It just feels like people scratching around for outrage after the movie ended up not being the incel manifesto they were expecting.
Really don't think it was a scheme to make the 5% of the audience who knew both the song and Gary Glitter's crimes, uncomfortable. Guy just thought the song worked in the scene, and it did.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I think that whether or not the viewer was aware of the artist behind the song, there's no way the director would have missed it. Furthermore, I suspect it was chosen deliberately for its potential to evoke discomfort, even if not every audience member noticed it. The movie was definitely at least that subtle in other areas.
It was all part of his master plan to cause internet randoms to embarrass themselves in pointless outrage.
See, the Joker's real identity is Todd Philips and he just wants the world to burn.
To apply a bit of D&D here, Joker as a character is one of the most Chaotic Evil characters there is, in any medium. He thrives on chaos, and creating chaos is his entire shtick. Chaos without morality.
This movie did a good job of demonstrating his fall to Chaotic Evil. At the beginning of the movie I'd call Arthur Fleck True Neutral. But as bad things happen to him, as his life falls apart, as he loses his job, his relationships (real or imagined), his sanity, he slips from True Neutral to Chaotic Evil.
When he sees that he inspired people to violence, riots, uprising, all of that, that was the first time Arthur was truly happy. He's a sick, deranged man who thrives on chaos. And whether or not Arthur Fleck is *the* Joker, he is a person who could be the Joker.
The thing about the Joker as a character, not just in this movie, is that extreme violence is not his M.O.
Sewing chaos is. There are plenty of examples where Joker takes a non-violent approach because that is more chaotic, or more unexpected. And unpredictability is a form of chaos. So if Joker can do something mischievous and benign and get under Batman's skin, he will do that. It isn't just murder murder murder with him. It's whatever sews the most chaos.
Let’s take a moment to consider that when BATMAN & ROBIN came out there is no way in hell any of us could’ve guessed that in 22 years one of our generation’s most respected actors would star in a super-fucked-up hard-R ‘70s period piece Scorsese knockoff character study vaguely based on (and officially branded as) an iconic Batman villain. Much less that it would be controversial only for reasons other than “it’s too scary for kids.” It’s a crazy world we’re living in. Almost like… the Joker. Oh my god.
I kind of liked JOKER. I found it involving, Phoenix is obviously very good, it looks beautiful, there are those bits of dark comedy, there are some turns I didn’t see coming, some genuinely scary parts, and it’s a creepy slow burn to a couple really effective explosions of seriously fucked up violence. It’s about as well-executed a version as you could hope for of what in my opinion seems like the half-thought-out premise somebody brags that they pitched to a studio but the fucking cowards wouldn’t go for it. Something Max Landis would come up with. What if it’s The Joker, in Gotham City, only it’s real dark and grounded, ‘cause you learn about his problems, and he doesn’t do fun Joker stuff, or obviously fight Batman or anything. ‘Cause if you think about it if the Joker was real he wouldn’t fall into a vat of acid and have giant jack in the boxes and fight a guy dressed as a bat in a stylized gothic metropolis. He’d be more like Mark David Chapman. So that’s what you have to watch. Sorry losers. Fuck you.
That they were able to make such a watchable movie out of an idea I find so fucking stupid is actually very impressive to me.
Redlettermedia enjoyed the second half of this movie so as a loyal sheep i'll probably give it a shot when it comes out on video.
My hangup about it was never that it would inspire violence or whatever, it was mostly that it looked miserable and I don't enjoy putting myself through those kinds of experiences. What i've heard about it has made me curious though.
I bet most people on the street don't know who Gary Glitter is or what he did.
Americans maybe, in Britain he’s probably more known for being a famous pedophile than his songs. My grandparents would know who he is. One of the tabloids put the joker thing on its front page.
How violent is Joker? I keep hearing about its violence. Is it just that it's hard, realistic violence, and that's something we're not used to in films about comic book villains? Or does the film actually have much graphic violence?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
No one in the UK is going to see Joker, they're too busy preparing for the inevitable end of the world when Brexit without a deal happens. Then ironically, the english will look exactly like the australians, wearing a mish mash of hockey gear and driving around a wasteland for drips and drops of "petrol" whatever the fuck that is.
How violent is Joker? I keep hearing about its violence. Is it just that it's hard, realistic violence, and that's something we're not used to in films about comic book villains? Or does the film actually have much graphic violence?
On a scale of Cannibal Holocaust to 50's Westerns, it's maybe a tic or two up the scale from 50's Westerns. It's mostly hearing a gun go off, then people grabbing their chest and falling over. There is a singular scene more involved. Might rise to the level of your typical Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street murder.
When I went to go see the film, the theater had special signage up I'd never seen before about how disturbingly violent the film is. They fucking lied. It's just bullshit moral panic. Or really clever marketing. Hard to tell.
+2
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
How violent is Joker? I keep hearing about its violence. Is it just that it's hard, realistic violence, and that's something we're not used to in films about comic book villains? Or does the film actually have much graphic violence?
I think it's that and the fact that it's pretty sudden when it happens. There's nothing you wouldn't see outside of say John Wick, but there's also not the "protective" layer of "this is an action movie" if that makes sense.
No one in the UK is going to see Joker, they're too busy preparing for the inevitable end of the world when Brexit without a deal happens. Then ironically, the english will look exactly like the australians, wearing a mish mash of hockey gear and driving around a wasteland for drips and drops of "petrol" whatever the fuck that is.
It's mostly about the context in which the violence occurs, I think.
If John Wick shoots someone in the head, it's because they were a bad person trying to kill him and he just got them first. And badass action music is blaring. And Holy Shit did you just see that shot!?
If Joker shoots someone in the head, it's because he's a deranged criminal murdering an innocent civilian. And serious music is playing. And everyone is horrified.
They both perform the same actual actions, but the context and tone is what makes one seem so much "more" violent.
IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.
It's mostly about the context in which the violence occurs, I think.
If John Wick shoots someone in the head, it's because they were a bad person trying to kill him and he just got them first. And badass action music is blaring. And Holy Shit did you just see that shot!?
If Joker shoots someone in the head, it's because he's a deranged criminal murdering an innocent civilian. And serious music is playing. And everyone is horrified.
They both perform the same actual actions, but the context and tone is what makes one seem so much "more" violent.
Absolutely. The first thing that came to mind: There's a murder in Beautiful Creatures that isn't 'graphic', there's a bit of blood, but the staging, the sound design, the torturously slow build up. Even the act itself, it's not 'clean', its amateurish and clumsy. It's genuinely horrible to watch, I just looked it up on Youtube to make sure I was remembering it correctly and now my heart is pounding and I feel kind of queasy from the stress of it.
IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.
You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.
IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.
You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.
Lol.
Welcome to Gotham City!
+1
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
If they have nothing to be outraged about then they have to dwell on their own behavior instead.
It's entirely possible to dwell on your own ethical behavior while looking at other things from an ethical standpoint and using those to gauge and monitor their own reactions vs societal expectations within the framework of a shifting modern world and then coming to a conclusion based on that
I guess your way works too.
Just like everyone who wanted to see Joker wanted to see Joker because Clown Man Shoot Bullies.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
The shooting of Murray was probably the most disturbing, though less gory than the stabbing that precedes it.
I think the issue is that the way it’s shot gave it a more “real” feeling. It’s not just that a movie like John Wick has a good guy killing bad guys, or that it sin an action context, but that the cinematography and action is so stylized. It’s not real, at all. The way this is presented, though, as I remember it had almost a Bud Dwyer feel to it. Or something similar. It feels like it’s captured by a cameraman who isn’t expecting anybody to be shot, in how the event is framed and shown, so you as the audience suddenly feel as shocked as if it *were* real.
Maybe that’s just me, but that’s why it felt so much more graphic than a hundred guys getting shot in the head in a different movie.
For me part of it was you knew something awful was coming. It was similar to how I felt as he makes his way up to do his standup for the first time, I felt completely anxious the entire time.
Also I think the fact the violence itself was in an arena that feels safe - it's a late night talk show. The violence isn't on the streets, isn't in a shitty rundown area of town. It's on a late night talk show, and it's filmed and presented like a talk show. That's what makes it so shocking, so raw.
IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.
You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.
Lol.
Welcome to Gotham City!
Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.
You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.
Lol.
Welcome to Gotham City!
Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.
No - the movie was trying to tap into a very specific zeitgeist (specifically, New York City of the mid-70s to mid-80s,) which was what produced films like Taxi Driver. The problem is, from what I've heard, that this was done superficially - grasping at the theme and feel of the time, while not understanding what created it.
We weren't given a clear or realistic view of Gotham City. We weren't given much view of the city at all, actually.
All we were given was the perspective of the city coming from a man who... well you know. That's the movie.
So we don't really know what the city was like. We don't even know if the city is real, depending on how much of it you think was in his head.
Maybe the riots, unrest, all of that was just made up. Maybe Thomas Wayne really was the saintly philanthropist that he is often made out to be. We don't know. Because Arthur Fleck was our window to everything. And at best it was a very muddy window, and at worst it was a window in a dream world in his mind.
IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.
You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.
Lol.
Welcome to Gotham City!
Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.
So Chicago? I'd say Detroit but Gotham doesn't seem that bad...
I really like what they did with Thomas Wayne in this.
In most portrayals hes this insanely rich perfect doctor industrialist who does no wrong and dies tragically. In Joker he's still a good person but he comes off as an out of touch rich douche who tries to do the right thing. It felt much more real and grounded.
Seal on
+2
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I can't believe how wrong the early reviews got this movie. it was good, I don't think it was amazing (phoenix was, probably, but I'd have to see it again) but I enjoyed it and it felt like it had something to say which is generally the reason I hadn't seen a comic-related movie since GOTG1...
I think some people were 'scared' by this movie because of how it imitates life, rather than the possibility of life imitating this piece of art.
I wouldnt go as far as an apology, but at least a half assed OP would be nice.
no one reads OPs tho
+1
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
I can write a public apology but I don't think I can do that without using the words "eat" "my" "total" "ass" "and" "huff" "my" "low" "carb" "farts", not specifically in that arrangement but I do feel like some earnest sincerity may be lost.
Congrats on a mediocre movie, though, that's a big get.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
This movie has made it to my "top 5 worst movies of all time list".
An utter borefest.
I feel bad for Phoenix, he really put a lot of effort into his performance.
I can write a public apology but I don't think I can do that without using the words "eat" "my" "total" "ass" "and" "huff" "my" "low" "carb" "farts", not specifically in that arrangement but I do feel like some earnest sincerity may be lost.
Congrats on a mediocre movie, though, that's a big get.
The amusing thing is that this is almost as edgelord as Leto Joker and yet at the same time both less relevant and insightful.
Posts
Really don't think it was a scheme to make the 5% of the audience who knew both the song and Gary Glitter's crimes, uncomfortable. Guy just thought the song worked in the scene, and it did.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If they have nothing to be outraged about then they have to dwell on their own behavior instead.
It was all part of his master plan to cause internet randoms to embarrass themselves in pointless outrage.
See, the Joker's real identity is Todd Philips and he just wants the world to burn.
This movie did a good job of demonstrating his fall to Chaotic Evil. At the beginning of the movie I'd call Arthur Fleck True Neutral. But as bad things happen to him, as his life falls apart, as he loses his job, his relationships (real or imagined), his sanity, he slips from True Neutral to Chaotic Evil.
When he sees that he inspired people to violence, riots, uprising, all of that, that was the first time Arthur was truly happy. He's a sick, deranged man who thrives on chaos. And whether or not Arthur Fleck is *the* Joker, he is a person who could be the Joker.
The thing about the Joker as a character, not just in this movie, is that extreme violence is not his M.O.
Sewing chaos is. There are plenty of examples where Joker takes a non-violent approach because that is more chaotic, or more unexpected. And unpredictability is a form of chaos. So if Joker can do something mischievous and benign and get under Batman's skin, he will do that. It isn't just murder murder murder with him. It's whatever sews the most chaos.
http://outlawvern.com/2019/10/08/joker/
I agree fully with his sentiment re: Batman & Robin however
http://outlawvern.com/2017/06/20/br/
My hangup about it was never that it would inspire violence or whatever, it was mostly that it looked miserable and I don't enjoy putting myself through those kinds of experiences. What i've heard about it has made me curious though.
Americans maybe, in Britain he’s probably more known for being a famous pedophile than his songs. My grandparents would know who he is. One of the tabloids put the joker thing on its front page.
In the UK they absolutely do
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
On a scale of Cannibal Holocaust to 50's Westerns, it's maybe a tic or two up the scale from 50's Westerns. It's mostly hearing a gun go off, then people grabbing their chest and falling over. There is a singular scene more involved. Might rise to the level of your typical Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street murder.
When I went to go see the film, the theater had special signage up I'd never seen before about how disturbingly violent the film is. They fucking lied. It's just bullshit moral panic. Or really clever marketing. Hard to tell.
I think it's that and the fact that it's pretty sudden when it happens. There's nothing you wouldn't see outside of say John Wick, but there's also not the "protective" layer of "this is an action movie" if that makes sense.
Will they get Utes though? totally worth it
If John Wick shoots someone in the head, it's because they were a bad person trying to kill him and he just got them first. And badass action music is blaring. And Holy Shit did you just see that shot!?
If Joker shoots someone in the head, it's because he's a deranged criminal murdering an innocent civilian. And serious music is playing. And everyone is horrified.
They both perform the same actual actions, but the context and tone is what makes one seem so much "more" violent.
Absolutely. The first thing that came to mind: There's a murder in Beautiful Creatures that isn't 'graphic', there's a bit of blood, but the staging, the sound design, the torturously slow build up. Even the act itself, it's not 'clean', its amateurish and clumsy. It's genuinely horrible to watch, I just looked it up on Youtube to make sure I was remembering it correctly and now my heart is pounding and I feel kind of queasy from the stress of it.
When my wife and I left the theater we didn't have much to say immediately other than that was a very disturbing 2 hours. Because damn
You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.
Lol.
Welcome to Gotham City!
It's entirely possible to dwell on your own ethical behavior while looking at other things from an ethical standpoint and using those to gauge and monitor their own reactions vs societal expectations within the framework of a shifting modern world and then coming to a conclusion based on that
I guess your way works too.
Just like everyone who wanted to see Joker wanted to see Joker because Clown Man Shoot Bullies.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Also I think the fact the violence itself was in an arena that feels safe - it's a late night talk show. The violence isn't on the streets, isn't in a shitty rundown area of town. It's on a late night talk show, and it's filmed and presented like a talk show. That's what makes it so shocking, so raw.
Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
No - the movie was trying to tap into a very specific zeitgeist (specifically, New York City of the mid-70s to mid-80s,) which was what produced films like Taxi Driver. The problem is, from what I've heard, that this was done superficially - grasping at the theme and feel of the time, while not understanding what created it.
All we were given was the perspective of the city coming from a man who... well you know. That's the movie.
So we don't really know what the city was like. We don't even know if the city is real, depending on how much of it you think was in his head.
Maybe the riots, unrest, all of that was just made up. Maybe Thomas Wayne really was the saintly philanthropist that he is often made out to be. We don't know. Because Arthur Fleck was our window to everything. And at best it was a very muddy window, and at worst it was a window in a dream world in his mind.
So Chicago? I'd say Detroit but Gotham doesn't seem that bad...
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
I think some people were 'scared' by this movie because of how it imitates life, rather than the possibility of life imitating this piece of art.
no one reads OPs tho
Congrats on a mediocre movie, though, that's a big get.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Hoping I can see this soon tho.
An utter borefest.
I feel bad for Phoenix, he really put a lot of effort into his performance.
The amusing thing is that this is almost as edgelord as Leto Joker and yet at the same time both less relevant and insightful.