Joker (2019)

Considering the slew of negativity towards the film, defensiveness is understandable.

I need to see more of the Best Picture nominees, 1917 in particular, before saying what deserves to win, but I want Joker to win as of now.

Does it really matter?

I mean it is the Oscars.

People were really upset at it’s nominations for whatever reason.

I mean, the critics were lined up like Airplane! (have I used that simile already in this thread? Can't remember), so it's a testament to Phillips and Phoenix that they've turned around, but they have turned around.

Apparently Phillips is pushing fifty; I'd thought he was younger based on the fact that his previous claim to fame was a ten-year-old frathouse comedy (a frathouse comedy starring thirty-somethings, but still a frathouse comedy), but he probably does still have a few films ahead of him.

Edited by TwinBird on Jan 18th 2020 at 4:40:33 AM

Thing is that Joker actually has the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score of all the Best Picture nominees, currently at 69%. It was highly praised at Cannes, so I can't help but think that the artificially created criticism that preceded the movie had a direct impact on the critical reception. People were ready to call it overrated long before it came out.

It's not a movie that I was thoroughly engaged with (I think more attention could have been spent on his obsession with the media, since that's the where the message of the climax lands), but I did find it well made across the board and certainly deserving any degree of artistic praise. Phoenix is a frontrunner for best actor, and the movie has a shot at production design and cinematography for capturing urban decay of the 70's, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to beat the other contenders. It's a packed year.

Here's what the other best picture nominees are about that could help the top poster out.

• Ford v Ferrari: A racing movie where a team of American engineers try to convert a Ford into a racecar to win a 24-hour race.
• The Irishman: The latest Scorsese movie. It goes over the life of a member of the Irish mob with a connection to Jimmy Hoffa.
• Jojo Rabbit: A dark comedy about the Hitler youths that becomes a coming of age story for one of them.
• Marriage Story: A relationship drama about a messy divorce.
• 1917: A World War I mission from beginning to end that is very tense throughout.
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: The latest Tarantino movie. It goes through the last bit of the 1960's in an alternate history.
• Parasite: A Korean horror movie that talks about class in a similar fashion that Get Out talks about race.

I’ve seen three of those films (Hollywood, Irishman, and Ford). For whatever dumb reason, Jo Jo Rabbit isn’t on home media till after the Oscars.

I do think the movie earned its Best Director nomination. Best Picture is a little iffier, but only because once again they didn’t use all 10 slots available to them. If they would actually nominate ten movies, rather than nine, I think it would deserve its place a bit more.

I didn’t like it, but from a technical standpoint, it is a great film.

> Marriage Story: A relationship drama about a messy divorce.

That's one I've not heard of it,it sounds plain unfun and pure Oscar bait

Marriage Story is actually really good and compelling. Adam Driver and Scar Jo absolutely nail it.

I’ve only seen clips but it’s so raw in terms of emotions.

Huh Adam Driver really has been carrying the entirety of the sequel trilogy on his back.

Film Crit Hulk wrote a belated review of ''Joker''.

That was...a lot. I mean it was well-written and makes you really think but like, damm. I am kinda glad I passed on seeing this (even if that little bit of money doesn't mean shit considering how much it made but you get the gist I hope!). Even if you like this movie (and I will not belittle you if you do) this is worth a read.

The tl;dr is that FCH considers it a "well-made movie" in most regards and he particularly praises Phoenix's performance, but he has issues with the framing and what he perceives as the ultimate "goals" of the movie, not to mention how it brushes aside certain interesting themes that it brings up like mental illness, etc when it feels like it no longer needs them.

Film Critic Hulk has always been an excellent writer. He's one of the few people out there who IMO really has a deeper understanding of film and storytelling and can explain in detail why something works or doesn't work, and even when I disagree I pretty much always get something out of his columns.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Jan 18th 2020 at 10:45:17 AM

Film Critic Hulk's review is good, but my fave review of Joker is still this comment:

I dont know, while film hulk deliver a good analysis of J.J Abrams style in his review of TFA, his TLJ was disapointly lacking, being nothing more than a gushing about Rian johnson intentions and the old "It was good because it critize star wars" and is response in commet was pretty much "it was in the film so I dont have to answer you" which it come as rude and dismissive.

and I dont know if pulling the rug would be good because as whole, the story is about fleck, it seen a sort of twist throw there to give someone moral clarity

That review nails the problem I had with the way the film deals with mental illness, the uncomfortable that rather than really explore it with Arthur it just uses it to get staple sympathy for him then uses it to explain why Arthur is free and unrestrained (read: murderous) in the latter half. It skews very close to Insane Equals Violent, and even if it doesn't Film Hulk's pretty spot on about the film and it's director claiming to care about presenting mental illness but not being particularly sincere about it. It's just there as an excuse, more or less.

I finally see the movie and....is a thing.

I can get some of the critics about mental illness, in part because all the issues wave themselves into something or another, is clear that the mayor point if any, is his rant against murrey, in the end is point is less about mental illness as conduction itself and more as mental illness as way to kept him down.

this kinda kinda highlight in the fact arthur condiction kinda reflect those on the city, as they have to hear thomas wayne bullshit, arthur have to deal with murray putting the video and mocking him, as the two event kinda escalate in the same weight, the movie does seen to focus more on the fact sociaty trample over arthur than the specific of his mental illeness, which is why the movie seen to rejoice in him killing those guys: arthur is finally paying payback.

So the film while showing the problem of mental illness, is focus more in arthur problem as social one.

Now as negative thing...I find sophite a waste of chararter, considering how little time she have, it end having not impact at all, also I dont get why arthur try to pick himself in a freezer, I mean....why.

I will guess it does kinda feel at times the movie does hava a sort stuff I have seen with white people that the answer to the uncariness of a system is to burn it or violent lashing against it, I dont if this is a US racial dynamic, but more often that not the idea of responding violence with violence seen to be a white thing, granted I dont feel confortable saying this so maybe im wrong.

it also seen the movie just frame everything in jokers terms, no in a some third party omniscient sense, the film pick him in any moment and dosent let that go so you can said the movie feel "bias for him" rather than to make the cold and detach "If he right after all?"

Edited by unknowing on Jan 19th 2020 at 3:20:29 PM

I think exploring mental illness is one of those things impossible to get right. The stylization of cinema and need for a POV means that this fictional character is being presented as a representation of the whole, and "mental illness" is a really big net to cast (people with depression have a much different experience than someone with PTSD).

That's why the movie avoids the specifics of what he has and focuses more on what he blames or projects on other people. I found the movie more interesting as someone who fell ass backwards into becoming a cult leader, simply because that made him feel recognized.

What ou are taking is the embassy efect: when a minority of something get represent by one guy, them it represent EVERYTHING.

in this case, the mental illness is use as vehicle to social treatment of people, arthur is men with mental illness but is also a poor man who strugle in the world and try to be a comedian, so both move fairly right until the rant were the movie spill the beans about it.

Well the issue there is not enough movies about specific mental illnesses and disabilities getting made so each can articulate their own issues without having to speak for the whole. I wouldn't say that's impossible at all.

If there is more chararter then yeah, it can be done, so far because this movie is focus in arthur point of view, so it reflect less on mental illess as whole and more as mental illness as reason for social distrust.

The thing is that movies exploring mental illness will always be a niche genre, and even if portrayed sympathetically and received well in a general sense they can all fall into a trap of "othering" the subject matter. A sort of "they are not that different, but still different." It's the nature of dramatization, we don't want to see normal/average/common but expect to see unusual/exceptional.

The most common source of "othering" is that people with intimate knowledge of the subject matter, i.e. mentally disabled and neurodivergent creatives, are typically shut out of input on relevant films' direction. Sure, dramatization favors stories about "unusual stuff", but that doesn't mean neurodivergence always has to be played that way. The Values Dissonance page is full of examples of people types and characteristics that used to be portrayed as shocking just for existing but now are treated as mundane and the norm.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Jan 20th 2020 at 1:39:53 AM