|
Vince MechMahon posted:The film implies nothing about her. He realizes what the real situation is and makes a "I'm going to kill myself" motion. He doesn't lash out at her at all, and from other things we're seen, such as letting his co worker go, there's nothing implying he did anything to her either. You want to see that, so it's what you saw. Yeah, and I have a president in Washington who thinks people like me are a scapegoat to pin all these mass shootings on, so forgive me if I'm not happy to get yet another movie that portrays the dangers of "neglecting us" as being mass violence. And are you kidding? He walks out of her apartment smiling, and when he later returns, there are approaching sirens. The math isn't difficult here.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Yeah, and I have a president in Washington who thinks people like me are a scapegoat to pin all these mass shootings on, so forgive me if I'm not happy to get yet another movie that portrays the dangers of "neglecting us" as being mass violence. I don't recall the spoiler part at all. Also I think if the violence is against greedy pigs who care about profit more than people then that violence is just, but you keep on hoping for the system to change from the inside if you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:...I'm not happy to get yet another movie that portrays the dangers of "neglecting us" as being mass violence. Yeah seriously, the people who perpetrate the most violence in this country are entitled white men, it's less about their mental illness and their forgotten loner underdog status in our society and more that they think they deserve something they aren't getting. Obviously mass shooters aren't all there but it's their lack of empathy that's propelling them to the stardom they're seeking, mentally ill people are far more likely to hurt themselves than others. And these shooters are not gunning for the rich in some heroic manner, they're attacking Mexicans, Jews, Muslims, Queer, and Black people, actual forgotten underdog people who(and this might surprise you) aren't doing almost any mass shootings. So is this movie that Michael Moore loves so much actually about mental health issues(one where the Joker ends up homeless because our healthcare system fails him) or is it about how we should fear the kind of people who voted for Trump because they were underrepresented(one where the Joker blames minorities for not having the life he wanted) or is it about the downtrodden rising up against the rich and powerful(one where we root for the Joker because he's a revolutionary hero)? Sgt. Politeness fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:So is this movie that Michael Moore loves so much actually about mental health issues(one where the Joker ends up homeless because our healthcare system fails him) or is it about how we should fear the kind of people who voted for Trump because they were underrepresented(one where the Joker blames minorities for not having the life he wanted) or is it about the downtrodden rising up against the rich and powerful(one where we root for the Joker because he's a revolutionary hero)? The first and third. The Trump voters are the guys he shoots in the subway. E: BTW I do think the message is a bit jumbled due to the fact that it only has a message by accident through death of the author. I'm pretty sure Phillips set out to make a movie with no message at all. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:The first and third. The Trump voters are the guys he shoots in the subway. Ok fine, I guess the Joker is an antihero now. That makes perfect sense. ....shoulda been Lakeith Stanfield.... Edit: Holy poo poo, they just made a bad Rorschach origin movie. Sgt. Politeness fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I don't recall the spoiler part at all. Also I think if the violence is against greedy pigs who care about profit more than people then that violence is just, but you keep on hoping for the system to change from the inside if you want. I have no love for the kinds of people this movie bases its antagonists on, but thanks for assuming that I'm some kind of centrist who believes in some kind of social revolution where change is found from playing by the rules with gumption and a heart of gold. The kind of revolution you're talking about tends to leave the mentally ill behind, or at the very least, in the category of "acceptable losses". But there's a world of difference between radical social change and lionizing a grotesque cartoon character built on ill informed stereotypes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:Ok fine, I guess the Joker is an antihero now. That makes perfect sense. The Joker hasn't been the villain in a live action movie since the sixties. He's Burton's self insert misunderstood artist crushed by the authoritarian system in Batman 89, and Dark Knight has Batman as the Bush administration so he's not the villain by default in it. Stanfield would have ruled though, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I don't recall the spoiler part at all. Also I think if the violence is against greedy pigs who care about profit more than people then that violence is just, but you keep on hoping for the system to change from the inside if you want. It's silly to accuse people who don't like The Joker (2019) of being directly isometric with centrists. I hope you can recognize why that's silly and disingenuous. Vince MechMahon posted:The Joker hasn't been the villain in a live action movie since the sixties. He's Burton's self insert misunderstood artist crushed by the authoritarian system in Batman 89, and Dark Knight has Batman as the Bush administration so he's not the villain by default in it. The Heath Ledger Joker blows up a hospital and puts two entire boats full of people in a really sadistic psychological torture match in which, in all likelihood, a ton of people who had nothing to do with much of anything would have died! That's pretty bad! If you believe in carceral abolition you should also be opposed to a boat full of prisoners exploding! The Jack Nicholson Joker also murders and attempts to murder a ton of people for, essentially, just kicks! I don't even want to get into Jared Leto! I'd call all these Jokers pretty lovely people and even if some of these films represent ethically dubious or disturbing Batmen that doesn't make indiscriminate mass murder very admirable!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Archyduchess posted:It's silly to accuse people who don't like The Joker (2019) of being directly isometric with centrists. I hope you can recognize why that's silly and disingenuous. Textually yes they're villains. Meta textually though, nah. The Joker in Burton's movie is a performance artist and in Dark Knight his entire goal is to expose a corrupt system. I do think Nolan thinks he's the villain but he also clearly thinks the Bush administration were heroes, so who gives a gently caress what he thinks. Leto does nothing but try and get his girlfriend out of a horrific government program where she has a bomb put in her head and is forced to do wet work against her will, though. And in the movie it's never shown as being the abusive relationship it is in the comics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Are you freaking serious? Nicholson's Joker's "performance art" is literally murder and mayhem. How dare the state censor him. All he wants to do is kill a couple hundred people for the sake of his craft. What utter horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
CityMidnightJunky posted:There's no difference at all, you're right. There's always been controversial films and discussion about the effect it has on society. Trying to act like this one is any different because it's about The Joker is childish as gently caress. Also, if you're making a film about a villain it's the movies job to make him sympathetic. But have you given some thought to becoming the joker, baby?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:Yeah seriously, the people who perpetrate the most violence in this country are entitled white men, it's less about their mental illness and their forgotten loner underdog status in our society and more that they think they deserve something they aren't getting. important to remember here that actually neither mass shooters and serial killers are representative of acts of violence generally, or even acts of lethal violence. most are not premeditated or particularly focused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
I think these takes on Joker being a poor misunderstood kind of guy is what the kids these days would call "hot takes". Also you can disagree with Batman's methods in The Dark Knight but that doesn't mean you have to be a okay with some literally blowing up a hospital and threatening to blow up a boatload of people to "prove Bush is bad".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Are you freaking serious? Nicholson's Joker's "performance art" is literally murder and mayhem. Again, textually and on a surface reading of the film you're correct. Meta textually nah, there's a reason he gets so much more screen time and a much more fleshed out character than Batman. Because the people he kills aren't real and the whole thing is made up there's lots of lenses it can interpret the film through. But it's very clear who Burton sympathizes with in the film. Same with Batman Returns. And the answer is not "Batman" in either of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
cargohills posted:important to remember here that actually neither mass shooters and serial killers are representative of acts of violence generally, or even acts of lethal violence. most are not premeditated or particularly focused. This is true. They are the results of government mind control experiments ala MKUltra.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
my take on Joker is that it is an ultimately conservative film, but in the old fashioned "if we keep treating the poor like poo poo they'll gently caress us up" way. what i'm saying is that Todd Phillips is the Otto von Bismarck of superhero film directors
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I think these takes on Joker being a poor misunderstood kind of guy is what the kids these days would call "hot takes". Sure. Doing anything he does in real life would be very bad! And in DK the director clearly wants him to be the villain. But he's actually just a conservatives post 9/11 fever dream about why the Patriot act is good and needed and we should all trust them not to spy on us unless it's really important and justified, you guys. But even then at the end, while he's not right about the people of Gotham, he's sure as poo poo right about Harvey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Again, textually and on a surface reading of the film you're correct. Meta textually nah, there's a reason he gets so much more screen time and a much more fleshed out character than Batman. Because the people he kills aren't real and the whole thing is made up there's lots of lenses it can interpret the film through. But it's very clear who Burton sympathizes with in the film. Same with Batman Returns. And the answer is not "Batman" in either of them. Yes, of course. The violence against imaginary people in the imaginary narrative means that it's not real murder in the context of the story. And it's not Lenny George is putting a bullet in the brain of in "Of Mice And Men", it's the government and the economy or some such nonsense. I repeat. Utter horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Yes, of course. The violence against imaginary people in the imaginary narrative means that it's not real murder in the context of the story. And it's not Lenny George is putting a bullet in the brain of in "Of Mice And Men", it's the government and the economy or some such nonsense. A great way to prove film analysis is bullshit, a made up strawman argument no one has said. Just love to see the argument that surface readings of art are all that there is. Real cool and good. E: Just gonna leave this here for you. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJGOq3JclTH8J73o2Z4VMaSYZDNG3xeZ7 Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Oct 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:A great way to prove film analysis is bullshit, a made up strawman argument no one has said. Just love to see the argument that surface readings of art are all that there is. Real cool and good. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your "deeper" reading of the movie seems to arbitrarily decide which elements of it should be taken as merely figurative depending upon what supports your view of it best; the people Joker kills as "performance art" aren't reflective of his status as a villain, but the violence done against the similarly imaginary Joker by Batman and the invasion of privacy in "The Dark Knight" are conveniently definitive for you to attach that label to Batman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your "deeper" reading of the movie seems to arbitrarily decide which elements of it should be taken as merely figurative depending upon what supports your view of it best; the people Joker kills as "performance art" aren't reflective of his status as a villain, but the violence done against the similarly imaginary Joker by Batman and the invasion of privacy in "The Dark Knight" are conveniently definitive for you to attach that label to Batman. No, I'm just not going to post an essay on my phone from work. You've already made your opinion on any reading of a piece is art that does not line up with your own perfectly clear though, so I'm also not going to continue this... I'll be charitable here... "Discussion" any further because there is no point. Agree to disagree, have a good one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
I don't want to sound rude but I've taught literature classes for half a decade, including a good handful of film studies courses, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Of course the fictional actions that authors decide that their fictional characters will do to other fictional characters is germane. If I were to say "Superman is nice because he saves people" and you were to say "well, not real people" I would be very concerned indeed. I could say "Leopold Bloom loves his wife Molly but is conflicted about her behavior" and you said "well he shouldn't be, he's just a character in a book" that would kind of be a not very productive end to the conversation! I think there are certainly a variety of effects that authors can elicit by showing their audience bad people or bad actions in close detail-- and effects they can elicit by making those bad people look appealing or charismatic, or sympathetic. Mads Mikkelsen is an incredibly magnetic and seductive Hannibal Lecter, and like, Shakespeare was masterful at exposing the self-justifications of bad deeds and making them look eloquent and persuasive. That doesn't mean "Iago is ok because he only killed characters from some old play." I guess you could look at something like Moravagine or Les Chants de Maldoror or I don't know, Ubo Roi and say "ok, these texts are languouring in monstrosity and cruelty, and by doing so, are inviting us to think about bourgeois morality in a different way, and maybe asking us to dehisce moral judgments from aesthetic judgments" and that's fine. The Story of the Eye is a very game attempt to write an earnestly erotic novel about monstrous acts, because Bataille had something urgent to say about violence and metaphor. But these are all, to greater or less degrees, fundamentally absurd texts-- they don't mimic the grammar and structure of real life. And they definitely don't hew to the essential morality-fable narrative structure of the superhero story, a structure that, for all their differences, all of the Batman movies mostly do. The Joker in the Tim Burton movie kills people because the makers of the movie decided to have him do that. Why? I suppose for a number of reasons, but largely so that the audience would feel relieved and happy when Batman defeats him. If all the Joker did was jaywalk for the first hour of the movie and then Batman came in and kicked his rear end we would all be unnerved and confused, but no, he's a mass murderer, so we're happy to see him fail at mass murder. If you're arguing that fictional crimes don't have any import on fictional characters because they're committed against fictional victims, I don't know, why even talk about fiction? Who cares if the 2019 Joker kills Wall Street guys, they aren't real Wall Street guys. And Joaquin Phoenix isn't actually the Joker, so geez, I should have stayed home I guess. Fiction works because as an audience we agree to consent to the premise that the made up people we're about to hear about matter, and that the things they do and feel have consequences. I think you're, like, rejecting the basic premises of fiction in a way that seems... unhelpful? Second of all, I don't know if you've known many performance artists, but I have not found them to be particularly heroic figures! And I'm certainly not primed to be sympathetic to "this performance artist is not allowed to do whatever he wants" because the last time I saw a performance artist restricted from doing whatever he wanted it was because he wanted to bring his own cum into the classroom. You're writing apologia for Kenny Goldsmith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Look man, think what you want, but you weren't exactly open to other readings yourself, and if that's your response to someone questioning your critical method, then I'm not really gonna feel a heavy loss from you setting this aside. Have a good one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Sure. Doing anything he does in real life would be very bad! And in DK the director clearly wants him to be the villain. But he's actually just a conservatives post 9/11 fever dream about why the Patriot act is good and needed and we should all trust them not to spy on us unless it's really important and justified, you guys. Vince MechMahon posted:Again, textually and on a surface reading of the film you're correct. Meta textually nah, there's a reason he gets so much more screen time and a much more fleshed out character than Batman. Because the people he kills aren't real and the whole thing is made up there's lots of lenses it can interpret the film through. But it's very clear who Burton sympathizes with in the film. Same with Batman Returns. And the answer is not "Batman" in either of them. I usually enjoy your posts and we seem to have similar tastes in films but you are reaching way too hard here. You sound like SMG. I mean, seriously. "meta textually"? The gently caress are you even talking about? Yeah, the biggest movie star in the world in 1989 cast in an iconic role that he was practically born to play in a movie the public was dying to see when it came out got a ton of screen time must mean the director was sympathetic to the terrorist dressed up in clown make up. Batman Returns had sewer rocket penguins and a woman who got super powers from being resurrected by cat breath, ergo Batman is unrelatable as a hero. Or something. TDK was a follow up to a surprise hit and a very well done origin story in BB that led us into wanting to see Joker again and Nolan and Ledger loving knocked it out of the park. This is clearly a celebration of the Bush administration or some such poo poo. Come the gently caress on. These last 2 or 3 pages have been utterly ridiculous, even by this thread's standards. People are losing their god damned minds over a movie someone made exploring a popular fictional comic book character and seem to be projecting whatever pent up emotions they want onto it in order to justify what it means or symbolizes. The guy who brought up Shakespeare in his long winded post had a good point. No more problematic challenging films with a lead character of dubious morality and ambiguity I guess. Since Nicholson came up, how would "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" be viewed if it came out today? Should I take issue with Clockwork Orange as a film because Alex took joy in violence and people dress up like him on Halloween? God drat, people, get a grip on this loving movie that I haven't even seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
I just wanna know if we find out how he got those scars
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
I don't know, I think people are focusing too much on one part of Vince's read. I think what they're getting at is that the Joker's victims in 89 aren't treated like real people by the film its self. As in they're almost all some combination of justified murders or played for laughs. Like the only person the Joker kills that you're intended to feel bad for is his girlfriend which brings me to the second thing I agree with Vince on... The Joker is absolutely a performance artist even in the text of the movie. His girlfriend's face, painting over the museum, all of his crimes are pranks steeped in social commentary and the focus is never on the atrocity or the damage done but the fear of it all which I could see as "not understanding his art". I obviously think he's still a bad guy but the movie does kinda treat him as second main character. Also Ledger's Joker only puts innocent people(I'm conveniently not counting cops and DAs) potentially dangerous situations, he doesn't blow the hospital until everyone is out and the whole point of his two boats scenario was to see the "innocent" people murder a bunch of convicts. So yeah I don't think Big Vinnie has gone full SMG just because the term metatextual sounds super pretentious, I think they're even on to something(Joker is rarely treated like a complete villain)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:I just wanna know if we find out how he got those scars "I opened my mouth so wide it tore the skin. Never doing that again"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
I'm just going to crosspost this from a different thread:David D. Davidson posted:Joker
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
I gotta agree with that. Just mention the death of the parents, don't show it anymore and get on with the story. MCU Spider-man's writers were smart on skipping the thing that everyone already knows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Not everyone is going to see all of them, and including a scene that sets up a character's motivation and helps define a movie's tone (if it's used near the start like BvS) is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Yeah, but again like Spider-Man, Batman is one of the most popular superheroes in the world and a cultural institution. Everybody knows Batman's origins, you honestly don't need to show it.
David D. Davidson fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Oct 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:The Joker hasn't been the villain in a live action movie since the sixties. He's Burton's self insert misunderstood artist crushed by the authoritarian system in Batman 89, and Dark Knight has Batman as the Bush administration so he's not the villain by default in it. Tell us more about how gamers should rise up
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
We did get Uncle Ben in the MCU, it was just Tony.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:We did get Uncle Ben in the MCU, it was just Tony. Tony is more a George Stacy or Ezekiel tbh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:Also Ledger's Joker only puts innocent people(I'm conveniently not counting cops and DAs) potentially dangerous situations, he doesn't blow the hospital until everyone is out and the whole point of his two boats scenario was to see the "innocent" people murder a bunch of convicts. Rachel wasn't a cop. He killed her. There was also the unfortunate clearly mentally ill guy he sewed his cell phone bomb into. That guy didn't look like a cop. I think when we reach "Maybe Joker wasn't a bad guy in The Dark Knight" everyone needs to take a step back. You might be arguing just to "beat" a poster you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:Also Ledger's Joker only puts innocent people(I'm conveniently not counting cops and DAs) potentially dangerous situations, he doesn't blow the hospital until everyone is out and the whole point of his two boats scenario was to see the "innocent" people murder a bunch of convicts. The whole point of the two boats scenario was to blow them up. The only reason why he didn't was that Batman stopped him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Rachel wasn't a cop. He killed her. There was also the unfortunate clearly mentally ill guy he sewed his cell phone bomb into. That guy didn't look like a cop. I think when we reach "Maybe Joker wasn't a bad guy in The Dark Knight" everyone needs to take a step back. You might be arguing just to "beat" a poster you don't like. Reached was a DA, so she was a cop in the same way that Kamala Harris is a cop
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:Rachel was a DA, so she was a cop in the same way that Katana's got my back. I don't know why, but my brain auto corrected your post to this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Suicide Squad is aging like a fine wine and getting better with time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
I came back from Joker last night. I enjoyed it. It reminds me a lot of films from the 70's (Taxi Driver, Midnight Cowboy) that I used to watch on TV in my teens. Really excellent visuals as well as the atmosphere. Phoenix is good in the lead. Uncomfortable to watch but in a deliberate manner. The last ten minutes are the most interesting part but they also feel like they are from a different film to the rest. What I will say in relation to the idea that the film was going to cause mass shootings, it really doesn't glorify violence. In fact that's the most surprising thing about it. Every other portrayal of the Joker has him as Glorious. Often horrible, but in a manner that sets him apart from everyone else. Ledger had the pencil trick. Nicholson had so many stand out moments. Even Jared Leto's (for all that films problems) had his constant changing wardrobe, flash cars and style. None of that is here. You have him dancing, and a certain notion of theatricality but nothing as operatic as the other jokers. I have to assume that was a deliberate decision since anyone making a by the numbers Joker film would have had to have him going over the top with his actions. I enjoyed it. Also I found this funny. https://twitter.com/iresimpsonsfans/status/1180607422085369856?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 14:34
|
|
