Joker origin Movie

So what exactly can I fault the film for? We've been through this before with Her, with you basically saying that it's my own incompetence for not seeing the brilliance in a film you like. I thought we were talking about a film, not a science test. Why do I need to do research on a film I want to see? Why is it specifically my fault for not wanting to ruin the experience for myself? I just watched the trailers and not only does it certainly make you think it's going to descend into complete chaos towards the end but it spoils crucial bits of the plot. Regardless of what I was expecting, I didn't like it. That's it. And I cleared up that my overreaction was due to a bad week and having to walk to the theater. I didn't say that my bad week was the reason the movie was bad, as a matter of fact, my first complaints about it were technical, things people fault films for all the time, like editing and plot, which I really don't get why I'm dumb for that. It just seems to me that you're taking my opinion as a personal attack.

__________________
|>
|
Ami-Scythe

Whew, things getting heated here. I have yet to see Joker, but it’s not very high on my list. I’m more excited to see Parasite or The Irishman.

@Ami-Scythe ...I'll probably hate The Joker too. That is if I even bother to see it.

If you think the film does a poor job of what it's actually trying to do (as opposed to simply not doing what you want it to do), that would be a valid criticism of the film. But for a lot of your statements, that's not really what you're saying. Just like how in your since deleted video about Her you complained that robot love stories (or however you worded it) were stupid. The fact that the basic idea of a film doesn't suit your personal taste does not somehow make it a bad film, it just makes it a film that you don't like. There is a difference.

There are tons of movies out there that I absolutely despise (as evidenced by my movie log, especially any time I'm participating in a Hall of Fame. "The Miss Vicky Hate Parade" is how rauldc described it ), but I try very hard to accept and acknowledge that often my bad movie watching experiences are as much my fault - if not more so - as the fault of the movie itself.

And you say that you didn't watch the trailers because you didn't want to ruin the experience for yourself, yet you did just that by avoiding them. As for your insistence that the trailers mislead you into thinking that the film would descend into chaos, you are clearly operating under a different definition of "chaos" than I am. The people that idolized Fleck - basically the entire lower class of Gotham - were rioting in the street. That sure fits my definition of the word.

As for the "crucial plot points" that the trailers allegedly "spoil" - What exactly are you referring to?

ETA: For the record, I never called the film brilliant. I think Phoenix's performance is brilliant, but for the film itself I actually ended my review by saying "I want to love it, but I'm just not there - at least not yet - and I'm not entirely sure why."

__________________

There's a chance I will go see this next week. Interestingly enough I havent read much into it so I've no idea what to expect.

Why blame yourself for not liking a piece of art though? In my opinion a piece of art has only one function (from the consumer's point of view) and that is to please (in a broad sense of the word) the consumer. If my experience of watching a film is bad I have no issues calling the film bad and I'd never think that I'm bad for not liking a specific movie.

P.S. I haven't seen Joker and don't take any stance on the love/hate debate concerning the movie.

__________________

It's hard to keep all kinds of prejudice aside while reviewing a film, I think most critics can't do that, and they probably won't admit it. For example, today I'd probably not rate The Joker as high as I rated just a night after seeing it, the only other film I'd rate as high as I rated this one would be Taxi Driver, a very similar film in the essence but with a very important difference, Martin Scorcese focused on the time/place he was, and he made a film inspired in that time/place, not the case with the The Joker. But I believe both directors had the same risk, I mean, who wouldn't dream for a rain to clean all the scum of the streets of New York city in the seventies? Who wouldn't dream of a tiny bit of relevance in such a big harsh city? They've both successfully understood the audience and they've both given them what they wanted, Todd Phillips just did it with a fictional comic book character representing another time/place, and that's why I wouldn't rate it as high. Well, not just that, Taxi Driver is about a man struggling with the environment his in, I wouldn't say the same about Arthur, I mean, Todd Phillips can't just make the city dirty and expect that to be all, he drove the character as Arthur versus several someone else's, I believe this is accurate is most of the film, that's artistically not so charming, or appealing. I also believe Travis Bickle is one of the hardest characters study you can ever find, I can't say the same about Arthur, and the reason for that is how they both expressed themselves, in Taxi Driver you have the Travis as a narrator for his thoughts, lines like: "true force, all kings man cannot pull it back together", I mean, oh my god, while in The Joker you have Arthur dancing, acting, the one who gives you information to analise the character and understand him is the plot, not the case with Taxi Driver, which is a pure masterpiece, I don't know how could I compare it with this one, even so, I loved it.

I think you shouldn't make people see they're wrong about something, you should explain them how you see it the best way you can, and if new things come to light, that's fine, if not that's alright anyway.

Because that’s where the blame often lies.

You say that the function of art is to please the consumer, but consumers don’t have a unanimous opinion about anything. Every movie has fans and every movie has detractors. Going by your statement, EVERY movie is bad because somebody hates it. If you follow that same logic, then every movie is good because somebody loves it.

For example, if we go by this definition of "bad" then The Exorcist is a bad movie because I hated it.

No. According to my logic movies don't have objective value. For me The Exorcist is great movie, for you it's bad. Experiencing art is personal, subjective thing and one person's experience doesn't (shouldn't) affect experiences of others. Objectively The Exorcist is nothing more than a series of images accompanied by sound - it's value (whether low or high) comes from the consumer and varies from person to person.

I don't think we disagree that much actually. I just got caught on word fault that has negative connotation. I guess you could say that subjective experience is the "fault" of the person having it but to me it sounds like belittling one's own taste or opinion. I'm not sorry for loving The Exorcist or hating the new Halloween so saying these opinions are my "fault" feels wrong to me.

Which is ultimately what your getting the reaction for, the inference that your opinion on the film is the only one of value.

I'm not sure its something that will be held up as a piece of truly classic cinema but I think its pretty clear it won't be forgotten within a year and I do think Phoenix's performance will be very well remembered. I wouldn't say is necessarily his best performance but I think it brings elements of Her, The Master and You Were Never Really Here in a package that a more mainstream audience are likely to view and respond to.

I wouldn't say its entirely some high minded piece of work, it does exist partly to entertain but I'm not really sure I would call its politics "preachy" given that it takes quite a negative view of both sides, neither the establishment nore Joker and the protestors are cast in a positive light.

Really though I think what the film is most concerned with is showing that kind of lone wolf killer characters mindset. It does show sympathetic aspects of course and highlights social issues that lead to his position but ultimately it does also show him as delusional and narcissistic. Rather than merely demonising the character the film gives him enough rope to hang himself.

Yep. Although this part doesn't help matters either:

The implication being of course that anyone who does love the film is nothing but a mindless sheep and that there's no reason to love Joker beyond the "preachy" message it carries.

My big questions: at any point in the film does he use a joy buzzer that electrocutes? A lapel flower that squirts acid? A gun that shoots out a flag that says "BANG!"? A pair of wind-up chattering teeth? Does a giant mallet ever appear? Does he have a Joker-mobile?

Okay, just to be clear, I overreacted because I've had a bad week. I was wrong for stating how the film was going to hold up in everyone else's eyes but I stand by my opinion and I agree that "fault" is a harsh way to put it. The conversation very quickly became about how I'm responsible for my experience at the theater because I didn't want to do research??? And for the record, I do have problems with the way the film was trying to do what it was trying to do, I just don't feel like talking about it. I'm quite done with this.

How about Joker venom? Was there any Joker venom that killed his victims leaving them with a rictus grin?

Just going to put my rating here

I don't really have much to add to the conversation that hasn't already been mentioned in some fashion

When an unknown swims against the current his ridiculed and bashed by every breading soul.
When a Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies aren't movies no one blinks an eye to criticize.
Our society! and in a way the topic of the Joker. Your experiencing Arthur Fleck @Ami-Scythe

I predicted that everybody would be a joker as soon as I heard about this film.. given the cultural significance of the character, I know they would go down this route and I am anticipating a taxi driver rip off that still might be quite enjoyable.

__________________
Do you know what a roller pigeon is, Barney? They climb high and fast, then roll over and fall just as fast toward the earth. There are shallow rollers and deep rollers. You can’t breed two deep rollers, or their young will roll all the way down, hit, and die. Officer Starling is a deep roller, Barney. We should hope one of her parents was not.

I think the Joker managed to be a Taxi Driver of our times.
But I can't agree the Joker have anything to do with Taxi Driver as a film though.
Both films are a description, or a analises of a big sector of a society in two different periods.
Taxi Driver praised keeping traditional values in a filthy environment, NY city in the 70's & 80's.
Joker praised individual authenticity in a pornographic society that is focused on belonging, globalism.
A Taxi Driver rip off is plausible if considered the social environment where global information reaches.

I question how much Taxi Driver sincerely praises "traditional values", though. It underlines the flaws in Travis's plan to form a relationship with Betsy as a means of becoming a "normal" person (ultimately treating her as a prop for his own sense of self rather than as her own person), to say nothing of how he gets praised for an act of violence that was really just a back-up in case his initial, more reprehensible plan to assassinate Palantine fell through. In that regard, it's more nuanced than Joker, but I think even Joker isn't praising individual authenticity (especially when it's ostensibly doing that through a villain protagonist).

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I might agree with you on the Taxi Driver part, he actually did that in the end, but in a way traditional values don’t just mean marriage or a relationship, but yes is one of the most important pillars. Like I said before, Travis Bickle is one of the most difficult characters study in the history of cinema, we see him talking about the trash in the sidewalks but at the same time he frequently goes to porn theaters, how’s that for traditional values, right? He is in fact a “walking contradiction”.

About the Joker, I don’t think Todd made to film considering Arthur as a villain. Might give the audience that impression at the end, but still I’m not sure if is meant to see him as a villain. I see him as a authentic individual struggling with individuals that are meant to represent how we see a sector of the society. I don’t really see him struggling with the environment is in, even so, the director went to big extends to try to pull that of. But how do you see it?