The Joker movie - starring Joaquin Phoenix (MOD: May contain Spoilers)

Sad Professor

I thought it was superb. A pastiche of '70s films, brilliantly adapted to the comic book genre. It's a popular film about a complex character, trying to be challenging, to make a statement, to disturb and unsettle its audience and hit a cultural nerve. And if the online reactions are anything to go by, it has succeeded admirably.

shamrock55

Saw it tonight, really enjoyed it, still prefer ledgers version of joker, but phoenix was superb

Ferajacka

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He got angry on the TV show, but I don't think he was very quick witted. He's generally far more articulate and vocal in expressing himself and his idea's. On the show he just pulled faces and spoke like a slow Michael Jackson, explaining himself like a child tbh.

Of course he has to be a criminal mastermind to bring the level of chaos he does and to be always one step ahead.

On the show I like how he came out with joker like confidence, doing a dance. Then the confidence faded a bit, I didn't think he had gone full joker. Then he delivered the line '...you get what you deserve'. Up until this point he had planned on shooting himself on TV with the death line

That's the point where I thought he became more like ledger's joker.
In Batman begins that Batman did something similar before becoming Batman.
He tries to take down the guy in court some what pathetically, and then tries the same with falcone.

PTH2009

Ferajacka wrote: »

On the show I like how he came out with joker like confidence, doing a dance. Then the confidence faded a bit, I didn't think he had gone full joker. Then he delivered the line '...you get what you deserve'. Up until this point he had planned on shooting himself on TV with the death line

That's the point where I thought he became more like ledger's joker.
In Batman begins that Batman did something similar before becoming Batman.
He tries to take down the guy in court some what pathetically, and then tries the same with falcone.

the image of de Niro's character after he was shot in the head was dark

After reading the director's comments

seems odd thinking back on the ending sadly knowing this story wont be continued in any way

unless u knw studios and that

I think

this incarnation of joker would be a good fit in the new Pattison Batman universe in a sort of non physical sociological role. Do we want another joker for that universe

Do you think the

midget guy would eventually become one of the jokers lackies

Rjd2

Sad Professor wrote: »

I thought it was superb. A pastiche of '70s films, brilliantly adapted to the comic book genre. It's a popular film about a complex character, trying to be challenging, to make a statement, to disturb and unsettle its audience and hit a cultural nerve. And if the online reactions are anything to go by, it has succeeded admirably.

Amusingly the online vitriol before people had even seen the film seems misguided. Its not some right wing fantasy, its actually an angry leftwing film about how a child abused slips through the cracks due to cuts in mental health while also focusing on the gap between the 1% and the struggling general public. Lots of references to occupy wall street etc.

However the media has to generate those clickbait articles to distract people from actually properly discussing classism in society.

I found it enjoyable although at times thought the homage to the Scorcese films made me yearn to watch those instead of what was on screen.

Also while the message is admirable it did feel a little simple and the "twist" with the girlfriend was very lazy.

Glitter music was a genuine wtf moment also.

3/5 for me.

sydthebeat

I honestly don't think the "twist" with Sophie was designed to be a twist at all. Personally I was never in doubt that it was fantasy.
They really didn't need to do the etch-a-sketch cleaning to show this, her reaction in her apartment was enough.

Ferajacka

sydthebeat wrote: »

I honestly don't think the "twist" with Sophie was designed to be a twist at all. Personally I was never in doubt that it was fantasy.
They really didn't need to do the etch-a-sketch cleaning to show this, her reaction in her apartment was enough.

I agree

I reckon it was to show the audience how much of the movie to that point had been fantasy - so we know that he was at the comedy club and we are not left wondering if the studio part was real or not.

Granted it could have been handled better but I'd say that was the reason for the hand holding.
I reckon the part where

he is lifted from the cop car is fantasy and it's him feeding his own ego to that point. Cause he ends up to in Arkham straight after.

Ferajacka

PTH2009 wrote: »

the image of de Niro's character after he was shot in the head was dark

Do you think the

midget guy would eventually become one of the jokers lackies

During the movie I thought he should have killed that guy but see now why it would not have worked.

Maybe he will hide out at his house when he escapes from the asylum :-)

The White Wolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

I honestly don't think the "twist" with Sophie was designed to be a twist at all. Personally I was never in doubt that it was fantasy.
They really didn't need to do the etch-a-sketch cleaning to show this, her reaction in her apartment was enough.

Yeah they didn't need to do the quick re-tread montage.

That's the one thing that I twigged early enough because based on her first interaction with him, the ensuing relationship made no sense at all.

Salary Negotiator

PressRun wrote: »

Interestingly, if he does win, will it be the first time two actors have won an Oscar for the same character?

Vito Corleone.

faceman

Noticing some interesting comments emerging in the thread.

The social statement theme I feel is a red herring. That’s why it’s not defined. As the film is a character study, the primary focus is the fall (is it a fall if he came from a low place in the first place?) of Fleck.

The talk about him going ‘full joker’ is also a red herring. Remember Joker has been reimagined in this world so we don’t know what full Joker means. It certainly doesn’t show any hint that it could be a Joker we have seen already as Fleck is too self absorbed.

I don’t get the parallels with Fight Club to be honest but I do see a hint of Godfather I/II I’m watching the demise of Fleck. It took 2 3 hour films to witness the fall of Michael do there’s no way we could see the final Joker result in 1 film.

I’m glad we didn’t either. I’m not a fan of prequels as they rarely add value. However this is a great example of the retelling of a story as it’s so different from what we have seen so far. (Which is why I agree with Johnny Ultimate’s point about the links to the rest of the Batman universe feeling forced). This story is interesting but don’t be fooled for a second in to thinking we are seeing this Joker turning in to a Joker we have seen before.

I hope they don’t link the new Batman film to it or do a sequel.

mikhail

Something I haven't seen discussed on this thread is the portrayal of Thomas Wayne.

I know some folks feel he's shoe-horned in, but he's a key part of the rug being pulled from under Arthur - who's robbed of every support or succour by the end of the movie. Wayne has been an angelic presence in any Batman story I've ever seen or read before. This version is far more human, even if we assume he's completely above board regarding Arthur's mom (which is of course quite deliberately unclear).

The White Wolf

Once they decided to go this route they kind of had no choice but to incorporate aspects of the universe into the film, such as Thomas Wayne and Arkham.

They were given a lot of rope with the main character so it's only fair that "nods" were put in. In regards to the Waynes I thought it worked well. I don't need to see their iteration of Batman but it's fascinating to think about how this world would mould young Bruce.

I certainly didn't think anything was compromised on screen.

applehunter

AMKC wrote: »

So I seen this movie this evening and all I can say is its not a very nice movie at all. In fact I thought there was some plot points in it that did not get finished are got lost in the movie. I thought it would have worked much better as a series. Why someone would want to go see a movie so bleak and dark I do not know. I regretted going to see it myself. I say save yourself money and see it when its on the T.V as there is nothing in this film that means you need to go see it in the cinema. I actually enjoyed the trailers before the film more than the film itself.
I would give it a 2 out of 10.

It's not a flick for chicks.

homerun_homer

My thoughts are in line with johnny_ultimate but as normal, he expresses it far better than I could. I came out mixed from this film. Jaoquin Phoenix does a great job in the role as hyped. Todd Philips has upped his game from his usual output (which isn't hard), but it feels more like he's trying to dress up in his father's clothes and hasn't grown up to fit them yet, and may never. But it was a decent impersonation. However stylistically, and the cinematography were fantastic so full kudos there.

Like the trailers, it wears it's influences on it's sleeze, with some other additions. This is not always cool, and doesn't always work. Particular in it's

Fight Clubesque handling of the neighbour being in a relationship with him.

I don't know about everyone else but I presumed that twist was obvious from the trailer. It took away from my enjoyment of the first half of the film until the reveal because I was sat there thinking

Am I supposed to buy this as real, or is he really trying to pull that trick?

I'm in the camp that thinks

the addition of the Wayne's murder wasn't needed. Should it have cut away from the clown masked protester eyeing them up as they past then it would have worked better.

The background politics were glossed over and simplified. If we are to just take problems with attitudes between the less well off and the 1% from real life and apply it to this then it still doesn't work. People don't

cheer for killers like they do in the film when Joker kills the subway three. That's extreme. To pull this off they needed to give some more justification and reasoning, even if it can never be fully justified. Are we to presume that Joker supporters read in the paper that the guys threw some chips at a woman, were being creeps and leering at her as justifiable reason to cheer a killer and heighten riots against all the rich? Maybe the background news should have filled us in more to the politics of the situation than needing to mention the over-sized rats. That's something that didn't add to the film.

In regards to 'was the whole film in his head?' Absolutely not. You can't have the fake out (imagined neighbour relationship) within a fake out (the perceived twist that he was in Arkham the whole time). This isn't Inception. Sure, there may be elements of what is real/fake up for debate but if it were a case that the whole film takes place in his head within the confines of an insane asylum, then what is the point. Give the film 1/10 for wasting my time.

Also, how more people aren't annoyed at the use of Gary Glitter in this film, particularly in such a trailer/poster worthy scene is beyond me. It's sickening to think he can profit from this.

El Duda

As much as I enjoyed this, I still think You Were Never Really Here is a much much better film with an even better performance from JP.

It really frustrates me that this thread is on 43 pages but the You Were Never Really Here thread is only on page 2;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106373698


What is wrong with people?!?! Watch it FFS. Its phenomenal.

El Duda

homerun_homer wrote: »

My thoughts are in line with johnny_ultimate but as normal, he expresses it far better than I could. I came out mixed from this film. Jaoquin Phoenix does a great job in the role as hyped. Todd Philips has upped his game from his usual output (which isn't hard), but it feels more like he's trying to dress up in his father's clothes and hasn't grown up to fit them yet, and may never. But it was a decent impersonation. However stylistically, and the cinematography were fantastic so full kudos there.

Like the trailers, it wears it's influences on it's sleeze, with some other additions. This is not always cool, and doesn't always work. Particular in it's

Fight Clubesque handling of the neighbour being in a relationship with him.

I don't know about everyone else but I presumed that twist was obvious from the trailer. It took away from my enjoyment of the first half of the film until the reveal because I was sat there thinking

Am I supposed to buy this as real, or is he really trying to pull that trick?

I'm in the camp that thinks

the addition of the Wayne's murder wasn't needed. Should it have cut away from the clown masked protester eyeing them up as they past then it would have worked better.

The background politics were glossed over and simplified. If we are to just take problems with attitudes between the less well off and the 1% from real life and apply it to this then it still doesn't work. People don't

cheer for killers like they do in the film when Joker kills the subway three. That's extreme. To pull this off they needed to give some more justification and reasoning, even if it can never be fully justified. Are we to presume that Joker supporters read in the paper that the guys threw some chips at a woman, were being creeps and leering at her as justifiable reason to cheer a killer and heighten riots against all the rich? Maybe the background news should have filled us in more to the politics of the situation than needing to mention the over-sized rats. That's something that didn't add to the film.

In regards to 'was the whole film in his head?' Absolutely not. You can't have the fake out (imagined neighbour relationship) within a fake out (the perceived twist that he was in Arkham the whole time). This isn't Inception. Sure, there may be elements of what is real/fake up for debate but if it were a case that the whole film takes place in his head within the confines of an insane asylum, then what is the point. Give the film 1/10 for wasting my time.

Also, how more people aren't annoyed at the use of Gary Glitter in this film, particularly in such a trailer/poster worthy scene is beyond me. It's sickening to think he can profit from this.

Your final point here shows a stunning lack of imagination.

If the events that transpire in the film are ambiguous, you see that as a waste of time and 1/10 review?! That utterly bewilders me. You need everything to be laid out clearly for you to enjoy it?

I think the idea that most of the film was pure fantasy adds so much depth and its my favourite aspect of the whole film.

Dyr

El Duda wrote: »

As much as I enjoyed this, I still think You Were Never Really Here is a much much better film with an even better performance from JP.

It really frustrates me that this thread is on 43 pages but the You Were Never Really Here thread is only on page 2;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106373698


What is wrong with people?!?! Watch it FFS. Its phenomenal.

Its ****ing awful. You shouldnt need subtitles for an english language film.

one armed dwarf

El Duda wrote: »

Your final point here shows a stunning lack of imagination.

If the events that transpire in the film are ambiguous, you see that as a waste of time and 1/10 review?! That utterly bewilders me. You need everything to be laid out clearly for you to enjoy it?

I think the idea that most of the film was pure fantasy adds so much depth and its my favourite aspect of the whole film.

The poster says something else though.

That having unreliable narration WITHIN another layer of unreliable narration just sort of unfoots the narrative a bit. If the events of the film are all real, then it really matters that the relationship is imagined. If the relationship is imagined within a pure fantasy then it is actually a pretty meaningless twist.

Anyway I don't agree that the theory that whole thing is a fantasy inside an asylum. I think elements of it are real and others are not. I think a lot of the riots and murders are probably real.

I think you need consistency in what parts are real or not. A film like Mulholland Dr wouldn't be so powerful if the bits of 'reality' in that film weren't so carefully chosen. Making the wrong choice can really undermine the narrative

I could be mistaken on this though but that's how I read that comment

The White Wolf

The unreliable narration is well established as a pillar of the character, but I can understand that people want a film to stand on its own feet. I wanted to some form of narration on a solid footing, so I wasn't mad about the final scene myself initially but the more I thought about it, the more I enjoyed it.

The stuff is there for people to digest if they want to, but I imagine some will not want to think about a film too much which is rooted in comic book origin. I'll be going to see it again at some point to see how I feel about it.

I have no issues with a Gary Glitter song being used. Separate the art from artist. We have our justice system in place to deal with these things. I'm not sure if that includes not allowing criminals to ever work or make money again. If you feel that way, maybe you should campaign towards that.

I did have issue with this song being used in the film for completely different reasons. The song heightened this kind of strut that Arthur was doing after murdering someone. It was really unsettling. Maybe that was the intention. We were supposed to feel alienated in that moment when Arthur hits a high.

MOR316

Yeah, I have no issues with the song either.

Of course the man is the scum of the earth and was rightfully caught, convicted and locked away for his dispicable crimes but, it's a 30 second snippet of a song. Didn't bother me

If we really want to get into the discussion of morals, we're paying money to see a movie about The Joker. A character, who in the past, forced Commissoner Gordon to look at naked pictures of his daughter, as she lay bloodied and disabled on the ground. What does that say about us?

CrankyHaus

MOR316 wrote: »

Yeah, I have no issues with the song either.

Of course the man is the scum of the earth and was rightfully caught, convicted and locked away for his dispicable crimes but, it's a 30 second snippet of a song. Didn't bother me

I actually thought the song was perfect for the scene. He has finally succumbed to his worst impulses and feels confident and at ease. He is a villain, not a hero.



Anyway if you started blacklisting based on what the creators of any particular piece of art got up to you'd have little left. The Music, indeed Entertainment, industry is a moral sewer crammed with predators and exploiters.

El Duda

Bambi wrote: »

Its ****ing awful. You shouldnt need subtitles for an english language film.

You needed subtitles? Seriously?

The White Wolf

https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2019/oct/07/could-gary-glitter-really-make-hundreds-of-thousands-from-the-joker-film

This would suggest Glitter won't get much as the aforementioned rag paper claimed that he would.

I don't like the thought that I've made a purchase which will contribute to funds into Glitter's pocket but to be honest, dig deep enough on any production and you'll find something or someone shady attached.

homerun_homer

El Duda wrote: »

Your final point here shows a stunning lack of imagination.

If the events that transpire in the film are ambiguous, you see that as a waste of time and 1/10 review?! That utterly bewilders me. You need everything to be laid out clearly for you to enjoy it?

I think the idea that most of the film was pure fantasy adds so much depth and its my favourite aspect of the whole film.

My point may have been rushed there as I ran off to a meeting, but I don't need it all spelled out for me. There have been films in the past that I loved where

the film for most part, if not all, takes place in the protagonist's head. I love Mulholland Drive, and Vanilla Sky being an example, and one that I tried revisit lately to see how it holds up years later, given I loved it at the time. What would irk me with the plot of Joker being completely in his head is that then it wouldn't truly be an 'origin' story. It would just be a fantasy of Fleck's. Sure, I guess he can become the Joker from there having created this fantasy for himself but I don't believe it's the route this film takes.

As I mentioned, from a film-making point of view having a fake out within a fake out would be ridiculous. That's not to say it hasn't been done before, as it has, and pretty much most of the time it's a cop out. Take out that twist, and then I can subscribe more to the whole thing being in his head.

El Duda

one armed dwarf wrote: »

The poster says something else though.

That having unreliable narration WITHIN another layer of unreliable narration just sort of unfoots the narrative a bit. If the events of the film are all real, then it really matters that the relationship is imagined. If the relationship is imagined within a pure fantasy then it is actually a pretty meaningless twist.

Anyway I don't agree that the theory that whole thing is a fantasy inside an asylum. I think elements of it are real and others are not. I think a lot of the riots and murders are probably real.

I think you need consistency in what parts are real or not. A film like Mulholland Dr wouldn't be so powerful if the bits of 'reality' in that film weren't so carefully chosen. Making the wrong choice can really undermine the narrative

I could be mistaken on this though but that's how I read that comment

Ok, I can sort of see the point but I didn't see as being layered like Inception. I think the film can be seen as a bit of a buffet as to what bits you think are real or not.

Did he kill the three people on the subway? Yes, but perhaps the final killing with the chasing down of the yuppy was a bit exaggerated.



Did he really get to go on the TV show? Perhaps not.


Did he really kill his mother? I don't think so, i think she was dead already and the smothering with the pillow was to show how conflicted he felt.



Did he really stab his 'mate' to death and let the midget go? Who knows!

I love the idea that you can rewatch it and look for more clues and answers.

Sad Professor

Ugh, this is going to inspire a million Fight Club-esque "how character x, scene y was ALSO in his head" video essays, isn't it? Can I downvote all of them now?

They showed us what wasn't real. I'm taking it all at face value tbh.

McDermotX

On a second viewing, I'm actually more of the opinion that the main thread of the film is very much fantasy, granted that was my suspicion on first viewing so rewatching with that in the back of your mind only reinforces that interpretation.
Put it this way.......its a very much deliberate attempt by the director to obfuscate and render ambiguity to the proceedings. Even press interviews with himself and Phoenix still maintain this vagueness choosing the 'let the audience decide' approach. That's fair enough IMO, as it's far from being the first film to allow different viewpoints on what transpire, and there's admittedly a logic pertaining to both the character and the standalone nature of the film in order to pursue such a goal.

Elements such as the clumsy handling of the Sophie thread reek of studio clarification forced upon proceedings which is one of the failings IMO, and I'd love to see to see a director's cut whipping out the montage in question.

Theres no right or wrong here IMO, if people choose to see elements of fantasy mixed with reality, or a straight up origin with only small diversions into his deluded mind, that's all fair enough.

What would actually be more telling to me, is if they pursued a follow up or co-option into the larger DC universe, unwisely IMO, if not ridiculous. That to me could possibly determine what transpired here.
Personally I'm fine to leave things as they are.