Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Film] Joker
- Thread starter clockend1983
- Start date
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Joker is currently on an average 8.9 and 12th greatest film of all time on imdb. However even then, there are nearly 4000 people who have given it 1 out of 10, only 1.2% albeit and a metascore at a poor 59 out of 100
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I've never been to Madame Tussauds, as I know full well it would bore me shitless. I absolutely despise the Rocky Horror Show. And I wouldn't know Alain de Botton if he walked into my kitchen and pissed in my kettle.
I did however think Joker was a brilliant movie.
https://youtu.be/tVsZqav5d74
I think my view is very similar to this, but this puts it more eloquently than I could.
I think my view is very similar to this, but this puts it more eloquently than I could.
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
I'm not sure where I would start. It felt like it had contempt for the audience. It was just a series of big, dumb, drum roll sequences where everything was spelled out. I was half expecting a big sign to appear at the side of the screen going "this is scary", "this is meant to horrify you", "this is violent" etc etc. It felt like a Disney film except it was trying to make itself felt seriously.
The bits of cinema history it borrowed from were simultaneously too overt and really badly interpreted. There was one scene on a bus that I think was trying to refer to a particular part of history but actually subverted it into something that I don't think can be viewed as anything but racist on the director's part. But again, there was a strong air of "well, the crowds won't really get what we're stealing from anyway, so let's just half-arse it with some dramatic music and lots of blood".
It somehow managed to be blockbuster and cheap and nasty, patronising and hard to work out what they were trying to achieve. Were the (really badly done) "dreamlike" sequences and (what they obviously thought were) "abstract sequences" meant to be like that? It's a weird one. I suppose it was ultimately unchallenging. Maybe that's what people like? I gave up trying to work out why they were doing whatever they were trying to do fairly soon. The best I can guess is that they were being parodic about parodying bits of comic/gore/superhero cinema? I don't think their thought process was anywhere near that refined, though.
Withdean11
Well-known member
How opinions differ. It's the best film I've seen for a long time with a superb performance from Joaqiun Pheonix.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
We all see things differently I suppose, but I can't find myself agreeing with a word of that. Particularly the bus scene. A black woman on a bus does not by definition set out to be an echo of Rosa Parks (I assume that is the part of history you are referring to). She was just a woman protecting her child against a strange "weirdo" who was trying to amuse the kid by pulling silly faces. This confrontation leads to it triggering his condition whereby he starts cackling uncontrollably, seemingly inappropriately, and as the audience we learn in this scene (from his little card) that once it starts, there is nothing he can do to stop it. And that even the mildest confrontation can set it off. I don't know what else you were trying to read into that.
Seems to me like you were overthinking it a bit. Not everything is supposed to carry hidden meanings. Its a brutal close-up portrayal of a damaged individuals gradual and frighteningly realistic descent into madness, IMO superbly performed by JP. And whilst there are subtle references and nods to other movies (strong echoes of Taxi Driver of course), I don't think they were parodying anything. The violence wasn't stylised or flashy in any way like you'd see in a run-of-the-mill superhero movie. He didn't acquire powers, or skills, or bravery. Life just grinded him down until eventually he became dangerously psychotic. He became a product of his upbringing and environment.
This film has split opinion though, and you're clearly on the other side of it to me. I thought the performance of JP was standout, the cinematography and whole look and feel of 1981 Gotham was superbly rendered, and the accompanying score ratcheted up the tension and discomfort hugely effectively. Its a memorable film.
You're not the first person to raise concerns with the film's decisions where race is concerned. In the video I posted above, Marc Bernardin (former entertainment journalist for LA times, Comic Book writer, writer on TV shows Castle Rock, Magicians and upcoming Treadstone and co-host of the podcast fatman beyond - previously a podcast that focused on Batman related topics, but later broadened it's themes to geek culture in general) raises some concerns with race, and of course, people took issue.
[tweet]1185226240787042304[/tweet]
[tweet]1185226250232582144[/tweet]
[tweet]1185226257165799425[/tweet]
[tweet]1185226264191193088[/tweet]
I also, a few weeks back, read an article that also had some comments on the use of race in the film: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/t...-viewing-experience-of-rare-numbing-emptiness
A group of teen-agers of color hassle him and steal his sign. He chases them into a garbage-strewn alley (the city is in the midst of an apocalyptic garbage strike), where one kid hits Arthur in the face with the sign and knocks him down. Then the whole group swarms him, pummels him, kicks him, and leaves him bruised and bleeding and sobbing, alone, in the filthy alley. The crime alluded to is the attack wrongly attributed to five young men mislabelled as the Central Park Five—an attack on an isolated and vulnerable white person by a group of young people of color. The scene waves away history and says, in effect, that it may not have been those five, but there was another group out there wreaking havoc; they’re not figments of a demagogue’s hate-filled imagination—here they are, and they’re the spark of all the gory action that follows.
...
When Arthur is assaulted on the subway by three young men (whites, in suits), he pulls out the gun and fires—and even pursues one of the men onto the platform in order to shoot him dead. It’s an evocation of the shooting, in 1984, by Bernhard Goetz, of four teen-agers in a subway who, Goetz believed, were about to rob him. They were four black teen-agers, and Goetz, after his arrest, made racist remarks.
...
What it seems to be saying is utterly incoherent, beyond the suggestion that Arthur, who is mentally ill, becomes violent after being assaulted by a group of people of color—and he suffers callous behavior from one black woman, and believes that he’s being ignored by another, and reacts with jubilation at the idea of being a glamorous white star amid a supporting cast of cheerful black laborers.
...
Yet, for all the historical references in “Joker,” it’s a blatant and brazen distortion of the most substantial historical elements at which it winks. “Joker” is the comic-book “Green Book,” twisting history for the sake of a yarn.
...
When Arthur is assaulted on the subway by three young men (whites, in suits), he pulls out the gun and fires—and even pursues one of the men onto the platform in order to shoot him dead. It’s an evocation of the shooting, in 1984, by Bernhard Goetz, of four teen-agers in a subway who, Goetz believed, were about to rob him. They were four black teen-agers, and Goetz, after his arrest, made racist remarks.
...
What it seems to be saying is utterly incoherent, beyond the suggestion that Arthur, who is mentally ill, becomes violent after being assaulted by a group of people of color—and he suffers callous behavior from one black woman, and believes that he’s being ignored by another, and reacts with jubilation at the idea of being a glamorous white star amid a supporting cast of cheerful black laborers.
...
Yet, for all the historical references in “Joker,” it’s a blatant and brazen distortion of the most substantial historical elements at which it winks. “Joker” is the comic-book “Green Book,” twisting history for the sake of a yarn.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Amazing how people can see a film differently. I thought Ad Astra was magnificent, my best film of the year but people on here and friends I know more or less all thought it was dog poo. My take is a person resonates with a film with A the expectations they take into the cinema. B how their own lives relate or do not relate to the film and C what mood they were in at that particular moment in time
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
Crikey. I mean I should point out that if anyone's right it's probably not me, I'm a moron. Although while I was guffing on I forgot to say that it's a bizarrely humourless film. With a bit of wit, the messages it sledgehammers you over the head with constantly would at least have an element of subtlety. It's like they couldn't understand that you can portray mental illness without constantly showing the subject maniacally laughing in between killing people. We get it, we get it...boom! Have another big set piece! But couldn't you sketch things out a bit? Nah, have some more blood and generic library music! I dunno
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Madame Tussauds is brilliant went this year not knowing what to expect and was mightily impressed. Agree re Rocky Horror though
Although it was excellently acted, it was just a super-villain film when all is said and done.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
What song was it ? If it was rock and roll part 2 ?. It is a great anthem by far the best he/they did so know why they used it. Point is do you just airbrush history ? A topic on it's own
Last edited:
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
I think that the song was probably worthy as to the subject matter. Thing is you cannot disregard history with popular subject matter how bad it is. Looking forward to seeing this film. I have a feeling I will love it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW-OLcZ4tGY
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
Hove / Παρος
Absolutely gash in my opinion. Boring plot and terrible acting - can't believe people thought Joaqin Phoenix was good in this?! Amazing how opinions differ!
Great detective work!
Missed your response as I’d have replied a lot sooner.
The official trailer is one of those slowed down ‘arty’ covers with what sounds like, a 12 year old girl singing. A bit haunting but not as good as the demented FNM cover!
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Looking forward to seeing your synopsis. I know you're a big fan of The Machinist, and the extraordinary central performance of Christian Bale in that film. This, IMO, is absolutely up there with that. Phoenix grips every scene, he is utterly mesmerising and completely inhabits and owns this role. As Mark Kermode said: "I didn't think ANYONE could do the Joker again after Heath Ledger. I was wrong". Joker in this film is infinitely more believable than the (brilliant) but more cartoonish character played by Ledger. This one is out there for real, you see him evolve in a completely plausible way. And thats what makes him so disturbing, and in the end, terrifying.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
It is a relentlessly grim movie, with not the slightest bit of light relief, and I think that is entirely deliberate. Arthur Fleck is a tragic individual who has been remorselessly ground down his entire existence, which is why he evolves into what he becomes. Interspersing it with some wit and/or a bit of levity would have broken the spell of his desperate situation, and the merciless uncaring environment he is forced to try to exist in. Part of the tragedy is that although he is an aspiring stand-up comic, he is NOT funny. He can't be - he's just too damaged to ever have that within him. All his pathetic attempts to be funny are doomed to failure, which is just another burden on his tortured soul.
Anyway, you're clearly not a moron, you just didn't like this movie. Doesn't mean you didn't "get it", there are plenty of professional reviewers out there in the media who gave Joker the stink-eye as well, its only an opinion. Personally I think The Deer Hunter is a complete and utter BOREFEST, but everyone keeps telling me its a classic, so I guess that makes me a moron as well.
Can't account for taste.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
There was nothing super-villain whatsoever about this film IMO, thats exactly what made it so powerful, and different. It couldn't be further removed from a Marvel or DC Comics jobbie. No super-powers, no strength, no learning of skills, or evolution into some all-powerful being with flashy kung-fu killing moves. Just a pathetic, downtrodden, disturbed and damaged individual who eventually turns completely (and convincingly) psychotic. I don't think I've ever seen a film quite like it, certainly not one with this level of performance from the central character.