|
Post by jess on Oct 12, 2019 15:09:13 GMT -5
We really do live in a society
|
|
|
Post by jess on Oct 12, 2019 15:30:51 GMT -5
I can't recall the last time I've seen a movie that so desperately wanted to have a message but didn't. This was so thematically messy and narratively questionable. Joaquin Pheonix is unsurprisingly great but the writing was so poor it was downright goofy at times. This film wants you to think it's so much smarter than it is and tries to have you sympathize with the weird philosophy that the logical (and understandable) conclusion to a difficult life is murder and mutiny. Lol. Also, it's boring. I like the part where the Joker gets in the fridge, though
Edit: I also find it really strange how many people are hailing this as some sort of cinematic breakthrough for comic book films. It does nothing that other films haven't done better and even arguably makes the amateur mistake of drawing the hard narrative line between mental illness and violence. All I got out of seeing this was that I wish I'd seen The Addams Family
|
|
|
Post by Northstar3213 on Oct 12, 2019 16:33:08 GMT -5
But the most important question is: Is this Joker better than SS’s joker?
|
|
|
Post by jess on Oct 12, 2019 16:44:14 GMT -5
But the most important question is: Is this Joker better than SS’s joker? Objectively, yes, but I feel like "Well, at least it was better than Suicide Squad" is kind of a backhanded compliment as it could be applied to almost any movie and doesn't even necessitate quality
|
|
|
Post by Card against Humanity on Oct 12, 2019 17:02:31 GMT -5
even if the movie WAS good i'd still hate it just bc of the stupid artificial blown-out-of-proportion "controversy" leading up to it
also jp has only made like 2 good movies
|
|
|
Post by Northstar3213 on Oct 12, 2019 17:22:20 GMT -5
But the most important question is: Is this Joker better than SS’s joker? Objectively, yes, but I feel like "Well, at least it was better than Suicide Squad" is kind of a backhanded compliment as it could be applied to almost any movie and doesn't even necessitate quality i just was curious because I heard the one in SS was Bad(Tm)
|
|
|
|
Post by jess on Oct 12, 2019 22:21:05 GMT -5
I like how this movie actually has no protagonist at all but only an antagonist they didn't ruin it by sticking with the usual formula of trying to make the villain a protagonist it was actually a villian movie focused only on the villain being the villain with little to no opposition they didn't go the suicide squad route trying to "redeem" the bad guy so they can be a ant-hero for this one movie because every movie has to have a protagonist and antagonist this proves that you don't always need a protagonist in a comic film
That and at the end of the day if you take away the comic book parts and remove the Joker from the movie it stands on it's own as a movie about mental illness and how if we just ignore the mentally ill, oppressed, weak and down trodden, and not step in or try to help them and have systems in place for them and have more understanding and less stigma for mentaly ill people getting help you see the consequences for that failure in our society. That fact alone in my opinion makes this a great move. It's a movie about mental illness that happens to have the Joker in it rather than a Joker movie that happens to have mental illness in it
Kinda like it's saying instead of being lazy and pointing the finger at media and video games for "corrupting our youth" we should maybe stop ignoring the issues that lead to shooting that we would rather not look in the face because it costs money and is embarrassing- mentally ill people My problem is that the Joker, again, draws the hard line between mental illness and violence. "Oh, this is what happens when mentally ill people have a hard life... they snap! Watch out!" It's an incredibly bad message, however unintended it may have been. The movie tries to elicit sympathy for a man who resorts to murder as a result of his unfortunate life when the vast majority of those living with mental illness - including those who endure monumental struggles - don't resort to violence... because they're decent human beings You could say, "But the Joker isn't a good person. He's the villain, we're not meant to agree with him." Which would be fine and dandy except for the fact that the film wants us to view him as a protagonist. He's shown in a self-righteous, sympathetic light for the entirety of the duration of the film and, at the end, is all but hailed as a hero for his violent actions. The film wants to send a warning message whilst praising the very actions it's warning against. Any political subtext or overarching theme is so muted and vague as to be nonexistent and pointless I dunno, I'm glad you enjoyed it, I just found nothing of value except maybe a good performance by Pheonix and a nice soundtrack. As a person living with mental illness I couldn't help but be frustrated by the inconsistency and weak message
|
|
|
|
Post by jess on Oct 12, 2019 22:27:00 GMT -5
i.. have mental illnesses too lmao but I understand Didn't mean to imply that you couldn't, just sharing my perspective. Thanks for understanding
|
|
|
Post by Card against Humanity on Oct 12, 2019 22:37:23 GMT -5
imo the problem with the movie isnt that the main character is a "villain", there's plenty of good movies about terrible people. its that like....usually when the protagonist is also a terrible person, you're not really supposed to sympathize with them. meanwhile in joker its basically like "feel bad for this asshole! it's SOCIETY'S fault that he's an asshole!11" not to mention equating mental illness with being a murderer
also im really sick of reinterpretations of the joker in general. the best one will always be mark hamill so like
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Oct 12, 2019 23:34:17 GMT -5
i haven't seen the movie so take this with a gallon of salt,
but i think portraying a villain in an empathetic light (not necessarily sympathetic) makes for an incredibly interesting story that makes me think. it doesn't necessarily make me think "this person was in the right for their crimes" or "that's almost excusable", but rather is an interesting look into the psyche of a person. the "sympathetic" aspect is meant not necessarily from the director to the audience, but rather the psychopathic Joker to himself. how he paints his own story in his head, to be in the right by a world that wronged him; so that even the entire painted picture of the movie is an imagined justification in his own head.
BUT again I haven't seen the actual movie, i'm just theorizing based on the comments here. it could be that's what they attempted to do but didn't get the critical parts right so the finished product does not have the intended effects.
|
|
halo
The Chapel of TayLORD Swift
|
Post by halo on Oct 13, 2019 0:47:54 GMT -5
yes i agree heheh. phillips is a hack and it does feel like a glorification of the central character. and it's still a very shallow film; phillips' depiction of a topic could've been explored in a much more interesting and nuanced way (societal marginalization, classism), but instead, he hammers down a shallow overview of these themes down the audience's throat. and joaquin's performance.. is ok. he's been better? and the effeminate demeanor he incorporates in his performance in the later part of the movie (specifically the interview) was a baffling acting choice.
|
|
|
Post by alfred on Oct 13, 2019 1:51:06 GMT -5
There's some spoilers here. Though I completely understand and even agree with your point about the narrative, I'm not quite sure I understand the latter portion of your argument. The movie may elicit sympathy--we're meant to feel for Arthur and what he's going through--but I don't think that the movie ever condones his actions. Rather it's simply trying to present a story which may explain why he took the actions he did. In the movie, there's a line. Everything before that line can be explained, we can understand and feel sorry for whatever takes place; Everything after it becomes warped and dangerous. The movie doesn't spell out where that line is exactly and I think that's the point. As viewers, we're suppose to be able to discern where Arthur took it too far, when his actions went from being sympathetic to something downright appalling.
I feel like the scene on the subway train depicted that very well. Whereas he was acting in split-second defense in firing the first bullet, everything after went too far. Instead of presenting Arthur as his own hero, the movie shows us in raw detail him literally chasing a man down and shooting him in the back as he's trying to get away. Those that praised his actions in the movie, either outright ignored these details or excused them in order to further their own protests. These are an assortment of actions which aren't to be regarded lightly, and they're not excusable in the slightest.
All in all, I never got the feeling that the movie was trying to present Arthur as the hero. Rather, they were depicting the descent a man and a society could take if pushed hard enough. There was never just one villain in the movie and, though we can hold Arthur accountable to his actions, we also can't ignore those factors which influenced them. Society very much had an impact in the decisions he made. The movie wasn't using this to excuse what he did but merely to explain why. Recognizing this and how it affects our own society could open the floor for discussion on how to help people in Arthur's situation. That's part of the reason I really liked the movie. It wasn't perfect but it sure as hell got people thinking.
EDIT: And I'm not saying that everyone in Arthur's situation is compelled to do what he did but, for that small percentage that does, hopefully recognizing why they feel that way and providing them the help they need could prevent such actions.
|
|
|
Post by alfred on Oct 13, 2019 2:27:21 GMT -5
Crysolis kind of already said it but I also found it pretty interesting that this movie had no hero. No one saved the day and everyone that was central to the plot made bad choices. And I feel that that's hard. You wanted Arthur to get better. For society to be better. But neither of them did.
|
|