I don't know that Fleck's mental illness was necessarily portrayed as the CAUSE of his resort to violence. It just kind of... colored his response to it.
It was a major, unrelenting stress factor in his life - one that made all the others far worse.
He couldn't relate to people. He couldn't make any friends or function in society. No one cared and almost everyone gave him shit for it.
Like he said during the interview:
"If it was ME lying in the street you'd all just walk over me."
In the end, I don't think his mental illness was supposed to be what turned him into a killer. I think he just became a killer who also happened to have a mental illness.
RT800 on
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
The movie also makes it very clear that his mythical status may be entirely within his own head, as he is consistently presented as an unreliable narrator.
My favorite thing about this movie is it legitimately does have something to say about how America treats the mentally ill. I wish it didn't end up falling into the trope of "mentally ill man goes on killing spree" like so many other films, but at the same time...it's the Joker. How else do you write that character?
It's a very pretty movie and the soundtrack is great. I think Joaquin did a great job of taking a pathetic character and slowly turn him into someone you hate over 2 hours.
His mental illness isn't why he falls, he falls and just realizes that he can who he actually is, a person who finds death and misery funny, and enjoys stomping on dreams. He's already only just holding on as the film starts, he's unhappy, he is pretending to be someone he isn't, and is stuck in a rut trying to be what he has been told to be, someone who makes people laugh and happy. He just didn't realise he was going to do that in a very different way.
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
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
im just thankful the leaked spoiler i was told was fake.
I read that Arthur killed the neighbor lady after she rejected his advances.
Which you know.... could've happened but didn't, to my knowledge.
I couldn’t disagree more. Dexter is fundamentally about Dexter’s double life as he tries to be a competent killer and regular guy. Dexter himself despite being ostensibly a psychopath isn’t really portrayed as mentally ill, his compulsion is framed more as an addict. It worked (for 3 1/2 seasons) because he could just as easily be an alcoholic or closeted gay man or whatever the basic idea of living a darker double life is relatable to anyone who’s ever kept a secret.
Arthur Flecks illness makes him is bad at fitting in as a regular person and bad at being a comedian. While his identity as the clown killer is unknown for a bit he’s not really living a double life in the same way, rather he’s trying to find a role that “fits” him, eventually subtly fitting into the role of killer because no other one has. When he kills it’s more undirected impulse rage than burning need.
im just thankful the leaked spoiler i was told was fake.
I read that Arthur killed the neighbor lady after she rejected his advances.
Which you know.... could've happened but didn't, to my knowledge.
wellllll....he does break into her house, she is scared and asks him to leave, and then the scene changes and, if I remember correctly, we never see her again
So I think we’re supposed to think something *might* have happened (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a cut scene where he does explicitly kill her)
im just thankful the leaked spoiler i was told was fake.
I read that Arthur killed the neighbor lady after she rejected his advances.
Which you know.... could've happened but didn't, to my knowledge.
wellllll....he does break into her house, she is scared and asks him to leave, and then the scene changes and, if I remember correctly, we never see her again
So I think we’re supposed to think something *might* have happened (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a cut scene where he does explicitly kill her)
I very much read it as he kills her offscreen. It abruptly cuts away, we never see her again, and he had just broken into her home.
I didn't get that vibe, but I think it's intentionally open ended. One thing:
So when Arthur lets his other coworker leave without killing him, he says "You can go, you've always been good to me." So he's basically only killing people who have hurt him or betrayed him, like the other coworker who gave him the gun. So I don't think he'd kill since he was the one who made up their relationship, she didn't even realize what was happening. I think if it was really important to the story, they'd have left a bit more evidence to show it. He doesn't leave the apartment bloody or anything.
+3
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Also, any mild criticism of how the movie presented itself, no matter what, was interpreted as "OMG STOP BEING OUTRAGED."
Eh there's been plenty of levelheaded criticism, here and elsewhere
But notably lots of critics seemed to pile on the moral angle when the average movie fans seemed to enjoy it a lot, going by rotten tomatoes score
Nothing wrong with enjoying it, just like there's nothing wrong with feeling that we really, really don't need another violent white dude inspiring other white dudes to do awful things at this point in time. (Again: not outraged! Just icked out.)
Yea thats not what the movie is.
You want to point that gun at something, John Wick is probably your better bet.
What is the gist of the controversy, for someone who apparently missed out? White guy killing people painted sympathetically? Anti-rich protests depicted as crazy mob? Just guesses on my part after having watched it.
Regardless, I liked the movie a lot. Joaquin Phoenix was awesome. I think it's the first time I've enjoyed a comic-based movie since The Dark Knight .
Edit - I do agree with the "mentally ill = deranged murderer" criticism voiced in this thread though
This could be off base, but I wonder whether the movie was trying to avoid the "mentally ill = mass murderer" thing. It feels like toward the end there's a lot of messaging meant to imply "I'm not crazy, this killer is just...the real me."
The point when he says he was told the uncontrollable laughter was a condition, but he's realized that's just who he is.
The way he completely changes once he is off his meds, and becomes lucid enough to string together longer statements, especially on the show.
I've seen a few people wonder if the film might be portraying a sort of Munchausen By Proxy. Is the mother projecting her own problems onto her son who might not suffer from the same issues? Was she medicating him to the extent that social services thought he needed further medication to stop those symptoms, which only screwed him up further?
I wonder if there is a conscious effort to change Thomas Wayne into a bad guy. Up to now he was always a noble doctor, but in the last few years he's been an evil bastard (city of Bane), in bed with the mob (Telltale's Batman) and deliberately institutionalizing people with his influence, and a pompous douche who potentially institutionalized someone with his influence (Joker).
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
im just thankful the leaked spoiler i was told was fake.
I read that Arthur killed the neighbor lady after she rejected his advances.
Which you know.... could've happened but didn't, to my knowledge.
wellllll....he does break into her house, she is scared and asks him to leave, and then the scene changes and, if I remember correctly, we never see her again
So I think we’re supposed to think something *might* have happened (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a cut scene where he does explicitly kill her)
i mean,
Maybe he kills her, maybe he don't, but what i read is that he explicitly killed her for refusing his advances. The implication is a lot different from what's in the movie.
im just thankful the leaked spoiler i was told was fake.
I read that Arthur killed the neighbor lady after she rejected his advances.
Which you know.... could've happened but didn't, to my knowledge.
wellllll....he does break into her house, she is scared and asks him to leave, and then the scene changes and, if I remember correctly, we never see her again
So I think we’re supposed to think something *might* have happened (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a cut scene where he does explicitly kill her)
i mean,
Maybe he kills her, maybe he don't, but what i read is that he explicitly killed her for refusing his advances. The implication is a lot different from what's in the movie.
Take it with a grain of salt, but I heard the script conveyed that she was killed and the film deliberately cut back on it to keep it open-ended.
I like the final product's version far better, but even that pains a dire picture with the sirens afterward.
What is the gist of the controversy, for someone who apparently missed out? White guy killing people painted sympathetically? Anti-rich protests depicted as crazy mob? Just guesses on my part after having watched it.
Regardless, I liked the movie a lot. Joaquin Phoenix was awesome. I think it's the first time I've enjoyed a comic-based movie since The Dark Knight .
Edit - I do agree with the "mentally ill = deranged murderer" criticism voiced in this thread though
Just a parade of clownish hot takes all basically boiling down to "This was an irresponsible movie to make, it will inspire real life violence". The demographic it was purported to inspire to violence, and the reasons anyone thought it would, were hardly unanimous. But the media, through weasel words and the usual headline telephone, seemed absolutely certain that someone would be shooting up a theatre in response to this film.
I think most notably Phoenix walked out of an interview where he was asked about the film promoting violence.
The only thing I can't make up my mind about was whether Disney was behind such a blatantly astroturfed media campaign to try to hurt a competitor, or WB was behind it because controversy moves tickets.
Eh Disney knows controversy sells tickets too so I doubt they'd purposefully push that message to get more asses in the seats.
0
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
The movie would have been better if his big plan was to give all the fish joker smiles and profit from trademark
But, despite the film’s opening weekend success, the makers of the movie have stoked controversy for featuring Glitter’s 1972 hit “Rock and Roll Part 2” in a lengthy scene.
The song plays for approximately two minutes as Joaquin Phoenix, who has received rave reviews for his portrayal of the eponymous villain, dances down a long flight of steps outside his Gotham City apartment.
Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is reportedly expected to receive a lump sum for allowing the recording to be used in “Joker.” He is also thought to be in line for music royalties depending on the success of movie theater ticket sales, DVD sales and film soundtrack sales.
The 75-year-old was jailed for a total of 16 years in 2015 for attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault and one count of having sex with a girl under 13. All six offenses were committed in the 1970s and 1980s. He was first jailed in 1999 when he admitted to possessing images of child abuse.
But, despite the film’s opening weekend success, the makers of the movie have stoked controversy for featuring Glitter’s 1972 hit “Rock and Roll Part 2” in a lengthy scene.
The song plays for approximately two minutes as Joaquin Phoenix, who has received rave reviews for his portrayal of the eponymous villain, dances down a long flight of steps outside his Gotham City apartment.
Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is reportedly expected to receive a lump sum for allowing the recording to be used in “Joker.” He is also thought to be in line for music royalties depending on the success of movie theater ticket sales, DVD sales and film soundtrack sales.
The 75-year-old was jailed for a total of 16 years in 2015 for attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault and one count of having sex with a girl under 13. All six offenses were committed in the 1970s and 1980s. He was first jailed in 1999 when he admitted to possessing images of child abuse.
Like I said, that was a choice. It's kind of the perfect choice for the movie because the song is so triumphant, but using it is gross and unsettling. So, it really makes the scene, but that doesn't make it not gross and unsettling.
But, despite the film’s opening weekend success, the makers of the movie have stoked controversy for featuring Glitter’s 1972 hit “Rock and Roll Part 2” in a lengthy scene.
The song plays for approximately two minutes as Joaquin Phoenix, who has received rave reviews for his portrayal of the eponymous villain, dances down a long flight of steps outside his Gotham City apartment.
Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is reportedly expected to receive a lump sum for allowing the recording to be used in “Joker.” He is also thought to be in line for music royalties depending on the success of movie theater ticket sales, DVD sales and film soundtrack sales.
The 75-year-old was jailed for a total of 16 years in 2015 for attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault and one count of having sex with a girl under 13. All six offenses were committed in the 1970s and 1980s. He was first jailed in 1999 when he admitted to possessing images of child abuse.
Like I said, that was a choice. It's kind of the perfect choice for the movie because the song is so triumphant, but using it is gross and unsettling. So, it really makes the scene, but that doesn't make it not gross and unsettling.
I would bet a majority of the audience won’t make the connection though. I don’t think Gary Glitter is nearly as well known in the US...either as an individual or his crimes...as somebody like Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson. I had no idea who he was or that that was a song of his until well after I’d seen it. To me, and I think to most, that’s just “that song from the sports.”
So if it was an intentional choice, it was an odd one.
It’s also possible I just live in a cave, and everybody else knows all about this.
I didn't get that vibe, but I think it's intentionally open ended. One thing:
So when Arthur lets his other coworker leave without killing him, he says "You can go, you've always been good to me." So he's basically only killing people who have hurt him or betrayed him, like the other coworker who gave him the gun. So I don't think he'd kill since he was the one who made up their relationship, she didn't even realize what was happening. I think if it was really important to the story, they'd have left a bit more evidence to show it. He doesn't leave the apartment bloody or anything.
The movie isn't *that* subtle
they give us bloody footprints at the end when the orderly tackling him would have been good enough
If he murdered his neighbor, they would have given us something. Plus, my money's on her in a fight, and if he fired his gun the kid would have woken up and he would have had to kill her too, and... well it would have been a messy, screaming scene and there'd probably be some indication that it had happened
They probably did a scene of that happening, and I think they probably decided (for the better) that him killing her would be a mistake, and doesn't fit with the other killings he does from his point of view - she never did anything to him, she was even kind to him after he broke into her house "do you have somebody I can call?"
override367 on
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
The main pitfall of the unreliable narrator is that it gives the audience much more leeway to just inject whatever they want into the story.
But, despite the film’s opening weekend success, the makers of the movie have stoked controversy for featuring Glitter’s 1972 hit “Rock and Roll Part 2” in a lengthy scene.
The song plays for approximately two minutes as Joaquin Phoenix, who has received rave reviews for his portrayal of the eponymous villain, dances down a long flight of steps outside his Gotham City apartment.
Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is reportedly expected to receive a lump sum for allowing the recording to be used in “Joker.” He is also thought to be in line for music royalties depending on the success of movie theater ticket sales, DVD sales and film soundtrack sales.
The 75-year-old was jailed for a total of 16 years in 2015 for attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault and one count of having sex with a girl under 13. All six offenses were committed in the 1970s and 1980s. He was first jailed in 1999 when he admitted to possessing images of child abuse.
Like I said, that was a choice. It's kind of the perfect choice for the movie because the song is so triumphant, but using it is gross and unsettling. So, it really makes the scene, but that doesn't make it not gross and unsettling.
The way you guys described it made it sound like some esoteric weird music, but I looked it up and it was actually a really popular song I used to hear a lot in commercials and sports games.
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.
The main pitfall of the unreliable narrator is that it gives the audience much more leeway to just inject whatever they want into the story.
Oh no. Anything but that. I hate when movies make me think.
It does make discussing what happens a bit more challenging.
Like discussing the nuances of Mass Effect games; everyone played them somewhat differently. Those contrasts can lead to some interesting discussions, but it also means each experience is highly personal, and trying to convey assumptions of intent or nuanced/contextual elements gets muddied by that same vagueness/obfuscation/personalized experience.
Doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. I haven't seen Joker, and I'm not sure if I will. But we might as well call a spade a spade here. This isn't about 'omg thinking is liek harrrrd', but that what people have been describing are going to be personal takes that we all have to understand aren't necessarily universal, even as something people are ostensibly witnessing similarly, in a theater, surrounded (or not, as one pays attention to such things) by the 'controversy' and whatnot.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Every time the Paul Gadd song use is brought up it makes me feel uncomfortable. He is in prison, justice has been served.
Are there really people out there outraged by the use of the song, or is this like all of the other 'controversy'? Seems like a bunch of click-bait bullshit.
'
furbat on
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Ethical consumption is a tricky subject and I am not surprised that people struggle with it or want to discuss it.
What's annoying is when people are self-righteous about it. Especially in this case, where the topic at hand is song royalties, which should fall pretty low on the list of things that you should feel comfortable being a dick to other people about.
Every time the Paul Gadd song use is brought up it makes me feel uncomfortable. He is in prison, justice has been served.
Are there really people out there outraged by the use of the song, or is this like all of the other 'controversy'? Seems like a bunch of click-bait bullshit.
'
It's going a bit off topic but yes, people who commit crimes will continue to make money. They can still win the lottery. Roman Polanski has NEVER faced actual justice and his films are out winning awards and well known actors star in them. This just seems like looking for any excuse to criticize Joker because the initial attempts fell through. As I said earlier, no one sat through this film, watched everything that presented, and then heard that song (knew it was Gary Glitter which, the fuck you did), and said "Well, now the film has gone too far").
The dude is 75 and in prison for another 12 years. Who cares if he's stocked up on cigarettes and twinkies from commissary? That money isn't going towards hurting any more children, which you would think would be the main concern.
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.
I'm not gonna push back too hard against the moral outrage over Joker, because I'm not willing to say "movie violence is a-ok and has no effect whatsoever". I mean, examining myself, sometimes I'll have a fleeting thought about buying a gun, even though I hate guns and will almost certainly never own one. Where does that sort of thought come from? Movies and TV shows that flood my eyeballs with guns, obviously.
I will note something I haven't heard anyone else say, though, which is that it's easy to read a pro-gun-control message into the film. The thing that sets Arthur Fleck's killing spree in motion is that he stumbles into owning a gun that he didn't even want. Someone casually hands one to him the way you might hand someone some leftover pizza. Arthur Fleck doesn't become the Joker if he lives in a place that treats gun ownership with the slightest amount of gravity
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.
Posts
It was a major, unrelenting stress factor in his life - one that made all the others far worse.
He couldn't relate to people. He couldn't make any friends or function in society. No one cared and almost everyone gave him shit for it.
Like he said during the interview:
It's a very pretty movie and the soundtrack is great. I think Joaquin did a great job of taking a pathetic character and slowly turn him into someone you hate over 2 hours.
it's like Dexter.
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.
Which you know.... could've happened but didn't, to my knowledge.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Arthur Flecks illness makes him is bad at fitting in as a regular person and bad at being a comedian. While his identity as the clown killer is unknown for a bit he’s not really living a double life in the same way, rather he’s trying to find a role that “fits” him, eventually subtly fitting into the role of killer because no other one has. When he kills it’s more undirected impulse rage than burning need.
So I think we’re supposed to think something *might* have happened (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a cut scene where he does explicitly kill her)
Yo hey whoa hold on now
Let's not say stuff we can't take back
ftfy.
The point when he says he was told the uncontrollable laughter was a condition, but he's realized that's just who he is.
The way he completely changes once he is off his meds, and becomes lucid enough to string together longer statements, especially on the show.
I've seen a few people wonder if the film might be portraying a sort of Munchausen By Proxy. Is the mother projecting her own problems onto her son who might not suffer from the same issues? Was she medicating him to the extent that social services thought he needed further medication to stop those symptoms, which only screwed him up further?
i mean,
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I like the final product's version far better, but even that pains a dire picture with the sirens afterward.
But, as has been said, unreliable narrator.
Eh Disney knows controversy sells tickets too so I doubt they'd purposefully push that message to get more asses in the seats.
Like I said, that was a choice. It's kind of the perfect choice for the movie because the song is so triumphant, but using it is gross and unsettling. So, it really makes the scene, but that doesn't make it not gross and unsettling.
I would bet a majority of the audience won’t make the connection though. I don’t think Gary Glitter is nearly as well known in the US...either as an individual or his crimes...as somebody like Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson. I had no idea who he was or that that was a song of his until well after I’d seen it. To me, and I think to most, that’s just “that song from the sports.”
So if it was an intentional choice, it was an odd one.
It’s also possible I just live in a cave, and everybody else knows all about this.
The movie isn't *that* subtle
If he murdered his neighbor, they would have given us something. Plus, my money's on her in a fight, and if he fired his gun the kid would have woken up and he would have had to kill her too, and... well it would have been a messy, screaming scene and there'd probably be some indication that it had happened
They probably did a scene of that happening, and I think they probably decided (for the better) that him killing her would be a mistake, and doesn't fit with the other killings he does from his point of view - she never did anything to him, she was even kind to him after he broke into her house "do you have somebody I can call?"
Oh no. Anything but that. I hate when movies make me think.
The way you guys described it made it sound like some esoteric weird music, but I looked it up and it was actually a really popular song I used to hear a lot in commercials and sports games.
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.
It does make discussing what happens a bit more challenging.
Like discussing the nuances of Mass Effect games; everyone played them somewhat differently. Those contrasts can lead to some interesting discussions, but it also means each experience is highly personal, and trying to convey assumptions of intent or nuanced/contextual elements gets muddied by that same vagueness/obfuscation/personalized experience.
Doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. I haven't seen Joker, and I'm not sure if I will. But we might as well call a spade a spade here. This isn't about 'omg thinking is liek harrrrd', but that what people have been describing are going to be personal takes that we all have to understand aren't necessarily universal, even as something people are ostensibly witnessing similarly, in a theater, surrounded (or not, as one pays attention to such things) by the 'controversy' and whatnot.
Are there really people out there outraged by the use of the song, or is this like all of the other 'controversy'? Seems like a bunch of click-bait bullshit.
'
What's annoying is when people are self-righteous about it. Especially in this case, where the topic at hand is song royalties, which should fall pretty low on the list of things that you should feel comfortable being a dick to other people about.
It's going a bit off topic but yes, people who commit crimes will continue to make money. They can still win the lottery. Roman Polanski has NEVER faced actual justice and his films are out winning awards and well known actors star in them. This just seems like looking for any excuse to criticize Joker because the initial attempts fell through. As I said earlier, no one sat through this film, watched everything that presented, and then heard that song (knew it was Gary Glitter which, the fuck you did), and said "Well, now the film has gone too far").
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.
Passed on going to see it, felt like a netflix flick. Glad to hear Phoenix did an awesome job though.
Great, now I've got Harley singing the jingle stuck in my head, thanks a lot
The cinematography, while bleak, really does deserve to be seen on as large a screen as possible. Sort of mulling over catching a 70mm showing of it.
I'd really recomend a theater. The cinematography is fantastic. Really really well shot.
I enjoy that slow build up and the sound direction and cinematography was great.
That laugh and dance are just chilling.
I will note something I haven't heard anyone else say, though, which is that it's easy to read a pro-gun-control message into the film. The thing that sets Arthur Fleck's killing spree in motion is that he stumbles into owning a gun that he didn't even want. Someone casually hands one to him the way you might hand someone some leftover pizza. Arthur Fleck doesn't become the Joker if he lives in a place that treats gun ownership with the slightest amount of gravity
Hmm, I'm skeptical of 70mm screenings of movies that weren't actually shot in 70mm