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

Drumpot

Pineapple1 wrote: »

Yeah but did you see the facial expression on him though in this scene with the gun to head gesture? He was completely serious about it this time, no messing about compared to when he exited the lift with her earlier on, and had a smile on him then.

Oh he looked unhinged in her house alright , I’m just not sure he definitely killed her and her daughter. I suppose I could see it go either way.

blinding

Is it being ambiguous for a possible sequel ?

Sandor Clegane

I thought an origin movie of the joker would be doomed to fail, one of the greatest things about the joker was the ambiguity of the character.

You never new what was true, where he came from, how he got there etc..he was an enigma.

But for me this worked, it really was a believable story of how the joker was formed, the life experiences that molded him.

Always Tired

He didnt kill the girl that's a nonsense theory.

tigger123

Weltsmertz wrote: »

The deepest hurt and pain some men experience is rejection by someone they love. So she did indeed hurt him deeply. And given that he killed others for much less I think it is logical and indeed necessary given his character that he did kill her. I suspect studio interference was the reason it had to be hinted at rather than shown explicitly.

To frame it as her hurting him is a really odd perspective on their interaction.

She didn't do anything to hurt him, she made some small talk with him in an elevator, and his mental illness took that and went off on a complete tangent.

And how is it necessary or logical that he kills her, given his character?

lola85

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I saw this film last weekend, and my initial reaction was it was powerful, in Phoenix's performance as well as in it's deliberate ambiguousness, relying much on the unreliable narrator aspect of Arthur Fleck. The unreliable narrator angle can be a divisive tool, but its use here made this film for me one which I have not thought about more after in a very long time. The question of unreliability- based on mental illness no longer treated with medication, and a series of traumatic events- makes interpretation of Fleck's actions cloudy, in view of the slowly increasing lack of credibility as to what was happening. My initial reaction after the film, which I still hold, was that Fleck died as a result of that fridge incident (which I think only one other poster commented on). Everything else was a fantasy. That fridge seemed to me the type that was outlawed in the States years ago that was banned because it locked on closing, resulting in deaths of children where they had been dumped in rubbish tips. In other words, the fridge was Fleck's soon-to-be coffin. Straight after the fridge scene he gets the call from the show researcher; the start of his prolonged fantasy.
I had wondered after the film why we were hit on the head with the montage of Fleck realizing his 'girlfriend' was not one- after the scene in her apartment- but then, in view of his fantasy while locked in the fridge, I realized this was his coming to this realization; we were just witnessing this from inside his head. (I could be corrected on the sequence of this though).
Everything makes sense to me from this hypothesis; I was going to go last night to see it again to test the hypothesis (plus to see it again anyway- I thought it was that good), particularly since my memory is pretty poor, but I never made it; I'm gonna try to see it again Monday (or maybe the following weekend). Another poster mentioned that Phoenix had alluded to maybe being in a sequel, but in relation to the hypothesis, that would be a marketing gimic; his character is dead; adding to the theory that Joker would/could be an inspiration for The Joker in the future. So, with one proviso, I thought it was a fantastic and provocative film; the proviso being that it was a standalone film- a sequel would be a travesty.

That’s interesting,

I noticed the morning after the fridge incident the kitchen wasn’t the mess that he created from pulling everything out of the fridge the night before.

And the curtains were pulled in the kitchen but were closed the night before, and he got up form the bed to answer the phone.

Kidchameleon

I think the way he enters the neighbours apartment, touching all of their personal belongings implied that he sexually assaulted the woman and/or the child.

lola85

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think the way he enters the neighbours apartment, touching all of their personal belongings implied that he sexually assaulted the woman and/or the child.

That’s some stretch I don’t think the move ever wanted to imply.

Necro

lola85 wrote:

That's some stretch I don't think the move ever wanted to imply.

I would ignore that poster tbh, they have form for posting nonsensically throughout the site.

pixelburp

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I'll ask you a question: why do you think she and her daughter never appeared for the remainder of the film?

Cos neither of them had a purpose in the film anymore, the focus had shifted into Jokers full on meltdown. She formed a fantasy that was shattered as part of the big "Twist" in her apartment. To imply they were murdered is a stretch cos there's literally not a single concrete visual clue toward that conclusion

There's a simple rule of thumb in horror / slasher flicks: if you don't see the body, they didn't die. This ain't dissimilar here. We didn't see a single moment that can seriously suggest Joker murdered either mother or daughter.

The gun to the head gesture wasn't some nod IMO, it was merely a sample of Arthur's inability to emotionally connect with people, similar to the comedy club scene where his fake laughter belied his confusion over what people were laughing about. The neighbour did the gesture as a piece of dark humour, and something Arthur DID get, as we later see when he toyed with ... shooting himself in the head.

Necro

I mean, I could equally make a claim that Joker was in fact made of ice cream and thus needed to sleep in the fridge so he didn't melt.

It's probably less ridiculous than what Kidchameleon is claiming, let's be honest.

peteeeed

I'm a card carrying leftie but art does not have to be moral or right or even good, I think the director is a tool but this is a masterpiece, phoenix is mesmerising

pixelburp

Leto's representatives have denied it, but the Hollywood Reporter is .. uh, reporting that Jared Leto tried to kill the Joker film, annoyed someone else was trying to steal his thunder:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/youve-got-stop-jared-leto-fumed-new-joker-movie-1247699

Obviously it could be false, but it certainly adds into my bucket of reasons why I just can't stand Leto.

Kidchameleon

Thats just the way I picked it up, he creepily touches the girls schoolbag. They way he looks at the mother. He has intentions of doing something. We then do not see a body or any blood (in contrast to all other murders in the film) but we do hear sirens, implying that something definitly happened. Just my interpretation, none of us know for sure. Great film, I may go see it again. Havnt seen a movie as good as it in a long time.

Pineapple1

peteeeed wrote:

I'm a card carrying leftie but art does not have to be moral or right or even good, I think the director is a tool but this is a masterpiece, phoenix is mesmerising

Ive seen criticisms of Todd Phillips throughout this forum, why does he get so much flack can someone explain? Genuinely interested to know

tigger123

Pineapple1 wrote: »

Ive seen criticisms of Todd Phillips throughout this forum, why does he get so much flack can someone explain? Genuinely interested to know

Think he said theres no point making comedy anymore, because PC woke culture has made it pointless.

peteeeed

Pineapple1 wrote: »

Ive seen criticisms of Todd Phillips throughout this forum, why does he get so much flack can someone explain? Genuinely interested to know

Numerous interviews and quotes over the years but the latest is he made joker because woke culture killed comedy

tigger123

The use of a Gary Glitter track in the film is also an odd choice. Feels like he's trying to troll people a bit perhaps.

i didn't really think he killed them to be honest. she wasn't mean, and he let people go who were nice to him.
he went around touching the things because they had been part of his fantasy and he wanted to feel some connection to it and something 'normal' after the day he'd just had

Pineapple1

Funny how he didnt kill his boss who, compared to the likes of Randall, was a complete jerk to Arthur. He didnt believe Arthur's story about getting jumped and losing his sign. We then see Arthur kicking the **** into a bunch of garbage bags, although we cant see that they are garbage bags as what he is kicking is hidden behind a skip. Could it have been his bosses body he was kicking?

lola85

I think people are seeing things that don’t exist in this film.

Simple as that, it’s not that complicated.

tylercheribini

lola85 wrote: »

I think people are seeing things that don’t exist in this film.

Simple as that, it’s not that complicated.

Yea I feel somewhat foolish now taking the majority of the film at face value.

Weltsmertz

tigger123 wrote: »

Think he said theres no point making comedy anymore, because PC woke culture has made it pointless.

peteeeed wrote: »

Numerous interviews and quotes over the years but the latest is he made joker because woke culture killed comedy

He has a point. The political correctness of generation snowflake has effectively killed comedy. Comedians have had careers ended for saying something that someone was offended.

So a drama that takes risks is still possible.
A comedy that does in today's environment is not.

tylercheribini

Weltsmertz wrote: »

He has a point. The political correctness of generation snowflake has effectively killed comedy. Comedians have had careers ended for saying something that someone was offended.

So a drama that takes risks is still possible.
A comedy that does in today's environment is not.

Still plenty of U.S comedians pushing the envelope eg Dave Chappelle's latest

peteeeed

Weltsmertz wrote: »

He has a point. The political correctness of generation snowflake has effectively killed comedy. Comedians have had careers ended for saying something that someone was offended.

So a drama that takes risks is still possible.
A comedy that does in today's environment is not.

As Marc maron who is in the film put it
There’s plenty of people being funny right now,” Maron affirmed. “Not only being funny but being really ****ing funny.
“There are still lines to be rode,” he continued. “If you like to ride a line, you can still ride a line. If you want to take chances, you can still take chances. Really, the only thing that’s off the table, culturally, at this juncture – and not even entirely – is shamelessly punching down for the sheer joy of hurting people.

Outlaw Pete

It's such lazy nonsense to suggest (which Maron is) that people are only complaining about woke culture cause they are insensitive and enjoy hurting people.

peteeeed

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's such lazy nonsense to suggest (which Maron is) that people are only complaining about woke culture cause they are insensitive and enjoy hurting people.

i get that but he's making the bigger point that comedy is doing ok

Sad Professor

Weltsmertz wrote: »

He has a point. The political correctness of generation snowflake has effectively killed comedy. Comedians have had careers ended for saying something that someone was offended.

So a drama that takes risks is still possible.
A comedy that does in today's environment is not.

As an aside, I don't think it's a generational thing. The biggest cheerleaders of being "woke" in my experience are often a lot older than the oldest millennial. I think class is a bigger factor. I also think wokeness is mostly an internet and media thing. I rarely encounter it in real life where most people are focused on important stuff like paying their rent/mortgage and getting by.

pixelburp

Phillips' ranting truly came off like Old Man Yelling at Cloud material; he made one hit comedy that traded on mean-spirited laughs and F all since except 2 sloppy sequels (and Joker, obviously). He's no Mel Brooks. And Joker was hardly some brave film either, skirting around all sorts of topics.

Ranting about PC killing comedy is like that crusty rocker whinging about no good music since year X. Reductionist, paranoid and just betrays an inability to understand how tastes change.

If Hollywood comedies are moribund, it's because of flat direction, improvised scripts from comedians that can't improvise, and the industry's insistence on hiring all the flotsam from SNL (probably because they're the only ones who'll touch the scripts). They need no help from dem wokes, stealing your chuckles.

peteeeed

It's also this thing that offended / cancel culture is a new thing which is just something the alt right sites peddle
Andrew dice clay in the early 90's was ' cancelled' and lots more like him, lenny Bruce in the late 50's early 60's, police in the audience waiting for him to say something
But that doesn't fit the narrative