Joker (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 2549
Joined: January 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
CASE wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 4:14 am
And speaking of scums.
I bet that those Wall Street pieces of crap would kill Arthur with no blink if they would be sure that they wouldn't be caught. Just for fun. That type of people.

I just like the message of this movie: be nice people to each other, have some empathy because somebody maybe will run out of it. Don't make jokes of someone because he's diffrent. And especially don't make such jokes in american highschools :P
There, for example, he contributes to his own misery because it would have been easy to just tell the truth but it also would likely have meant having to give back the gun...
Yeah, just tell the truth and everybody would be just fine about that and walk home with no consequences for Arthur whatsoever.
See Arthur? It's that simple you stupid coward. Just loose your job instantly with ill mother back at home. Genius!
And don't tell me that his later actions were just way worse beacuse people (especially with fucked up brain I imagine) don't work that way where they have every possible action forethought "back and forth". Life is a freaking fractal not just a chess piece with two possible moves.
Do you really belive that Arthur was some blood thirsty demon? That he would keep the gun if he knew where eventually would it lead to? I'm not sure, maybe (beacuse after all basically life itself is shitting on him), maybe not.
I will leave you on your moral pedestal with that.
But... we're not talking about real life, we're talking about a film and its screenplay and storytelling. I wasn't talking about moral dilemmas when I said the film was on the nose with its portrayal of the protagonist. I simply didn't think it was elegant or subtle, and I was really annoyed by the very obvious way the character was written and portrayed. This has nothing to do with whether or not people like him in real life are treated this way or that way.

Posts: 4111
Joined: January 2012
CASE wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 4:14 am
And speaking of scums.
I bet that those Wall Street pieces of crap would kill Arthur with no blink if they would be sure that they wouldn't be caught. Just for fun. That type of people.

I just like the message of this movie: be nice people to each other, have some empathy because somebody maybe will run out of it. Don't make jokes of someone because he's diffrent. And especially don't make such jokes in american highschools :P
There, for example, he contributes to his own misery because it would have been easy to just tell the truth but it also would likely have meant having to give back the gun...
Yeah, just tell the truth and everybody would be just fine about that and walk home with no consequences for Arthur whatsoever.
See Arthur? It's that simple you stupid coward. Just loose your job instantly with ill mother back at home. Genius!
And don't tell me that his later actions were just way worse beacuse people (especially with fucked up brain I imagine) don't work that way where they have every possible action forethought "back and forth". Life is a freaking fractal not just a chess piece with two possible moves.
Do you really belive that Arthur was some blood thirsty demon? That he would keep the gun if he knew where eventually would it lead to? I'm not sure, maybe (beacuse after all basically life itself is shitting on him), maybe not.
I will leave you on your moral pedestal with that.
Arthur himself says that he's not allowed to have a gun...did...did you miss it? He kept it initially because he let himself be convinced by his co-worker and while you can understand why he would, you also know that it will just contribute more to his misery further down the line. Likely due to his severe mental issues (he's on various different types of medication after all) he cannot purchase a gun legally and he's pretending it's a prop (with which he plays around in his home) and which he carries with him when he visits sick children in a hospital. He decides to lie about that incident and basically keeps the gun because it gives him a feeling of power he does not otherwise have in his life and he points it at his tv at one point like it's a toy or something...His boss does not believe him of course and fires him. Had he said that his co-worker had given hi the gun, maybe the whole thing could have been resolved without Arthur losing his job but he decided that he needed to keep the gun and tried to lie his way out of a bad situation. Then, once the Wall Street guys attack him, he defends himself by shooting 2 of them initially in the moment but even then the amount of force he used to defend himself is very likely disproportionate to the initial attack. He then deliberately looks out of the subway train to see where the third guy is and once he spots him and sees that the guy is trying to get away from him Arthur runs after him and shoots him multiple times in the back....that's not self-defense, that's a premeditated murder. He also lies about this incident and hides his involvement in the killings from everyone until he goes on Murray's show.
Yes, his life has been terrible but he's also very selfish and without compassion for others and ultimately a bad life does not justify what he ends up doing.

Posts: 75
Joined: February 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/movi ... versy.html

Code: Select all

Still, what struck me most is that what the film wants to say — about mental illness or class divisions in American society — is not as interesting as what it accidentally says about whiteness. For it is essentially a depiction of what happens when white supremacy is left unchecked. It shows the delusions that many white men have about their place in society and the brutality that can result when that place is denied.

Though Fleck is pursued and investigated by Gotham’s finest, his whiteness acts as a force field, protecting him as he engages in the violent acts of the latter half of the film. Consider his appearance on the live talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). A black man acting as strangely as Fleck does would not have been allowed to go on the air. But the white Fleck is given access, and bloodshed soon follows.

Or look at how Fleck interacts with others. He is frequently in conversation with people who occupy a lower rung in society than he does: a state-appointed therapist he sees early on; a protective mother who chastises him for playing peekaboo with her son on the bus; his possible love interest, a neighbor who lives in the same building; and the psychiatrist he sees in Arkham Asylum. Every one of these characters is a black woman with whom he eventually has confrontations. Phillips consistently places Fleck in an oppositional or antagonistic position to these women.

I don’t know if this is intentional on Phillips’s part, but it is significant. When we learn that his relationship with the neighbor (played with artful restraint by Zazie Beetz) was merely a figment of his troubled imagination, the way he leaves the apartment implies that this realization has led Fleck to kill her and perhaps her child. After his final conversation with the Arkham doctor, his bloody footsteps suggest that he kills her as well.

Fleck kills white men because he cannot access their status and is ostracized by them, but his black female victims are so invisible that the film does not bother to show their deaths. We as viewers can and should take note of them.

There are other ways that whiteness informs Fleck’s character. He anticipates he’ll be treated as a son by the Wayne family, and assumes he’ll be given medical records just by asking the hospital orderly (played by the great Brian Tyree Henry). The privileges that come with Fleck’s race set him up for these unrealistic expectations. When they’re not met, the consequences are deadly.

Whiteness may not have been on the filmmakers’ minds when they made “Joker,” but it is the hidden accomplice that fosters the violence onscreen.

This review perfectly sums up what me and my friends discussed after the movie. In a big blockbuster movie tied to a notorious and beloved character, what's the likelihood you'd see a white director cast this many black folks. Why were most of the women Arthur interacted with black? And why didn't any of them have a name? It was so jarring as a black woman to see in this kind of movie. But what struck me the most is that we never see this kind of exploration or empathy given to a black character who does crazy, devious shit. He'd probably wouldn't even be able to do most of the stuff he got away with. I'm not sure I would have even thought about that as much if Phillips hadn't cast so many black people to underscore that fact. But I'm left wondering if Phillips had another intention for doing that, or if they're just easier props used to make Arthur *more* sympathetic. It's just a really odd movie. Well made, but I'm not sure what the racial angle is and why it's there. And it's there.

Posts: 8242
Joined: August 2009
I really underestimated how much my sister liked this stupid movie. She was talking about how people on Twitter have been hating on it and with full 100% confidence she says "People need to realize that it's a good movie with just a few flaws."

Smh.

Posts: 3283
Joined: October 2014
Location: Philly
your sister is right

Posts: 8242
Joined: August 2009
she is not. this is a hill i am willing to die on even though there are way better hills to die on

Posts: 705
Joined: January 2013
Even though the film is somewhat divisive among critics and hardcore cinephiles, it is connecting with mainstream moviegoers. It has been putting up really great weekday box office numbers. It will be over 135 million already going into it's second weekend.

Posts: 18787
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
radewart wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 11:57 pm
Even though the film is somewhat divisive among critics and hardcore cinephiles, it is connecting with mainstream moviegoers. It has been putting up really great weekday box office numbers. It will be over 135 million already going into it's second weekend.
Of course it is. It's giving normies just enough "edgy" visuals and low-hanging-fruit themes ("boy bobby do you think that movie was about class and mental health?" "gee billy I think you're right!") to feel elevated and engaged by the material.

I don't even think that's a bad thing, and that's not to say Joker is incapable of thoughtful positive takes by thoughtful people (they're out there), it's just an explanation of why some average viewers are connecting with it. Without missing a beat, every single one of my non-movie friends loved it. I'm sure I'll be labeled condescending or patronizing for this comment, and maybe it is, but I don't think that means I'm wrong.


-Vader

Posts: 13371
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mumbai
this movie has given me oodles of entertainment without even watching it

Posts: 4111
Joined: January 2012
Here's the thing: this is a superhero/comicbook movie that is a slow-paced, R-rated character study (no matter whether you think it is superficial or even good) without tons of CG explosions or even a happy ending...none of these things are what the general moviegoing public associates with comicbook/superhero films at all so to many people watching the film this seems new and potentially a bit more mature for the genre it operates in. People are not used to this kind of storytelling from films that deal with DC or Marvel characters and I think if people in the future try to do more character studies without big explosions and lots of CG effects acting as substitutes for character and theme that can potentially be a good thing, no?

Post Reply