Anyone see the movie, Joker?

#1
It looks very dark and literary, but I like those types of films, if done well. I've read different reviews that paint it as a controversial attempt at making excuses for those who commit mass murders, based on being bullied or feeling outcasted. I find that if a movie can stir such conversation, whether internal or external, it has accomplished a goal beyond mere entertainment. Then again, sometimes, a movie...is just a movie, and we don't necessarily have to analyze it to death, in hopes of drawing conclusions that connect us to real life events. 

If you've seen it, what are your views? Please refrain from posting spoilers.
Reply
#2
The commercials haven't sold me on it. They make it look like an art film. But I have read enough that I'll probably eventually see it. Doesn't sound so much that it's making excuses as it is a study of what it takes to make people do horrible things.
Reply
#3
I'm not a fan of super heroes in general, but I do like the backstories of villains. V for Vendetta, while at first ''V'' seems like the town villain, as the film continues, you grow to empathize with him, and feel for his cause. I'm wondering if Joker will have a similar vibe.

No one is born a villain.
Reply
#4
Huh, I never thought of "V" as a villain. Maybe more of a rebel Matrix hero, but not a villain.
Reply
#5
(Oct 8, 2019 10:55 PM)Syne Wrote: Huh, I never thought of "V" as a villain. Maybe more of a rebel Matrix hero, but not a villain.
Yea, it was hard to tell in the very beginning, but his opposition as part of the plot, definitely saw him as a threat. I read an article earlier today that "SJW's" are warning people to shy away from seeing Joker.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/joker-mov...ly-zanotti
Reply
#6
(Oct 8, 2019 09:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: It looks very dark and literary, but I like those types of films, if done well. I've read different reviews that paint it as a controversial attempt at making excuses for those who commit mass murders, based on being bullied or feeling outcasted. I find that if a movie can stir such conversation, whether internal or external, it has accomplished a goal beyond mere entertainment. Then again, sometimes, a movie...is just a movie, and we don't necessarily have to analyze it to death, in hopes of drawing conclusions that connect us to real life events. 

If you've seen it, what are your views? Please refrain from posting spoilers.


If I ever see it, it probably won't be soon (i.e. in a theater). 

I guess cinema and television have switched places in recent times, to where the the former is the one that's "tamer" now because it has to appeal to a much more global audience to pay for itself (Disney slash Marvel Comics caliber stuff the hot item); and is therefore more subject to uproar whenever it crosses a line. Decades ago it was the opposite of that.

Which is to say, I don't understand the controversy, as far as an empathetically treated villain being reacted to as if a "new" or unfamiliar type of unsettling trend. There are and have been numerous cable and even broadcast TV shows where there's only a fine line distinguishing the protagonists from the antagonists. Viewers actually find themselves sympathetic toward and rooting for one set of "bad guys" because that's the category which in a traditional era would subsume all the characters featured in the series.
Reply
#7
(Oct 8, 2019 09:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: . . . If you've seen it, what are your views? Please refrain from posting spoilers.


I rather unexpectedly ended up watching the thing after all, in the course of being swept along with a group that was determined to see it.

For other reasons than the story itself being set in 1981, "Joker" isn't like a film made in this era. Especially the kind derived from a comic book with typical wall-to-wall CGI effects, relentless action and cliffhanger situations, explosions, and snappy dialogue interactions between smart-ass superhero and villain characters.

I kept feeling the whole time that "Joker" is what some surreal, independent filmmaker miraculously blessed with a bigger budget and non-amateur actors would have made during the first half of the 1970s. Read merely a few moments ago that Phillips and Silver "were inspired by 1970s character studies and the films of Martin Scorsese". So that would explain where the sense of deja vu revolving around that decade was coming from in terms of its cinematic mood and style.

The degree of violence was tame or anachronistic: Less frequent and less graphic compared to what viewers would encounter on even a broadcast TV show these days (like bygone "Gotham" for instance). The two bloodiest scenes would have been fairly mundane or below-average events on a parody cable show like "American Horror Story". The handful of times where Arthur Fleck himself gets beaten-up, kicked, and abused by society probably wouldn't have raised much of an eyebrow as far as the theater standards of earlier decades went from 1970 onwards.

So the controversial aspect (beyond the movie screen) of incels and other types of crestfallen males supposedly relating to it in a celebratory and "rising-up" fashion really seems to be about the extent of it in the context of just that: Controversy.
Reply
#8
I'm not a big Batman et al fan. If I recall correctly, isn't the Riddler the villain with the jokes? I always thought The Joker had more to do with being the 53rd card in a deck of 52 playing cards. So is that what he is, the odd nut in the screw jar?
Reply
#9
(Oct 29, 2019 08:01 AM)C C Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2019 09:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: . . . If you've seen it, what are your views? Please refrain from posting spoilers.


I rather unexpectedly ended up watching the thing after all, in the course of being swept along with a group that was determined to see it.

For other reasons than the story itself being set in 1981, "Joker" isn't like a film made in this era. Especially the kind derived from a comic book with typical wall-to-wall CGI effects, relentless action and cliffhanger situations, explosions, and snappy dialogue interactions between smart-ass superhero and villain characters.

I kept feeling the whole time that "Joker" is what some surreal, independent filmmaker miraculously blessed with a bigger budget and non-amateur actors would have made during the first half of the 1970s. Read merely a few moments ago that Phillips and Silver "were inspired by 1970s character studies and the films of Martin Scorsese". So that would explain where the sense of deja vu revolving around that decade was coming from in terms of its cinematic mood and style.

The degree of violence was tame or anachronistic: Less frequent and less graphic compared to what viewers would encounter on even a broadcast TV show these days (like bygone "Gotham" for instance). The two bloodiest scenes would have been fairly mundane or below-average events on a parody cable show like "American Horror Story". The handful of times where Arthur Fleck himself gets beaten-up, kicked, and abused by society probably wouldn't have raised much of an eyebrow as far as the theater standards of earlier decades went from 1970 onwards. 

So the controversial aspect (beyond the movie screen) of incels and other types of crestfallen males supposedly relating to it in a celebratory and "rising-up" fashion really seems to be about the extent of it in the context of just that: Controversy.
What a great review, thanks CC! I have been busy lately, and friends' schedules are proving to not match up with mine. I've never gone to a theater to watch a movie, alone...I should try that. lol I've heard it's ''dark'' and ''uncomfortable.'' I like movies that delve into the psychology of their main characters, no matter how dark. Fictional works tend to not affect me in the same way as non-fictional stories, where after the movie, you're squirming and disgusted that human beings can be so depraved.
(Oct 29, 2019 03:53 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: I'm not a big Batman et al fan. If I recall correctly, isn't the Riddler the villain with the jokes? I always thought The Joker had more to do with being the 53rd card in a deck of 52 playing cards. So is that what he is, the odd nut in the screw jar?
From what I've heard, it's detached from the Batman arc. It has been explained to me by those who have seen it, as a fan-fiction type of piece. Supposedly, the plot isn't illustrative of the comic book series' backstory of the Joker.
Reply
#10
Well, I finally watched Joker, and LOVED it. I was blown away by Phoenix's performance as Arthur Fleck. Typically, I don't like plots that center around one, main character, but his performance was absolutely brilliant...utterly captivating. While I don't believe the movie has an 'agenda' per se, it definitely left me feeling sorrowful for how our culture treats those who are struggling with mental illness. Many have criticized the film for glamorizing mental illness by depicting Arthur Fleck (Joker) as a hero, but you'll have to see it to form your own opinion on that one. I don't believe that the plot was intended to cheapen any of the recent shootings over the past few years, nor was it trying to be flip about mental illness whatsoever. It's a grim character study, tackling real-world violence and mental illness. Of course, there are critics who found it to be ''the most disappointing film'' of the year- comparing it to Heath Ledger's edgier, mysterious ''version'' of Joker. But, this was meant to be a stand-alone film. *shrug*

If you haven't yet seen this, you must. It is truly something special. I thought so, anyway.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New Dune movie Magical Realist 2 496 Dec 8, 2018 11:13 PM
Last Post: C C
  LIFE: the movie Zinjanthropos 2 460 Apr 5, 2017 07:15 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)