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

Foxtrol · 12-10-2019 7:47pm

faceman wrote: »

From reading this whole thread and particularly the negative views on the film it’s very apparent that a lot of the negative comments are coming from a place of trying to fit the film in with existing Batman lore and material. You can’t watch the film with that. It’s not a comic book movie in the traditional sense and the director has heavily alluded to the fact that the story is all in Fleck’s head and there is a high probability that Fleck is not the ‘real’ Joker but likely an inspiration to whoever dons the true Joker mantel.

I feel the opposite is just as true.

Plenty of the positive comments highlight comparing this movie to other comic book movies, when as you said it isn't a traditional one so that view is unfair. Many posters are also reverting back to pointing to Batman lore when issues with the narrative are raised.

There's a lot of trying to have things both ways.

Ferajacka · 12-10-2019 7:56pm

Something else occurred to me about the studio section. ( Definitely needs a second watch)

When pushed, and remember the director eludes to that joker will kill himself on TV. Of course as the audience you know he will not coz who else will fight Batman. /

But the bueaty of this movie is it presents a man with really nothing else to lose...?
I remember thinking "what else will he do here..."

But he admits he is responsible for the three deaths in the train. Like finally he realizes that this helped or was responsible for the up rising though he didn't exactly give a **** about it before that.

But his murders of his Co worker or his mother (or non girlfriend and kid) are not worth the mention coz he's the joker and it doesn't matter to him.

Addle · 12-10-2019 11:25pm

I thought it was great but I also thought his laugh sounded

just like Elmo’s

, which I found distracting.

Riddle101 · 13-10-2019 11:40am

Ferajacka wrote: »

I reckon the what was real what wasn't is simpler than we think.
Sophie being his girlfriend was not real.
He was at the comedy club. Sophie was not.
The comedy club thing ended up on the talk show was real or else we wouldn't have joker dress up, like joker and ask to be called joker.

We we're spoon fed the Sophie reveal so why not anything else.

Personally I think the car crashing the cop car and the rise sequence was not real and was a delusion. Or else he would not have ended up in Arkham as quickly as he did with that anarchy in the city.
The blood footprints signify to me he was escaping from Arkham killing whatever was in his way and very real.

I would say that Sophie was real, but not his girlfriend. The scene when she finds him sitting on her couch and is clearly scared is probably real. Also the scene when he meets her for the first time, and when he's stalking her is probably real too.

stesaurus · 13-10-2019 12:28pm

When talking with his mam at the hospital he says he's never known a moment's happiness. I think after that statement anytime he was seen happy is part of the delusion. So the train murders, going on TV as Joker, killing his mam, killing his friend in his apartment, dancing scene etc.
There's just so much unbelievable about the story. Killing 3 rich elite in seemingly cold blood does not warrant a ground swell of public negativity towards the rich. There's no chance that he gets invited onto live primetime tonight show and if he did there's no chance he'd be allowed do what he did or broadcasting to stay on.
The true narrative plays out like getting the **** kicked out of him on the train, fired from work and winds up in wrong apartment. I think he then kills Sophie and the kid, he's clearly not manic or happy afterwards and that's how he ends up back at Arkham.
He's not Joker at all as that was never referenced outside his head but perhaps his delusions are what inspires the Joker from rising.

1800_Ladladlad · 13-10-2019 12:34pm

faceman wrote: »

From reading this whole thread and particularly the negative views on the film it’s very apparent that a lot of the negative comments are coming from a place of trying to fit the film in with existing Batman lore and material.

This the expectation of the viewer and not a valid excuse to drag the movie its self. The viewers pissing and moaning about this are just generic movie-goers, a-kin to those who go to see the likes of the Disneys star wars or the marvel films without known any history. Plus, if this was within the universe, it would have been marketed that way to appeal to more people and be a cash cow. This is clearly not like any other DC film. Marvel and DC created this bull**** of other characters making cameos in films. I didn't know anyone who wasn't aware
of this being a stand-alone.

Beechwoodspark · 13-10-2019 6:53pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

Didn’t enjoy it. Most dialogue lacked any tension, felt the plot was quite thin and sluggish at times. Most of the characters Joker interacts with are terribly cast with the exception of the midget guy and admin guy in the mental hospital. Several aspects of the story just didn’t work. Scene in the bathroom with his so called father could have been really special but was just rushed and again lacked any tension. Felt this throughout the movie with other characters. Let down of a movie in my opinion. Such as shame as Phoenix was great.

Have to say I agree with most of this. Although it had its moments I was hoping it would be better than it ultimately was.

Beechwoodspark · 13-10-2019 7:56pm

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Thought it was an okay movie. Still think Ledger has the best depiction of the Joker as the Joker in this movie was a bit pathetic throughout . Mother Son relationship was great but thought this would have worked better as a generic clown murderer movie rather than him being the Joker.

Yeah that crossed my mind too. Had he just gone by the name carnival or whatever, no mention of the Batman universe

yourdeadwright · 13-10-2019 7:58pm

Very hard to know what in the third part of the movie was real and what was just in his head ,

Homelander · 13-10-2019 9:58pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

its not an "adult" movie... its 16s rated

That's not really much of an argument, very few films are rated 18's anymore so by that yardstick, only a small percentage of films are 'adult' films.

Anyway, went to see Joker and thought it was absolutely magnificent.

Lesalare · 13-10-2019 11:24pm

Just saw it.

Mindblown. Best movie I have seen in years.

He is outstanding in it.

Outlaw Pete · 14-10-2019 1:30am

A masterpiece. Simple as that.

shamrock55 · 14-10-2019 9:33am

Even though I enjoyed the film I can't see myself watching it too many more times, I think it might just be a one watch movie for me anyway

pixelburp · 14-10-2019 10:23am

An intense, uncomfortable leading performance that took scrutiny off of a limp, dreary script in love with its own shallow attempts at social importance. Frequently miserable, but with an empty, persistent sadism towards its main character, giving no emotional heart to the story beyond "look how far we can push this thin scratch of a man". The last act came alive but much before it was an indulgent slog. When the dust settles, it'll make for a good example of what's lost when you make a stylistic copy of something like "Taxi Driver", without the solid underpinning of character beneath.

Nothing felt connected or earned, the broader inciting incidents that shook Gotham lacking any sense of believability for one; while the nods towards class warfare & mental health issues were just checklist glances towards topicality, ones without any substance, bravery or teeth. To that, it's amusing that prior to release Todd Phillips made headlines with generic "PC gone mad" whinging, yet his Joker script lacked any bite or nerve to actually tackle the subjects he flirted with. He made a clickbait film: a true empty vessel with nothing to say.

All that said, I want more films like this - in concept, if not execution. Copying the MCU verbatim has had mixed results for DC, and I'd rather see 10 Jokers than another Aquaman: as even if the final result disappointed, I was always excited and curious about the prospect of a low-budget, creatively inspired attempt to tell a once-off story in the DC universe; one that wasn't a generic, noisy blockbuster fairground ride. So while Todd Phillips' feature said or did nothing of actual worth - beyond letting his fondness for Scorsese shine while Joaquin Phoenix indulged in some method acting - the fact that this film exists at all is cause for celebration. Plus, given it appears to be performing very well at the box office, I hope DC at least take the right lessons from its success; that there's an audience out there for other flavours of comicbook storytelling. Blockbusters have been slowly killing off the mid-budget mainstream crowdpleaser, so it'd be nice to get them back.

Captain Red Beard · 14-10-2019 11:27am

A whole lot of meh. JP weight loss added to his performance but he can play these characters in his sleep. I liked the soundtrack. Overrated film though.

CPTM · 14-10-2019 10:54pm

Isn't the joker an absolute genius in the batman movies? That's one thing I wish they'd done in this.. He seemed more delusional and crazy in this instead of the "2 steps ahead"/"Evil Genius" type character he's portrayed as being in batman. Loved the movie, but spotted the twist about the girl a mile away. I really thought the scenes on the tv show with Rob De Niro were going to be imagined.

Beechwoodspark · 15-10-2019 9:19am

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

A whole lot of meh. JP weight loss added to his performance but he can play these characters in his sleep. I liked the soundtrack. Overrated film though.

Agree - this was the type of “mad loner” JP has previously played. Not a huge challenge to him. I’d love to see him branch out and do a gangster movie type film but bit off topic

Mark Hamill · 15-10-2019 9:35am

stesaurus wrote: »

There's just so much unbelievable about the story. Killing 3 rich elite in seemingly cold blood does not warrant a ground swell of public negativity towards the rich.

As I have said to another poster, there already was a groundswell of negativity against the rich and Joker's murders would have been seen as vigilantism, as those men were harassing a woman first. Gotham was already a powder keg, joker was just lit the fuse.

stesaurus wrote: »

There's no chance that he gets invited onto live primetime tonight show and if he did there's no chance he'd be allowed do what he did or broadcasting to stay on.

Joker getting on the show and being allowed to do what he did (except killing De Niro obviously) is believable, as De Niro was pushing it for his own reasons. When the producer and De Niro meet Joker in the dressing room, the producer doesn't want to have him on but De Niro says "It's going to work", hinting that De Niro expects it will be shocking/car crash TV, but wants it for ratings etc.

Mark Hamill · 15-10-2019 9:39am

CPTM wrote: »

Isn't the joker an absolute genius in the batman movies? That's one thing I wish they'd done in this.. He seemed more delusional and crazy in this instead of the "2 steps ahead"/"Evil Genius" type character he's portrayed as being in batman.

He is said to be on 7 different medications at the start, which can certainly mess up your head and body. In the interview at end, he admits he stopped taking them and feels much better and is much more confident in his speech.
I think if they do a sequel, he will be closer to the chaotic genius he is normally portrayed as (and probably not so emaciated).

Drumpot · 15-10-2019 9:39am

CPTM wrote: »

Isn't the joker an absolute genius in the batman movies? That's one thing I wish they'd done in this.. He seemed more delusional and crazy in this instead of the "2 steps ahead"/"Evil Genius" type character he's portrayed as being in batman. Loved the movie, but spotted the twist about the girl a mile away. I really thought the scenes on the tv show with Rob De Niro were going to be imagined.

Is he a genius or as he put himself once “do I look like a person with a plan”?, he’s an agent of chaos and when there are no rules it’s probably easier to devise plans to undermine those who do have rules.

That said, this joker has been beaten down by life , is on loads of meds, has savagely low self esteem and perhaps we only begin to see what he is capable of at the end (assuming it’s not all in his head). Maybe Intelligence can be hidden with low confidence and as he gets more confident with who he is he thrives?

Also I agree about the De Niro (who I thought was great in this) scene at the end.

branie2 · 15-10-2019 10:28am

I'll be seeing it on Friday

The White Wolf · 15-10-2019 10:38am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Agree - this was the type of “mad loner” JP has previously played. Not a huge challenge to him. I’d love to see him branch out and do a gangster movie type film but bit off topic

He's done that and it is called We Own The Night - it's as standard a role that I've seen Phoenix do.

I've seen most of Phoenix’s performances from 8mm to The Master, and it's fair to say that he plays an eclectic bunch of "mad loners", with each role bringing their own unique challenges. So I think it's a bit disrespectful to him to say this was standard fare for him.

Joker perhaps isn't his best performance, but it's certainly one that he needed for his career.....and it's clear from Marvel courting him for Dr Strange that he was looking for this type of mainstream role.

PhiloCypher · 15-10-2019 11:33am

Rewatched Dark Knight for comparison and it struck me the way both films presents the people of Gotham really speaks to the era they were made. Dark Knight released in the year Obama got elected 2008 presents an optimistic view that Gothomites won't blow each other up to save themselves. Joker on the other hand, made in the era of Trump, presents a people so broken, so worn down by the corruption and inequality they see around them, that they hero worship a killer.

That's assuming its not Fleck daydreaming on his way to Arkham of course.

Acting wise I think Phoenix's performance is at least as impressive as Ledgers, that being said Ledgers Joker will always be the definitive one for me. Joker works best as an unknowable force of nature, a Terminator, who can't be reasoned with, who can't be bought and absolutely will not stop until you die laughing. Phoenix's Joker is no Crown prince of Crime and would absolutely have stopped if he had medicare for all.

yourdeadwright · 15-10-2019 11:58am

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Rewatched Dark Knight for comparison and it struck me the way both films presents the people of Gotham really speaks to the era they were made. Dark Knight released in the year Obama got elected 2008 presents an optimistic view that Gothomites won't blow each other up to save themselves. Joker on the other hand, made in the era of Trump, presents a people so broken, so worn down by the corruption and inequality they see around them, that they hero worship a killer.
That's assuming its not Fleck daydreaming on his way to Arkham of course.

Acting wise I think Phoenix's performance is at least as impressive as Ledgers, that being said Ledgers Joker will always be the definitive one for me. Joker works best as an unknowable force of nature, a Terminator, who can't be reasoned with, who can't be bought and absolutely will not stop until you die laughing. Phoenix's Joker is no Crown prince of Crime and would absolutely have stopped if he had medicare for all.

it'll be interesting to see if the go down the road of Phoenix Koker becoming like Ledgers one and the movie we saw is just the start,

No doubt there will be a sequel ,Phoenix is quoted as saying he thinks about the character every day and what ways to move forward with him ,

Stallingrad · 15-10-2019 12:07pm

I was blown away by it, superb acting, atmosphere and cinematography, the likes of which we don't see much of anymore. JP was astounding, really hope there will be a sequel.

As an aside

from this movie it is possible that Joker and Batman are brothers?!

PhiloCypher · 15-10-2019 12:55pm

Stallingrad wrote: »

I was blown away by it, superb acting, atmosphere and cinematography, the likes of which we don't see much of anymore. JP was astounding, really hope there will be a sequel.

As an aside
from this movie it is possible that Joker and Batman are brothers?!

Like a lot of this film, due to Arthur being an unreliable narrator, a lot is open to interpretation.

The Flashbacks to his mom being questioned by the cops tallies with Thomas Wayne's version of events. That being said they paint Wayne in such a bad light that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have have arranged fake adoption papers and got her committed so nobody would ever believe her story.

I really hope this doesn't get a Sequel tbh. This works best as a standalone elseworld version of 'a' Joker not as an origin to 'the' Joker. Any attempt to link up to the larger Batman mythos just won't work. The age disparity between Arthur and Bruce is far too large for Joker to not be using a zimmer frame by the time Bruce becomes Batman.

Stallingrad · 15-10-2019 12:59pm

PhiloCypher wrote: »

The age disparity between Arthur and Bruce is far too large for Joker to not be using a zimmer frame by the time Bruce becomes Batman.

Let's take some artistic license call it a 20 years gap, that is doable.

MOR316 · 15-10-2019 12:59pm

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Like a lot of this film, due to Arthur being an unreliable narrator, a lot is open to interpretation.
The Flashbacks to his mom being questioned by the cops tallies with Thomas Wayne's version of events. That being said they paint Wayne in such a bad light that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have have arranged fake adoption papers and got her committed so nobody would ever believe her story.

I really hope this doesn't get a Sequel tbh. This works best as a standalone elseworld version of 'a' Joker not as an origin to 'the' Joker. Any attempt to link up to the larger Batman mythos just won't work. The age disparity between Arthur and Bruce is far too large for Joker to not be using a zimmer frame by the time Bruce becomes Batman.

Or

TW could have just been bad in Arthur's imagination

pixelburp · 15-10-2019 2:00pm

That Inciting Incident continues to annoy me after having watched the film on Sunday: it was so arbitrary and brainless, symptomatic of modern day scriptwriting TBH. There's nothing organic and no sense of natural world-building anymore, writing becoming a convenience to crudely knit some visceral action together, rather than the character or narrative brickwork holding it up; it's about selling the imagery first, and damn the structure.

Phillips just rammed some random topicality together in a shallow attempt to look relevant or current. I couldn't buy this idea that the murder of 3 yuppies by a guy dressed as clown, would precipitate citywide 99%-style rioting. And all it needed was a reversal for it to work: 3 yuppies killing a clown, hiding behind "the system" and causing folks to wear clown masks in solidarity. Instead it just made the masses look frenzied & murderous, to no end-result (unlike the Dark Knight where the boat scene served a narrative purpose, that Gotham's soul was being won over). I know there was more to it than that - Thomas Wayne's comments also drawing anger - but all we got were these TV reports or characters speaking how "crazy" the city had become.

Constantly.

God, it was a walking antithesis of the "Show don't tell" mantra, it was such sloppy writing.

15-10-2019 2:05pm

None of that bothered me. He's an accidental anti hero.

pixelburp · 15-10-2019 2:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that bothered me. He's an accidental anti hero.

Which was entirely possible without a script that felt hacked together without any sense of the writers stopping to go "wait, does that work?". But they obviously thought having half the cast observing "hey, how CRAZY is this city?" and some 99% visual nods would do the job.

These shouldn't be huge asks from professional writers, who should know basic concepts and rules of scriptwriting, and wouldn't have cost the narrative at all. Instead the whole rioting felt thrown in, and prevented my ability to give a sh*t about anything that was going on.

Foxtrol · 15-10-2019 2:43pm

pixelburp wrote: »

That Inciting Incident continues to annoy me after having watched the film on Sunday: it was so arbitrary and brainless, symptomatic of modern day scriptwriting TBH. There's nothing organic and no sense of natural world-building anymore, writing becoming a convenience to crudely knit some visceral action together, rather than the character or narrative brickwork holding it up; it's about selling the imagery first, and damn the structure.

Phillips just rammed some random topicality together in a shallow attempt to look relevant or current. I couldn't buy this idea that the murder of 3 yuppies by a guy dressed as clown, would precipitate citywide 99%-style rioting. And all it needed was a reversal for it to work: 3 yuppies killing a clown, hiding behind "the system" and causing folks to wear clown masks in solidarity. Instead it just made the masses look frenzied & murderous, to no end-result (unlike the Dark Knight where the boat scene served a narrative purpose, that Gotham's soul was being won over). I know there was more to it than that - Thomas Wayne's comments also drawing anger - but all we got were these TV reports or characters speaking how "crazy" the city had become.

Constantly.

God, it was a walking antithesis of the "Show don't tell" mantra, it was such sloppy writing.

Fully agree. Even if the woman's story got out and even embellished it makes no sense for the population to lose their minds protesting/rioting to celebrate it.

Aside from the option to cause the riots that you propose, another that would make sense would be for the police to go extremely heavy handed on the poor communities after the murder of the 3 yuppies, with widespread arrests, raids, and potentially even police shootings of innocent poor people who resisted arrest. That would have incited the population to riot and would have made much more sense for them to wear clown masks in solidarity.

Giving free passes because 'well that's Gotham' is a weak excuse.

Effects · 15-10-2019 2:53pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

another that would make sense would be for the police to go extremely heavy handed on the poor communities after the murder of the 3 yuppies

That sounds like even worse writing to be honest.

johnny_ultimate · 15-10-2019 3:24pm

It's a film that wants to be all things to all people.

You can look at the protests as the disenfranchised rising up against the elites, catalysed by an anti-hero who's been kicked by the system. But the protesters are also shown as violent, angry, masked thugs provoked by the actions of a delusional psychopath (the film's nonsense portrayal of mental illness precludes a more sympathetic reading of Arthur's actions). Films don't have to have a point of view in these respects, but Joker comes across as a muddled mush of ideas that doesn't take the time to explore all of that as anything more than background colour to set up a few setpieces. I'd go as far as saying a couple of other recent mid-tier Hollywood genre films - the fun Ready or Not and especially the magnificent Knives Out - address the whole '99%-1%' angle in a much more substantial and playful way than this, the most ostensibly serious-minded of the three.

I think that carries through to the whole 'what's in his head?' side of things as well. Films can be ambiguous and unclear about what's really happening while still being excellent films - a David Lynch film tends to fall into that category, by existing in a hazy, nightmare-like fantasy world. While Joker drops a few hints - and then one big, unambiguous flashback - about an unreliable narrator, it actually plays like a straightforward psychological thriller for pretty much the entire run time. It drops hints in a way that seems designed to prompt bad YouTube essays rather than meaningfully complicate the text in any way. If anything, prompts such as 'was it all in his head?' just further undermine any efforts to find substance in this garbled mix of ideas. For a film so radically different to standard comic book fare in tone, it actually also works best as a sort of spectacle film above all else - an intense, exaggerated, stylish character study.

The best piece of writing in The Dark Knight is the Joker's shifting backstories - it immediately complicates the character, defining him as a mysterious agent of chaos. That's arguably the most interesting the character gets - in cinematic terms it's certainly a big leap over Nicholson's portrayal or heaven forbid Cesar Romero

The most generous reading of this film is that it and its title character are similarly chaotic and ambiguous on purpose. I'm sure some critics and fans can/will convincingly argue that's the case, but personally it came across as a mish-mash of ideas that didn't have the power to deliver on anything convincingly.

PhiloCypher · 15-10-2019 3:26pm

Stallingrad wrote: »

Let's take some artistic license call it a 20 years gap, that is doable.

That would make Arthur 28ish when he meets Bruce at the gate to Wayne Manor. I don't think I can suspend my disbelief that far ;p

Foxtrol · 15-10-2019 3:37pm

Effects wrote: »

That sounds like even worse writing to be honest.

I'll take your criticism, I will admit that I am not a highly paid Hollywood writer.

I'm of the opinion that nearly anything is better than the giant plot hole that is repeatedly used to driving the narrative

Mark Hamill · 15-10-2019 3:49pm

PhiloCypher wrote: »

That would make Arthur 28ish when he meets Bruce at the gate to Wayne Manor. I don't think I can suspend my disbelief that far ;p

Is he not supposed to be very earlier 30s? The movie said his mother stopped working for Wayne ~30 years ago, which presumably would have been when Arthur was born and she tried to claim he was Waynes son. Years of hard medication can make you look significantly older than you are (just look at Lindsay Lohan :pac:), and with Bruce being 8-10 in the movie, you could easily justify an age gap in that range. A 25 year age gap puts Arthur at late 40s when Batman is in early 20s.

Porklife · 15-10-2019 4:24pm

I think people are taking this movie far too seriously which is ironic seeing as the tagline is - why so serious and the main character is the Joker! I've a friend of a friend on facebook who i've actually had to unfollow because he won't stop posting articles about mental health, reviews of the Joker and personal rants ad raves about how the movie is not depicting mental health appropriately.
Who's to say the movie is even about mental health?!

I saw it on Saturday evening and thought it was excellent, I really enjoyed it for what it is - a film about a delusional, downtrodden, angry man who's bitterness turned him into a make-up wearing fantastical 'clown'. He wanted to be taken seriously not only as a human being but as a stand up comedian and as he realises this is never going to happen, he succumbs to the lowest form of comedy and transforms himself into a clown.

Anyone who gets offended by the mental health aspect of this film maybe shouldn't go see such films. I thought the acting was phenomenal by Jaoquin Phoneix, he's always been a great actor and I loved all the nuances and references to Scorcese's King of Comedy. With that in mind I thought De Niro was very well cast, in fact only he could have played that part.

I've seen a helluva lot more movies portray mental illness in a way less accurate way than this but people weren't losing their sh*t over it!

pixelburp · 15-10-2019 5:41pm

Porklife wrote: »

I think people are taking this movie far too seriously which is ironic seeing as the tagline is - why so serious and the main character is the Joker! I've a friend of a friend on facebook who i've actually had to unfollow because he won't stop posting articles about mental health, reviews of the Joker and personal rants ad raves about how the movie is not depicting mental health appropriately.
Who's to say the movie is even about mental health?!

The movie does. Or at least it made repeated nods about the subject; ditto all that 99% rioting and heavy nods towards class-warfare and whatnot. There were multiple scenes about Arthur's psychological care, including his frustration over his (assigned?) councillor not taking him seriously - before even that slim amount of care is stripped away through budget cuts. The film puts the subject in the Text, up on the screen, albeit without actually having interesting or particularly insightful to say. But it's there, that Joker was partially caused by failings in the system. The material in the hospital, and flashbacks with his mother equally noisy about a failing health system.

I think as well this particular avenue has struck a chord with many in America because, insofar as I understand, mental health and funding therein is a disaster area in the States. Lord knows there are flaws in the HSE but by and large there's a public conversation about the importance of mental health, and reasonably funded services to help those in need. I get the impression neither of those exist in the America (in fact, 'mental health' is now the escape hatch for those trying to avoid talking about gun control, while culturally mental health issues are suppressed as weaknesses of character), and it's fair that perhaps critics & audiences over there responded to the subject being overt in a mainstream film.

Riddle101 · 15-10-2019 10:49pm

Say what you will about the movie but if there's anything to remember about this movie it's Joaquin Phoenix's performance. Sometimes that's enough for a movie to be well remembered.

If you look at Gangs of New York for example. I've seen a lot of hate for this film over the years. Daniel Day Lewis was the one who stood out in that movie above all else. People will always remember that movie because of Daniel Day Lewis's performance.

PressRun · 16-10-2019 1:29am

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Rewatched Dark Knight for comparison and it struck me the way both films presents the people of Gotham really speaks to the era they were made. Dark Knight released in the year Obama got elected 2008 presents an optimistic view that Gothomites won't blow each other up to save themselves. Joker on the other hand, made in the era of Trump, presents a people so broken, so worn down by the corruption and inequality they see around them, that they hero worship a killer.
That's assuming its not Fleck daydreaming on his way to Arkham of course.

Acting wise I think Phoenix's performance is at least as impressive as Ledgers, that being said Ledgers Joker will always be the definitive one for me. Joker works best as an unknowable force of nature, a Terminator, who can't be reasoned with, who can't be bought and absolutely will not stop until you die laughing. Phoenix's Joker is no Crown prince of Crime and would absolutely have stopped if he had medicare for all.

To me, the Dark Knight represents more of a cultural paranoia about terrorism, which was rife in the 00s. Ledger's Joker doesn't discriminate in who he targets - he goes after police, politicians, judges, gangsters, the rich, ordinary civilians - and his sole aim is to create chaos and prove that nobody is as good as they pretend they are. The scene where he burns all the money and goes on about how what he's doing has nothing to do with money and everything to do with sending a message - this spoke directly to fears about global terrorism, imo. The Joker as an unknowable figure who won't negotiate, can't be bought, etc. was also a play on these fears.

This version of the Joker seems to be speaking more about the radicalisation of white American men, imo, and the anxieties surrounding that particular issue in the US at the moment - the mass shooters and the likes. But like others have said, I think it's trying to put a word in on a lot of different issues at once without really saying anything of huge substance about any of it.

Ledger's Joker remains the benchmark for me. His performance of the character set the standard, but also what the character represented was more complete, for me.

Claude Burgundy · 16-10-2019 8:47am

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that bothered me. He's an accidental anti hero.

Sums it up for me.

16-10-2019 9:05am

Claude Burgundy wrote: »

Sums it up for me.

Like all this criticism is valid in hindsight but the vast majority of it didn't occur to me at the time. The film swept me away. I'd never seen King of comedy. I barely remember Taxi Driver. I wasn't aware of Todd Philips' previous work. I don't care about the parallels with the real world. It was about one person. Not some over arching societal message about mental health or inequality. I was just delighted it didn't go down the road of a bog standard comic book film. I had high enough expectations and was shocked that it met them. I don't really like Batman as a concept because of how ridiculous it is but this completely went against that grain. Every other joker didn't make sense to me, as who in their right mind would follow such an insane person. That was somehow believable in this. Although people seem to think it was unearned, I disagree. Gotham was in the background throughout because, again, this is mainly about Arthur. I don't need to know every detail of how people came to riot. It works for me. Sure its not perfect but it's without a doubt my film of the year. And I haven't even mentioned JQ.

Greyfox · 16-10-2019 9:27am

Seen it last night, brilliant film, very tense. Phoenix's performance was amazing, I never though I'd say it but his Joker is just as memerable as Ledgers or Nickelson's

silverharp · 16-10-2019 9:28am

PressRun wrote: »

This version of the Joker seems to be speaking more about the radicalisation of white American men, imo, and the anxieties surrounding that particular issue in the US at the moment - the mass shooters and the likes. But like others have said, I think it's trying to put a word in on a lot of different issues at once without really saying anything of huge substance about any of it.

A bit of a stretch , the character was in his 40's, he wasnt really in the demographic. I think we can all agree though that the media sh1t the bed here, when it came to their narratives the sign at the start said it best "Everything Must Go" . I'd imagine they were disappointed that there wasn't a related spree shooting

PressRun · 16-10-2019 9:44am

silverharp wrote: »

A bit of a stretch , the character was in his 40's, he wasnt really in the demographic. I think we can all agree though that the media sh1t the bed here, when it came to their narratives the sign at the start said it best "Everything Must Go" . I'd imagine they were disappointed that there wasn't a related spree shooting

I don't think it's a stretch at all. There is a big public conversation happening about this type of person in the US at the moment and a lot of anxieties around that type of domestic terrorism - the lone wolf shooter type. Movies say something about the times they're made in.

The Las Vegas shooter was in his 60s. Most of them are young, but I don't think that's central to what the movie is getting at about the paranoia around this type of figure.

Claude Burgundy · 16-10-2019 9:59am

Greyfox wrote: »

Seen it last night, brilliant film, very tense. Phoenix's performance was amazing, I never though I'd say it but his Joker is just as memerable as Ledgers or Nickelson's

Yet he was only Joker for perhaps 20 min out of the 2hrs. That shows the strength of his performance.

silverharp · 16-10-2019 10:40am

PressRun wrote: »

I don't think it's a stretch at all. There is a big public conversation happening about this type of person in the US at the moment and a lot of anxieties around that type of domestic terrorism - the lone wolf shooter type. Movies say something about the times they're made in.

The Las Vegas shooter was in his 60s. Most of them are young, but I don't think that's central to what the movie is getting at about the paranoia around this type of figure.

there might be but doesn't mean the movie was specifically bringing it up. The guy wasn't some angst ridden entitled teenager or twenty something. Can for sure see that you can bring mental illness, parental abuse, austerity affecting mental health services into the mix.

PressRun · 16-10-2019 11:03am

silverharp wrote: »

there might be but doesn't mean the movie was specifically bringing it up. The guy wasn't some angst ridden entitled teenager or twenty something. Can for sure see that you can bring mental illness, parental abuse, austerity affecting mental health services into the mix.

Not all shooters are angst ridden teenagers. In fact, a lot of those shootings are becoming more and more political than just random acts of violence from angry teenagers. Those shootings are symptoms of a malaise within American society and I think the movie is looking at that malaise.
It obviously isn't making explicit reference to shooters, but it's reflective of a society that is preoccupied with the "lone wolf" type and domestic terrorism and where it comes from.

peteeeed · 16-10-2019 7:50pm

I was blown away by this, I thought it was great, Joaquin phoenix performance is incredible
It was a majestic descent into psychosis

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

Comments