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

Kermit.de.frog

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t love Joker but I am quite amused at how butthurt the Guardian is over all the accolades and nominations it’s receiving. I mean, naturally they are entitled to their opinion and were far from the only publication to give it a less-than-glowing review but at some point, the foot-stamping must stop and you must accept that not everyone shares your view.

Hollywood has had it all it's own way for over a decade with subliminally telling everyone the "correct" way to live by planting outright left wing propaganda in every movie going.

Joker is a breath of fresh air that that political persuasion just can not hack. It goes against the agenda.

It would be a scandal in it's own right if Pheonix did not get an Oscar for a stunning performance in my opinion. He deserves it regardless of the politics.

one armed dwarf

What does that even mean? 'Goes against the agenda'... it's a film about class inequality and a criticism of the lack of social responsibility richer folk can feel towards people who don't make as much money as them. It's about how that divides people. It's about under-investment in mental health care. It doesn't handle all of these themes really well but that's what the film seems to be trying to be about.

I'm really struggling to see how people see Joker as some riposte against the left. Again I just think people get horny for seeing political outrage where it doesn't exist.

pixelburp

I always love that, depending on who you talk to, Hollywood is either a haven of Left Wing Liberals, or is a steadfast continuance of Conservative America.

Personally, the very last thing I'd call Hollywood is Left Wing. Blockbusters are aggressively manufactured to hit the infamous "Four Quadrants" and if that overlaps with progressive ideals or culture, that's coincidence. They only care about profits & they'd make snuff films or open Nazi propaganda if they thought it might earn a billion dollars at the box office. If they were truly that liberal they wouldn't kowtow to foreign markets' own reticence towards progressive ideals (the Fantastic Beasts sequel a good example of that, practically falling over itself to avoid marking Dumbledore as gay)

Large corporations are on nobody's side, except their own. Never look to them for your political guidance.

cian68

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hollywood has had it all it's own way for over a decade with subliminally telling everyone the "correct" way to live by planting outright left wing propaganda in every movie going.

Joker is a breath of fresh air that that political persuasion just can not hack. It goes against the agenda.

Did you decide to skip actually watching Joker?

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I always love that, depending on who you talk to, Hollywood is either a haven of Left Wing Liberals, or is a steadfast continuance of Conservative America.

:rolleyes:

It's like talking to people with fucking buckets on their heads.

tigger123

I listened to the Michael Moore podcast where he interviews Todd Philips about the film. Although Moore is a shockingly bad interviewer (and spends much of it fawning over Todd Philips), the interview itself is very insightful regarding the Directors mind set and motivations in making the film.

He boils the message of the film down to 'we all need to be a bit kinder to each other' and discusses the lack of supports for people with mental health issues. It really is worth a listen.

How anyone can take the film or its message as being pro right wing really is beyond me.

Dyr

pixelburp wrote: »

I always love that, depending on who you talk to, Hollywood is either a haven of Left Wing Liberals, or is a steadfast continuance of Conservative America.

Personally, the very last thing I'd call Hollywood is Left Wing. Blockbusters are aggressively manufactured to hit the infamous "Four Quadrants" and if that overlaps with progressive ideals or culture, that's coincidence. They only care about profits & they'd make snuff films or open Nazi propaganda if they thought it might earn a billion dollars at the box office. If they were truly that liberal they wouldn't kowtow to foreign markets' own reticence towards progressive ideals (the Fantastic Beasts sequel a good example of that, practically falling over itself to avoid marking Dumbledore as gay)

Large corporations are on nobody's side, except their own. Never look to them for your political guidance.

Name some major Hollywood producers, actors, directors, screenwriters who are openly Republican or conservative.

List get's really short after Clint Eastwood

Take a grab bag of random Hollywood types and check if they're Democrats or highly liberal. Most are I would say.

Dyr

tigger123 wrote: »

I listened to the Michael Moore podcast where he interviews Todd Philips about the film. Although Moore is a shockingly bad interviewer (and spends much of it fawning over Todd Philips), the interview itself is very insightful regarding the Directors mind set and motivations in making the film.

He boils the message of the film down to 'we all need to be a bit kinder to each other' and discusses the lack of supports for people with mental health issues. It really is worth a listen.

How anyone can take the film or its message as being pro right wing really is beyond me.

Don't listen to it, it's toe curlingly bad.

one armed dwarf

In either case if you subscribe to the idea that Hollywood is a leftist echo chamber then why would they laud Joker if it was apparently against their political persuasions? lol

Remember how in the film the laid off counselor told Arthur how nobody cared about people like them, and the investment banker ****heads were described as some of Gotham's best? It's a film about how being below a certain income level makes you invisible as a person, imo, and this isn't a fair way to build a society.

This isn't a very controversial position for a film to take if you're a leftist lol

pixelburp

Bambi wrote: »

Name some major Hollywood producers, actors, directors, screenwriters who are openly Republican or conservative.

List get's really short after Clint Eastwood

Take a grab bag of random Hollywood types and check if they're Democrats or highly liberal. Most are I would say.

I never said actors aren't predominantly liberal leaning (or at least superficially vocal, Gervais skewering that recently) and the Oscars are clear enough on that, I'm talking producers, executives and all those who actually make the decisions, logistical, financial and also creative on occasion.

Why don't you know name some top level executives who are Democrat if you say there's a bias, and I'll take your point, but the box office speaks volumes. Blockbusters are about as safe a product as you can make - that's half the problem with the system these days. The "Four Quadrants" drive these products, not "liberalism", or some nefarious "political" bias.

I'll say again: Hollywood will do whatever it takes to make money; they'll happily shoot movies to fit conservative markets like Russia or China, especially the latter where studios are not beyond shooting scenes specific for the audience.

pixelburp

one armed dwarf wrote: »

In either case if you subscribe to the idea that Hollywood is a leftist echo chamber then why would they laud Joker if it was apparently against their political persuasions? lol

Remember how in the film the laid off counselor told Arthur how nobody cared about people like them, and the investment banker ****heads were described as some of Gotham's best? It's a film about how being below a certain income level makes you invisible as a person, imo, and this isn't a fair way to build a society.

This isn't a very controversial position for a film to take if you're a leftist lol

Yeah, I don't even know what it is about Joker that's supposed to be this call to arms for those kicking against "liberalism". The most political Joker gets is basically as a vague "eat the rich" narrative, and lamenting the cutting of important public resources - sounds kinda leftist to me

Dyr

pixelburp wrote: »

Why don't you know name some top level executives who are Democrat if you say there's a bias, and I'll take your point, but the box office speaks volumes. Blockbusters are about as safe a product as you can make - that's half the problem with the system these days..

You mean guys like Harvey Weinstein, Robert Zemeckis, James Cameron, Ron Howard, Kathleen Kennedy

It's kind of funny that you're denying that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal because they like films to make money. It's some Ruth Coppinger level thinking.

pixelburp

Bambi wrote: »

You mean guys like Harvey Weinstein, Robert Zemeckis, James Cameron, Ron Howard, Kathleen Kennedy

It's kind of funny that you're denying that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal because they like films to make money. It's some Ruth Coppinger level thinking.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I said originally is that people view Hollywood how they want to see it, usually injecting their own antagonisms or biases. Democrats & liberals attack Hollywood for being "too white", while US Republicans & conservative attack Hollywood for being "liberal". Swings and roundabouts, so it goes.

Me? I point at the money cos that's the ultimate motivator and I point at the blockbuster output or importance of the foreign markets, because at the end of the day that's the only thing you can say for certain shows any hand. Hollywood sure are liberal when it comes to following a trend, cos ... ya know, it can make 'em money. Not sure how you can say otherwise, the Four Quadrants are well understood. As is the relative conservatism of those foreign markets

Does Weinstein's political allegiances bleed through into his output? That's what you're saying I guess, his main predilection to me seemed to be cutting movies to fit multiplexes without directorial consent (see his battle with Snowpiercer on that). What "conservative" views had the Weinstein Company held back over the years that you feel needed more airtime? And Kathleen Kennedy is just a useful strawman for all those aggrieved by the Star Wars movies.

You seem to be insinuating dark conspiracy of American Liberal values. I don't see it, outside of Actors waffling at awards, a habit we're well used to laughing at and pouring scorn on. And I certainly don't see any pushback in Joker. The Guardian might have squawked but the end product is as Left Wing as it can be. It said public healthcare was important, and that The Rich were class run amok. That's very ... yah know ... Lefty

johnny_ultimate

I mean, the mainstream Democratic Party is basically centre-right by Irish and British standards anyway (the actual progressive / leftist wing remains a mere minority), so membership doesn’t exactly make one a raging leftist, despite what a certain breed of perpetually testy American commentator might insist.

*please insert Joker laugh here to keep this post vaguely on topic*

Raconteuse

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, I don't even know what it is about Joker that's supposed to be this call to arms for those kicking against "liberalism". The most political Joker gets is basically as a vague "eat the rich" narrative, and lamenting the cutting of important public resources - sounds kinda leftist to me

From what I have gathered, the "alt right" (or whatever) have taken the film to their hearts because it depicts a white man forgotten by society, the kinda guy who'd be viewed as an "incel", and who because of this rejection/disenfranchisement/ridicule is pushed over the edge, and the message is taken as "See? This is what could happen".

Not completely off the mark imo.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I mean, the mainstream Democratic Party is basically centre-right by Irish and British standards anyway (the actual progressive / leftist wing remains a mere minority), so membership doesn’t exactly make one a raging leftist, despite what a certain breed of perpetually testy American commentator might insist.

*please insert Joker laugh here to keep this post vaguely on topic*

I've always found the idea of calling the Democrats "left wing" or even "socialist" hilarious. In other normal countries, they'd be the conservative ticket. :pac:

America has no left wing political party.

It has to be said though, that one of the absolute worst things the internet has been responsible for is the proliferation of shitty, childish, US political gibberish throughout the western world. Their dumbed down rhetoric gets parroted by the naive and stupid in nearly every discussion these days.

Tony EH

Raconteuse wrote: »

From what I have gathered, the "alt right" (or whatever) have taken the film to their hearts because it depicts a white man forgotten by society.

Honestly, that's baffling if this is the case.

And, frankly, there are other, and far better, films that have depicted men/women forgotten by society.

Plus, Arthur isn't any kind of hero and shouldn't be to anyone. The guy's a bloody loon from the offset. He's not somebody that should be exalted or admired.

pixelburp

From an American's point of view, the Democrats would be liberals and left-leaning to be fair; but for Irish folk to co-opt the attitued of sneering and condemnation of that American context is just embarrassing. That "incel" is even know in this parlance here is a sad state of affairs - though thankfully I've seen no serious use of it. Yet.

By comparison, Ireland's an incredibly progressive, openly liberal country and most in America would see us as drippingly socialist (if not plain satanic given our voting on the marriage / abortion referenda), yet here we have Irish folk getting uppity over the Paper Liberals in Hollywood for vocalising levels of "liberalism" that Ireland just takes for granted.

Todd Phillips is laughing all the way to the bank.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

From an American's point of view, the Democrats would be liberals and left-leaning to be fair; but for Irish folk to co-opt the attitued of sneering and condemnation of that American context is just embarrassing. That "incel" is even know in this parlance here is a sad state of affairs - though thankfully I've seen no serious use of it. Yet.

By comparison, Ireland's an incredibly progressive, openly liberal country and most in America would see us as drippingly socialist (if not plain satanic given our voting on the marriage / abortion referenda), yet here we have Irish folk getting uppity over the Paper Liberals in Hollywood for vocalising levels of "liberalism" that Ireland just takes for granted.

Todd Phillips is laughing all the way to the bank.

To be honest Pix, fuck America's POV.

From a realistic POV, politically they are the centre right, because they are wedded to big business, Wall Street and capitalism in its worst form and aren't remotely interested in tackling the egregious imbalances that such support engenders. There's nothing that left wing about the Democratic party.

Some of their members may talk the talk, like Warren "promising" to have a go at Wall Street. But Trump also did that and I have no doubt that Warren will do as much about it as Donald did.

Perhaps the Democrats wouldn't be as fast to hand over billions in tax breaks for the incredibly wealthy as Trump was. But that wouldn't make them any more a party of the left.

As for the deplorable spread of American internet speak throughout online (and offline) conversations, I can only agree. My skin crawls every time I see such drivel written.

Raconteuse

Tony EH wrote: »

Honestly, that's baffling if this is the case.

And, frankly, there are other, and far better, films that have depicted men/women forgotten by society.

Plus, Arthur isn't any kind of hero and shouldn't be to anyone. The guy's a bloody loon from the offset. He's not somebody that should be exalted or admired.

Alex Jones probably said it, and thus the bandwagon was in motion. I do think there's a point about disenfranchised men though.

But yeah, "woke", "SJW", misuse of "snowflake" and "virtue signalling" - irritates my eyes and brain.

johnny_ultimate

Tony EH wrote: »

To be honest Pix, fuck America's POV.

From a realistic POV, politically they are the centre right, because they are wedded to big business, Wall Street and capitalism in its worst form and aren't remotely interested in tackling the egregious imbalances that such support engenders. There's nothing that left wing about the Democratic party.

Precisely. That’s why the nonsense moaning about Democrats being the ‘radical left’ is so absurd, even beyond the absurd standards of American political discourse. The socially liberal, economically conservative party here is Fine Gael (even Fianna Fail - a bit less socially liberal, mind) and across the pond the Tories - and nobody with a shred of political awareness would describe them as being of the ‘left’. Sure, Elizabeth Warren is to the left of Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders, AOC and ‘the Squad’ are left-wing by any standard (although still closer to the centre than left-wing figures in most western democracies)... but they’re exceptions. Heck, Bernie Sanders technically is an independent :pac:

Anyway, I’m not really sure either what Joker has to say about disenfranchised men - the character is such a caricature and psychopath that the light social commentary and criticism in the film doesn’t exactly suddenly make him a sympathetic, tragic figure. I can point to something like Sorry I Missed You as a film that really explores the impact of system failures on a working-class white man and his family... or even to Parasite as a film that mischievously toys with such class relations in a more overt and thrilling way. But as I’ve said a few times in this thread, Joker is ultimately a comic book origin story with at best/worst some light, largely inoffensive social commentary - its position as some sort of political lightning rod is baffling to me based on the text itself

Dyr

pixelburp wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I said originally is that people view Hollywood how they want to see it, usually injecting their own antagonisms or biases. Democrats & liberals attack Hollywood for being "too white", while US Republicans & conservative attack Hollywood for being "liberal". Swings and roundabouts, so it goes.

It's not bias, its just reality, most people take it as a given. Which is why you won't name Hollywood players who are openly conservative or Republican. They're rare exceptions and they tend to keep their mouth shut.

It's a bit like pretending that the media didnt go after Joker sight unseen because of some weird woke nonsense about white men/incel terrorists/nazziiis

All the denial just makes you look a bit silly

pixelburp

Bambi wrote: »

It's not bias, its just reality, most people take it as a given. Which is why you won't name Hollywood players who are openly conservative or Republican. They're rare exceptions and they tend to keep their mouth shut.

It's a bit like pretending that the media didnt go after Joker sight unseen because of some weird woke nonsense about white men/incel terrorists/nazziiis

All the denial just makes you look a bit silly

Uh, I didn't pretend, I mention the asinine media outrage in the very post you quoted so... shrug? You're conflating clickbait outrage with some Hollywood conspiracy so silliness is obviously contagious

Heck. I'm still waiting to hear how and where Weinstein let his political bias influence his producing work. Your claim of bias amounts to his relationship with the Clintons, therefore dem liberals are in charge, unless you know more? Somehow attuned to executives personal politics? Or indeed how Joker somehow kicks against that?

Hollywood is just another large lobbying group in the US political establishment, albeit with a stronger Chinese influence via Tencent these days. You'd want to be spectacularly naive to think that lobbying is in one direction. No more than the gun lobby is exclusively funding republican politicians.

And as already said, the Democrats are Irish Centre Right; stop adopting American cultural pejoratives to get outraged over what amounts to default Irish culture.

Man. I tell you, great longevity got out of a vaguely anarchic movie about a comicbook clown villain, rebaged as a polemic against the rich.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

Honestly, that's baffling if this is the case.

And, frankly, there are other, and far better, films that have depicted men/women forgotten by society.

Plus, Arthur isn't any kind of hero and shouldn't be to anyone. The guy's a bloody loon from the offset. He's not somebody that should be exalted or admired.

I know. Like, when

he shoots the guys on the subway. Those guys were gigantic arseholes for sure but when he shot them, I wasn’t like “Take that!”. I was thinking “Aaaaaah, they didn’t deserve to die there, Arthur”. So, definitely not a hero if that’s what they were going for.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Honestly, that's baffling if this is the case.

And, frankly, there are other, and far better, films that have depicted men/women forgotten by society.

Plus, Arthur isn't any kind of hero and shouldn't be to anyone. The guy's a bloody loon from the offset. He's not somebody that should be exalted or admired.

I don't think them relating to Joker due to him being forgotten by society, more seeing him as someone who is fighting back against society.

The fact that Joker is a loon wouldn't be an issue for them, when they live in a world of Deepstate, Pizzagate, Qanon nonsense that they and their peers subscribe.

I don't think many really admire or relate to him, many just want to associate themselves to the movie and any success it had because it annoyed a few clickbaity 'liberal' sources and it is why they keep trying to make the 'controversy' a thing. Many parts of American politics, and some Irish posters that you'll see here, just like and push whatever they believe annoys the other side, even when in real terms it doesn't.

kaisersose77

Great Video (shows clips from the movie so not for those who havent watched it yet).

The White Wolf

Foxtrol wrote: »

. Many parts of American politics, and some Irish posters that you'll see here, just like and push whatever they believe annoys the other side, even when in real terms it doesn't.

I couldn't give a crap about politics. You boyos have been discussing politics off topic over the last couple of pages with no provocation so I guess this film cuts deeper than some of ye would like to admit.

pixelburp

The White Wolf wrote: »

I couldn't give a crap about politics. You boyos have been discussing politics off topic over the last couple of pages with no provocation so I guess this film cuts deeper than some of ye would like to admit.

I honestly don't think it does, but for the time being the film and the culture around it are intrinsically linked; particularly in light of its various awards nominations. It's message is hardly that outrageous: the rich suck and America should probably fund more mental services (to be fair, that apparently IS a forgotten topic over there, I believe mental health is a nightmare) - but hardly "dangerous" as clickbait peddlers had us believe, or a rallying cry against PC culture as others might persuade. Obviously some bought into it with cinemas actually taking precautions; hardly the first moral panic in entertainment history. Alfred Hitchcock is looking down on us going "pffh, amateurs".

Ultimately it's a handsome movie that plays its influences on its sleeve, is more shallow than it could have been, and thanks to hysteria got a leg up in its marketing thanks to the Barbara Streisand Effect. A billion dollars later and here we are.

I've said it before but I'll be interested to see how this film ages, once the contemporaneous context disappears and we just review the movie. Or if indeed it'll be considered a vanguard of a new wave of superhero movies.

Foxtrol

The White Wolf wrote: »

I couldn't give a crap about politics. You boyos have been discussing politics off topic over the last couple of pages with no provocation so I guess this film cuts deeper than some of ye would like to admit.

My point stands true outside of politics, a growing proportion of individuals seem to get more joy out believing something annoys people they don't like rather than actually enjoying the thing for its own merits.

One of your posts is a great example of several that have appeared in this thread.

The White Wolf wrote: »

Joker leads the line with most BAFTA nominations. Will forever love this film for the endless amount of salt it keeps provoking:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/07/colossally-overrated-joker-beneficiary-of-bafta-awards-groupthink

The White Wolf

Foxtrol wrote: »

My point stands true outside of politics, a growing proportion of individuals seem to get more joy out believing something annoys people they don't like rather than actually enjoying the thing for its own merits.

One of your posts is a great example of several that have appeared in this thread.

Can't argue with you there pal, that's the absurd arguing I will not let go.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

I've always found the idea of calling the Democrats "left wing" or even "socialist" hilarious. In other normal countries, they'd be the conservative ticket. :pac:

America has no left wing political party.

It has to be said though, that one of the absolute worst things the internet has been responsible for is the proliferation of shitty, childish, US political gibberish throughout the western world. Their dumbed down rhetoric gets parroted by the naive and stupid in nearly every discussion these days.

Oh indeed. I have a few online American acquaintances who consider themselves liberal and at times they have all but called me ‘comrade’ for saying some very socialist-lite things, like stuff that I didn’t think was particularly socialist.

Raconteuse

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't think them relating to Joker due to him being forgotten by society, more seeing him as someone who is fighting back against society.

The fact that Joker is a loon wouldn't be an issue for them, when they live in a world of Deepstate, Pizzagate, Qanon nonsense that they and their peers subscribe.

I don't think many really admire or relate to him, many just want to associate themselves to the movie and any success it had because it annoyed a few clickbaity 'liberal' sources and it is why they keep trying to make the 'controversy' a thing. Many parts of American politics, and some Irish posters that you'll see here, just like and push whatever they believe annoys the other side, even when in real terms it doesn't.

Exactly this. Tony, Pix and Johnny have been writing about how it bewilders them but there's nothing to be bewildered by! (Not having a go btw).

peteeeed

https://twitter.com/aikenpromotions/status/1224618889692303361?s=20

Dyr

peteeeed wrote: »

https://twitter.com/aikenpromotions/status/1224618889692303361?s=20

From memory the score is a lot of strings and weird steely percussion, be interesting to see how they manage live.

Dyr

Bambi wrote: »

From memory the score is a lot of strings and weird steely percussion, be interesting to see how they manage live.

Also I assume the ERU will be on standy for handling all the incel terrorists

The White Wolf

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/02/1917-deserves-baftass-thunderous-applause-joker-does-not

Back again and calling himself a refusenik.....gob****e more like. :pac:

Gavin1986

Joker shook me to the core. This film has a very deep meaning, IMHO, precisely because of Joaquin’s part. But have to say, Todd Philips also nailed it! They created a great movie that gives pause for reflection...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The White Wolf wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/02/1917-deserves-baftass-thunderous-applause-joker-does-not

Back again and calling himself a refusenik.....gob****e more like. :pac:

Self-awareness bypass by Bradshaw there, saying that others aren’t shy in giving their opinion on Joker.

Tony EH

Gavin1986 wrote: »

Joker shook me to the core. This film has a very deep meaning, IMHO, precisely because of Joaquin’s part. But have to say, Todd Philips also nailed it! They created a great movie that gives pause for reflection...

Jesus...I wish I saw the film you saw.

pixelburp

Oh, we're quoting Peter Bradshaw again? It's like Hate Watching, but for film critics

homerun_homer

Gavin1986 wrote: »

Joker shook me to the core. This film has a very deep meaning, IMHO, precisely because of Joaquin’s part. But have to say, Todd Philips also nailed it! They created a great movie that gives pause for reflection...

I am curious about what meaning others are getting from the film as I can't see a meaning or message from it at all.

homerun_homer

homerun_homer wrote: »

I am curious about what meaning others are getting from the film as I can't see a meaning or message from it at all.

Yeah I saw a pretty good Joker origin story.

Crazy man with a gun, ok I can see how people might see a connection but I'm sorry joker has always been crazy and it's not like we haven't seen a mad man with a gun in cinema before.

It reminds me of the fuss made when the Two Towers came out a year after 9/11. "You cant call it that..."

It can be really exhausting having peoples opinions thrust upon you all the time.

Mark Hamill

homerun_homer wrote: »

I am curious about what meaning others are getting from the film as I can't see a meaning or message from it at all.

Is the message not laid out clearly when he shoots De Niro?
"What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?!
I’ll tell you what you get! You get what you f**king deserve!"

Foxtrol

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is the message not laid out clearly when he shoots De Niro?
"What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?!
I’ll tell you what you get! You get what you f**king deserve!"

But that message is hardly deep nor one that we don't already see in TV and movies on a pretty regular basis. Hardly something that should shake many 'to the core'.

homerun_homer

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is the message not laid out clearly when he shoots De Niro?
"What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?!
I’ll tell you what you get! You get what you f**king deserve!"

I wouldn't call that a deep meaning to the film. Mental illness cannot be summed up in such a sentence, it's ridiculous.

Effects

I spotted an add in the paper today for a screening with live orchestra playing with it.
Tickets are €70. Holy god that's expensive.

Foxtrol

Effects wrote: »

I spotted an add in the paper today for a screening with live orchestra playing with it.
Tickets are €70. Holy god that's expensive.

Was the score even good enough to merit paying to see it live, even if it wasn't that expensive?

I've gone to a few of these sort of events in the past and they are usually for movies with historically top tier scores. The one for Joker was good, at an understandable nomination for awards level, but I wouldn't put it close to top tier. Are they just cashing in on hype from the movie or am I missing something?

Mark Hamill

Foxtrol wrote: »

But that message is hardly deep nor one that we don't already see in TV and movies on a pretty regular basis. Hardly something that should shake many 'to the core'.

homerun_homer wrote: »

I wouldn't call that a deep meaning to the film. Mental illness cannot be summed up in such a sentence, it's ridiculous.

Oh, I'm not saying the message is deep or should shake anyone 'to the core', I did find that to be a bit of a ridiculous statement. I was only pointing out to homerun_homer that the movie does have a clear (if obvious and cliched) message.

The White Wolf

Foxtrol wrote: »

Was the score even good enough to merit paying to see it live, even if it wasn't that expensive?

I've gone to a few of these sort of events in the past and they are usually for movies with historically top tier scores. The one for Joker was good, at an understandable nomination for awards level, but I wouldn't put it close to top tier. Are they just cashing in on hype from the movie or am I missing something?

Given the score has been lauded and nominated generally across the board, it's certainly good enough. Not the bombastic work of Zimmer or Williams that typically gets the live treatment, but I can certainly see a show being put on to the sound of a live orchestra.

I mean when you think about it performance through dance and music is a big part of the film, so it really is made for this type of show.

Heckler

The only movie I've watched twice in recent memory. Phoenix was mesmerising. While Ledgers Joker was outstanding I think this iteration and Phoenixs' performance is the new standard. Its how I always thought of Joker. Whatever about oscars I'm sure he's not too pushed but I hope he wins, deserved I think.