"Joker" (Spoilers!)

[Osiris-Rex]

I appreciate that from a story telling perspective. It does feel rather real but it also turns it's back on everything that makes the Joker Joker. That's why I'm so conflicted with this movie. The name definitely helped sale tickets but I'm sure I'm not alone in nerdom of feeling like it betrays everything that makes Joker the biggest villian in Comics and maybe all of Fiction. Even if you take away personality and break it down to what Joker represents as a agent of Choas. Arthur has no plans at all the Choas is just a byproduct. You could argue in the end after he kills the shrink if that's even real that hes now become the Joker from the comics but we arent shown that are lead to believe that at all. Except for the fact that the Shrink is innocent so that means he probaly shredded what was left of his Empathy and good..

I think the point of the movie was what led him to become the Joker. Him being the agent of chaos is what happens after he becomes the Joker. Maybe if they do make a sequel that will be explored.

[Jeremi]

Saw it yesterday and thought it was fine overall. Dragged at places but I think the ending wrapped it up rather well regardless.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Both Box Office Mojo and Deadline are anticipating Joker's second weekend to be $45-46 million for an easy repeat at number 1.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4553&p=.htm

https://deadline.com/2019/10/gemini-...ce-1202757855/

[Pinsir]

Take the delusions for example. I didn't like the thing with because I didn't think it was handled well. Immediately we find out that Arthur does have delusions when he and Penny watch the Murray Franklin show in the very beginning. So the thing with Sophie is painfully obvious (and the dialogue doesn't help either). And then we get that sequence of showing how she wasn't real like in Fight Club but it doesn't have the same effect because the twist is easily telegraphed and doesn't say anything that hasn't been said already. I found it pointless to be honest. It would have been better if the film didn't try to have it as a twist, and had other characters recognise that Arthur was talking to himself. Let's actually see him start to lose his mind and how other characters respond to that.

I don't think its a twist, you are right in saying the the film plants the idea that author has hallucinations (or reveries, since I think we have all imagined ourselves meeting certain people or placing ourselves in imagined environments). The reveal was for Author's sake. He didn't recognize that he had been hallucinating.

[Midvillian1322]

I don't think its a twist, you are right in saying the the film plants the idea that author has hallucinations (or reveries, since I think we have all imagined ourselves meeting certain people or placing ourselves in imagined environments). The reveal was for Author's sake. He didn't recognize that he had been hallucinating.

Yea but having Her not know Arthur, did that just fine the fight club flashbacks took away all the subtleties as if the director didnt trust the audience to catch on. Which was only out of place because the movie was pretty nuanced and subtle prior to that scene. I dont have the issue with it the other poster does but I do see the issue.

[Pinsir]

So in preparation for this film, I watched Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. I had never seen either film before, nor had I ever heard of King of Comedy before reviews for this film first came out. Here are some general comparisons;

>> In Taxi Driver the protagonist Travis Bickle is a reactionary, he loathes society and the "degenerates" that inhabit it (drug users, homosexuals, petty criminals, the poor, maybe even African Americans broadly). For much of the film Bickle plans to assassinate a Democratic politician that aims to institute some sort of social reform, though when he can't, he goes and kills some criminals. Arthur is far less competent than Bickle, but he is definitely not a reactionary. Joker identifies with the people Bickle despises and becomes a leader for them.
>> In King of Comedy, the protagonist Rubert Pupkin and is an aspiring comedian. His primary motivation is to become a celebrity and there is no surface level politics to the film. Arthur has similar aspirations, though Pupkin is revealed to have an actual talent for the comedy and Arthur clearly doesn't. Arthur moves beyond his aspirations of becoming a comedian and Pupkin doesn't. Pupkin lives with his mother too, though she isn't seen and it's also interesting that Pupkin has a black love interest as well.
>> The endings for King of Comedy and Taxi Driver are both 'good endings.' Travis Bickle commits three murders and gets away with it, the police don't charge him and he becomes a local celebrity. I have a lot of problems with this ending because it feels like Bickle gets off too easily. Rubert Pupkin kidnaps a television host, performs in his stead and then later accepts his arrest. A couple years later though this stunt makes him a celebrity and when he's released from prison he does become a comedian. I actually like this ending a lot and it does feel plausible. The Joker does become a kind of celebrity, though he ends the film in prison despite escaping after first being arrested. Its implied though that he might escape. I have to say though, I don't like it that he likely killed the psychiatrist. I found the ending a bit hard to hear though, so I'm not 100% sure of the context.

[Ramsay Snow]

I thought it was an excellent film and Phoenix's performance was beyond praiseworthy. I'm of the mindset that we're not entirely sure if much of what occurred in the film really happened or not.....The criticisms of the film, before the movie was released, are the stuff of nonsense. In no way was this character, nor his motivations, glorified.

As for some of the posts in this thread mentioning the character doesn't come off as the genius he's meant to be, my viewpoint on that is he was on a heavy dose of psychiatric medication (I believe multiple types), and that likely dulled him out. I'd have to re-watch the film, but I don't think much time lapsed by during the events of the movie, so all the medication he had been taking likely hadn't fully worn off. Of course, that's conjecture on my part, but it's a plausible reason for him not coming across as intelligent as he should. There's also his lack of confidence, he didn't think much of himself (Aside from a delusional sense of his own comedic talent), so he wasn't applying himself as fully as he would, otherwise. He was timid and lacking in full execution of what he would later become.

As for Fleck's spelling ability (Or lack thereof), generally, one's spelling/grammar can be an indication of one's level of intelligence, but there are always exceptions to the rule. Aside from people who are naturally intelligent but not educated, there are people like Quentin Tarantino, who, as far as I know, isn't seen as a buffoon. Although Tarantino has demonstrated a certain level of intelligence in various ways, he's known for not being able to spell for ****.

I think the point of the movie was what led him to become the Joker. Him being the agent of chaos is what happens after he becomes the Joker. Maybe if they do make a sequel that will be explored.

Precisely.....A lot of what he goes through is circumstantial, but as we watch the film he slowly learns to orchestrate chaos, from the two subway scenes, to the scene with his two coworkers in his apt, the riot at the end, etc..... He was a novice who sort of fell into his role, which is realistic in the sense that people generally aren't masters of their craft when they first start in an occupation or hobby....This film is his metamorphosis, he never truly becomes the Joker until the very end of the film (When he possibly killed the psychiatrist).

[Ramsay Snow]

It's just the same song that was sung during every baseball commercial and game for years. Very few people in the US know of Gary Glitter, less so of his crimes. Bit extreme to not see the movie off of that.

Hopefully he's going to boycott any film which uses David Bowie, the Rolling Stones, or Led Zeppelin songs in their soundtracks, what with the revelation of Bowie, Jimmy Page, and Mick Jagger having fornicated with an underage Lori Mattix back in the 70s (Along with allegations of other underage girls in their respective histories).....Rod Stewart, Alice Cooper, and a slew of other notable 1970s musicans are also known to have been with underage groupies in LA during that time-frame.

That alone is reason enough for me to seriously consider not seeing it. It would be one thing if this was some recent event most people in the United States hadn't heard about. But this guy has been convicted something like three times going back 20 years. I live in the US and I've been fully aware of it for at least a decade now. I really don't want to contribute to the royalty check of a pedophile.

Granted, Gary Glitter's story is a little different (Some of the victims he was with were under 12), but you'll need to hit that boycott button like a madman if you want to uphold your standards, my good friend.....So where do you draw the line? Is it OK for all those other musicians I named to have been with girls between the ages of 13-16, and your standards fall at the Gary Glitter level where he was known to have been with 10-11yr olds?

And keep in mind, there's also R Kelly, Afrika Bambaataa, Jerry Lee Lewis, and many others. I do hope, if you have a VHS/DVD/bluray collection, you're going to immediately throw away any films you own which have even a single song by any of these aforementioned artists. Don't single out this Joker film as some sort of altruistic anomaly in your movie-viewing choices, your vaunted moral code cannot be compromised.

Hopefully you weren't a fan of Thor: Ragnarok, for they did play Led Zeppelin in the opening sequence of the film (They may have even played the song 1-2 more times during the course of the film).

[Blind Wedjat]

I don't think Arthur has to be seen as the Joker. Likewise I don't think he's meant to be smart. He genuinely gets lucky but he also has plot armour. The same day Arthur is fired for possessing a gun is the same day three men are shot by someone who dresses up as a clown. I feel like that's enough to bring him in for questioning but the cops don't because reasons. What about the witness? Couldn't she have told the cops that the clown on the train suddenly started laughing because the cops knew about his condition? Additionally his mother dies very shortly after which should be suspicious. Then Arthur kills his coworker that gave him the gun and the little person that was there seemingly doesn't tell anybody about it, nor does anybody find out he even died, and unless those same cops investigating the shooting were beaten so badly that they both couldn't speak or communicate, shouldn't they have told the Murray Franklin show that Arthur was being investigated for murder and evaded them. Shouldn't the GCPD have known about it?

[Agent Z]

I don't think Arthur has to be seen as the Joker. Likewise I don't think he's meant to be smart. He genuinely gets lucky but he also has plot armour. The same day Arthur is fired for possessing a gun is the same day three men are shot by someone who dresses up as a clown. I feel like that's enough to bring him in for questioning but the cops don't because reasons. What about the witness? Couldn't she have told the cops that the clown on the train suddenly started laughing because the cops knew about his condition? Additionally his mother dies very shortly after which should be suspicious. Then Arthur kills his coworker that gave him the gun and the little person that was there seemingly doesn't tell anybody about it, nor does anybody find out he even died, and unless those same cops investigating the shooting were beaten so badly that they both couldn't speak or communicate, shouldn't they have told the Murray Franklin show that Arthur was being investigated for murder and evaded them. Shouldn't the GCPD have known about it?

You're talking about the GCPD who are legendary for being incompetent even by superhero standards.

[Osiris-Rex]

You're talking about the GCPD who are legendary for being incompetent even by superhero standards.

Good point. Also they are legendary at being corrupt. After all if they were good at their job, Gotham wouldn't need Batman.

[Blind Wedjat]

You're talking about the GCPD who are legendary for being incompetent even by superhero standards.

I knew someone would say this. I just knew it. And that's my problem with this film. It takes so many liberties with its own source material to modernise its world and make it more realistic (which is a good thing), but it still can't escape the trappings of said source material. Joker is made more believable and less comic book-y by given him a legitimate mental illness, PTSD and brain damage, as well as a very sociopolitical motivation, but GCPD detectives still have to act like rookies that can't put two things together in order for the plot to keep going?

Take away all the DC lore from this film and this would be a glaring plot contrivance, but we just have to accept it because it's the source material? It's not as if the movie shows or even tells us that the GCPD is incompetent. You're just assuming that they are because they have been in the comics. Joker should be able to stand on its own, especially since it did its very best to be different from the comics.

[Lightning Rider]

The cops eventually do question him though, after trying to get a hold of him and talking to his mother. That woman on the train, like many witnesses, probably decided not to come forward for her own safety. Arthur's boss could have turned him in, but that would also likely bring heat on his whole operation and an investigation into whether the employer was somehow negligent. It may seem obvious to us on screen but the cops wouldn't have a direct source for the information we already know.

[AJBopp]

Hopefully he's going to boycott any film which uses David Bowie, the Rolling Stones, or Led Zeppelin songs in their soundtracks, what with the revelation of Bowie, Jimmy Page, and Mick Jagger having fornicated with an underage Lori Mattix back in the 70s (Along with allegations of other underage girls in their respective histories).....Rod Stewart, Alice Cooper, and a slew of other notable 1970s musicans are also known to have been with underage groupies in LA during that time-frame.





Granted, Gary Glitter's story is a little different (Some of the victims he was with were under 12), but you'll need to hit that boycott button like a madman if you want to uphold your standards, my good friend.....So where do you draw the line? Is it OK for all those other musicians I named to have been with girls between the ages of 13-16, and your standards fall at the Gary Glitter level where he was known to have been with 10-11yr olds?

And keep in mind, there's also R Kelly, Afrika Bambaataa, Jerry Lee Lewis, and many others. I do hope, if you have a VHS/DVD/bluray collection, you're going to immediately throw away any films you own which have even a single song by any of these aforementioned artists. Don't single out this Joker film as some sort of altruistic anomaly in your movie-viewing choices, your vaunted moral code cannot be compromised.

Hopefully you weren't a fan of Thor: Ragnarok, for they did play Led Zeppelin in the opening sequence of the film (They may have even played the song 1-2 more times during the course of the film).

Point 1: Gary Glitter doesn't get royalties from the song being used in the movie, though that's not really an excuse for anything on either side.

Point 2: Just because you don't boycott or destroy everything remotely connected to a given point doesn't mean you're being a hypocrite. For example, it's possible to boycott Apple and Wal-Mart for not being good US corporate citizens without boycotting every corporation for not being good cooperate citizens, and still make a valid point.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Just saw it. SUPER bleak movie. Can't say I loved every minute of it, but Phoenix's performance was mesmerizing. What really sticks with me was the murder in the apartment, with Gary crying and saying "Why would you DO that, Arthur?" That **** is going to haunt me, Jesus.

I appreciated that it didn't end with a super polished villain ready to begin his war on society. Becoming Joker didn't actualize him, it just gave him a conduit for acting out his grievances, and we leave with him still figuring out how far he can take it.

For my Joker order, I say Phoenix edges out Ledger. Ledger was intense, and kind of cool. For some people, he was aspirational. But Phoenix was fucking terrifying. His Joker scared the **** out of me. A villain that inspires genuine fear is a more effective villain. He was more like Pazzuzu from the exorcist, or Chigurah from No Country From Old Men. Not somethin you want to be, but rather something you want to be safe from.