Joker (2019)

Its all ambiguous.

You can think whatever you want.

I agree its definitely unique.

Edited by slimcoder on Oct 12th 2019 at 8:54:35 AM

Wasn't there a signed photo at one point, or was that a hallucination too? I thought that might have been implying Thomas did sleep with Penny, or maybe she made a fake in her delusions.

I think the implication was supposed to be that she forged it. It's post reveal, and Arthur reacts to it with disgust.

It could be either, honestly. It doesn't really matter anyway, other than to show Arthur was done trying to be something he can't.

Traditionally, the Wayne family in general were known for their philanthropy and noble legacy as Gotham citizens. When people say that Bruce would have more success using his wealth in repairing Gotham's economy it is ignoring how it's normally depicted as Wayne Enterprises constantly trying to curtail corruption and the Wayne Foundation is the largest charity. In some early drafts of what became the '89 Batman movie, Thomas and Martha were killed as a political hit job because Thomas was running for mayor on an anti-mob stance.

The general implications that Thomas Wayne was not an absolute saint is okay with me, as people are allowed to have flaws. The information that Arthur comes across in the film is treated as his breaking point, lies upon lies rather than some fundamental "truth" being unveiled. While other things are more ambiguous, the actual truth of Thomas Wayne not being Arthur's father seemed rather conclusive. Thomas Wayne as a politician seemed genuinely concerned about Gotham and it's people but his efforts to denounce the "killer clown" while still saying "I'm trying to help you" only alienated the working class, which reflects how some politicians are considered too rich to be appealing.

It’s easy to see why some people reacted to the film with hostility given that. In a way, it kind of reminds me of the reaction to Alita, where a film that is about class struggle was viewed through a gender lens like how this is viewed through a racial one. So while I liked it, it’s easy to see why people wouldn’t. It’s a film that likes showing cruelty, that people’s word doesn’t mean a lot. It’s deeply cynical of any system that would require a Batman to right wrongs. And it mocks a society that wants quick fixes while retaining its cruelty and cynicism.

I think that’s why the final shot is a bright light while Joker runs from the orderly with a big bright “The End” over it. It’s one last laugh at people who want a neat bow on everything.

SNL weighs in with David Harbour as... Grouch.

I'd watch it.

I think any movie with the Joker in it would be better if the Joker was a grumpy Gus. Yes, even Suicide Squad. Especially Suicide Squad.

Knowing the kind of crazy parodies Sesame Street has done in the last few years, I half expected that to be legit.

I hope SNL releases the background music for their parody trailer somewhere.

Probably not (there are licensing issues since it's a real song), but I see we have a trope for it: Moody Trailer Cover Song

About the idea that Thomas was Arthur father, I agree that it's probably isn't true, but some things in the real story don't add up:

If he was so badly abused under his mom care, why did wellfare return him to her? And why was she even allowed to adopt in the first place? Single women with no financial means and a loose grasp on reality are hardly ideal candidates for adoption

Saw the film two days ago.

I really enjoyed the film. And I'll admit something right off the bat: I got a little giddy when Joker escaped from the detectives and the protesters started beating the detectives after accidentally killing one of them. Although that whole chase seen felt very awkward when it was preceded by Joker dancing on the steps.

Something I wish was left out was the whole Wayne parents getting shot scene. Like the whole film has been pretty much entirely from Arthur's perspective. But he wasn't entirely present when Bruce's parents were killed. I mean yeah he was in the middle of the streets during the riots and incident happened not to far from where he was, but it did kinda breaks the narrative a bit.

Of course Phoenix was exceptional as Joker. It's hard to compare to Ledger's take, because they are entirely different takes on the character.

Also I was a bit iffy on the whole 80s setting. But after watching the film, I think this story needed to take place a couple of decades ago in order for the story to work

Overall, I highly recommend it.

I was left kind of lukewarm about the movie as a whole. I feel like by leaning on Arthur's mental illness to the extent that it does, it undercuts the idea it trues to use that society and other people drove Arthur to adopt his eventual twisted ideology. Arthur's hatred of the world treating him as lesser because he's mentally ill is at odds with the movie itself wanting us to believe that Arthur snapped because he was mentally ill.

It touches dangerously close to being Insane Equals Violent, which is not just problematic in this particular climate (Trump tried blanket condemn the mentally ill for violence in America just months ago), it also doesn't actually work with what the film is trying to do with Arthur's character. Does the bit with Sophie go south because he preferred his delusions to reality, and chose to push himself upon her, or because he's the victim of literal hallucinations that eventually drive him to kill her? Or in short, does he actually have a say - have agency - in the horrible things he does, or doesn't he? The film wants us to believe he's ultimately turning to the dark side, but doesn't want to commit to that turn. The film wants him to be both a victim and a villain, which would be fine except it doesn't seem to want to really commit to the former, just sprinkle it here and there on top of the latter.

This film is, in the end, a revenge film. But the film can't decide whether Arthur is choosing to do these things, or if he's just crazy. And if he's "just crazy," the film itself is ultimately doing the thing that frustrated Arthur in the first place - pigeonholing him as a crazy person raised by another crazy person, who was destined to be a monster. He's trapped in the narrative, and the film is absolutely not trying to be that meta.

Even at the end, his final "joke" to Murray makes sure we remember it (it's honestly the only off thing about that scene - Arthur is well past the point of caring about sympathy or lack thereof for his mental illness by that point). Is the moral of the story that mentally ill people are always close to snapping and doing horrible things - (like his mother, even though he was adopted, did)? Well, no - it presents itself as being about a man who is pressed until he can't take it any more.

And frankly the first half of the movie doesn't always help much either - it's at its best in the scenes where Arthur is broken down by life and mentally ill in human way, and at its least interesting in the scenes where Arthur is broken down by life and mentally ill in the Hollywood way and just does oddball or sadface things to make the audience feel unexpected. The laugh and how it affects him is a great touch. Literally until the last scene of the film, the random ballet dancing isn't.

In short, it came off as a film that wanted to look like it had something to say rather than a film that actually was trying to say something, and despite the director's insistence that it's a "real film" disguised as a comic book movie, it's more comic book than perhaps he realized and probably better seen as a new origin for the character (I could actually see this as a basis for a new Batman imagining) than as something contemplative.

On the other hand, I too got positively giddy at his escape from the detectives. In a finale where Arthur does a lot of Joker things, that felt the most Joker out of any of the things he does. It's a good show of how he's positively reveling in the persona he's chosen to adopt, and how now that he's unrestrained, society literally can't restrain him either.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Oct 14th 2019 at 1:01:07 AM

I haven't seen the movie, but I know the basic premise and message. The problem with something like "society being cruel causes x person to become evil" is that many people tend to interpret it as "it's ok to be cruel to x person, because they're evil".

For example, people declaring that school shooters are caused by bullying was largely harmful, as it associated the victims of bullying with school shooters. Bullies began thinking of their victims as would-be school shooters who have it coming.

Joker has now made half a billion worldwide. Hilariously this is also the highest global box office take for Robert De Niro, but Meet the Parents is still higher domestically for now.

I'm surprised Joker got more box office buzz than The Godfather: Part II in that case.

MUCH different times. What constitutes a blockbuster or a Sleeper Hit has changed radically. Inflation means raw numbers are increasing every year, so the next big money maker is cheating the stats rather than actually having the same legs.

And that's before factoring how advertising and access to critics have evolved.

If you level out inflation as a factor, I believe the highest grossing movie of all time is still Gone with the Wind.

Gone with the Wind was in theaters for a year and a half straight and grossed 200 million dollars in 1940's money. To fully go down this rabbit hole involves calculating inflation, average ticket prices, specialty showings and theater access. Consider too, at a 5 million dollar budget earning 250 million worldwide Get Out! was probably more profitable at the box office in raw numbers than the average Marvel film (though this is not counting merchandising).

I find inflation adjusting to be a useless metric unless you are doing a trend or historical analysis.

Movies make their money in their respective years, competing in an inflated market.

It's not a useless metric. A film like Gone with the Wind earning 390 million dollars in 1940s money when the average movie ticket price was 23 cents and the production cost $3.85 million is a statement of extraordinary success. Remember that pre-Blockbuster era, a budget of $30 million dollars very nearly destroyed 20th Century Fox. Considering inflation is essential to talking about how successful a film is, especially now, when most tentpole summer blockbusters claim over a billion in raw revenue, with the average ticket price being like $12, on a bloated $250 million production budget, plus whatever's spent on advertising.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Oct 15th 2019 at 12:17:56 PM

One thing I really liked about this film was the reveal about Arthur and Sophie's relationship being a hallucination. I liked it in a meta-way, because earlier in the movie I'd been half-rolling my eyes about how contrived the relationship was — I'd been thinking to myself that no woman would ever find Arthur's behaviour charming or attractive in real life.

Thing is, even though the way their relationship was depicted up to that point was hella contrived, it wasn't far from the norm af far as Hollywood films often go. In a lot of movies, a character like Arthur would be inexplicably rewarded with a hot girlfriend who can conveniently see past his eccentricities with little hesitation. Baby Driver rings especially loud as a modern example of a love interest being unrealistically willing to overlook stalker-like behaviour and look past evidence of criminal conduct (honestly, Baby and Debora's relationship in that movie was only mariginally less ridiculous than Arthur and Sophie's imagined romance in this film). For that reason, I found the film setting up such a relationship for Arthur and revealing it to be a delusional fantasy to be a pretty clever move.

Edited by DrDougsh on Oct 16th 2019 at 7:11:23 AM