|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 2, 2019 13:52:35 GMT -8
I think my issue with the funhouse scene is that it occurs fairly late in the movie, by which point Pennywise has already been fully established as a murderous threat. Even ignoring the first film, the sequel opens with him killing a guy who was just viciously beaten and thrown off a bridge. They're not exactly subtle about his villainy.
Incidentally, I had also planned to read the book after the first film was released. But I came across a copy at my library, took one look at the thousand-page spine, and immediately hightailed it to the comics section.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Oct 2, 2019 14:24:13 GMT -8
Aw man I need someone to talk with me about the books and how they're better than the movies But I would agree that the intro scene was useful and necessary for both getting the violence in there and equating the townsfolk with the creature. That one did the heavy lifting, the rest, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 9, 2019 19:53:04 GMT -8
Well, I've seen JOKER twice now (once alone, once with a friend who I'd intended to see it with the first time), and I think it's a solidly-crafted character piece. The acting, visual craft, and music of the film merits attention, and the story's effectively sad and harrowing. I don't find it to be the least bit irresponsible, but the media coverage of it certainly has been, what with various writers practically goading so called "incels" into acting up. (Now they've moved on to complaining about a song on its soundtrack, because their virtual violent wish-fulfillment didn't come to fruition.)
As a viewer, you can empathize with the protagonist's awful environment and state of being, while also being put off by his solipsistic tendencies, and saddened and/or horrified by the way in which he eventually liberates himself through violence. There's only really one particularly bloody sequence in the film, which is one of the reasons it only got a 14A rating in Canada. (Of course, our ratings board doesn't automatically give an R rating to films where the F-word's used more than once.) Phoenix gives a full-bodied (in every sense of the word) performance, over-the-top at times in a way that completely tracks emotionally. Insofar as I care about such things, heads are gonna roll if he doesn't at least get an Oscar nom for this, as you're unlikely to see a more committed or vulnerable performance by any other actor this year. It's a very risky performance, as well, because it leans so heavily on social awkwardness and emotional/physical discomfort, and Phoenix's Athur is in pretty much every scene: you simply can't look away.
While it maintains a slow-boil intensity throughout, and the overall darkness of the film could be considered oppressive, it's not an assault-on-the-senses like the similarly heavy Requiem For A Dream. It's methodical and purposefully-made, and there's beauty amidst all the ugliness and despair. Phoenix's background in dance is put to good use, both as a rather elegant calming measure for Arthur, and in his more exuberant, celebratory moments.
I've noticed a thread of certain critics suggesting the film "isn't about anything", and I'm not really sure where they're coming from, because it seems to me it's about a LOT of things, many of which don't get expressed in mainstream film that often. One notable element is how those suffering from an overt variety of mental illness are received with discomfort-if-not-full-on-contempt from the general public, and barring that, are ignored altogether. And this extends to the mental-health care system, where troubled individuals in dire need of support are denied access to essential programs, medication, or even a base level of empathy. This then extends to a general malaise associated with the class structure, often leading to civil unrest, and sometimes violence. Anyone who feels lonely and isolated may just be looking for the slightest glimpse of emotional connection and support: barring that, everything can get internalized, and any slights against one's character amplified due to overwhelming insecurity. Most people are capable of self-pity, but it tends to manifest with more intensity when one has no one to confide in, who will actually LISTEN.
Which brings me to the media's obsession with the word "incel". What was originally meant to refer to woman-hating individuals who feel they're entitled to sex and often act out in violence when denied it, has now become the blanket designation for any physically-unattractive white male who's "involuntarily celibate". So people are mocked and ridiculed because they weren't lucky enough to have a conventionally attractive face, which they have NO CONTROL OVER. (Not that mocking folks for other physical "shortcomings" is really acceptable either.) While anyone who commits a violent act should absolutely be condemned for it, continually antagonizing people who simply aren't sexually active does society no favours, and only creates more insecurity, anger, and resentment.
Anyways, there's a lot more going on in the film, though I will concede that subtext is limited by how intensely focused it is on its primary perspective. Though JOKER is certainly influenced by Taxi Driver, it doesn't use voiceover narration, but much of Arthur's emotional state is conveyed through dialogue and overt physical expression. HOWEVER, he IS an unreliable narrator, which leaves a lot of the film open to interpretation.
I'll say more once Jeremy has seen it. Others may be scared off by the overall "mixed" critical response, but that's simply the byproduct of an intense, singularly-focused (in emotional terms) film that generates a strong gut response, and doesn't overtly express its primary political ideology. Those with a thoroughly sunny perspective on society may dismiss it as too overbearing, but I think it has a good deal of merit.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 10, 2019 8:50:52 GMT -8
I'm not sure when I'll get to see it (life has been super-busy, especially with holidays), but all the buzz - both positive and negative - has only made me more intrigued. The media's coverage of the film has been pretty lousy; thankfully, it doesn't seem to have affected the box office (or stoked any actual violence).
From what I understand, the film has no tangible connection to the comics or previous onscreen Batman adaptations. They're just calling it Joker because the name sells. Which I'm personally totally fine with, so long as it's good - but I expect some other DC nerds might not be so forgiving.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 10, 2019 14:17:17 GMT -8
While it is absolutely it's own thing, there are definite callbacks to The Killing Joke (especially the Unreliable Narrator aspect) and The Dark Knight Returns, and a very familiar scene is also revisited. A lot of people have said it feels like a '70s Joker. While some folks say "this isn't The Joker", because he isn't excessively flamboyant overall or dropping laughing-gas cannisters, there are many hardcore comic book fans who think it captures many aspects of The Joker's core psychology. I think each big-screen version of The Joker has captured some elements of the most familiar comic book versions while discarding others.
The guy who runs the Batman-on-Film website really liked Burton's original and The Lego Movie, disiked Batman Returns and the Snyder films, loved Nolan's version, and also loved the new film.
Outside of Hamill, Phoenix probably nailed the laugh best, even though much of the time it's a laugh the character is trying to repress.
It really is a film you need to mull over afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 10, 2019 18:38:47 GMT -8
Well, like I've said before, the Joker is one of the most versatile villains ever crafted. He can be fun, he can be sadistic, he can be plain bonkers, or any mix of the three. There really is no "definitive" version of the character. (Two of my favorite animated Batman episodes are "The Laughing Fish" and "Joker's Millions" - each of which portrays a completely different Joker than the other.)
I saw a variety of Jokers this past weekend at Comic-Con, mostly Ledgers and Phoenixes. I even spotted a Leto Joker, surprisingly. Guess even that version has its fans.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 16, 2019 20:10:07 GMT -8
So I pulled a rare double-feature tonight, combining (of all things) The Addams Family and Joker.
The chief novelty of Addams Family is watching the directors of Sausage Party attempt a PG film. But said novelty wears off quickly once you realize that the film isn't going to be nearly as dark or biting as Sausage Party (or whatever its kiddie equivalent would be), nor as over-the-top wacky as the Hotel Transylvania films. It's a pretty run-of-the-mill adaptation of the popular franchise, never quite here nor there.
The main issue is that because the Addams characters have always lived with a sort of Bizarro logic, the success of their films and TV shows hinge on how well the jokes land - if they fail, there's not much of a human element for the story to fall back on. And the script for this film is very hit-and-miss - some laugh-out-loud moments, but a lot of cringe-worthy ones as well. The character designs look great, though, invoking the original newspaper cartoons by Charles Addams.
Joker is quite an experience on its own. It's well-written, evocatively directed, and anchored by a phenomenal central performance from Joaquin Phoenix. It kind of works as a supervillain origin story, but it functions more broadly as an excellent psychological character study. There are occasional references to the comics (a "Robinson Park" sign, the famous Dark Knight Returns scene), but it functions perfectly well on its own merits.
There's probably a lot to talk about in this film, but as J.C. said, there's a lot to mull over. So mull it over I shall.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 17, 2019 1:12:22 GMT -8
Glad you liked JOKER. I figured you probably would, given that you responded well to the trailer, but considering how opinions of the film are all over the map, one can never be sure about these things.
Some guy at my gym HATED it, and acted like giving The Joker an origin story was akin to giving Ronald McDonald one. Honestly, if someone can't tell the difference between one of the most storied villains in popular culture and a bloody restaurant mascot, there's not much to be said. I mean, I thought that SNL Sesame Street parody of JOKER was great, but the funniest aspect of that was that it put typically lighthearted characters in a dark, gritty context. While the setting of JOKER is more earthbound, visually and psychologically, than many Batman comics, Joker is still typically a psychologically dark character, so it's not really out-of-line to take that cinematic approach to the character. The guy also suggested that the film presented him as a hero, and all of his murders completely justified, which I feel is a very shallow reading.
It's weird, because there's beauty and a certain degree of catharsis to be had in the movie, but it's (deliberately) folded into horror and sadness w/r/t the path Arthur takes. First he's looking for any sort of human connection (in increasingly troubling ways), but he ultimately settles on simply being seen, being noticed: proof that he exists! Nihilism is certainly present in the film, the impulse to not believe in anything, and laugh the world-at-large off as one big joke (it's seductive, but also very sad). That Thomas Wayne's words more directly inspire the clown movement, and Arthur's just along for the ride, not caring about what it all means, speaks to that.
Because the film doesn't lock down into one concise political perspective (why should it?), some folks have tried to suggest it's not about anything at all. I think, much like The Dark Knight, it's a stew of ideas, and isn't interested in offering easy answers or messages.
It's interesting, Jeremy, how the most prominent objectors to the movie seem to be many of the New York critics. Do you suppose part of that is down to them not wanting to see (what is essentially) their city/people portrayed in such a harsh light? I mean, it IS a period piece, and New York WAS, by all accounts, awfully rough in the late '70s/early '80s.
And I don't think the film stigmatizes mental illness. Arthur's illness doesn't cause him to act out violently (he's actually very gentle, early in the film). It's more how people treat him (emotionally and physically) due to his general oddness, combined with some narcissistic tendencies (he wants to be a star, to give love and be loved...more the latter) that precipitates his transition. Also, you'd probably be forgiven for thinking, going in, that he'd shoot up a few buildings/random innocent people in the film, given how desperately the media tried to connect it to real-life, large-scale tragedies. But, alas, it's more targetted, isolated moments, against those who've "wronged" him, in his estimation. I heard some critics say the film doesn't actually go far enough on account of that, and I can sort of understand that position, but man, imagine the possible headlines had the filmmakers had Arthur just randomly kill people and laugh, as The Joker in the comics often does?
Anyways, by all means, mull it over. You don't need to write a review for this site (unless you want to), but what are the primary things you took away from the film? What sort of effect did it have on you? I've heard some hardcore comic fans say "That's not The Joker", while others who've been reading Batman comics forever say the exact opposite. To me, the way in which he smears the blood on his face to create a more prominent red smile captures an aspect of the character beautifully, but this version certainly isn't cracking jokes....yet. As I said before, every live-action version of The Joker has taken some earlier aspects of the character, while discarding others. Personally, I'm open to a wide variety of different interpretations, as long as there's some depth and ambition behind them. Were you expecting this version to use laughing gas on the talk show audience, or have any of the other outrageous flourishes sometimes associated with the character? I'll be curious to read your more detailed thoughts. And by all means, discuss how much of the film you feel is subject to the Unreliable Narrator (beyond the obvious ones, like his neighbour down the hall). Did that guy actually give him the gun to set him up, or do you feel he actually bought it himself? And what of his relationship to the Waynes? And so on.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Oct 17, 2019 12:49:08 GMT -8
I do plan on watching Joker, and I have no idea whether I'm going to like it or not.
But I have to say, the vein of criticism around it has been infuriating. When did criticism become about a movie's ability to comment on modern issues? Why is so little of the criticism focus on what the story is trying to say and not the quality of the story or the storytelling itself? At its absolute worst, the criticism is suggesting that because the story is about a straight, white male turning violent, it's not a story worth telling because those types of people don't deserve any of the empathy that being a protagonist would give them.
In my mind, the purpose of literary art is to ask questions, not provide answers. Yet more and more criticism is evaluating films on their ability to provide answers on modern topics. The films have to have a "message." They absolutely do not, in fact I'd go so far as to say films without a message but are interested in asking tough questions are going to be far superior to films that do have a clear message. Movies don't need to provide a perspective, they don't need to take sides. At best, they make you think, make you question your worldview, and make you look for your own answers. And for some reason, those are the movies that are now "controversial" because people misread a message into them that they don't find palatable.
Just look at this line from one article I read: "It’s hard to imagine the film awakening anything in anyone except those who’ve already invested their personal identity in supporting it. Not because of careful filmmaking on the part of Philips and Co., but because of how little they say about the timely issues — mental health, loss of social services, race, class friction — that they’re juggling." First off, criticism should never make assumptions about how other people will feel about the art. Secondly, it's just a ridiculous requirement for movies to have to say something definitive about current issues to "awaken" things in people.
Sorry about the rant but the conversation around Joker has earned it. As I said, I have nothing invested in this movie being good. I could find it awful for all I know. But by the things that are being said about it, I don't think it's being treated fairly.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Oct 17, 2019 15:03:06 GMT -8
I don't know when the shift happened, but at some point pop culture criticism did a 180 from talking about works on their own merits to talking about works as they relate to the wider culture.
Thinking back on the pre-Kinja AV Club: when Donald Trump ran for president, they started doing a lot of articles about him, and when commenters complained they said, well, he's a game show host, he's a media personality, he's a part of American pop culture far more so than he is an entrepreneur, so of course our pop culture site is going to have to cover him. Which was a naked lie, obviously - they covered Trump because he got more page-views than retrospective reviews of the Xander Cage films. But I think both are factors more generally - arguably, pop culture takes its cues from politics because politics increasingly takes its cues from pop culture. Inarguably, meme culture and politics are intermingling, basically everywhere on the political spectrum. I think viewpoint of the Joker character - and Joker the film I'm guessing - that nihilistic "life is a joke, might as well clown it up" attitude - that's very much in line with the current zeitgeist. Hell, the Joker's been the face of a particular subset of internet memes ("gamers rise up") for at least two years now.
So I don't think it's super unreasonable in this instance to view the film through the lens of public life in 2019. It's more egregious in other contexts, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 17, 2019 16:08:48 GMT -8
I think Joker is trying to comment about modern issues (even though it takes place in the early '80s), and thus it's fair for critics to analyze how the film tackles those issues and how they relate to the real world. (I also agree that the political analyses wouldn't be quite so common if they didn't generate so many page-views.) But I think the way a lot of people have attempted to criticize the film's messages comes off as personal projecting - critiquing the film based on what they wanted it to be, rather than what it actually is.
Joker isn't trying to tell a story about toxic white men or senseless gun violence (at least not more than dozens of other Hollywood films released each year) - those elements do exist in the film, but they don't define the story or motivate its characters. There is a clear throughline to Arthur's story as he goes from sympathetic joke to heartless Joker, and the spine of the story is his descent into madness. There's a cold logic to his actions, enough to undermine the case that the film is wantonly glorifying his horrific activities. As with the best antihero TV dramas, you don't want to sympathize with him, but you understand how he came to be the way he is.
Part of the film's appeal is that its messages are intentionally left vague. That's part of the reason so many critics are unsatisfied with it (the film tempts them with messages they like, then pulls back at the last minute), but it means there are a number of ways to analyze and dissect the film. (One of my favorite readings: it's the story of a demented man who inspires a wave of angry protesters with "RESIST" signs to rise up against a powerful billionaire who's running for political office in order to make Gotham City great again.)
I'm fine with people saying they didn't find the film effective in its methods. But those who write it off as a film with nothing to say are robbing themselves of some of the most potent cinematic discussion of the year.
J.C., I'm not sure if the portrayal of New York has anything to do with the negative reaction - my hometown was pretty crummy back in the '80s, and few will deny it. I'd say the larger issue is that the critics in the NY Times and the (ugh) New Yorker tend to be pretty snobby in their opinions, even by the industry's usual standards.
Like I've said before, it's really hard to consider the "definitive" version of the Joker - Heath Ledger and Mark Hamill can both lay claim to the title, as could various comic book versions ranging from Killing Joke to Dark Knight Returns to Death of the Family. I don't see Phoenix's version battling Batman anytime soon - and no, I didn't expect him to go full supervillain with laughing gas in the climax - but he certainly captured the essence of what make the Joker one of fiction's most iconic villains.
I also have a lot of thoughts on the Unreliable Narrator aspect of the film (some of which I didn't fully process until after the credits rolled), but I'll hold off on those for the moment.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Oct 17, 2019 18:31:44 GMT -8
the critics in the NY Times and the (ugh) New Yorker tend to be pretty snobby in their opinions Leave Emily Nussbaum alone!
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 17, 2019 19:31:17 GMT -8
otherscott - I don't know if you'll like the film or not either, but I do think you're approaching it from a very reasonable and thoughtful perspective, and I'll be curious to hear your thoughts on it once you HAVE seen it. I completely agree with you w/r/t films asking questions, rather than being required to provide answers. JOKER is not dissimilar to The Dark Knight in being a soup of ideas, some of which contradict one another, as any good Joker story does.
Quiara - The allure of nihilism is absolutely an aspect of the film, but though Arthur absolutely dresses as a clown, he's not actually at the point of fully "clowning it up". Killings in the film aren't random, or played off as a frivolous joke. They're emotionally impactful, and typically harrowing, bordering on sad. But it's a purposeful, steady progression on the part of the filmmakers.
Re: The New Yorker, I think Jeremy's more specifically referring to the David Denbys of the world.
Jeremy - Yeah, I've seen a lot of critiques of the film done in what I would consider to be bad faith, wilfully misreading the film for page-clicks. Not to mention those with condescending attitudes. AO Scott's take was particularly obnoxious: the old, "Nothing to see/talk about here, kids". Critics who aggressively try to shut down conversation about films, whether they're good OR bad, do their profession and the art of filmmaking no favours.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 17, 2019 20:48:18 GMT -8
I don't have much personal beef with any of the New Yorker critics in particular - I just find the magazine itself to be one of the most obnoxious and navel-gazing things on the dental office rack. Their review of Joker (by Richard Brody) was quite bad, for many of the reasons listed above. (Brody analyzes the whole film from a racial perspective, contrasting its white lead and black supporting characters, and then criticizes the film for not being more upfront about the racial issues he assumes it's talking about. Just... ugh.)
AO Scott's review was also pretty bad, but I've been reading his work for over ten years and his brand of condescending review is nothing new. He seems to have a inherent dislike of comic-book films, even the ones that aspire to be more than action blockbusters.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 17, 2019 21:40:36 GMT -8
AH yes, the racial read of the film. Arthur's initially attacked by some teenagers that are "coded" Hispanic. Clearly it's saying all Mexicans are criminals, or something. But wait, some of the most sympathetic folks to his plight (his therapist, the clerk at Arkham) are black, and he's mostly emotionally and physically assaulted by white people. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?! Uh, maybe that the film reflects the diversity of a major city, and that there are good and bad folks in every race?
Yeah, I forgot about Brody. His was the first New Yorker review, and Denby was the second or third. I wish Manohla Dargis had reviewed the film for the NY Times: she tends to be more receptive to genre films, and particularly Batman. Weirdly enough, Rex Reed actually liked the film; to be fair, though, he also enjoyed The Dark Knight, even though his review read like he'd just watched the Adam West series (heh).
It's weird how multiple reviews from the same publications are showing up on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. For instance, the Guardian out of the UK had three reviews of JOKER: one 5 Stars, one 2 Stars, and one 4 Stars. You'd sort of think that the senior review would eliminate the rest, at least on Metacritic. Having three reviews out of ~55 from the same publication seems a bit imbalanced.
|
|