-
"Joker" (Spoilers!)
Wanted to make a thread on its own for those who had seen the movie to discuss it.
My review:
8/10
There's a lot to digest and I had mixed feelings throughout, but ultimately it was a solid satisfying well-shot story about a man descending into violent madness, which is what was advertised. I was a little bit concerned that the film was too eager to abandon its comic book roots, but it didn't shy away from existing in Gotham and acknowledging central events, characters, and themes. There are multiple "political" angles you could view the movie from, and they're interesting to dissect, but it's more a character study than a societal statement. My main criticism of the movie would be that some of the early attempts to invoke pity feel contrived, and that you can find yourself rooting for him for a lot of the movie, which in my view kind of takes it a step too far in "humanizing" him and does a disservice to the evil of the character. But at the same time, you're not seeing the Joker for most of the film, you're seeing the man who becomes him through a gradual evolution. In the end a lot of what makes him tick is narcissism, and they capture that extremely well. I didn't think the film outright promoted dangerous ideas, but some who have concerns that the film celebrates vengeful violence may have a point.
In any case, definitely worth seeing. This is one I'll have to think about more, watch again, and talk with people about to get a more solid idea of what the movie means to me and what it says about #society. I expect some people to go overboard and call it a masterpiece because of Joaquin Pheonix's acting; it wasn't that for me. But it was a damn interesting and entertaining movie that took risks. Can't ask for much more than that.
-
The one real issue with the film as I saw it...
- Phillips' personal opinion on comedy coming out of Arthur/Joker's mouth near the end of the film.
If you are intent on having anything like a serious discussion about how much freedom of expression artists should have when it comes to comedy, it coming out of the mouth of an unhinged and delusional character is not exactly the best way to pose that question.
Also took me right out of being able to suspend disbelief for a minute or two.
-
Think it's pretty close to a masterpiece.
-
[QUOTE=choptop;4607319]Think it's pretty close to a masterpiece.[/QUOTE]
Got to politely disagree there.
The nods/lifts also messed with my suspension of disbelief.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4607322]Got to politely disagree there.
The nods/lifts also messed with my suspension of disbelief.[/QUOTE]
That's cool I'd probably disagree with your version of close to a masterpiece to. :cool:
-
I'll repost what I wrote in the other Joker thread (before it totally got derailed by arguments over The Killing Joke.)
Just watched the film. A gritty love letter to 1970s cinema (complete with that era Warner's logo.) The only thing that could have sealed the deal is if Phillip's filmed it on Eastman 16mm stock. A great character study. It is also unnerving because we don't know what is real and what is just a delusion conjured up by Arthur. So if you think the film is going one way, it pulls a total 180 on you.
It won't be for everyone. Heck, some movie goers in my session were perplexed because they expected a Joker film with Batman in it. Apart from being set in Gotham, Arkham, and the Wayne's with Alfred, there isn't overwhelming shackles to comic book lore. This film works as both a comic book movie, but if you removed those elements it also works.
And yes we get another cinematic depiction of the Wayne's being murdered. Victims of a society that has reached boiling point and is tipped over the edge by Arthur's actions. some are going to be filthy on that as some fans are want to do.
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;4607283]Wanted to make a thread on its own for those who had seen the movie to discuss it.
My review:
8/10
There's a lot to digest and I had mixed feelings throughout, but ultimately it was a solid satisfying well-shot story about a man descending into violent madness, which is what was advertised. I was a little bit concerned that the film was too eager to abandon its comic book roots, but it didn't shy away from existing in Gotham and acknowledging central events, characters, and themes. There are multiple "political" angles you could view the movie from, and they're interesting to dissect, but it's more a character study than a societal statement. My main criticism of the movie would be that some of the early attempts to invoke pity feel contrived, and that you can find yourself rooting for him for a lot of the movie, which in my view kind of takes it a step too far in "humanizing" him and does a disservice to the evil of the character. But at the same time, you're not seeing the Joker for most of the film, you're seeing the man who becomes him through a gradual evolution. In the end a lot of what makes him tick is narcissism, and they capture that extremely well. I didn't think the film outright promoted dangerous ideas, but some who have concerns that the film celebrates vengeful violence may have a point.
In any case, definitely worth seeing. This is one I'll have to think about more, watch again, and talk with people about to get a more solid idea of what the movie means to me and what it says about #society. I expect some people to go overboard and call it a masterpiece because of Joaquin Pheonix's acting; it wasn't that for me. But it was a damn interesting and entertaining movie that took risks. Can't ask for much more than that.[/QUOTE]
The film is very big on social class warfare and the 99%/occupy wall street movement. Gotham is depicted as a city already on the road to social and economic degradation. Arthur is a man who is repeatedly let down by the system (the mental health care/access to prescriptions that could have kept him in check are cut and, later on, we find out he was the victim of severe child abuse and should have been put into foster care). Those with the wealth and power to change things for the better don't seem too concerned about doing that. Preferring to keep themselves above everybody else.
It is a vicious cycle that ultimately leads to the breakout of violence. It was always going to erupt at some point. Arthur's actions are the spark that ignites the flame. Now, I don't condone Arthur killing those 3 guys, but there is no doubt that they would have tried to force themselves on that young woman had Arthur not been there in the subway car with them. Then they decided to beat up on Arthur. Because they were wall street types, they would have found some way to avoid the law.
-
Its also amazing when you take into account that Phillips is best known for The Hangover Trilogy. When you sit down and watch this, it is the exact opposite of those films in every single way. It is also heavily influenced by Scorsese films to the point that Joker almost mirrors Taxi Driver with a number of visual cues, nods and homages throughout. The blueprint is very similar and I can already see some fans tearing into over that alone.
-
One small thing that I don't think that the film is going to get anywhere near enough credit for(actually, I'd guess folks will turn it into something it isn't)...
That the functional close of the film(Arthur on top of the squad car) is a very subtle bookend to match Arthur forcing a smile while putting his makeup on at the start of the film. The look before he put that smile on for the crowd was one of the strongest moments in the whole film.
-
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;4607597]Its also amazing when you take into account that Phillips is best known for The Hangover Trilogy. When you sit down and watch this, it is the exact opposite of those films in every single way. It is also heavily influenced by Scorsese films to the point that Joker almost mirrors Taxi Driver with a number of visual cues, nods and homages throughout. The blueprint is very similar and I can already see some fans tearing into over that alone.[/QUOTE]
While I know that folks tend to know Phillips for those "Hangover" films, his first film was called [B][I]Hated: GG Allin And The Murder Junkies[/I][/B]. While it is a essentially a documentary film, some really subtle nods to that film(The name of the comedy club being the same as the "Clown" name that John Wayne Gacy used. A piece of Gacy's art essentially wound up funding the making of the documentary. Also, GG has an interview where he talks about not being part of any "Scene". The color scheme of Arthur's makeup matching Gacy's.) seem like they are there in [B][I]Joker[/I][/B].
The aspect that you mentioned is obviously there, but some of that first film shows up if you have seen it.
-
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;4607385]The film is very big on social class warfare and the 99%/occupy wall street movement. Gotham is depicted as a city already on the road to social and economic degradation. Arthur is a man who is repeatedly let down by the system (the mental health care/access to prescriptions that could have kept him in check are cut and, later on, we find out he was the victim of severe child abuse and should have been put into foster care). Those with the wealth and power to change things for the better don't seem too concerned about doing that. Preferring to keep themselves above everybody else.
It is a vicious cycle that ultimately leads to the breakout of violence. It was always going to erupt at some point. Arthur's actions are the spark that ignites the flame. Now, I don't condone Arthur killing those 3 guys, but there is no doubt that they would have tried to force themselves on that young woman had Arthur not been there in the subway car with them. Then they decided to beat up on Arthur. Because they were wall street types, they would have found some way to avoid the law.[/QUOTE]
There’s definitely a strong class element to the movie. On one hand I liked that because I do think people are deluded into thinking millionaires will save us, and Thomas was a kind of villain for the first time, but the class hatred depicted in the film was violent and aimless, which is a trope used all the time, the specter of mob violence. It was there in The Dark Knight Rises too and I feel it kinda cheapens real life movements for class struggle.
-
My review:
Joaquin delivered one of the most enthralling and most intriguing performance as the Joker
The supporting cast (albeit minor) were perfect in the development of the Joker character in context of the story
The story was paced perfectly and what I like about it was, there's an "air" of ambiguity in it, we are subjected into a narrative that can be interpreted depending on how you perceive Arthur's POV of the events.
The cinematography was nothing short of a beauty.
The score was perfect, it feels like the music Hildur composed was a character of itself.
The overall vibe really captured the 70's-80's style of character study type films, there's even a scene that is directly influenced by "The King of Comedy"
My score: 10/10 - a masterpiece
-
I went in thinking I wasn’t going to like it, and for the first half I wasn’t, but then it got pretty damn good.
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;4607738]There’s definitely a strong class element to the movie. On one hand I liked that because I do think people are deluded into thinking millionaires will save us, and Thomas was a kind of villain for the first time, but the class hatred depicted in the film was violent and aimless, which is a trope used all the time, the specter of mob violence. It was there in The Dark Knight Rises too and I feel it kinda cheapens real life movements for class struggle.[/QUOTE]
I think the hated was amplified to such a dramatic degree as to hammer home just how oppressive the society in Gotham is. It needed to do that to help solidify the fact Arthur is a victim of it. Plus Gotham has always been a city of extremes. But yes, they certainly didn't try to hide that fact. In fact, they embraced it wholeheartedly.
Was Thomas really a villain? Phillip's went back and forth on this throughout the movie. Ultimately it is left ambiguous. We don't know what Thomas's motivations were for running for Mayor. He may have been genuinely passionate about saving the city and getting it back on track. However he could have just wanted to get into office to further his, and Wayne Enterprises, interests.
The Wayne's hold significant influence via their wealth and power. But those things can only get you so far in a society/system controlled by someone such as a mayor, governor or President. His cold attitude and indifference towards Arthur caused a part of me to cheer for his eventually comeuppance. Yet, I also understand that he has been bailed up by Arthur and the fact Arthur travelled to Wayne Manor/interacting withe Joker.
-
I'm seeing it tonight can't wait! It's funny that the mainstream critics are ripping this film now after all the good reviews from the venice film festival and the TIFF festival but the audience is loving this film and most who have seen it are calling it the best movie (not just comic book movie) of the year. Yet these same critics gave Star Wars amazing praise.
Currently sitting at a 69 RT score and 58 Metacritic.
-
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;4607905]I think the hated was amplified to such a dramatic degree as to hammer home just how oppressive the society in Gotham is. It needed to do that to help solidify the fact Arthur is a victim of it. Plus Gotham has always been a city of extremes. But yes, they certainly didn't try to hide that fact. In fact, they embraced it wholeheartedly.
Was Thomas really a villain? Phillip's went back and forth on this throughout the movie. Ultimately it is left ambiguous. We don't know what Thomas's motivations were for running for Mayor. He may have been genuinely passionate about saving the city and getting it back on track. However he could have just wanted to get into office to further his, and Wayne Enterprises, interests.
The Wayne's hold significant influence via their wealth and power. But those things can only get you so far in a society/system controlled by someone such as a mayor, governor or President. His cold attitude and indifference towards Arthur caused a part of me to cheer for his eventually comeuppance. Yet, I also understand that he has been bailed up by Arthur and the fact Arthur travelled to Wayne Manor/interacting withe Joker.[/QUOTE]
He's definitely not cast as an evil person, but similar to prominent rich people who credit their success only to their own talents and not privilege or social circumstance. They beleive they hold the solutions to societies problems as saviors. I've never seen Thomas portrayed like that and I liked it for the most part.
That cheering is part of the issue, I thought the movie spared us from killings we felt were truly horrific. Everyone Joker killed in some form "deserved" payback, if not necessarily in death.
The Wall Street guys were jerks not just to him but to the lady, and flat out assaulted him.
His mother lied to him and contributed to his abuse.
His coworker ratted him out to his boss, almost set him up.
Murray brought him on to ridicule him after making fun of his videos.
In real life few would feel that murdering these people is justice, but in the context of a movie, all except perhaps the mom have an element of satisfaction. If he had killed the girl he fantasized about, perhaps someone in the audience, we might have felt that he was finally evil and lacking empathy, not just mad at the world.
I think the film would have worked better if more than just his romantic episode was shown to have competing narratives.
-
One thing I didn't ilke was that on the Murray show, in the moment that he was supposed to finally transform into Joker, he was still ranting about society abandoning him. He was still the angry Arthur Fleck. Granted, he shed that identity through the public killing of Murray, but I felt like he kept trying to justify the killings and harp on the self-pity, whereas I wanted him at that moment to fully adopt the persona of a comedic nihilist psychopath. Instead of angrily pointing the finger at society, I would have preferred he laughably expose their hypocricy and treat them like a joke. I think of the Joker as someone who has abandoned notions of civility and societal justice, and Fleck was still angry at seeing his expectations not met. It may seem like a subtle nit-pick, but for me it's important characterization.
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;4608065]If he had killed the girl he fantasized about, perhaps someone in the audience, we might have felt that he was finally evil and lacking empathy, not just mad at the world. [/QUOTE]
Did he kill her? Would have loved for that to have been clarified. I know its implied that he killed either the psychiatrist or an orderly at the end of the movie.
The film absolutely needed to have more competing narratives. I agree 100% with you on that.
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;4608084]One thing I didn't ilke was that on the Murray show, in the moment that he was supposed to finally transform into Joker, he was still ranting about society abandoning him. He was still the angry Arthur Fleck. Granted, he shed that identity through the public killing of Murray, but I felt like he kept trying to justify the killings and harp on the self-pity, whereas I wanted him at that moment to fully adopt the persona of a comedic nihilist psychopath. Instead of angrily pointing the finger at society, I would have preferred he laughably expose their hypocricy and treat them like a joke. I think of the Joker as someone who has abandoned notions of civility and societal justice, and Fleck was still angry at seeing his expectations not met. It may seem like a subtle nit-pick, but for me it's important characterization.[/QUOTE]
One guy's take...
He never really "Changes" into the Joker. Never was a change that was meant to happen in the film.
The name he asked to be used during his introduction was a description of Arthur. Also, the guy that forced a smile before standing up and dancing on the squad was the exact same guy from earlier in the film.
Never mind who he obviously is when the film closes.
-
The Waynes are killed by Simon The Pieman with an exploding pie.
-
Just saw the film and must say it met my expectations considering all the hype.
First, it is a good contestant for being the best movie of the year and is easily the best comic book movie of the year.
Second, after seeing the film the inevitable debates on who is the best Joker will begin but honestly we saw Arthur Fleck for over 90 minutes and saw Joker for maybe 30. All other iterations that we have seen were full joker within minutes of the film or they were joker the entire movie, so I don't think a fair comparison is really possible.
Joaquin Phoenix was a phenomenal Arthur Fleck! While the whole story wasn't comicbook accurate (killing joke) it was okay because it didn't take anything away from the emotional portrayal and personality of the overall character.
Todd Phillips deserves a lot of credit too imo primarily when it came to the presentation of the film. We are seeing everything from Arthur's point of view and that makes it hard to interpret the reality of the situations that were seen. For example we see that Arthur imagines himself in situations all the time that aren't real and as a viewer you begin to question almost every scene. It makes you question how mean was anyone to him truly? We are seeing things from his perspective so its unclear how people really treated him and how some situations truly played out. Did anyone else get the feeling that the scene at the end when he was being glorified by the rioters was a fabrication in his mind?
The pacing was okay imo, there was room for improvement there. The musical score was excellent and really helped drive emotion.
I disagree with some posters that stated his joker transformation was on the murray show, I think it was after he killed his mother. After that event he acts like joker straight out of Batman the animated series. He starts being manipulative and unpredictable. The scene where he kills Randall and let's the midget go shows that. Further, during the chase with the police, we see him acting like it's a game once it's clear that he won after the rioters jump the police on the subway.
Did anyone else think that the part at the end where joker is locked up and in Arkham and is laughing and tells the doctor that she wouldn't get the joke was implying that the events in the movie never occurred and the joke is actually on the audience. I ask because it seems to be hinted that parts of the Arkham scene is his imagination like his feet being bloody. Why would his feet be bloody otherwise?
I'm still thinking about a few things in the film so I'll probably have more to add later.
-
If you sat through all the credits at the end, then you saw that in addition to crediting Bob Kane, Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson they also thank Brian Bolland, J. M. DeMatteis, Keith Giffen and Irv Novick.
I wonder what you all made of that.
For myself, Brian Bolland is obvious (KILLING JOKE), but the other three I had to give some thought. Irv Novick is one of my favourite Batman artists, but I think the comic work they were most especially acknowledging was Novick's work on the short-lived JOKER comic in the 1970s. I'm sure DeMatteis and Giffen have done some comics with the Joker in them, but I expect that Todd Phillips was thanking them for JUSTICE LEAGUE. That comic has a weird sensibility as it mixes broad comedy with some serious takes.
Still it's interesting they would focus in on those four and not all the other comic creators involved with Batman and Joker. But maybe Phillips was really drawing a lot of inspiration for his movie from those specific comic books.
-
[QUOTE=williamtheday;4609175]The Waynes are killed by Simon The Pieman with an exploding pie.[/QUOTE]
The Wayne's getting killed by a guy wearing a clown mask means there is absolutely no way of ever identifying him and it also foreshadows his eventual hatred of the Joker in the future. So whenever he beats down on him he'll more than likely imagine he is kicking the crap out of the guy who shot his parents.
Its also funny how Thomas Wayne thinks those who act outside the law and hide behind masks are "cowards." Means he never would have approved of Bruce becoming Batman. Whereas Bruce becomes Batman with the idea of honouring and avenging them.
-
When the pearls got pulled off Martha's neck, I actually yelled out loud "Pearls!" And then felt silly for that. But it's something that Roxy Striar says she never has to see in another movie--and then there it was again!
Of course, we don't know if any of this actually happened or if it's all in his head. Maybe in his world, everything is just a story he's telling himself and it never actually happened.
Like the A. Fleck thing bugged me over a year ago when they said that was his name. And then you have Penny Fleck who worked along side Pennyworth. You'd think those things would be dropped from the rought draft, because they take you out of the movie. But maybe that's the point. Maybe you're supposed to think that these clanging name choices don't ring true. How much can we trust the story that we're being told?
Or like when Murray Franklin let's Joker keep talking, even though the producer is signalling to cut. I then thought of Phoenix on Letterman and how Dave indulged him and just let him do his thing, without trying to cut the bit. Murray is probably thinking this will be great for his ratings--not realizing how much danger he's in. Since this thing happened in real life, it adds a weird authenticity to the moment.
-
Yeah, I'm definitely into the theory that he is an unreliable narrator, and perhaps people weren't as mean to him as we see on screen. But beyond the fantasized gf, there aren't enough alternate realities to drive that point home, so I think most of the audience takes most of the movie as accurately presented.
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4609227]
I disagree with some posters that stated his joker transformation was on the murray show, I think it was after he killed his mother. After that event he acts like joker straight out of Batman the animated series. He starts being manipulative and unpredictable. The scene where he kills Randall and let's the midget go shows that. Further, during the chase with the police, we see him acting like it's a game once it's clear that he won after the rioters jump the police on the subway.
[/QUOTE]
I think killing his mother is definitely a big moment for the character, but the fact that he's still venting frustration on stage contradicts a full Joker transformation IMO. Joker would never whine and wallow in self-pity like that; it makes sense that it formed his eventual persona, but that eventual persona no longer communicates anger, he laughs and acts violently without ever letting on that he cares.
-
Joker's apotheosis is when he "dies" in the squadcar and is pulled out by the crowd and resurrected as their new saviour. The bone-chilling moment is actually when he spreads the blood into a smile.
Well, that's one possible answer that I have.
There are several places in the movie where you could say that it breaks from reality--or that reality breaks in. The very end, where he's a mental patient could be the only actual reality in the movie. Or it could be an unreal state, because with all the white it looks like he's in heaven or in his own dream world.
It think all these questions make for a great movie. I like movies that provoke questions for which I have no firm answers. THE DARK KNIGHT was a movie like that--it posed a lot of questions about morality and what a society should do. People seemed to like that movie because it opened up a debate. Strange that in so short a time another movie that asks more questions than it answers is being slammed for doing that.
-
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;4609587]Joker's apotheosis is when he "dies" in the squadcar and is pulled out by the crowd and resurrected as their new saviour.[B][COLOR="#0000FF"] The bone-chilling moment is actually when he spreads the blood into a smile.[/COLOR][/B]
Well, that's one possible answer that I have.
There are several places in the movie where you could say that it breaks from reality--or that reality breaks in. The very end, where he's a mental patient could be the only actual reality in the movie. Or it could be an unreal state, because with all the white it looks like he's in heaven or in his own dream world.
It think all these questions make for a great movie. I like movies that provoke questions for which I have no firm answers. THE DARK KNIGHT was a movie like that--it posed a lot of questions about morality and what a society should do. People seemed to like that movie because it opened up a debate. Strange that in so short a time another movie that asks more questions than it answers is being slammed for doing that.[/QUOTE]
See, I felt the exact opposite when I saw that scene.
If anything, it felt like the guy who was seriously considering committing suicide as a punchline was crestfallen when he spit the blood out and realized he had lived through the collision.
To me, that smile was strictly "It's time to make the donuts." Having lived through something where he would have been happy if it killed him, he just goes right back to being the clown with a forced smile that starts the film.
"That's Life" at the end just seemed like it was there to cement that.
-
I love it as a film. Not my Joker, but certainly Arthur was interesting character which Phoenix handled like a pro.
The strongest point of the film IMO is that it leaves things to your imagination or it gives you the freedom to choose what's true and what's not. For example, i feel that most of the story was a figment of Arthur's imagination and the whole story was delusions based on things that could or could not happen in his life. The narrative of the events gives you great hints about that, so it's up to you to choose what's going on.
One thing that people tend to not notice, is that the criticism is both on rich and poor alike. Rich people and famous stars tend to ignore or not understand the difficulties of ordinary men, while we saw ordinary guys being equally cruel to Arthur. In fact,the great joke of the movie was that Arthur killed 3 douchebags that happened to be rich guys,so the angry feelings or impoverished people found a "god sent avenger".If Arthur had the gun earlier, when the kids attacked him, he would kill them and he would be seen by ordinary people and media as a crazy child killer. Phoenix's character was a time ticking bomb, it's luck and timing that made him an icon.
-
[QUOTE=Master Planner;4609749]
The strongest point of the film IMO is that it leaves things to your imagination or it gives you the freedom to choose what's true and what's not. For example, i feel that most of the story was a figment of Arthur's imagination and the whole story was delusions based on things that could or could not happen in his life. The narrative of the events gives you great hints about that, so it's up to you to choose what's going on.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this being the strongest point as it appears to be igniting alot of conversation among us and making us think and rethink about the events of the film. For instance, the more I think about it the more I realize there may have been more clues to the reality that we were presented with such as it being stated a few times that Arthur was locked up before however no details are ever provided about when, where, why, and how. This also prompts the possibility that when Arthur was locked up prior that he was never actually released and the entire movie was the joke in his mind.
-
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4609773]I agree with this being the strongest point as it appears to be igniting alot of conversation among us and making us think and rethink about the events of the film. For instance, the more I think about it the more I realize there may have been more clues to the reality that we were presented with such as it being stated a few times that Arthur was locked up before however no details are ever provided about when, where, why, and how. This also prompts the possibility that when Arthur was locked up prior that he was never actually released and the entire movie was the joke in his mind.[/QUOTE]
The first big hint was his first visit to the psychiatrist.She told him if he remembered why he was locked up in Arkham and show as a brief flashback of Arthur hitting his head and later this info pretty much ignored.When Arthur went to Arkham, the stuff or at least someone should have recognised him, especially considering that they search a file about his mother. Also, being abused as a child and latter not remembering, being a possible relative of Bruce or the mockery of Batman as a symbol(the clown as symbol of Gotham) and the phrase "i thought a joke *cue Bruce standing over his dead parents*but you wouldn't understand it", pretty much tells as that in the end Joker is more close to our regular version or as mad that he is delusional of his own past or remaking it. The last murder before the credits showed that difference between the Arthur of our story with th Joker of the end. The first, through luck, killed people who one way or another, wronged him. The last murder is an innocent phychiatrist before the stuff or Arkham start to chase him.
-
[QUOTE=Master Planner;4609749]I love it as a film. Not my Joker, but certainly Arthur was interesting character which Phoenix handled like a pro.
The strongest point of the film IMO is that it leaves things to your imagination or it gives you the freedom to choose what's true and what's not. For example, i feel that most of the story was a figment of Arthur's imagination and the whole story was delusions based on things that could or could not happen in his life. The narrative of the events gives you great hints about that, so it's up to you to choose what's going on.
One thing that people tend to not notice, is that the criticism is both on rich and poor alike. Rich people and famous stars tend to ignore or not understand the difficulties of ordinary men, while we saw ordinary guys being equally cruel to Arthur. In fact,the great joke of the movie was that Arthur killed 3 douchebags that happened to be rich guys,so the angry feelings or impoverished people found a "god sent avenger".[B][COLOR="#0000FF"]If Arthur had the gun earlier, when the kids attacked him, he would kill them and he would be seen by ordinary people and media as a crazy child killer. Phoenix's character was a time ticking bomb, it's luck and timing that made him an icon.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
On that...
- During the discussion, Arthur points out that they were "Just kids..."
- During the scene on the train, he actually tries to diffuse what is happening while he is having a laughing fit. He only fires when his life is actually in danger.
While I guess he might have killed the kids, it felt like they were pointing away from that. Even later than that, he does not kill Gary in the apartment and even says that he was one of the only people who was ever good to him.
-
[QUOTE=Master Planner;4609800]The first big hint was his first visit to the psychiatrist.She told him if he remembered why he was locked up in Arkham and show as a brief flashback of Arthur hitting his head and later this info pretty much ignored.When Arthur went to Arkham, the stuff or at least someone should have recognised him, especially considering that they search a file about his mother. Also, being abused as a child and latter not remembering, being a possible relative of Bruce or the mockery of Batman as a symbol(the clown as symbol of Gotham) and the phrase "i thought a joke *cue Bruce standing over his dead parents*but you wouldn't understand it", pretty much tells as that in the end Joker is more close to our regular version or as mad that he is delusional of his own past or remaking it. The last murder before the credits showed that difference between the Arthur of our story with th Joker of the end. [B][COLOR="#0000FF"]The first, through luck, killed people who one way or another, wronged him. The last murder is an innocent phychiatrist before the stuff or Arkham start to chase him.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
One guy's take...
The only reason that kill happens is so that Arthur can act out the "Pick Myself Up And Get Back In The Race" line from "That's Life" while the orderlies are chasing him.
I think it was there strictly to foreshadow an upcoming joke.
-
[QUOTE=Master Planner;4609800]The first big hint was his first visit to the psychiatrist.She told him if he remembered why he was locked up in Arkham and show as a brief flashback of Arthur hitting his head and later this info pretty much ignored.When Arthur went to Arkham, the stuff or at least someone should have recognised him, especially considering that they search a file about his mother. Also, being abused as a child and latter not remembering, being a possible relative of Bruce or the mockery of Batman as a symbol(the clown as symbol of Gotham) and the phrase "i thought a joke *cue Bruce standing over his dead parents*but you wouldn't understand it", pretty much tells as that in the end Joker is more close to our regular version or as mad that he is delusional of his own past or remaking it. The last murder before the credits showed that difference between the Arthur of our story with th Joker of the end. The first, through luck, killed people who one way or another, wronged him. The last murder is an innocent phychiatrist before the stuff or Arkham start to chase him.[/QUOTE]
What's funny is while Todd Phillips claimed that he wasn't trying to make a comic accurate movie, he ultimately did as Joker's origin is and has always been a mystery. By us not knowing what was real and what wasn't, the film in all reality may have been one of Joker's many made up stories that he has always told. Remember in TDK where joker told like 3 different stories on how he got his scars. The movie as a whole could be a single version of all the different stories that he has concocted in his mind, which imo is the best joker origin film because we came out of the film still not knowing the origin.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4609807]On that...
- During the discussion, Arthur points out that they were "Just kids..."
- During the scene on the train, he actually tries to diffuse what is happening while he is having a laughing fit. He only fires when his life is actually in danger.
While I guess he might have killed the kids, it felt like they were pointing away from that.[/QUOTE]
There are 2 differences with the kids in comparison to the 3 rich guys:
-Arthur still had his job and the spiral of bad events wasn't as harsh as much later.
-He didn't have a gun.
I still believe that if the kids tried something similar when arthur was unemployed and armed,we could have victims.
-
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4609813]What's funny is while Todd Phillips claimed that he wasn't trying to make a comic accurate movie, he ultimately did as Joker's origin is and has always been a mystery. By us not knowing what was real and what wasn't, the film in all reality may have been one of Joker's many made up stories that he has always told. Remember in TDK where joker told like 3 different stories on how he got his scars. The movie as a whole could be a single version of all the different stories that he has concocted in his mind, which imo is the best joker origin film because we came out of the film still not knowing the origin.[/QUOTE]
That's the film's biggest gag. In it's core, it's probably the best representation of Joker not knowing or confusing events about his past life.
-
[QUOTE=Master Planner;4609817]That's the film's biggest gag. In it's core, it's probably the best representation of Joker not knowing or confusing events about his past life.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm about 80% positive that the final joke at the end of the film was that we (the audience) went to see a Joker origin film and left not knowing the origin. Its brilliant and fitting to say the least that the first standalone film about the clown prince was a pointless joke.
-
I thought of the EC horror stories about halfway through the movie. Bill Gaines and his group would come up with springboard ideas and they'd have a full board of these springboards that they would use as the starting point for a story. Before the movie there were all these ads and trailers (too much, I wish the theatre would say when the movie really starts) and one was from TIFF and had Todd Phillips saying he took this idea of Joker and then worked back from that in his mind to how such a character might arise. So the Joker we know is the springboard and the horror story is what the director and the actor interpolated from that existing property.
The thing with the rats--and the super-rats--made me think of something in a psychology course I had at university, where there was a study that showed rats living together in a overpopulated community would start to turn on each other and attack one another. So Gotham is like this social experiment gone wrong, where so many people forced into the same space causes some of them to turn on each other, to the extent that they kill one another. Which from a scientific perspective is a way that nature has for correcting an error, because so many rats can't all exist together in such a limited environment.
-
Just seen it. I think, like the shining, this film is destined to be over analyzed..
With that in mind.... is the joker having sex with his mother???
1 )Arthur has an overly close relationship with his mother. Bathing her.
2)The first time we see her, she's in bed. Laying on the left side.
3) the beds headboard is shaped to draw attention to it being a double.
4 ) when we see Arthur laid on it, he stick to the right side.
5 )we never see his bedroom. In fact, the apartment doesn't seem big enough for two bedrooms.
6 ) we learn Arthur has a history of abuse that either he doesn't remember, or doesn't acknowledge as abuse.
7 ) if we believe the adoption papers aren't a fake, then Arthur isn't penny's biological son. Is she crazy enough to think sleeping with hims okay?
-
The thing is, if Penny lost custody of Arthur and was in Arkham, how did she get him back? Did Arthur only move back in with her when he was grown up? But that doesn't jibe with the stories he tells about his childhood. So he's an unreliable narrator. If he really remembered his childhood and everything that happened to him, he would never trust his mother's story about Thomas Wayne.
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;4608084]One thing I didn't ilke was that on the Murray show, in the moment that he was supposed to finally transform into Joker, he was still ranting about society abandoning him. He was still the angry Arthur Fleck. Granted, he shed that identity through the public killing of Murray, but I felt like he kept trying to justify the killings and harp on the self-pity, whereas I wanted him at that moment to fully adopt the persona of a comedic nihilist psychopath. Instead of angrily pointing the finger at society, I would have preferred he laughably expose their hypocricy and treat them like a joke. I think of the Joker as someone who has abandoned notions of civility and societal justice, and Fleck was still angry at seeing his expectations not met. It may seem like a subtle nit-pick, but for me it's important characterization.[/QUOTE]
Sounds more like a nitpick. It's like you forgot that he went there to kill himself on live television. It was always a selfish motivation to get people to notice him. Narcissism has always been a big part of the Joker.
There's also the fact that calls himself Joker to get back at Murray, who used that term to insult him earlier in the movie.