what does that mean to you? That we should grade "Joker" on a curve? That we should ignore its shittier elements because it's fantasy?

I usually wouldn't bother but Philips is absolutely begging for his film to be viewed as dramatic fiction and high art. Since he wants to roll around with the big boys, he should be open to big boy criticism, and about everything in the movie.

So should you, frankly.

TGM
11-24-2019, 09:20 PM
Sure, but what does that mean to you? That we should grade "Joker" on a curve? That we should ignore its shittier elements because it's fantasy?

I usually wouldn't bother but Philips is absolutely begging for his film to be viewed as dramatic fiction and high art. Since he wants to roll around with the big boys, he should be open to big boy criticism, and about everything in the movie.

So should you, frankly.

No, we don't need to grade it on a curve. But we should grade it based on the content in the film, and not our own personal head-canon (a growing trend I'm noticing more and more often with a lot of online film discussion these days, which is only making this whole hobby of discussing movies with fellow cinema buffs online more and more exhausting to continue to take part in, but alas...).

What is the film? Literally, as I described on the previous page, and which proceeded to go completely ignored by everyone, this is a comic book movie about the comic book supervillain The Joker. It's a glimpse into the mind of evil incarnate. This movie isn't making a statement that people with mental illness are inherently bad. It’s that this specific person with mental illness, the Joker, arguably the most famous and instantly recognizable fictional bad guys in pop culture today, this guy is inherently bad. Literally the only thing keeping his evil nature at bay is being numbed out on medication, but as soon as his access goes away, his true nature is free to come out, and only then is he finally able to find some semblance of happiness in his life. And anybody watching this movie thinking that it's saying all mentally ill people are like this seriously might need to just be pointed at the title of the movie again to be reminded of what it is that they're watching, a comic book film about a comic book villain. It's not intended to be realistic. And hell, most of the movie itself arguably takes place in the character's head anyways, meaning a lot of it isn't intended to be taken as literal either.

We can criticize the movie for being a rallying cry for incels, or being a white supremacist propaganda piece, or all other manner of horseshit that's just not even the slightest bit supported by the actual content in the film. And we can also criticize the movie for trying to say that all mentally ill people are inherently bad, even though, again, that's not actually the case here at all. Or instead, rather than just making up a bunch of bullshit in order to unfairly label this movie as "problematic", we can instead judge it for what it actually is, that being a character study on a very specific and very popular cultural icon of a villain, diving into his head and seeing what makes this very specific character tick.

I personally think it's an interesting subject matter to watch, as do plenty of other people as well. That doesn't mean that you have to personally like it, but lets at least be fair with our criticisms against it.

Irish
11-24-2019, 09:45 PM
Your read can excuse --- a little too conveniently for you, I think --- just about any media stereotype out there, on the basis that they're always about a specific individual and not meant to represent a group or implicitly say anything to the audience.

If The Joker is "inherently bad" and "evil incarnate" then how did "The Killing Joke," a 35 year old comic book, present his backstory in a completely different way than Philips did?

And again (ugh): The read is about mentally illness as a indicator of potential violence.

I don't know what you meant by "head cannon" or how it relates to this discussion.


It's not intended to be realistic.

The film leans hard towards realism and in all its elements. You talk as if it's in the same league as a CW show.


but lets at least be fair with our criticisms against it

Oh, but we are. That you're choking on it isn't a problem with the criticism itself.

TGM
11-24-2019, 10:16 PM
Your read can excuse --- a little too conveniently for you, I think --- just about any media stereotype out there, on the basis that they're always about a specific individual and not meant to represent a group or implicitly say anything to the audience.

And your read can quite conveniently label the movie as being somehow harmful, regardless of whether or not that happens to even be the movie's intent.


If The Joker is "inherently bad" and "evil incarnate" then how did "The Killing Joke," a 35 year old comic book, present his backstory in a completely different way than Philips did?

The Killing Joke also ends with the Joker saying something along the lines of liking to remember his backstory being one way, and sometimes another, and that if he's going to have an origin, he'd prefer it to be multiple choice. This was played up in The Dark Knight with him giving different backstories throughout the movie, and it's played up again in this movie in various instances where we explicitly see him remembering certain scenes one way, and then later on a completely different way. So, it's still consistent even with The Killing Joke in that regard.


And again (ugh): The read is about mentally illness as a indicator of potential violence.

Add it to my laundry list of things the movie isn't actually about then. The point remains unchanged.


I don't know what you meant by "head cannon" or how it relates to this discussion.

I mean people seeing the movie and seemingly making shit up about it just to justify hating it even more than they already do. Like Zac Efron seeing white supremacy, when there is none. And it's not just exclusive to this movie. Years back, some wanted to accuse La La Land of being racist in order to add fuel to their criticisms of the movie, despite no actual racism existing in the movie. Some wanted to accuse Bohemian Rhapsody of completely excluding Freddie Mercury's sexuality and heritage and criticize the movie for this, even though the movie heavily features these elements. Earlier this year, some accused OUATIH of being misogynist, despite no actual instances of misogyny existing in the film, just because people needed a reason to shit on it. And here, well, we've got all the various things people are accusing this movie of being, of which it isn't actually any of those things. And hell, I recall earlier this year as well when you wanted to dock points against Avengers: Endgame for supposedly being a MAGA film, despite the fact that that take couldn't be further from what that movie's aims were.

It's one thing to criticize a movie based on the actual content on display on the film. It's another thing to watch a movie and see things that aren't even there, and hold these things against the movie. Hence, head-canon, canon that only exists within our head, but which only confuses everyone else in the conversation who saw the movie, because none of the shit being described was actually in the movie. It just reeks of desperation, of just trying to make a movie appear to be so much worse than it actually is, by criticizing it for things that aren't actually there.


The film leans hard towards realism and in all its elements. You talk as if it's in the same league as a CW show.

It also leans hard on a lot of it taking place in his head. A lot of what's being shown on screen is the Joker's fantasy.


Oh, but we are. That you're choking on it isn't a problem with the criticism itself.

We're not, though. Or, at least, some of us aren't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Irish
11-24-2019, 11:20 PM
Intent doesn't have much to do with it.

You're using the potential for ambiguity in this particular film (of which there's almost none) to shield it from criticism.

I find your laundry list to be too literal. You seem to believe that if something isn't explicitly stated in dialogue or action, or that if you miss a pattern or theme, then it can't exist in the film and other people are "making shit up." You don't really want a discussion. You want dictation, and on your terms.

A big part of film criticism --- and any discussion around it --- is interpretation. But you're wholly rejecting any interpretation of "Joker" that isn't unreserved praise.

Like, even if we dismiss the idea of harmful media stereotypes -- which is more than a little ignorant, but whatever -- Phillips' writing it is still terrible, because it's heavily based on very lazy exposition and not action. This is fundamental. The movie fails on a basic "show don't tell" level.

PS: The implication of Joker's "multiple choice" crack in "The Killing Joke" was that his past was too painful for him to recall, so he intentionally dodges it. There's nothing in the comic's structure that implies his backstory is fabricated. In fact, the idea that it might be contradicts the premise --- which is that he was healthy until he had "one bad day." If Moore presents the character that way, and it's a valid and authentic presentation, then how is The Joker is "inherently bad" and "evil incarnate"? Why did Phillips go to such extremes when presenting him as mentally ill, and why did he do it in such a hacky way?

TGM
11-24-2019, 11:34 PM
Intent doesn't have much to do with it.

You're using the potential for ambiguity in this particular film (of which there's almost none) to shield it from criticism.

No, by all means, be critical. I just think we should be critical of the film for what it is, and not for what it's not.


I find your laundry list to be too literal. You seem to believe that if something isn't explicitly stated in dialogue or action, or that if you miss a pattern or theme, then it can't exist in the film and other people are "making shit up." You don't really want a discussion. You want dictation, and on your terms.

If you want to label a movie as bad, then fine. My issue is with labeling the movie as being some sort of danger to society that people need to be shielded from. Just because a movie is about an evil subject matter doesn't mean that the movie itself is also evil. Yet, that's how it's being treated in this thread.


A big part of film criticism --- and any discussion around it --- is interpretation. But you're wholly rejecting any interpretation of "Joker" that isn't unreserved praise.

Absolutely not. Your initial criticisms some pages back were almost all in regards to the film purely from a technical level. I disagree with those opinions, but I recognize them as being valid points worth bringing up.


Like, even if we dismiss the idea of harmful media stereotypes -- which is more than a little ignorant, but whatever -- Phillips' writing it is still terrible, because it's heavily based on very lazy exposition and not action. This is fundamental. The movie fails on a basic "show don't tell" level.

Sure, I can see where you're coming from there. I don't personally feel that way, but that's fine.


PS: The implication of Joker's "multiple choice" crack in "The Killing Joke" was that his past was too painful for him to recall, so he intentionally dodges it. There's nothing in the comic's structure that implies his backstory is fabricated. In fact, the idea that it might be contradicts the premise --- which is that he was healthy until he had "one bad day." If Moore presents the character that way, and it's a valid and authentic presentation, then how is The Joker is "inherently bad" and "evil incarnate"? Why did Phillips go to such extremes when presenting him as mentally ill, and why did he do it in such a hacky way?

The Joker is Arthur's mental illness in this movie. His laughing tic always kicks in at incredibly inappropriate times, because that's his inner Joker trying to get out, which he spends a good portion of the movie trying to bury away inside of himself through medication and counseling. He only stops fighting those laughs after he stops taking his meds and the Joker is truly able to come out and become one with him, and we see him reveling in the chaos taking place all around him.

Pop Trash
11-24-2019, 11:37 PM
I believe you can be a failure of a system that doesn't take care of you and you can be a homicidal maniac. These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Grouchy
11-25-2019, 12:07 AM
The Killing Joke actually functions as a blueprint for this movie in many ways. And I kind of agree that Phillips could have been a lot subtler in his writing and I said as much when I first watched it. But that's not the same as saying he's making a broad statement about mental illness or accusing him of being a bad person based on his work. That's what I take issue with.

Irish
11-25-2019, 12:21 AM
If you want to label a movie as bad, then fine. My issue is with labeling the movie as being some sort of danger to society that people need to be shielded from. Just because a movie is about an evil subject matter doesn't mean that the movie itself is also evil. Yet, that's how it's being treated in this thread.

Yeah, what? Nobody labeled the movie as a "danger to society" or called it "evil."


Absolutely not. Your initial criticisms some pages back were almost all in regards to the film purely from a technical level. I disagree with those opinions, but I recognize them as being valid points worth bringing up.

Yeah. Technical arguments are fine but to limit yourself to them is too narrow a view for me. It's only half of what criticism is, or should be.

Eg: When Pauline Kael called "Dirty Harry" a "deeply immoral movie" or Gene Siskel referred to the director of "Friday the 13th" as a "despicable creature," they weren't making technical arguments.

You buck wildly at any argument that doesn't fit comfortably in your worldview, dismiss it out of hand, and accuse the people making those arguments of bad faith. I don't understand it, especially because doing this leaves no room for actual discussion.

I honestly can't think of anything else to say to you.


accusing him of being a bad person based on his work. That's what I take issue with.

Yeah. Nobody made this argument either.

Grouchy
11-25-2019, 12:40 AM
Yeah. Nobody made this argument either.


It looked ok but goodness is Todd Phillips an asshole I hope I never meet.

I agree that the script could have been subtler. I disagree that this film is somehow a menace to society, and I'm aware that's not the argument you were making.

[ETM]
11-25-2019, 03:03 PM
TGM, I find it amusing that you accuse critics of the movie for inventing "head canon" instead of going off of what's on the screen, and then you start the next sentence with: "this is a comic book movie about the criminal mastermind The Joker", none of which (except the name) is actually "on screen". One of my biggest disappointments was precisely the fact that so much of the movie relies on preconceptions and comic book canon.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

TGM
11-25-2019, 03:16 PM
I didn’t actually say “criminal mastermind” though, because as has been brought up, that particular aspect indeed isn’t on display in the film.

And sure, I can see that as a valid complaint against the movie, that you felt it relied too heavily on preconceived notions of the character. I didn’t personally feel that way watching it, as I felt it did a good enough job painting this interpretation in an understandable manner that works well enough without prior knowledge and stands on its own, but I can at least see where you can come away with that take.

Dukefrukem
12-18-2019, 01:39 AM
I really enjoyed the mild-mannered transformation to ranting psychopath, but I wish the fantasy reveal was held back more towards the climax. It's clear watching from the beginning that Arthur has mental problems and he's been battling them for a long time, but Arthur doesn't really have much room to grow- he goes from having mental problems, to more severe mental problems to which ultimately when the stars align he's crowned Joker. If the fantasy reveal was held back more, the climax would have hit harder and have had a much more damning impact on the chaos that resulted. Without it, we are just waiting for the inevitable.

1. Health Ledger
2. Jack Nicholson
3. Joaquin Phoenix
4. Jared Leto

Dukefrukem
12-18-2019, 01:43 AM
I'd argue Arthur Fleck is a well developed character all around - I'll get more into this on the next bit. The others I would take on a case-by-case basis, specially considering the whole film has a completely unreliable POV. But the Wayne family (including Alfred) is well developed for their short time on screen, just to name one example.


Yikes, no way. Not by a long-shot for what I mentioned above. The mental problems that's shown throughout weigh down the inevitable- There's barely an arch for Arthur and that's the biggest problem with the film. Unless of course you're already expecting the climax going into the movie and you're satisfied with how predicable it became.

Dukefrukem
12-18-2019, 01:48 AM
Also I can't believe they put that Bruce Wayne scene in the movie.

Ezee E
12-18-2019, 02:56 AM
Also I can't believe they put that Bruce Wayne scene in the movie.

Why?

Dukefrukem
12-18-2019, 02:59 AM
Why?

It's like WB couldn't help themselves.... it reeks of desperation. Doesn't feel like a Phillips decision.

Skitch
12-18-2019, 06:21 AM
It's like WB couldn't help themselves.... it reeks of desperation. Doesn't feel like a Phillips decision.

Specifically not engaging in your other criticisms because, okay...I can see how some may feel that way. I have no argument with anyone feeling that way.

But this? Huh, what?

TGM
12-18-2019, 10:56 AM
I’m assuming Duke’s referring to the Wayne murders?

Dukefrukem
12-18-2019, 11:47 AM
I’m assuming Duke’s referring to the Wayne murders?

I am

MadMan
12-20-2019, 03:54 AM
I really enjoyed the mild-mannered transformation to ranting psychopath, but I wish the fantasy reveal was held back more towards the climax. It's clear watching from the beginning that Arthur has mental problems and he's been battling them for a long time, but Arthur doesn't really have much room to grow- he goes from having mental problems, to more severe mental problems to which ultimately when the stars align he's crowned Joker. If the fantasy reveal was held back more, the climax would have hit harder and have had a much more damning impact on the chaos that resulted. Without it, we are just waiting for the inevitable.

1. Health Ledger
2. Jack Nicholson
3. Joaquin Phoenix
4. Jared Leto

1. Mark Hamill
2. Health Ledger
3. Joaquin Phoenix
4. Cesar Romero
5. Jack Nicholson










.....negative 5k: Jared Leto. Romero and Phoenix are close. Nicholson was fun in the part but he was literally playing himself. Leto was bad. So bad.

TGM
01-31-2020, 07:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od8uTiKPapo&feature=emb_title

Liked what he had to say about the movie, and his response towards a lot of the reactions it's garnered.

Irish
02-01-2020, 12:11 AM
https://i.imgur.com/qD8pz80.png

oh yeah this guy seems legit

"but i'm not mad"

*posts a 30 minute youtube vid about a 4 minute SNL skit*

TGM
02-01-2020, 12:51 AM
It was about more than just the SNL skit, but okay. Just ‘cause that may have been the catalyst that inspired him to make the video doesn’t itself discredit all of the great points brought up in that video.

Irish
02-01-2020, 01:24 AM
Nah, the dude is a straight up shithead and a clown (haha, get it?).

1 minute into this video he shows himself: "We discussed how the mainstream media was trying to control the narrative around the film, pointing fingers at groups like incels, saying they would end up identifying with the film. And in the end that ended up being a self-fulfilled prophecy because the only reason incels ended up identifying with the film is because the media treats them like outsiders."

lol, say what?

Besides that, he's attempting media criticism (a) without acknowledging that "Joker" is a multi-million dollar piece of mass media produced by a billion dollar conglomerate and (b) so is SNL and (c) without any semblance of self-awareness, ie: how absolutely stupid he looks dressed up as the character while sitting on a set surrounded by pieces of armor and long swords while (d) actually employing constructions such as "the liberal mainstream media" unironically.

I mean, Jesus, c'mon. Watch whatever you want but does it have to be this have to be this guy?

TGM
02-01-2020, 01:29 AM
I actually don’t follow the guy, someone I follow recommended it, so I gave it a watch, and thought he brought up good points. So I shared it. *shrug*

Skitch
02-01-2020, 01:32 AM
oh yeah this guy seems legit

"but i'm not mad"

*posts a 30 minute youtube vid about a 4 minute SNL skit*

I haven't seen the SNL skit or the posted vid, but I'm with you Irish. I legitimately lost my shit when I googled for info about the new Riddick movie and got this article: The ‘Riddick 4’ Script is Done, Just in Case Anyone Other Than Vin Diesel Wants to See It (https://www.slashfilm.com/riddick-4-script/).

GEEEEEEEET FUUUUUUUUUCKED. Your troll ass cared enough to write a whole article on the shit for clicks, you fucking cunt. Don't even know whats in the article, hell maybe he loves the Riddick movies, but the headline infuriated me. You know what I do when I see a sequel is being made to a movie I hated? Nothing. I shrug and move on looking for stuff I care about. That is imo literally the lowest scum on the internet; trash humans jumping on any story to be the most impressed with themselves to shit on it. Garbage people.

TGM
02-01-2020, 01:36 AM
I’m down for more Riddick... >.>

Irish
02-01-2020, 01:55 AM
I actually don’t follow the guy, someone I follow recommended it, so I gave it a watch, and thought he brought up good points. So I shared it. *shrug*

I guess my question is better phrased as: "Why are you watching and sharing movie videos from alt-right shitheads?"

TGM
02-01-2020, 02:00 AM
Uh, k. Not sure how someone can watch that video and in any way come out with the opinion that the dude or any of his points can be considered alt-right. Not unironically anyways. :\

Irish
02-01-2020, 02:04 AM
https://i.imgur.com/TRGLe8c.jpg

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

how is this guy real

Irish
02-01-2020, 02:12 AM
Uh, k. Not sure how someone can watch that video and in any way come out with the opinion that the dude or any of his points can be considered alt-right. Not unironically anyways. :\

Mostly from his other videos, where he describes himself as a "centrist" (wink wink) and an "anti-SJW."

Also, from this vid: Really dig the point, around 20 minutes in, where he starts using "black people" interchangeably with "poor people."

Based on his other potato-brain positions, he would likely bristle at anyone who pointed out how fucked up and condescending that is, and wouldn't understand the basic contradiction of this take in a video that's ostensibly about media criticism.

ETA: also big lol at the self-proclaimed anti-establishment guy who says shit like "black people are over represented in the prison system because they're not being set up to succeed."

Irish
02-01-2020, 02:16 AM
I haven't seen the SNL skit or the posted vid, but I'm with you Irish. I legitimately lost my shit when I googled for info about the new Riddick movie and got this article: The ‘Riddick 4’ Script is Done, Just in Case Anyone Other Than Vin Diesel Wants to See It (https://www.slashfilm.com/riddick-4-script/).

GEEEEEEEET FUUUUUUUUUCKED. Your troll ass cared enough to write a whole article on the shit for clicks, you fucking cunt. Don't even know whats in the article, hell maybe he loves the Riddick movies, but the headline infuriated me. You know what I do when I see a sequel is being made to a movie I hated? Nothing. I shrug and move on looking for stuff I care about. That is imo literally the lowest scum on the internet; trash humans jumping on any story to be the most impressed with themselves to shit on it. Garbage people.

Near as I can tell, there's an entire subculture on youtube (and grifters making bank) around this sorta thing.

It's bizarre in and of itself, but double so because these people spend an inordinate amount of time doing reaction vids and shit talking one another, always speaking as if they're big celebrities and pro athletes.

Dukefrukem
02-01-2020, 02:25 AM
I'd like to go on record that I absolutely want another Riddick movie.

Peng
02-01-2020, 02:43 AM
He's the defender that this film deserves, I guess. (I'm mixed leaning mildly positive on it, but many of the champions, even on sensible film forums, give off strong flashbacks to some Zack Snyder fans)

TGM
02-01-2020, 02:54 AM
Mostly from his other videos, where he describes himself as a "centrist" (wink wink) and an "anti-SJW."

Also, from this vid: Really dig the point, around 20 minutes in, where he starts using "black people" interchangeably with "poor people."

Based on his other potato-brain positions, he would likely bristle at anyone who pointed out how fucked up and condescending that is, and wouldn't understand the basic contradiction of this take in a video that's ostensibly about media criticism.

*sigh* Just because someone’s politics don’t exactly align with yours doesn’t make them “alt-right”. And that’s just a gross take to have in general.

I used to publicly identify myself as a centrist, before such a position inexplicably became associated with being “alt-right”. Because god forbid someone hold views on a case by case basis and listens to multiple arguments and doesn’t strictly adhere to party lines. And hell, I think you’ll also find plenty of people on this very board who are also openly critical of SJW sensibilities. So are we all also alt-right too in your mind?

But really, that all feels quite besides the point, any point that was attempting to be made, and is little more than a deflection in place of an actual counter-point.

As to your second point, I think it’s pretty clear that that’s not what he’s doing there. He brings up black people, because he’s making the point that all anyone is seeing with the Joker character in this film is his skin color, and not this character’s circumstances. So he brings up black people as a means of still being able to make all the same points he’s trying to drive home, except now maybe people will listen because he’s speaking about a minority populace, as opposed to white people. Because for some reason that apparently matters to certain people.

But it’s relevant for him to bring up because lot of the points that he mentions in this video have to do with the societal issues brought up in the movie, and uses the fact that these same issues also effect some black people as a means to further illustrate his point. He’s not saying that all black people are poor, or using black people as interchangeable for poor people. Hell, he even mentions earlier in the video how he himself grew up poor. But at least this all felt pretty evident to me while watching.

TGM
02-01-2020, 02:55 AM
He's the defender that this film deserves, I guess. (I'm mixed leaning mildly positive on it, but many of the champions, even on sensible film forums, give off strong flashbacks to some Zack Snyder fans)

*is also a Zack Snyder fan* >.>

<.<

Irish
02-01-2020, 03:27 AM
*sigh* Just because someone’s politics don’t exactly align with yours doesn’t make them “alt-right”. And that’s just a gross take to have in general.

I'm basing my view on what this dude actually says and how he says it. He's much further right than he claims to be on air.

More than that, his own fans say he's adjacent to people like Sargon and Thunderfoot --- whackjobs who are 10 seconds away from flashing a #Gamergate hashtag and shouting "GAMERS RISE UP!"

All these dudes are stew from the same vicious pot. They're all awful. They're all dumb. They all have a literal understanding of rhetoric and a third graders grasp their pet issue.


But really, that all feels quite besides the point, any point that was attempting to be made, and is little more than a deflection in place of an actual counter-point.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but my point is: Stop posting right-wing trash from YouTube.

If you wanna talk about "Joker" as a form of media criticism, then that would be interesting and we can have a conversation about it.

But don't use these noxious dickheads as your proxy, and spread their shit as if their warped viewpoints are the conventional one.


He’s not saying that all black people are poor, or using black people as interchangeable for poor people.

Yeah. You don't get it either.

By using the phrases interchangeably, he's continuing a specific bias and a repeating a form of racist rhetoric. He's doing it in a video that wants to take people to task for misunderstanding subtext in mass media, while speaking from a pretty big platform.

TGM
02-01-2020, 05:28 AM
If you wanna talk about "Joker" as a form of media criticism, then that would be interesting and we can have a conversation about it.

But don't use these noxious dickheads as your proxy, and spread their shit as if their warped viewpoints are the conventional one.

I don’t see the issue with sharing the video. I don’t follow the guy, so I don’t know what he’s said in other videos. Only what he said in this one, and I genuinely felt he made some compelling arguments that were worth sharing, and nothing he said made me feel the need to dig deeper into his history to see how he checks out politically. But it’s no different from how I may have in the past shared videos from, say, a Lindsay Ellis if I feel she makes an interesting point that’s worth sharing, even though I don’t always agree with her politically, either.

Anyways, I don’t know what it is about this movie, but it just feels like it’s impossible to discuss it without things just devolving and getting ugly, which is why I often times find myself just staying out of it anymore. I didn’t even share this video with the intention of being controversial, or even expecting it to necessarily go that way. And yet, here we are yet again. So I don’t know, I think I’m just done talking about this movie for now.

I suppose if anything good did come out of me sharing this video, it’s that you’re at least willing to speak to me directly again, which I don’t believe you have since you explicitly said you didn’t have anything else to say to me after our last conversation in this thread, which also got quite ugly as well. So that’s something I suppose. And maybe at some point we could even be friendly with one another again. That would be nice too. Cause I really don’t like the ugliness, from either of us.

MadMan
02-02-2020, 09:17 AM
Me telling some salty anime avatar sporting person that the SNL Weekend Update thing was funny is probably what got me suspended from Twitter. That fanbase has no sense of humor. What's even more amusing to me is that I liked the film.

Pop Trash
02-02-2020, 07:21 PM
Does Irish ever stop to consider his rhetoric is just as insufferable as any "alt right shithead?" Probably not.

Skitch
02-02-2020, 07:38 PM
Me telling some salty anime avatar sporting person that the SNL Weekend Update thing was funny is probably what got me suspended from Twitter. That fanbase has no sense of humor. What's even more amusing to me is that I liked the film.

WHOA EASY THERE PAL

[ETM]
02-02-2020, 07:59 PM
Does Irish ever stop to consider his rhetoric is just as insufferable as any "alt right shithead?" Probably not.Most of the time I find Irish's approach less than subtle, but it is justified here and I wholeheartedly agree with his argument.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Pop Trash
02-02-2020, 08:57 PM
That dude spent half the video ranting about the lack of universal health care in America. Apparently that makes him an "alt right shithead."

TGM
02-02-2020, 10:56 PM
That dude spent half the video ranting about the lack of universal health care in America. Apparently that makes him an "alt right shithead."

Part of why I find that takeaway so confusing. If anything, he sounds like a Bernie Bro.

Pop Trash
02-03-2020, 03:54 PM
Part of why I find that takeaway so confusing. If anything, he sounds like a Bernie Bro.

I had the same thought. That guy is a type ... a bit of a cringey nerd, but he brings up salient points both from the movie and the general response to it. Joker is fascinating because it seems to be a Rorschach blot for viewers towards feelings about race and class (and which one is more important).

Irish
02-03-2020, 05:31 PM
If anything, he sounds like a Bernie Bro.

He seems to take leftist positions only when they might benefit him in an immediate sense (pro-choice, universal health care). He swings hard right on identity issues that don't reflect his direct experience or might challenge his perceived place in the world (Black Lives Matter, trans' rights, feminism, wage gap, women in STEM, etc).

Most of these types soft sell their message because they know appearing openly far right will alienate people immediately. (Remember when Richard Spencer flat out denied he was a neo-Nazi? Same idea.)

This guy describes himself as "anti-SJW" and "anti-feminist." He's appeared on Sargon's podcast and The Rubin Report. This is not someone who is anywhere near the left and I'm absolutely flabbergasted you would think so.

Skim a few of his videos. His arguments are asinine and have obvious, gaping holes in them. It's like he failed out of the Tony Stark School of Political Science.

Pop Trash
02-05-2020, 05:41 AM
The left / right thing has completely flown out the window. I was talking to someone about immigration the other day and how a hard line on illegal immigration used to be very common on the progressive left as a pro worker, protectionist stand against multi national corps that love unchecked undocumented workers. This goes back to Cesar Chavez who viewed illegals as scabs destroying unions and even as recent as Bernie Sanders being one of the few people in Congress to vote against amnesty for illegals during the Bush II years. Anyway, a bit of a tangent, but you see this today when people like Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins being slapped with the "alt right" label by some people. There's no chance in hell those guys would have been seen remotely conservative a decade ago.

Irish
02-05-2020, 02:23 PM
No, social media just made it more obvious who the lunatics are.

Dawkins is a raving misogynist.

Harris would have been a red baiter in a previous age. And my God, he lent Charles Fucking Murray a platform.

Rogan's an entertainer first and foremost and his politics are always the convenient kind.

These are "freethinkers" who cite Ayn Rand as a favorite author and "The 48 Rules of Power" as a favorite book (the ones with MBAs will quote Sun Tzu). Nobody is confused about where they land on the political spectrum.

Except for you guys, apparently. Our boy Skeptic uses universal healthcare as a bludgeon against an obvious strawman and you think he's talking like a Bernie Bro. LOL, for real?

Pop Trash
02-05-2020, 03:18 PM
Our boy Skeptic uses universal healthcare as a bludgeon against an obvious strawman and you think he's talking like a Bernie Bro. LOL, for real?

What's the strawman here?

Do you think chapo types are secret fascists or something simply because they think the left focuses far too much on identity politics and not nearly enough on class (irrespective of someone's immutable qualities or identifiers)?

Grouchy
02-05-2020, 03:27 PM
Pop Trash is right, actually. As new antagonisms are born the usual lines between left and right are becoming more feeble - feminism in politics, for example, is an issue which is at times more welcome by the right than by the left. Irish, no offense, but I think your point of view is just too steeped in prejudice to notice these things. Sun Tzu? Come on, man. Everyone reads that.

By the way since the last time we discussed Joe Rogan I saw a handful more episodes. He truly is a great interviewer.

Irish
02-05-2020, 03:42 PM
Sun Tzu? Come on, man. Everyone reads that.

lol

Irish
02-05-2020, 04:17 PM
What's the strawman here?

About 11 minutes in: "I know you all think you're woke because you care about all the different races and identity groups and genders and sexual orientations but if you really cared about all these people, and their problems, and wanted to come up with a way to make life better for everybody ... why don't we consider a basic standard of living?"

He's using a traditionally leftist position to attack imagined leftists. (He's also sorta making an "all lives matter" argument about social services by invoking everybody.)

It's dumb because these ideas aren't mutually exclusive and nobody thinks they are.


Do you think chapo types are secret fascists or something simply because they think the left focuses far too much on identity politics and not nearly enough on class (irrespective of someone's immutable qualities or identifiers)?

what

Pop Trash
02-05-2020, 04:35 PM
what

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapo_Trap_House

aka the "dirtbag left" ... a certain lefty underbelly that uses similar tactics from Rush, Tucker, Alex Jones and others on the right but for lefty causes. Bro-ey, less concerned about offending pearl clutchers, most of them put class issues above identity politics and even actively make fun of strands of id politics that are sanctimonious. Generally a zone of straight white men but inclusive if people out of that realm aren't too insufferable. Playing in the same sandbox as Joe Rogan but less willing to give Gavin McInnes types a platform.

Irish
02-05-2020, 04:49 PM
I know who they are. Chapo is a helluva lot further left than Rogan. Good God. At least 3 of them are card carrying DSA members. One of them writes for Current Affairs, ffs.

My read might be off because I haven't listened to them in a long time, but I always thought they hated public figures who co-opted identity politics for private agendas. So they might express equal contempt for people such as Elizabeth Warren, Lauren Duca, Tucker Carlson, Bill Maher or corporations like Dove, Warner Bros, and whatever studios released "Ghostbusters 2016" and "Oceans 8."

I don't know what you meant about them being "secret fascists" about it.

Pop Trash
02-05-2020, 05:10 PM
I mean their approach is more Joe Rogan (or hell even Tucker, Rush, Alex Jones, etc) than NPR. A more visceral, off the cuff, unconcerned about p/c or appearances approach to discourse.

Something like what you quoted the Joker Bro saying ... "I know you all think you're woke because you care about all the different races and identity groups and genders and sexual orientations but if you really cared about all these people, and their problems, and wanted to come up with a way to make life better for everybody ... why don't we consider a basic standard of living?" seems like something that wouldn't necessarily come from the horse's mouth on chapo, but I could see that coming from followers or types that might model their brand of left-ism on chapo. That's what I meant by "chapo types" ... one of my friends is a lot like this. He's flirted with libertarianism and has some Ayn Rand style thinking, but also loves Sam Harris, listens to Chapo and Joe Rogan, and likes people like Andrew Yang. He and I have discussed the pitfalls of identity politics before and how it winds up becoming a ridiculous oppression olympics. I've seen this stuff in the Bay Area. One example is my black coworker being told by two (privileged, attractive, young) white girls on the BART train to (w/ no seeming self awareness or irony) "check his privilege" because clearly two white, attractive, able bodied young women are far, far more oppressed than a working class black dude (/sarc). He kinda laughed it off but was irritated by it.

Irish
02-05-2020, 05:37 PM
Matt Christman doesn't suck up to Sargon or appear on Dave Rubin's show. Nobody associated with Chapo describes themselves as "anti-SJW" and "anti-feminist." I get what you're saying but there's big, obvious differences here.

Like ... wanna take a wild guess how Armored Skeptic feels about Black Lives Matter?