Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 1,619
|
Post by Javi on Oct 4, 2019 22:26:52 GMT
Kind of a strange film oscillating between self-absorption and frankness. If the filmmaking is often cynical, Phoenix is most definitely not--a thrilling, major performance that turns ‘joy’ into a kind of macabre performance art: the depressed, mentally ill social misfit unable to experience “a single moment of happiness” in his life as our clown, our stand-up comedian. He inhabits a total state of discomfort that in turn makes us uncomfortable... faking happiness as both a defense mechanism and a hysterical compulsion, a societal response he thinks is demanded of him (and he's not wrong). And it’s in the endless way in which happiness is faked--a misplaced smile; a giggle that goes on for too long; laughter that becomes indistinguishable from sobbing--that the movie finds its pulse. Phoenix makes us self-conscious and acutely aware of the artifice required to sustain extremely fragile modes of conduct. (And yes, just to watch him is fatiguing, but never dull).
The problem with the movie imo is that it’s so fascinated by its title character that it becomes the character. It’s bizarrely devotional when it should be dispassionate. And it makes the crucial mistake of painting the evil as external (a mere social, cultural or behavioral malady) rather than internal: it’s afraid to express the Joker’s own folly, so it reduces him to a victim. In this sense, the movie is neither dangerous nor original... it’s just confused. But worth watching when it’s at its best. Hardly a better response out there to the current ‘cult of happiness’ than Phoenix’s perf.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Oct 4, 2019 23:17:17 GMT
I really enjoyed a lot about this. It's very stylish, has a great little "retro soundtrack", and Phoenix's performance as The Joker is nothing short of remarkable. He manages to convey insanity while not truly"breaking down", or going OOT. Also I thought they did a solid job of laying out the anarchistic "eat the rich" themes, without it ever truly becoming "problematic".
However, I do admit that I agree with the criticisms that the characters outside of Arthur aka The Joker are paper-thin for the most part (I guess DeNiro's talk show character has a personality, but we don't see not enough of him anyway). Also there's the issue of trying to center the movie entirely around a "villain". It's often a case of not trying to make him too sympathetic, and not making him too repulsive that it turns off audiences. I'm not sure the movie entirely succeeded in finding a middle ground, but I really need to think it over.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Oct 5, 2019 2:19:50 GMT
Yeah, I'm really not a fan at all. One, I think the screenplay is a traditional origin story with a cheap effort at contemporary relevance. Gun violence, mental health care, income inequality, etc. are mentioned but aren't really explored thematically. It might make a fictitious city like Gotham seem more like the present, but how, exactly, do these conditions thrive in a fictitious city? Phillips has no answer. Instead, he relies on trite sentiments like "everyone's so hostile", which are uttered as if they're new and original, and haven't been repeated ad nauseum in the political discourse the past few years. Two, the movie relies on convenient coincidences to further the plot. Of course, there's nobody else on the subway when the first three murders are carried out. Nor are there any police officers on the subway station where the Joker departs--otherwise, he'd get arrested and the movie would end after 30 minutes. Nor are there any nurses who could hear his mom's heart monitor going off while she's being choked to death, and of course when there's word of a masked man with a gun--the same day after Joker is dismissed from his hospital gig for "accidentally dropping a gun," he isn't considered a suspect until much later. Quite a bit of luck for someone who's not supposed to be a cunning criminal. And by the movie's conclusion, what is there to be said about people like the Joker, whom the movie suggests are society's doing? Not much of anything. Violence begets more violence, murderers beget copycats, and the Joker's of the world are more or less fucked, and so too are we because of it. It's more or less the Aurora shooting of 2012 placed directly into the screenplay, and Phillips's lack of an editorial comment is pretty gutless. How does he, who's willingly directing a Joker movie, factor into this equation? That would require an an actual answer, one that he's not willing to give at any one point in the movie. Phoenix is very committed, as always, but this isn't even his top five, maybe not even top ten performances. Phillips has absolutely no idea what to do with Phoenix's acting, other than place the entire film on his shoulders. He should have won the Golden Lion, not Phillips. Nice use of Modern Times for absolutely no reason, though.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 5, 2019 5:49:10 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 1,757
|
Post by dazed on Oct 5, 2019 12:59:50 GMT
What type of movies would you guys compare this to?
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Oct 5, 2019 13:59:58 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life. I'm not one to defer the blame onto movies, video games, or anything else but I do think the concerns in this case can be valid. Case in point: variety.com/2019/film/news/joker-threat-theater-closed-huntington-beach-1203359285/Also from an FB friend who went to the premiere:" Funny how being in the most secure place possible to watch Joker tonight actually made me feel more nervous. Probably had to do with seeing counterterrorism cops with rifles standing outside Alice Tully Hall before entering the building. That was more intense than anything in the movie. "
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Oct 5, 2019 14:36:54 GMT
This board needs to be put to bed
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 5, 2019 14:48:37 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life. For everything I heard about the “realistic brutal depiction of violence” I came out of thinking ‘that was it?’ I was definitely expecting a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 5, 2019 15:06:37 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life. The media conversation surrounding it (which may or may not be buoyed by WB in some way, I don't know) is more harmful than the film itself. There is much more evidence to suggest that the notoriety that comes from media attention leads to copycat attacks than there is for art and specifically film. Especially considering the film itself is no more brutal than even something like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and definitely does not take the efforts to make the audience like the Joker the way Tarantino did with Cliff Booth (not trying to diss Tarantino btw, just using it for the sake of media hypocrisy).
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Oct 5, 2019 15:41:29 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life. Did I miss your post where you shared your thoughts on the movie?
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,376
Likes: 1,265
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Oct 5, 2019 16:49:49 GMT
I was a bit surprised by the supposed moral ambiguity. It's a film that, very literally, condems a hostile society and the social programs that provide medicines to mentally ill people, like the protagonist, Does this justifies the violence he executes ? No, because the film insists in his non-treated psychosis. All of that is overly explained to the point that becomes flat and conventional: the themes are offered predigested. The greatest attribute is the sociopolitical appreciation and "denouncement" (?) of economical and social oppresive systems, which is not as developed as it could, I think that's where the Venice jury was coming from because in terms of aesthetics, is barely propositive. Did anyone else notice how the logo of Golden Lion winner wasn't anywhere to be found ? 🤦♂️ So it meant nothing, lol. Is a bit like Moonlight, chasing the iconic moments that made the films that inspire you, but there's barely a directorial touch. And about the solemnity that I found in the film, maybe it wasn't intended that way ? because the laughter is the secret weapon of the film and especially because of what he says at the end, but it's maybe more a tone problem, because Phillips sets it up so blunt, grim and "I suffer more than Precious blah blah blah" rant that toying with the idea of maybe he's pulling an act it's not so realistic until very late in the film.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 5, 2019 17:11:48 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life. Did I miss your post where you shared your thoughts on the movie?
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Oct 5, 2019 19:02:56 GMT
David Benioff, the now notorious Game of Thrones co-writer, once said, "Themes are for eighth-grade book reports." It's one of the most egregious phrases of condescension that I've ever heard come from a writer, as it's basically equivalent to admitting that your art has no purpose (other than making money, I suppose). I bring this up in my review of Joker because I can't help but feel like director and co-writer Todd Philips created it with the same exact mindset. The more I try to wrap my mind around Joker, the less sense it seems to make. It's so inconclusive, incoherent, and voiceless that it's not really "about" anything. It hardly ever feels like anything more than a "cool story" that the filmmaker wanted to tell. Now, the discourse around this film has already been exhausting, from both those praising it and those berating it, and it seems like everything that could be said about Joker has already been stated and overstated to death. It's an overwhelming amount of discussion, one that seems to be growing more toxic by the day as most of the perspectives on this film continue to lose their nuance. With that in mind, I really have no interest in contributing any further to the already overdone debate, something I'm concerned about given that many of my thoughts are exact concerns that have already been voiced to death by others. However, I do still want to be able to speak candidly on my own personal experience watching Joker, so, at the risk of sounding as derivative in my writing as this film's script, that's exactly what I'll do here, with an attempt made at brevity. Therefore, I'm not out to push any buttons when I say that Joker is a film that I at times struggled to watch (and not in the good "it's bold and challenging" way), and often found to be incredibly problematic. It's merely an expression of my own uncomfortable, confused, and, ultimately, tremendously disappointed experience while watching this film. (Rest of my review has been placed under spoiler tags for convenient reading, it doesn't contain actual spoilers:) For one, the baselessness of the film really does lay a shaky foundation for the whole thing. Dealing with subject matter this sensitive and difficult is generally not a wise endeavor without a stance, and in particular without a stance of condemnation. While I personally was dubious of some of the early reviews of this film claiming that it condoned or even encouraged violence, I found myself more or less sharing those same concerns while watching the film for myself. It would seem obvious that because this is a supervillain origin story, and everyone entering the theater would presumably already be aware of that, that it should almost go without saying that the film is not an endorsement of the character and his heinous actions. But within the context of the film itself, Philips is always framing the character in a way that we are forced to sympathize with him. The injustices and harassment that we see Arthur struggle with are very real conflicts; and, for quite some time, we are presented with an image of this character (a mass-murdering maniac) as a victim. While the film doesn't go so far as to present Arthur's violent acts as heroic, it still goes way too far in basing them in some sort of reason. It explains his actions almost to the point of justification.
And the thing is, even while the sociopolitical conflict is a bit vague and comes off as window-dressing, it is still evident that these conflicts (e.g. psychiatric treatment being defunded, an impoverished majority being owned by a billionaire, etc.) absolutely call for solving -- without any alternative to Arthur's violence suggested. The "revolution" that he inspires almost seems truly uplifting and hopeful for these people, when it absolutely shouldn't. Either the film is siding with acts of extreme violence, or it is saying that the less-fortunate masses are the sort of people who will take inspiration from a maniac and attempt to solve their problems with such violence. The film making either of these statements would, of course, be a problem. But Joker is so inconsistent with any form of ideology or moral that it may even suggest to present that it ultimately just seems to do something that might, somehow, be even worse: it's not saying anything at all.
It's further concerning when you take into consideration Philips's own recent (and idiotic) comments regarding why he pivoted away from comedy, and how these ideas, whether intentionally done or not, seem to be reflected by the titular character of Joker himself. Without delving too much into spoiler territory, I'll just say that there's a crucial moment here where Arthur blames his failures as a comedian on the society around him rather than his own shortcomings as an artist or person -- which, more or less, is the exact defense that Philips has attempted to make of his own work. And while of course I will always attempt to separate art from artist, moments like these were sort of astonishing to witness, and not in a good way. The degree to which we're meant to self-critique "society" in favor of someone like Arthur is disturbing, made even more so when you see the artist's own viewpoints represented by this purely evil character, as if it couldn't be more clear that we are meant to identify with him.
And, of course, Arthur's denouncements of society almost always go hand-in-hand with his shocking outbursts of violence. And while some have certainly exaggerated the violent content in Joker, the violence is still nonetheless startling and utterly excessive when it does occur. It's cruel, graphic violence for the sake of cruel, graphic violence, much like how the film itself is purely cynical and nihilistic for the sake of being cynical and nihilistic. It's hard to consider a film like this to be truly "bold" and "daring" when it's clearly trying so hard to be edgy, but has nothing to actually say for itself.
But then again, there is an argument to be made that all of this stance-less chaos is, perhaps, the point. After all, the Joker character has always been best defined by his random, excessive acts of cruelty. But that also brings us back to the fact that there still *is* a point to Arthur's actions much of the time, the film does give him motivations that are all too easy to want to root for. Do we only see the Joker as a sympathetic figure to rally behind because the film is from a limited perspective that is entirely in his head? Is the film meant to be lacking in any semblance of ideology because the character himself is? Perhaps, but there isn't enough evidence offered for me to believe that that's the intention -- after all, it'd be an incredibly complex move, so extrapolating that far feels like giving this juvenile film far too much credit.
Joker is a self-proclaimed "agent of chaos," and Joker is utterly a cinematic piece of chaos, but, again, for a film that begs us to take it far too seriously for too much of its runtime, it's hard to think that that was actually the point. For as often as the film can be as good as you expect a "Joaquin Phoenix playing the Joker" movie to be, it's even more often just as much of an immature, cringeworthy disaster as you expect a "Todd Philips directs a movie about a homicidal maniac" movie to be. While Phoenix's grotesque and intense physical performance and Hildur Guðnadóttir's chilling, menacing score are so effective in interpreting the dark tone of the subject matter, there are so many moments where Philips will force an embarrassing needle drop or some misplaced, awkward humor that really reminds you that this is the guy who did The Hangover (and almost always in the least opportune moments). Joker is so hard to watch not just because of its content and its thematic incoherence, but for its tonal and structural incoherence as well. The first thirty to forty minutes are compelling enough in their own right, but the film gradually descends into absurdity and it continuously trips over its own contrived plot points until the finish line. It's fascinating to me how much past reviewers have insisted this as a "character study," when to me Joker gets so bogged down in its over-plotted narrative that the end result is just an incredibly awkward experience.
And, again, I'm sure a lot of people will try to argue that the chaotic nature of Joker is precisely the point. I disagree, but it's an argument that could be made. But, even if that is the case, a film where "there is no point is the point" is inherently something that doesn't appeal to me, nor is it something I feel should be promoted in general. The character of the Joker has had such a lasting cultural impact for so long precisely because he is such a brilliant character foil to Batman -- they are too characters who couldn't exist without each other. On-screen depictions of Batman have hardly ever worked without Joker, so it should almost follow that an on-screen depiction of Joker shouldn't work without Batman. When there's nothing to counter-balance the Joker's warped view of the world, what we're left with is a "story" that comes across as nothing more than a cynical piece of garbage. When we're all coming out in droves to pay for something like this and sit through it for two hours, the joke's on us.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
Member is Online
|
Post by chris3 on Oct 5, 2019 22:56:29 GMT
Posted this on the Last Film You Saw thread but figured it'd be better placed here:
It was everything I worried it'd be. Taxi Driver/King of Comedy if remade by a poseur douchebag. The most nauseating aspects were the half-assed attempts at real world socioeconomic commentary, which basically boils down to Phillips saying, "Poor people are so fucking dumb and dangerous that the murder of three unarmed people on a subway will somehow ignite a full-on class war where half the city wears masks idolizing a random unknown murderer because my movie is commenting on the ISSUES, bro!" Do you really think Todd Phillips cares about any of the subject matter in this film? Fuck no, which is why it's all such empty, posturing garbage. This is the clearest example (since Batman v Superman, anyway) of a filmmaker mistaking darkness and heaviosity for depth. All he cared about was emulating the gritty aesthetic of the time period, provoking the audience with violent outbursts that clearly are attempting to be subversive but instead come off as unimaginative, dull and juvenile, and leaving his actor to do all the work to carry his film to acclaim. It's the most self-important, self-congratulatory film I've seen in years, so much so that it of course goes out in a sea of applause (well, almost does, aside from the needlessly tacked on final scene). Phillips so clearly thinks he's made an Important film disguised as a dumb kiddie flick, like the ultimate punk rock Trojan horse victory. Instead he's just badly ripped off the most already ripped-off film of the '70s, and thrown in some King of Comedy garb without understanding that The King of Comedy was incredibly critical and angry at the Rupert Pupkin character (as well as the society that ends up bringing him fame). This movie is so utterly in love with its violent protagonist that virtually every onscreen murder is morally justified in the eyes of the film.
Also, what the hell was with the lack of humor? There's barely a single joke in the entire film! Everyone rightly praises Ledger for how intimidating his portrayal was, but he's also hilarious and obviously having a ball with the character. You'd think this movie would relish in gallows humor to a similar effect, especially to counterbalance the oppressively one-note doom and gloom tone of everything (down to the absurdly on-the-nose score). But nope, Phillips is so horrible at handling this type of story that he misses every opportunity to infuse his slog-of-a-film with some actual life and energy.
Phoenix is an amazing actor and did the best with what he was given, but the character was so shockingly shallow that he massively overcompensates with every big, loud actor trick in the book.
Cinematography and production design was good, with one or two beautiful images. 5
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 6, 2019 2:41:27 GMT
This board needs to be put to bed
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 1,757
|
Post by dazed on Oct 6, 2019 3:58:18 GMT
So the movie wasn’t even all that brutal. People saying how it glorifies violence is a laughable take. I don’t think it glorified the Joker and his actions either.
It was very solid. The few friends I went with all really liked it too, which is surprising since a couple of them generally don’t like these types of movies. They weren’t sure who Joaquin was before this, but they said he knocked it out of the park. Which I have to agree with. There’s some minor issues with the film, but yeah. I really liked it.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 1,757
|
Post by dazed on Oct 6, 2019 3:59:04 GMT
Question for you guys; do you think the uproar, discourse and overall hoopla surrounding the film was actually warranted? Because tbqfh, I’ve never seen such a laughable amount of overreaction for a film in my life. The media conversation surrounding it (which may or may not be buoyed by WB in some way, I don't know) is more harmful than the film itself. There is much more evidence to suggest that the notoriety that comes from media attention leads to copycat attacks than there is for art and specifically film. Especially considering the film itself is no more brutal than even something like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and definitely does not take the efforts to make the audience like the Joker the way Tarantino did with Cliff Booth (not trying to diss Tarantino btw, just using it for the sake of media hypocrisy). Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was even more brutal than this movie in my opinion.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 6, 2019 4:34:36 GMT
The media conversation surrounding it (which may or may not be buoyed by WB in some way, I don't know) is more harmful than the film itself. There is much more evidence to suggest that the notoriety that comes from media attention leads to copycat attacks than there is for art and specifically film. Especially considering the film itself is no more brutal than even something like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and definitely does not take the efforts to make the audience like the Joker the way Tarantino did with Cliff Booth (not trying to diss Tarantino btw, just using it for the sake of media hypocrisy). Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was even more brutal than this movie in my opinion. There was one extremely brutal scene (and we all know which one that was) but I mean come the fuck on! People were making out as if the film was depicting some mass homicide where folk were being slaughtered left, right and center for the majority of the film. It couldn’t be further from the truth. The violence was used sparingly and with good purpose in regards to the overall narrative. Like I said before, laughable overreaction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 6:40:08 GMT
David Benioff, the now notorious Game of Thrones co-writer, once said, "Themes are for eighth-grade book reports." The craziest thing about this is that it's somehow not even the dumbest thing Benioff has said.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Oct 6, 2019 15:06:24 GMT
David Benioff, the now notorious Game of Thrones co-writer, once said, "Themes are for eighth-grade book reports." The craziest thing about this is that it's somehow not even the dumbest thing Benioff has said. "I want to see what's west of here..."
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 6, 2019 16:13:24 GMT
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Oct 6, 2019 16:25:07 GMT
I guess this is beating Logan, then?
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 6, 2019 16:54:17 GMT
I guess this is beating Logan, then? Well on it’s way.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 6, 2019 16:59:32 GMT
I don’t think the film sets up that we should be sympathizing with Joker at the end? But what’s wrong with sympathizing with Arthur on his journey to become Joker?
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 6, 2019 17:38:16 GMT
I don’t think the film sets up that we should be sympathizing with Joker at the end? But what’s wrong with sympathizing with Arthur on his journey to become Joker? That’s the beauty of the film for me. It gives audiences a choice, and further demonstrates the multiple and complex layers of Arthur’s psyche. This is also why Joaquin’s performance shines on so many level. He’s fragile, tormented, so deep inside his own failings that when he’s finally released from the debilitating pain, a whole new person is born. It’s a gradual process, with every scene displaying a subtle but noticeable change in his demeanor, and Phoenix absolutely nails it.
|
|