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

The White Wolf wrote: »

It seems only a recent thing that directors are accused of taking a cowardly approach towards making a statement. The film connoisseur that you are Johnny I'd be fairly certain that some of your favourite films are the ones that were ambiguous in their approach.

Ambiguity can be a wonderful tool for sure, when used well - although I don’t think there’s much in the way of ambiguity here (a few ‘which bits were in his head’ open questions aside, which I personally don’t find particularly worth dwelling on) - it’s a story mostly told in a pretty straightforward and clear way, and that’s meant neither in a good or bad way. My view is simply that the text here isn’t particularly satisfying on the terms it itself sets out. While it has its IMO undeniable pleasures as a visceral, OTT character study, it actually pulls its punches in a few regards... leaving me rather unsatisfied as I left the cinema. Let me stress once again I think the film is perfectly decent and worth a gander - just not much of a lasting impact for me, receiving neither my enthusiasm nor my scorn.

Sad Professor wrote: »

If you are saying the film doesn't commit to a particular ideological diagnosis for the social issues it depicts, then I think that's true to a large extent (which is why both left and right have found value in it) but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. The film has more to say than 99 percent of comic book movies - which it still is btw no matter how much it dresses itself up in the aesthetics of the 70s. There's nothing new about what it is saying or how it is saying - it's very much of a film of its time in that regard. I just can't fault it on those grounds.

My problem when it comes down to ‘it has little to say’ certainly wouldn’t boil down to whether it’s on the left or right or centrist of whatever - in fact, I’d almost say the ‘incels rise up!!!’ film described in some alarmist takes sounds substantially more interesting and provocative to me than the film we got, even if I’d hate it . I’d never subscribe to the idea of films *having* to make some big ideological statement. And yes, I’d completely agree it’s quite a few notches above your average comic book movie - I think that’s the most favourable comparison, even if it’d be below the very top tier for me (especially after seeing the Watchmen TV show, which is the only comic book screen translation I’ve properly adored in quite a few years now). Between this and almost all Marvel fare, I’d pick this and hope it sparks more experiments.

I do acknowledge the character himself is meant to be chaotic and will happily give it some credit for that, but even allowing for that I just don’t think Phillips’ has the chops to do anything with the sort of material he’s overly referencing and toying with. It is still a big studio comic book movie even if the budget’s 50 million cheaper - so while it’s ‘risky’ within the standards of that space I still feel it comes across as a rather cautious and reluctant film in terms of rocking any boats, either for good or for ill. It can’t hope to bat in the same sort of arena as something like Parasite, just to pick one other blackly comic genre movie that explicitly grapples with society’s ills.

While I do agree that the MCU films get an easy time from some critics, it’s not at all accurate to suggest that Venom got an easy ride. That film was eviscerated by many and became something of a laughing stock, certainly among critics I follow.