Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Joker movie - starring Joaquin Phoenix (MOD: May contain Spoilers)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
It's a crazy time that we live in right now.
You can’t talk about a film these days without mentioning things like social justice, woke politics, left/right agendas. I guess it’s just something that we’ll have to get used too. It’s part of the industry now.
Even if unintentional, movies seem to be falling into different sides of a political spectrum, or if I was too look at one of PBs quotes, “Art is not created in a vacuum”... so maybe there always has been a political influence, but it’s only now that it’s become a major talking point.
If Silence of the Lambs was released today, would it be considered non-PC and be accused of glamorizing serial killers? John Wick got off very lightly considering the gun violence in that. I wonder how many NRA members walked out of that thinking it was the best thing ever
It’s funny how Marvel and DC seem to be falling into different sides of the political spectrum, especially when you compare the political hysteria that surrounded the release of Captain Marvel against the hysteria attached to Joker.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,184 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 27896
Not for the first time: I kinda avoid his reviews as I don't like his style & perspective on cinema anyway, but he seems prone to dropping whoppers. As do a lot of newspaper critics I've found, wonder why that is.
Newspaper reviewers usually aren’t given the opportunity to revisit a film - the initial review kind of has to serve as their ‘definitive take’ on a film. Therefore it has to serve two purposes: a general ‘should you watch this?’ (Honestly I think the star rating or rotten tomatoes score typically more than suffices in that regard) but also a critical analysis of the film itself. The latter is hard to achieve without getting into at least some specifics. When you’re only going to get one chance to talk about a film in print, you need to think about that balance (personally, I feel too many critics are too reticent to get into the nitty gritty, but that’s IMO).
As for Clarke more generally and outside this particular case, he’s often publicly criticised and mocked the ‘spoiler police’ who almost actively look for any broad plot details about imminent superhero gubbins to give out about (you see it with a lot of the MCU stuff). Honestly I’m on his side in that respect - while I’d draw the line with big, late, film-changing surprises or developments being described without fair warning or when done with malicious intent, I do believe critics have far more leeway with getting into specifics than many will tolerate. My view is that reviews have far more value after you see a film, and that far outweighs the narrow buffer zone of time between a critic seeing a film and general release. I just don’t read reviews until after the fact if I want to go in blind
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement