|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2019 19:22:32 GMT
wait what, the relatiinship with the neighbor was entirely im his head? i missed that part... how did they reveal that? Are you just kidding or did you really miss that? 🤔 He went in her apartment and she was terrified that he'd sat himself down on her couch. It then re-showed earlier scenes to reveal she hadn't really been there with him at all. no I realymmissed that. i know she was freaked out by him in her flat bit didn realize All of them together was invented. will jave to watch again; thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2019 19:23:16 GMT
Ugh as if people really need that fantasy in his head being spelled out on screen. Probably my biggest gripe with the film. It was obvious she wasn't there even as it was first happening. They established it with the Murray fantasy early in the film, and there's no reason anyone in their right mind would associate with this guy. The reveal was unnecessary; the flashback with her there and then suddenly not there was just an insult to the audience. They may as well have made the following statement in parenthesis on the screen. (SHE WAS NEVER REALLY THERE, FOLKS! GET IT? THIS GUY IS NUTS!) I missed that completely to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 9, 2019 20:45:38 GMT
Ugh as if people really need that fantasy in his head being spelled out on screen. Probably my biggest gripe with the film. It was obvious she wasn't there even as it was first happening. They established it with the Murray fantasy early in the film, and there's no reason anyone in their right mind would associate with this guy. The reveal was unnecessary; the flashback with her there and then suddenly not there was just an insult to the audience. They may as well have made the following statement in parenthesis on the screen. (SHE WAS NEVER REALLY THERE, FOLKS! GET IT? THIS GUY IS NUTS!) Id rather they actually developed their dynamic then copied the red hood where she dies driving him mad, I wrote an entire outline on what i'd do differently actually.
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 9, 2019 20:58:45 GMT
Ugh as if people really need that fantasy in his head being spelled out on screen. Probably my biggest gripe with the film. It was obvious she wasn't there even as it was first happening. They established it with the Murray fantasy early in the film, and there's no reason anyone in their right mind would associate with this guy. The reveal was unnecessary; the flashback with her there and then suddenly not there was just an insult to the audience. They may as well have made the following statement in parenthesis on the screen. (SHE WAS NEVER REALLY THERE, FOLKS! GET IT? THIS GUY IS NUTS!) I've been watching some youtube clips on Todd Phillips analyzing some of the scenes in Joker. He comes across as very articulate and intelligent which makes me wonder why on earth he needed to have that on-the-nose mini montage showing Joker was fantasizing. I knew as soon as it showed Joker going to kiss Zazie and her reciprocating it that it was obviously a dream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 1:30:05 GMT
I loved it. It was a great character. This was a non-comic book Joker, the making of a real life villain without the fantasy element.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2019 2:56:43 GMT
The theme is "white men suck, and rich white men really really suck." Thomas Wayne was originally just a rich guy attacked by a criminal (a white criminal we might add). But that isn't going to work in Hollywood now (though in fact, Thomas Wayne represented the "white man failure" theme even back in 1939 since he failed to protect his wife--that he was a victim is in itself a message--by comparison Jor-El the alien chooses to send his son off the planet in order to save him--who was the more successful parent?). The Nolan films presented Thomas Wayne as a nice liberal-leaning Bill Gates type guy--but that was before Trump came along. Can't have that now-not when there are political leaflets to the proletariat to be handed out. Did they make his attackers in the subway three white guys?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 10, 2019 12:53:06 GMT
The theme is "white men suck, and rich white men really really suck." Thomas Wayne was originally just a rich guy attacked by a criminal (a white criminal we might add). But that isn't going to work in Hollywood now (though in fact, Thomas Wayne represented the "white man failure" theme even back in 1939 since he failed to protect his wife--that he was a victim is in itself a message--by comparison Jor-El the alien chooses to send his son off the planet in order to save him--who was the more successful parent?). The Nolan films presented Thomas Wayne as a nice liberal-leaning Bill Gates type guy--but that was before Trump came along. Can't have that now-not when there are political leaflets to the proletariat to be handed out. Did they make his attackers in the subway three white guys? I think you're reading too much into it. It's not like rich white guys weren't cast as villains before the 'woke' era. The two detectives who come after Arthur are also white, and they're depicted as generally good. The movie even goes out of its way to say they survived the subway encounter. The useless mental health counselor is black, I don't think that's supposed to a send a message one way or the other. Frankly I don't know that Thomas Wayne is depicted as a bad person in the film. He defends his employees who were killed on the train (without knowing they were being idiots) and I'd say he used a poor choice of words when he appeared to separate his own class of people from the everyman by calling them clowns, but I see what he was getting at. He then assaults a creep who groped his kid and confronted him in a bathroom with nonsense about his troubled mother. I'd probably do the same without knowing the whole story. To me, the theme of the film is "mental illness sucks." At least that's what I got out of it. If it has any social commentary, it's that the US takes lousy care of its mentally ill population. The 'Elite businessman as the antagonist' trope only exists to give Joker something to focus on that the general audience would recognize. Comparing the '99%' or whatever to the destructive 'clowns' in this film wasn't a particularly good look, so if it had a social/political agenda, I don't know what it was promoting. Again, the film goes out of its way to have Joker state he "isn't a political person." We all have our own perspective so I won't say your conclusions about the film are wrong, I can only say that's not the message I came away with.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Oct 10, 2019 15:43:22 GMT
It was alright but they copped out going in the David Lynch "let's make it entirely ambiguous and let the viewer fill in the gaps as they see fit" direction.I wish they'd fully gone on the whole thing being Thomas Wayne's fault and the Joker being his creation. No ambiguity. That would have given this film the bang it needed. I think that was pretty genius because one of the most defining characteristics of the Joker as a character is his mystery of what caused him to turn into the Joker and it would be out of character for him to have clear cut origin story. This way, they managed to create one with enough ambiguity to maintain his past still somewhat of mystery. It's bit like the "You wanna know how I got these scars?" from The Dark Knight
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2019 15:56:39 GMT
I think you're reading too much into it. It's not like rich white guys weren't cast as villains before the 'woke' era. Yes they were but it had been established that Wayne was supposed to be a good guy--and calling people clowns is absolutely a political comment. The Joker originally did not represent the public or even the fringe of the public. He was a criminal mastermind, not someone to sympathize with at all.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Oct 10, 2019 16:02:51 GMT
I think you're reading too much into it. It's not like rich white guys weren't cast as villains before the 'woke' era. Yes they were but it had been established that Wayne was supposed to be a good guy--and calling people clowns is absolutely a political comment. The Joker originally did not represent the public or even the fringe of the public. He was a criminal mastermind, not someone to sympathize with at all.
It was an origin story and the previous origin story written by Allan Moore in 1988 "The Killing Joke" the Joker was already a sympathetic character before his descent to villainy. In fact, the Joker has always been contrasted with Batman for having a similar origin: both men suffered a tragedy in their past that caused them to become what they are. But then again, who am I kidding, you see everything in modern media as attack on white men even though most heroes and protagonists in Hollywood made films continue to be white men.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2019 17:24:15 GMT
It was an origin story and the previous origin story written by Allan Moore in 1988 "The Killing Joke" the Joker was already a sympathetic character before his descent to villainy. In fact, the Joker has always been contrasted with Batman for having a similar origin: both men suffered a tragedy in their past that caused them to become what they are. But then again, who am I kidding, you see everything in modern media as attack on white men even though most heroes and protagonists in Hollywood made films continue to be white men. The Joker was a bad guy until Alan Moore. Even when he fell into a vat of chemicals as the Red Hood in the 1940s he was still a villain. The reason they made him sympathetic in the Moore version is because by that time the deconstruction of traditional story norms was in full swing. It just keeps increasing. And what positive role model white men characters do you mean? Fat Thor? Divorced John McClane?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Oct 10, 2019 17:38:55 GMT
It was an origin story and the previous origin story written by Allan Moore in 1988 "The Killing Joke" the Joker was already a sympathetic character before his descent to villainy. In fact, the Joker has always been contrasted with Batman for having a similar origin: both men suffered a tragedy in their past that caused them to become what they are. But then again, who am I kidding, you see everything in modern media as attack on white men even though most heroes and protagonists in Hollywood made films continue to be white men. The Joker was a bad guy until Alan Moore. Even when he fell into a vat of chemicals as the Red Hood in the 1940s he was still a villain. The reason they made him sympathetic in the Moore version is because by that time the deconstruction of traditional story norms was in full swing. It just keeps increasing. And what positive role model white men characters do you mean? Fat Thor? Divorced John McClane?
Correction: the Joker is still a bad guy even after Alan Moore. He is always portrayed as a villain. Being a tragic villain, doesn't preven him from being a villain. Hell he is villain in the Joker movie. A villain protagonist but still a villain.
I didn't said positive role modesl, I said white male heroes.
And yes the three main Avengers that had their own movies are what? Tony Stark, Steve Rogers and Thor and they are what? White males. And is Steve Rogers negative role model? And yes, John McClane is a hero and a white male and who cares if he is divorced?
Lets face it most of the heroes on modern media are white and male. You have plenty to choose if you have a problem with white males being portrayed negatively on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2019 17:57:17 GMT
Correction: the Joker is still a bad guy even after Alan Moore. He is always portrayed as a villain. Being a tragic villain, doesn't preven him from being a villain. Hell he is villain in the Joker movie. A villain protagonist but still a villain.
Lets face it most of the heroes on modern media are white and male. You have plenty to choose if you have a problem with white males being portrayed negatively on occasion.
How many (truly) innocent people does the Joker murder or try to murder in this movie?
The white male heroes all have to fit a certain pattern--shorter than they used to be, divorced, have a daddy or mommy issue, require diversity mentors or help in order to achieve goals, or rely on science and magic. The closest character to a Beowulf type (aka traditional European hero archtype going back more than 1000 years) is Thor and they inexplicably made him into a fat joke. Neither Steve Rogers nor Tony Stark represent a traditional heroic portrayal --Stark is the nerd. Rogers is a scientific creation, only Thor (despite being presented as an alien) was closest in original concept. Perhaps Dwayne Johnson fares better but then he's darker.
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 10, 2019 20:34:10 GMT
It was alright but they copped out going in the David Lynch "let's make it entirely ambiguous and let the viewer fill in the gaps as they see fit" direction.I wish they'd fully gone on the whole thing being Thomas Wayne's fault and the Joker being his creation. No ambiguity. That would have given this film the bang it needed. I think that was pretty genius because one of the most defining characteristics of the Joker as a character is his mystery of what caused him to turn into the Joker and it would be out of character for him to have clear cut origin story. This way, they managed to create one with enough ambiguity to maintain his past still somewhat of mystery. It's bit like the "You wanna know how I got these scars?" from The Dark Knight I don't know. Yes, if this was a film that was ever going to go anywhere, e.g. be the launchpad for a new Batman series, then maybe... But no, this was sold on being a character piece, a one off study of the Joker. So I'm not sure in a one off origin film if you can't actually show his "origin" then we can applaud that as "genius". Especially when you've nicked your cinematography so clearly from other films. Don't get me wrong, I did think this film was ok on watching, it's just retrospectively I'm now left thinking what did this film actually deliver? Personally I think, as a one off, if this film had delivered on that Thomas Wayne shock and finished with him atop of that car with the Joker goons having been explained / justified in a (semi-) realistic way, then this film would have had something to push towards the upper echelons of comic book films.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 10, 2019 21:05:23 GMT
what did you feel was ambiguous? The entire film was ambiguous, e.g. the example I've given re his mother is not definitively answered, the fact that we're shown his relationship with his neighbour was entirely in his head means we can't assume anything we saw to have definitely happened, the ending throws up the possibility that the entire film was all a fantasy played out in his head. We see the adoption certificate when Joker is going through her Arkham file so we know she's lying about Wayne being his dad (and even her being his mom). The neighbor romance is definitely imagined, but I'm with Rey Kahuka that the "reveal" was so unnecessary and forced that I think anything not explicitly shown to be imagined should be taken at face value.
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 10, 2019 22:11:07 GMT
The entire film was ambiguous, e.g. the example I've given re his mother is not definitively answered, the fact that we're shown his relationship with his neighbour was entirely in his head means we can't assume anything we saw to have definitely happened, the ending throws up the possibility that the entire film was all a fantasy played out in his head. We see the adoption certificate when Joker is going through her Arkham file so we know she's lying about Wayne being his dad (and even her being his mom). The neighbor romance is definitely imagined, but I'm with Rey Kahuka that the "reveal" was so unnecessary and forced that I think anything not explicitly shown to be imagined should be taken at face value. Wouldn't that mean taking Thomas Wayne's "romantic" note at face value as well though and thus conversely not being able to take his dismissal of Penny as a lunatic at face value?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 10, 2019 22:12:58 GMT
We see the adoption certificate when Joker is going through her Arkham file so we know she's lying about Wayne being his dad (and even her being his mom). The neighbor romance is definitely imagined, but I'm with Rey Kahuka that the "reveal" was so unnecessary and forced that I think anything not explicitly shown to be imagined should be taken at face value. Wouldn't that mean taking Thomas Wayne's "romantic" note at face value as well though and thus conversely not being able to take his dismissal of Penny as a lunatic at face value? What romantic note?
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 10, 2019 22:16:03 GMT
Wouldn't that mean taking Thomas Wayne's "romantic" note at face value as well though and thus conversely not being able to take his dismissal of Penny as a lunatic at face value? What romantic note? On the back of the photo he crushes before going completely (if that was possible!) off the rails...
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 10, 2019 22:32:44 GMT
On the back of the photo he crushes before going completely (if that was possible!) off the rails... Okay, so Joker had a note from Thomas Wayne to his mother detailing romance? I don't remember this. I remember his mother sending notes to Wayne, and Joker finds one of them on the table which is when he starts asking her questions. Was that what you're talking about or was it part of her Arkham file or?
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 10, 2019 22:52:56 GMT
On the back of the photo he crushes before going completely (if that was possible!) off the rails... Okay, so Joker had a note from Thomas Wayne to his mother detailing romance? I don't remember this. I remember his mother sending notes to Wayne, and Joker finds one of them on the table which is when he starts asking her questions. Was that what you're talking about or was it part of her Arkham file or? No it's after all of that. He gets Thomas Wayne telling him she was nuts. He reads the file in Arkham telling him she was nuts. He then kills her. And then at the opening of the scene before he's going on the Murray Franklin show he's holding the photo with Wayne's inscription on the back, something like "Always keep your beautiful smile, T.W." before he crushes it up and then kills the guy who gave him the gun.
|
|