The Joker movie - starring Joaquin Phoenix (MOD: May contain Spoilers)

Ironicname

faceman wrote:

It does however trivialise and demonise mental health issues.

I couldn't disagree more. I thought the complete opposite.

sydthebeat

Can't help but think that reviewer is looking for their USP on the back of the growing popularity of this movie

Ferajacka

Ferajacka wrote: »

Had to stop reading that it clearly was the death of journalism again...
It's like saying villains are ok to be bad guys and do henous acts in movies. As long as we don't see a movie about them become bad guys.

Had to stop when the reviewer said he hadn't even seen the movie. What a waste of time.

sydthebeat

Ironicname wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. I thought the complete opposite.

100% agree

It in no way trivialised mental health issues. I think it does admirably well to engage with the issues of poor social services, societal stigma and workplace problems... While at the same time still being an engaging movie.

Any interpretations of the presumably blood in his footprints at the end

sydthebeat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any interpretations of the presumably blood in his footprints at the end

I don't think it was that subtle as to what happened.... Same with the earlier incident when he was in the wrong apartment

AlphabetCards

We live in

Royale with Cheese

Was taken to see this last night, wasn't my choice as I usually hate comic book films but thought I'd give it a go as the Christian Bale batman films were decent enough. I had little idea of what the film would be like, didn't even know it was an 18s. Absolutely brilliant, was blown away by it. I wouldn't usually be one for fawning praise on actors or raving about performances but Joaquin Phoenix is mesmerising.

silverharp

a question about one element of the film I didnt fully get?

were we supposed to believe that he was adopted and the Wayne family were totally above board? or did the Wayne family invent a paper trail and had her sent to the mental hospital?

DrumSteve

silverharp wrote: »

a question about one element of the film I didnt fully get?

were we supposed to believe that he was adopted and the Wayne family were totally above board? or did the Wayne family invent a paper trail and had her sent to the mental hospital?

****in hell, had never though of that. Good shout.

On a side note, did anyone think that the only time he attacked someone on screen was in defense of himself?

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

I don't think it was that subtle as to what happened.... Same with the earlier incident when he was in the wrong apartment

None of it really happened?

Weltsmertz

silverharp wrote: »

a question about one element of the film I didnt fully get?

were we supposed to believe that he was adopted and the Wayne family were totally above board? or did the Wayne family invent a paper trail and had her sent to the mental hospital?

It was left open to interpretation. The photo would indicate that their is a possibility she was telling the truth.

Weltsmertz

Can't make up my mind about the ending.
Was it tacked on at the insistence of the studio and a bit of a cop out from the director. Not plausible that everything was a fantasy as there are details like the death of the Wayne's that he couldn't have known. Should movie have ended with him standing on the car. Finally seen and empowered

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

None of it really happened?

There is one stage in the film that is his metamorphosis. When he climbs back out of the fridge. After that scene I don't think there are any "imaginations". You can see marks on his body after the "wrong apartment" scene which indicate he did something trouble to that woman.

My thoughts anyway.

Weltsmertz

DrumSteve wrote: »

On a side note, did anyone think that the only time he attacked someone on screen was in defense of himself?

No. The first killings were instinctive but he followed and shot the yuppie in the back and was not under direct attack from the others. He did however only harm those that had hurt him.

Ferajacka

DrumSteve wrote: »

****in hell, had never though of that. Good shout.

On a side note, did anyone think that the only time he attacked someone on screen was in defense of himself?

Not in the studio

Weltsmertz

sydthebeat wrote: »

There is one stage in the film that is his metamorphosis. When he climbs back out of the fridge. After that scene I don't think there are any "imaginations". You can see marks on his body after the "wrong apartment" scene which indicate he did something trouble to that woman.

My thoughts anyway.

Disagree completely. He was not euphoric leaving the apt as he was when he killed previously. And he only killed those that had been mean to him. She hadn't. The marks are from earlier beatings.

coffee_cake

first time i saw the trailer i thought pfff
second time i saw the trailer i thought, i have to go see this

booked in for tonight now - v excited

Weltsmertz

bluewolf wrote: »

first time i saw the trailer i thought pfff
second time i saw the trailer i thought, i have to go see this

booked in for tonight now - v excited

You should probably avoid discussion threads on the movie till after you have seen it.

faceman

Ironicname wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. I thought the complete opposite.

sydthebeat wrote: »

100% agree

It in no way trivialised mental health issues. I think it does admirably well to engage with the issues of poor social services, societal stigma and workplace problems... While at the same time still being an engaging movie.

Without trying to turn this thread into a different topic, here's where I am coming from with this. And Im not alone with this view.

First and foremost, as with most villains in the Batman world, mental illness is often the motivator. While they get away with it in most depictions of the Batman world due to the superficial level of defining mental illness, in this film it tries to ground it in reality by half defining his mental illness. (He's on 7 medications but they never define any of the other conditions he has)

As mental illness is the motivator, it leans toward mental illness being the cause of the individual's violence towards others. In reality for many with mental health issues, the violence and harm is self inflicted. Joker at no point in the film inflicts any harm on himself. We are weaved a story of a man's descent into madness. However his downward spiral was already in place even prior to the social issues he faced, including the cutting of his social worker.

The monologue late in the film felt like an attempt for a cathartic explanation for the impact of mental health but

ended up just being the trigger for the birth of Joker and social unrest, thus the point was missed.

The film does try to get us to sympathise with Joker and feel vile for the disdain others have around him. But in the same breath every aspect of his condition(s) is stigmatised almost alerting the audience to be wary of people like this. His mother is treated similarly. At no point is she viewed as a victim.

Joker's condition is a real one but is one that is treatable. It is ranges between crying and laughing. It is never triggered by stress because it is not linked to mood. Yet in the film it is, even though they say it's not.

While I really liked the film, I believe this is a hole in the film and one that should have been avoided. Joker should be a sociopath not a someone whose violence toward others is a result of child abuse and PBA.

coffee_cake

Weltsmertz wrote: »

You should probably avoid discussion threads on the movie till after you have seen it.

read as far as the release date posts and stopped i'll bow out now

Weltsmertz

Disagree somewhat. We sympathise with him because of his ostracization and inability to connect. But disagree with the health service narrative that this is "treatable" with drugs or therapy or whatever. And while his treatment explains his actions I don't think it justifies them.

sydthebeat

Weltsmertz wrote: »

Disagree completely. He was not euphoric leaving the apt as he was when he killed previously. And he only killed those that had been mean to him. She hadn't. The marks are from earlier beatings.

He had blood on himself, there's ambulance sirens and lights outside, and there's the sounds of commotion in the apartment block. Plus we never see Sophie or he daughter again in the movie, not even in Arthur's fantasises.
I'm not saying that's how it is, just that's its a possibility, like a lot of things in the movie.

Saying he only hurts people who hurt him is too simplistic. He may have taken her insistence to leave as a slight, as in his head they were going out.

Dravokivich

silverharp wrote: »

a question about one element of the film I didnt fully get?

were we supposed to believe that he was adopted and the Wayne family were totally above board? or did the Wayne family invent a paper trail and had her sent to the mental hospital?

Think of the disliking he has about his name. I reckon it comes to him not really knowing who he is and that his life could of been much different without the interference of her. His hatred towards the Wayne's is pretty much as spoken in the interview, based on the scene of the bathroom. Wayne didn't show any compassion and instead of make a chance to talk with him, punched him in the face.

JimmyCorkhill

Saw it last night, only alright would be my opinion on it.

Is there a Joker 2 lined up?

I actually initially presumed everything to do with going on the TV show was a fantasy. I was waiting for that to come crumbling down.

Weltsmertz

sydthebeat wrote: »

He had blood on himself, there's ambulance sirens and lights outside, and there's the sounds of commotion in the apartment block. Plus we never see Sophie or he daughter again in the movie, not even in Arthur's fantasises.
I'm not saying that's how it is, just that's its a possibility, like a lot of things in the movie.

Saying he only hurts people who hurt him is too simplistic. He may have taken her insistence to leave as a slight, as in his head they were going out.

Hell hath no fury. It is left open and your interpretation is valid. But if he had and that is what the sirens relate to then surely the police would have been swarming all over the apartment block. Based my assessment on his demeanor being after leaving the apartment being completely different to the way it was after the other killings. Sad rather than europic.

RasTa

Enjoyed it but a full cinema almost ruined it. They only showed 10mins of trailers so lots of people coming in late, couldn't find their seats etc.

Will see it again next week in a less packed cinema hopefully.

Good few people with kids walking out didn't help either.

Dravokivich

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

Saw it last night, only alright would be my opinion on it.

Is there a Joker 2 lined up?

Joaquin wouldnt have done it, if there were plans for a multi movie deal. So this is it.

The White Wolf

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

Saw it last night, only alright would be my opinion on it.

Is there a Joker 2 lined up?

There's nothing in the can yet but Phoenix has been very positive about the role in his interviews, and has said he spoke to Philips about where they can possibly take the character.

He certainly seems open to it.