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

silverharp

it was the only movie this year where staff were hysterically officious about checking age. it wasn't just some obscure twitter war that doesn't bleed over into real life

Foxtrol

silverharp wrote: »

it was the only movie this year where staff were hysterically officious about checking age. it wasn't just some obscure twitter war that doesn't bleed over into real life

Are you implying they were officious due to some culture war nonsense?

It isn't hard to understand why they were actually checking age, it was a comic book movie that clearly was not suitable for the target market for most comic book movies. It had graphic violence, dealt with adult themes, and in general was a dark movie that most kids shouldn't be viewing and many parents wouldn't be aware of in advance

PressRun

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm still completely confused by this huge 'uproar' that people seem to think is so bad that they need to moan about it.

So far we've been pointed to you'll find it if you search on twitter and the Guardian newspaper, which seems to have a single journalist that has written a few articles about the movie.

If that is it then the 'uproar' is really all in your heads.

I've seen more people complaining about the "uproar" than I've seen actual uproar.

Most people I know thought the movie was fine, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't met a single person who in reality actually felt that strongly about it one way or another.



Sure I've seen articles that criticise the movie, but I also think people love to conflate criticism with "uproar". Lots of newspapers deliberately doing this kind of thing of late. Someone makes a mild criticism of something and it's framed as "outrage", when nobody is actually outraged about anything at all. It's a clever way to shut down debate by making any slight criticisms seem hysterical.

silverharp

Foxtrol wrote: »

Are you implying they were officious due to some culture war nonsense?

It isn't hard to understand why they were actually checking age, it was a comic book movie that clearly was not suitable for the target market for most comic book movies. It had graphic violence, dealt with adult themes, and in general was a dark movie that most kids shouldn't be viewing and many parents wouldn't be aware of in advance

I took my 15 year old son to see Rambo "this way sir" , Joker "what age is your son?" me "16" she "I will have to ask you (my son) what is your date of birth? he year minus 1

yeah I think it was sure all the garbage reporting that led up to the movie release.

Foxtrol

silverharp wrote: »

I took my 15 year old son to see Rambo "this way sir" , Joker "what age is your son?" me "16" she "I will have to ask you (my son) what is your date of birth? he year minus 1

yeah I think it was sure all the garbage reporting that led up to the movie release.

That comparison would only makes sense if all the other Rambo movies were all previously targeted towards the youth market and were all PG or 12A prior to this one.

The draw for kids to see Rambo is completely different than the Joker, while parents are much more educated on the content.

Tony EH

If ever there was a film so undeserving of controversy, it's 'Joker'.

It's a mildly entertaining film that has a relatively admirable central performance, with a story that's been done better a number of times before.

It's crazy to think that people are drawing battle lines over this.

johnny_ultimate

I will happily acknowledge there were some dumb takes about this film, particularly after the premiere. Those who classified this film as actively dangerous or some incel propaganda saw a completely different film than I did: as suggested above, this film is pretty mild and inoffensive all things considered, and undeserving of moral panic (not that much is deserving of moral panic).

Equally, I will happily side with those expressing calm frustration over this film’s awards momentum and profile while a bunch of other great films get ignored or overlooked. I mean, Todd Phillips is not the Safdie Brothers or Celine Sciamma, and I find it hard to take the Oscars ‘Best Director’ nomination list seriously in that light. And even a few of the nominated films are in a different league - Joker ain’t got nothing on Parasite, to be perfectly frank.

To end on a positive note though: at least Joker is a few steps up from bloody Green Book :pac:

The White Wolf

PressRun wrote: »

I've seen more people complaining about the "uproar" than I've seen actual uproar.

Most people I know thought the movie was fine, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't met a single person who in reality actually felt that strongly about it one way or another.



Sure I've seen articles that criticise the movie, but I also think people love to conflate criticism with "uproar". Lots of newspapers deliberately doing this kind of thing of late. Someone makes a mild criticism of something and it's framed as "outrage", when nobody is actually outraged about anything at all. It's a clever way to shut down debate by making any slight criticisms seem hysterical.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/13/oscars-2020-shallow-joker-squats-on-top-of-patchy-and-infuriating-nominations

When you see headlines like this, do you not think it's hard to deny that there is outrage and it's not being made up?

You might say he doesn't choose the headline but if you read it, he certainly seems angry. There are plenty more outlets taking a similar approach such as The New York Times, so it's a bit disingenuous to say people are conflating criticism with uproar on purpose as the uproar is clearly there.

Foxtrol

The White Wolf wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/13/oscars-2020-shallow-joker-squats-on-top-of-patchy-and-infuriating-nominations

When you see headlines like this, do you not think it's hard to deny that there is outrage and it's not being made up?

You might say he doesn't choose the headline but if you read it, he certainly seems angry. There are plenty more outlets taking a similar approach such as The New York Times, so it's a bit disingenuous to say people are conflating criticism with uproar on purpose as the uproar is clearly there.

One or a handful of negative headlines for opinion pieces does not equate to the widespread 'uproar' or 'outrage' that has been repeatedly claimed by posters here.

More people felt the need to come here to post about the 'outrage' than they've been able to give examples of it coming from reputable sources (ie not random twitter users)

johnny_ultimate

The White Wolf wrote: »

You might say he doesn't choose the headline but if you read it, he certainly seems angry.

To me it just reads like he thought the film was a bit crap TBH. Again, ‘uproar’ and ‘criticism’ being fairly interchangeably conflated here - and I’m not being disingenuous there

one armed dwarf

Kind of just seems like people want there to be outrage about Joker, tbh, rather than allow that some people thought the film wasn't very good and undeserving of these awards. That isn't outrage.

I'm fairly sure you can go back in the archives and find similar articles lamenting Crash winning the Oscar. The difference now is twitter creates such an intense feedback loop of people being indignant that someone didn't like a film, people getting angry back at them etc etc etc. Just seems a **** time to be a reviewer of anything that threatens to overlap with popular culture. Especially comic book stuff

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To me it just reads like he thought the film was a bit crap TBH. Again, ‘uproar’ and ‘criticism’ being fairly interchangeably conflated here - and I’m not being disingenuous there

Yes, he has told us that at least five times now. He is absolutely acting like a dog with a bone. And, as Joker will likely pick up a few Oscars, it’s not over yet.

And I should reiterate, I didn’t love Joker. I had problems with it. So I’m not jealously defending it here. I still think Bradshaw needs to build a bridge.

johnny_ultimate

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, he has told us that at least five times now. He is absolutely acting like a dog with a bone.

I mean, if he was writing and publishing these articles for no apparent reason, I'd agree with you. But he's doing what he's being paid for and offering his commentary on the awards season - and if he thinks Joker isn't deserving of the nominations, well then it's naturally going to keep coming up every time it gets all the nominations *shrug*

The White Wolf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I mean, if he was writing and publishing these articles for no apparent reason, I'd agree with you. But he's doing what he's being paid for and offering his commentary on the awards season - and if he thinks Joker isn't deserving of the nominations, well then it's naturally going to keep coming up every time it gets all the nominations *shrug*

That is true, in truth there's only a couple of lines dedicated to the film in the article as well.

And how sad is that? That the Guardian for all their loathing of the film, still ride the coat tails of it with clickbait headlines. How about a headline suggesting Little Women and Greta Gerwig were snubbed? Doesn't quite bring with it the same guaranteed amount of hits does it, or the ability to come up with more oh so witty digs.

Tony EH

The White Wolf wrote: »

That is true, in truth there's only a couple of lines dedicated to the film in the article as well.

And how sad is that? That the Guardian for all their loathing of the film, still ride the coat tails of it with clickbait headlines. How about a headline suggesting Little Women and Greta Gerwig were snubbed? Doesn't quite bring with it the same guaranteed amount of hits does it, or the ability to come up with more oh so witty digs.

All "papers" work this way. As a species, we are more tuned to click on the link that attracts us and often that is the one that gets our "ire" or our "outrage" firing and there's none better than the likes of the Daily Mail.

It's, of course, ridiculous. But there it is nonetheless.

Simple fact is, you're being played every time you mouse over a clickbait article, but people love their "two minutes of hate".

pixelburp

The White Wolf wrote: »

That is true, in truth there's only a couple of lines dedicated to the film in the article as well.

And how sad is that? That the Guardian for all their loathing of the film, still ride the coat tails of it with clickbait headlines. How about a headline suggesting Little Women and Greta Gerwig were snubbed? Doesn't quite bring with it the same guaranteed amount of hits does it, or the ability to come up with more oh so witty digs.

Sad? It's obviously working because here you / we are, once more talking about The Guardian's editorial choices :cool: And it won't be the first time either because if I had a penny every time someone here with a bias quoted the Grauniad as a totem of hate, well, I'd have a lot of pennies

mikhail

pixelburp wrote: »

Sad? It's obviously working because here you / we are, once more talking about The Guardian's editorial choices :cool: And it won't be the first time either because if I had a penny every time someone here with a bias quoted the Grauniad as a totem of hate, well, I'd have a lot of pennies

I don't know ... I've heard so many objections to the Grauniad in the past year or two, many of them fair, that it's rather tarnished its reputation with me. I used to read it occasionally, but I've stopped bothering.

johnny_ultimate

mikhail wrote: »

I don't know ... I've heard so many objections to the Grauniad in the past year or two, many of them fair, that it's rather tarnished its reputation with me. I used to read it occasionally, but I've stopped bothering.

I have my issues with editorial decisions by The Guardian, not least in the way it handles its culture / film coverage sometimes. While I disagree with the assessment that Bradshaw's coverage of Joker is objectionable, other 'takes' I've read from the paper have justified an :rolleyes:

That it's still many, many leagues above any other major British newspaper is down to a) the excellent reporting and writing they do frequently publish b) the utterly miserable state of the newspaper / media industry in the UK, where almost every other large mainstream paper is a billionaire-owned propaganda rag (with all due respect to the talented journalists who work for said rags) and c) that they do still have possibly the best designed website of any major media outlet in the English language (frequent 'support us' prompts aside).

mikhail

Oh, I didn't say I was reading any of the others. That whole industry is in dire shape.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I mean, if he was writing and publishing these articles for no apparent reason, I'd agree with you. But he's doing what he's being paid for and offering his commentary on the awards season - and if he thinks Joker isn't deserving of the nominations, well then it's naturally going to keep coming up every time it gets all the nominations *shrug*

He’s not the only person the Guardian can call on for opinion on film. He’s the chief film critic of the paper but not the only one. In his position, I’d like to think I’d have the self-awareness to realise that I’ve reiterated the same point numerous times and that it’s coming across badly at this stage. Even if somebody wrote something about Joker and they too were critical of it, it would at least be a fresh voice or perspective.

And actually, just because he is tasked with writing about the nominations of each awards show, doesn’t mean each article has to hit the same beats, even if all the nominees are pretty much the same.

The below the line comments on Guardian articles tend to be pretty thoughtful and I was not alone in my opinion that he has harped on about it far too much.

Kermit.de.frog

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t love Joker but I am quite amused at how butthurt the Guardian is over all the accolades and nominations it’s receiving. I mean, naturally they are entitled to their opinion and were far from the only publication to give it a less-than-glowing review but at some point, the foot-stamping must stop and you must accept that not everyone shares your view.

Hollywood has had it all it's own way for over a decade with subliminally telling everyone the "correct" way to live by planting outright left wing propaganda in every movie going.

Joker is a breath of fresh air that that political persuasion just can not hack. It goes against the agenda.

It would be a scandal in it's own right if Pheonix did not get an Oscar for a stunning performance in my opinion. He deserves it regardless of the politics.

one armed dwarf

What does that even mean? 'Goes against the agenda'... it's a film about class inequality and a criticism of the lack of social responsibility richer folk can feel towards people who don't make as much money as them. It's about how that divides people. It's about under-investment in mental health care. It doesn't handle all of these themes really well but that's what the film seems to be trying to be about.

I'm really struggling to see how people see Joker as some riposte against the left. Again I just think people get horny for seeing political outrage where it doesn't exist.

pixelburp

I always love that, depending on who you talk to, Hollywood is either a haven of Left Wing Liberals, or is a steadfast continuance of Conservative America.

Personally, the very last thing I'd call Hollywood is Left Wing. Blockbusters are aggressively manufactured to hit the infamous "Four Quadrants" and if that overlaps with progressive ideals or culture, that's coincidence. They only care about profits & they'd make snuff films or open Nazi propaganda if they thought it might earn a billion dollars at the box office. If they were truly that liberal they wouldn't kowtow to foreign markets' own reticence towards progressive ideals (the Fantastic Beasts sequel a good example of that, practically falling over itself to avoid marking Dumbledore as gay)

Large corporations are on nobody's side, except their own. Never look to them for your political guidance.

cian68

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hollywood has had it all it's own way for over a decade with subliminally telling everyone the "correct" way to live by planting outright left wing propaganda in every movie going.

Joker is a breath of fresh air that that political persuasion just can not hack. It goes against the agenda.

Did you decide to skip actually watching Joker?

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I always love that, depending on who you talk to, Hollywood is either a haven of Left Wing Liberals, or is a steadfast continuance of Conservative America.

:rolleyes:

It's like talking to people with fucking buckets on their heads.

tigger123

I listened to the Michael Moore podcast where he interviews Todd Philips about the film. Although Moore is a shockingly bad interviewer (and spends much of it fawning over Todd Philips), the interview itself is very insightful regarding the Directors mind set and motivations in making the film.

He boils the message of the film down to 'we all need to be a bit kinder to each other' and discusses the lack of supports for people with mental health issues. It really is worth a listen.

How anyone can take the film or its message as being pro right wing really is beyond me.

Dyr

pixelburp wrote: »

I always love that, depending on who you talk to, Hollywood is either a haven of Left Wing Liberals, or is a steadfast continuance of Conservative America.

Personally, the very last thing I'd call Hollywood is Left Wing. Blockbusters are aggressively manufactured to hit the infamous "Four Quadrants" and if that overlaps with progressive ideals or culture, that's coincidence. They only care about profits & they'd make snuff films or open Nazi propaganda if they thought it might earn a billion dollars at the box office. If they were truly that liberal they wouldn't kowtow to foreign markets' own reticence towards progressive ideals (the Fantastic Beasts sequel a good example of that, practically falling over itself to avoid marking Dumbledore as gay)

Large corporations are on nobody's side, except their own. Never look to them for your political guidance.

Name some major Hollywood producers, actors, directors, screenwriters who are openly Republican or conservative.

List get's really short after Clint Eastwood

Take a grab bag of random Hollywood types and check if they're Democrats or highly liberal. Most are I would say.

Dyr

tigger123 wrote: »

I listened to the Michael Moore podcast where he interviews Todd Philips about the film. Although Moore is a shockingly bad interviewer (and spends much of it fawning over Todd Philips), the interview itself is very insightful regarding the Directors mind set and motivations in making the film.

He boils the message of the film down to 'we all need to be a bit kinder to each other' and discusses the lack of supports for people with mental health issues. It really is worth a listen.

How anyone can take the film or its message as being pro right wing really is beyond me.

Don't listen to it, it's toe curlingly bad.

one armed dwarf

In either case if you subscribe to the idea that Hollywood is a leftist echo chamber then why would they laud Joker if it was apparently against their political persuasions? lol

Remember how in the film the laid off counselor told Arthur how nobody cared about people like them, and the investment banker ****heads were described as some of Gotham's best? It's a film about how being below a certain income level makes you invisible as a person, imo, and this isn't a fair way to build a society.

This isn't a very controversial position for a film to take if you're a leftist lol

pixelburp

Bambi wrote: »

Name some major Hollywood producers, actors, directors, screenwriters who are openly Republican or conservative.

List get's really short after Clint Eastwood

Take a grab bag of random Hollywood types and check if they're Democrats or highly liberal. Most are I would say.

I never said actors aren't predominantly liberal leaning (or at least superficially vocal, Gervais skewering that recently) and the Oscars are clear enough on that, I'm talking producers, executives and all those who actually make the decisions, logistical, financial and also creative on occasion.

Why don't you know name some top level executives who are Democrat if you say there's a bias, and I'll take your point, but the box office speaks volumes. Blockbusters are about as safe a product as you can make - that's half the problem with the system these days. The "Four Quadrants" drive these products, not "liberalism", or some nefarious "political" bias.

I'll say again: Hollywood will do whatever it takes to make money; they'll happily shoot movies to fit conservative markets like Russia or China, especially the latter where studios are not beyond shooting scenes specific for the audience.