Joker (This Thread Made by Gang Weed)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Joker (This Thread Made by Gang Weed)

Marenghi: Oct 16, 2008; Don't trust the liberals,
they will betray you

Was Get Shorty not a documentary.

I thought everyone knew Hollywood is essentially a large money laundering operations for criminal enterprises.

# ? Nov 20, 2019 22:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 14:57

I said come in!: Jun 22, 2004

Marenghi posted:

Was Get Shorty not a documentary.

I thought everyone knew Hollywood is essentially a large money laundering operations for criminal enterprises.

I didnt know this but I mean if you just told me this was a fact I would believe you without any further clarification or context.

# ? Nov 21, 2019 07:27

The MSJ: May 17, 2010

I can't confirm this but someone told me WB has followed Snyder on Twitter.

# ? Nov 22, 2019 01:24

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

The MSJ posted:

I can't confirm this but someone told me WB has followed Snyder on Twitter.

think you meant this for the snyder thread? but i checked @wbpictures and nope

# ? Nov 22, 2019 01:48

The MSJ: May 17, 2010

Roman posted:

think you meant this for the snyder thread? but i checked @wbpictures and nope

Oh, wrong thread.

What I meant to post here is that any news about a sequel that has been reported this week is apparently fake. Phillips never talked to WB about it, nor the other way round.

# ? Nov 22, 2019 02:12

Everyone: Sep 6, 2019; by sebmojo

The MSJ posted:

Oh, wrong thread.

What I meant to post here is that any news about a sequel that has been reported this week is apparently fake. Phillips never talked to WB about it, nor the other way round.

On the other hand, this was an R-rated comic movie that made a billion dollars. They're gonna want to doing something to wring even more money out of it.

# ? Nov 22, 2019 16:30

NiceGuy: Dec 13, 2006; This is my BOOMSTICK; College Slice

I'm not saying this is the greatest comic book movie ever or whatever but I saw it a couple weeks ago and my mind keeps tracing back to a couple of scenes which is way, way higher praise than I can give most other superhero films

The penultimate scene with Arthur wiping his bloody mouth into a Joker smile had some of the best ambiance I've seen in awhile tho

# ? Nov 22, 2019 19:22

Drunkboxer: Jun 30, 2007

My mind keeps going back to the part where The Joker says �I�m da Joker baby!�

# ? Nov 22, 2019 19:50

NiceGuy: Dec 13, 2006; This is my BOOMSTICK; College Slice

Actually I was referring to when he smugly walks face-first into the glass but close enough

# ? Nov 22, 2019 21:04

SUNKOS: Jun 4, 2016

NiceGuy posted:

I'm not saying this is the greatest comic book movie ever or whatever but I saw it a couple weeks ago and my mind keeps tracing back to a couple of scenes which is way, way higher praise than I can give most other superhero films

The penultimate scene with Arthur wiping his bloody mouth into a Joker smile had some of the best ambiance I've seen in awhile tho

That shot of him (that's in the trailers as well) where he's stood there in makeup/suit and smoking a cigarette is incredibly sinister. I can't think of any other comic book movie that's had such a great shot of the villain. That whole scene is superb, especially the string soundtrack and way he slowly starts contorting his body afterwards.

# ? Nov 25, 2019 01:07

evobatman: Jul 30, 2006; it means nothing, but says everything!; Pillbug

The scene where his coworker has to ask for help to open the door is the greatest and darkest comedy ever put on film.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 10:45

Maha: Dec 29, 2006; sapere aude

Some (late and rambling) thoughts:

Arthur's mom suffers lots of gendered violence - everything to do with Thomas Wayne (corroborated by the "love your smile - TW" picture), later domestic abuse, and a text fragment from her files implies she had a lobotomy done to her.

Her name is "Penny Fleck", two insignificant things, which Arthur calls attention to in the hospital scene ("I always hated that name"). His own name, in comparison, could be read as a grandiose first name (King Arthur) attached to that same insignificant surname - the tension between high and low self-image that's common in narcissism.

Subway scene was a reference to the Bernhard Goetz killings, but everyone picked up on that one.

If the movie is supposed to be about Fleck's journey into seeing himself as the Joker, then why does he still consider himself "mentally ill" by the time he shoots Murray?
By that point in the film, he's already:
- killed the subway guys (including the one he chased down and shot in the back) and found that it "hasn't bothered him"
- told his therapist that he finally feels like he "really exists, and people are starting to notice"
- chosen to identify with his uncontrollable laughter - which wasn't even mental illness, from his mother's files it's heavily implied that it was caused by brain trauma from abuse suffered when he was a child, which makes it a neurological problem. Arthur already knew this, even: the explainer card that he hands to the concerned mother on the bus says "it can happen in people with a brain injury or certain neurological conditions".
- killed his mother after delivering the tragedy/comedy line
- killed his co-worker, worn the getup, asked to be called Joker.
His character development is almost finished - so why "mentally ill", rather than "this is who I was meant to be"? None of Travis Bickle, Rupert Pupkin or Heath Ledger's Joker saw themselves as such; whatever mental illnesses they may have had were egosyntonic, they all saw themselves as the perfectly justified heroes of their own stories.
I don't see any indication that we're supposed to disagree with his line, either (although killing Murray is framed as an unjustified response). "Defunding mental health is bad" seems to be one of the few positions the film actually takes, along with "1% strawmen are bad (but angry mobs of proles are bad too)". I understand it's the same scene where he makes his extremely unconvincing claim to be "apolitical", but "my whole character arc was bullshit" seems like a different issue.

# ? Dec 23, 2019 10:30

Sleeveless: Dec 25, 2014; by Pragmatica

I think I'll take the interpetation of an actual leftist film maker about whether Joker is actually leftist or just a dumb comic book movie trying so hard to be Real Cinema.

# ? Dec 23, 2019 21:35

Maha: Dec 29, 2006; sapere aude

Was that directed at me? I didn't say it was a leftist movie, I just mentioned gender-coded violence and an unsympathetic billionaire character.

# ? Dec 24, 2019 02:15

ruddiger: Jun 3, 2004

Sleeveless posted:

I think I'll take the interpetation of an actual leftist film maker about whether Joker is actually leftist or just a dumb comic book movie trying so hard to be Real Cinema.

What do you think of Zizek�s read of the movie?

quote:

Critics weren�t sure how to categorize Joker: is it just a piece of entertainment (like other Batman films), an in-depth study of the genesis of pathological violence, or an exercise in cultural theory? From his radical leftist standpoint, Michael Moore called it �a timely piece of social criticism and a perfect illustration of the consequences of America�s current social ills�, pointing out that it explores the protagonist�s origin story, examines the role of bankers, the collapse of healthcare and the divide between rich and poor. However, Joker does not only depict this America, it also raises a �discomfiting question� in Moore�s mind: what if one day the dispossessed decide to fight back?

Before Joker was released, the media and the FBI warned us it may incite violence from incels, though in the event there were no such reports. Rather than feeling inspired to commit acts of violence, viewers �will thank this movie for connecting you to a new desire � not to run to the nearest exit to save your own rear end but rather to stand and fight and focus your attention on the nonviolent power you hold in your hands every single day,� as Moore puts it.

But does it really work like that? The �new desire� he mentions is not Joker�s desire � at the film�s end, the anti-hero is powerless, and his violent outbursts are just impotent explosions of rage, expressions of his basic powerlessness. The paradox is that you become truly violent (in the sense of posing a threat to the existing system) only when you renounce physical violence. This does not mean that Joker�s actions are futile � the lesson of the film is that we have to go through this zero-point to liberate ourselves from the illusions that pertain to the existing order.

Among other things, our immersion into the dark world of Joker cures us of politically correct illusions and simplifications, like sexual consent for example. In this world, you cannot take seriously the idea that consent to sexual relations makes them truly consensual. The �consent discourse� is itself a huge sham. It is a naive effort to overlay a neat-and-tidy intelligible egalitarian language of social justice over the dark, discomforting, relentlessly cruel, traumatic realm of sexuality. People do not know what they want, they are disturbed by what they desire, they desire things that they hate, they hate their mothers but want to gently caress their mothers, and so on, for eternity. We can easily imagine Joker reacting with wild laughter to the claim that �it was consensual, so it was OK�, since that�s how his mother ruined his life.

To quote Arthur from the film: �I�ve got nothing left to lose. Nothing can hurt me anymore. My life is nothing but a comedy.� This zero-point is today�s version of what was once called a proletarian position, the experience of those who have nothing to lose. This is where the idea that Trump is a kind of Joker in power finds its limit: Trump definitely did not go through this zero-point. He may be an obscene clown in his own way, but he is not a Joker figure � it�s an insult to Joker to compare him with Trump.

Trump is obscene in acting the way he acts, but in this way he merely brings out the obscenity that is the obverse of the law itself. There is nothing suicidal about Trump�s boasting of how he breaks the rules, it is simply part of his message that he is a tough guy beset by corrupt elites, and that his transgressions are necessary because only a rule breaker can crush the power of the Washington swamp. To read this well-planned and very rational strategy in terms of death-drive is yet another example of how it is the left-liberals who are really on a suicidal mission, giving rise to the impression that they are engaged in bureaucratic-legal nagging while the president is doing a good job for the country.

In Christopher Nolan�s The Dark Knight, the Joker is the only figure of truth: the goal of his terrorist attacks on Gotham City is made clear. They will stop when Batman takes off his mask and reveals his true identity. What, then, is Joker who wants to disclose the truth beneath the mask, convinced that this disclosure will destroy the social order? He is not a man without a mask, but, on the contrary, a man fully identified with his mask, a man who IS his mask � there is nothing, no �ordinary guy�, beneath it. Nolan�s Joker has no back-story and lacks any clear motivation: he tells different people different stories about his scars, mocking the idea that he should have some deep-rooted trauma that drives him.

Joker becomes Joker at a precise moment in the film, when he says: �You know what really makes me laugh? I used to think that my life was a tragedy. But now I realize, it�s a loving comedy.� Because of this act, Joker may not be moral, but he is ethical. We should take note of the exact moment when Arthur says this: while, standing by the side of his mother�s bed, he takes her pillow and uses it to smother her to death. Who, then, is his mother? �She always tells me to smile and put on a happy face. She says I was put here to spread joy and laughter.� Is this not maternal superego at its purest? No wonder she calls him Happy, not Arthur. He gets rid of his mother�s hold on him (by killing her) through fully identifying with her command to laugh. His propensity to compulsive and uncontrollable outbursts of laughter is paradoxical: it is quite literally extimate (to use Lacan�s neologism), intimate and external. Arthur insists that it forms the very core of his subjectivity: �Remember you used to tell me that my laugh was a condition, that there was something wrong with me? It isn�t. That�s the real me.� But it is external to him, to his personality, experienced by him as an automated partial object that he cannot control and that he ends up fully identifying with. The paradox here is that in the standard Oedipal scenario, it is the Name-of-the-Father which enables an individual to escape the clutches of maternal desire; with Joker, paternal function is nowhere to be seen, so that the subject can outdo mother only by over-identifying with her superego command.

At the film�s end, Joker is a new tribal leader with no political program, just an explosion of negativity � in his conversation with Murray, Arthur insists twice that his act is not political. Referring to his clown makeup, Murray asks him: �What�s with the face? I mean, are you part of the protest?� Arthur replies: �No, I don�t believe any of that. I don�t believe in anything. I just thought it�d be good for my act.� And, again, later: �I�m not political. I�m just trying to make people laugh.�

There is no militant left in the film�s universe, it�s just a flat world of globalized violence and corruption. Charity events are depicted as what they are: if a mother Theresa figure were there she would participate in the charity event organized by Wayne, a humanitarian amusement of the privileged rich. However, it�s difficult to imagine a more stupid critique of Joker than the reproach that it doesn�t portray a positive alternative to the Joker revolt. Just imagine a film shot along these lines: an edifying story about how the poor, unemployed, with no health coverage, the victims of street gangs and police brutality, etc, organize non-violent protests and strikes to mobilize public opinion � a new non-racial version of Martin Luther King. It would be an extremely boring film, lacking the crazy excesses that makes Joker such an attractive film for viewers.

Here we get to the crux of the matter: since it seems obvious to a leftist that such non-violent protests and strikes are the only way to proceed to exert efficient pressure on those in power, are we dealing here with a simple gap between political logic and narrative efficiency? To put it bluntly, brutal outbursts like those of Joker are as damaging as they are effective, but they make for an interesting story. My hypothesis is that you have to go through the self-destructive zero-level for which Joker stands � not actually, but you have to experience it as a threat, as a possibility. Only in this way can you break out of the coordinates of the existing system and envisage something truly new.

In his interpretation of the fall of East European Communism, Habermas proved to be the ultimate left Fukuyamaist, silently accepting that the existing liberal-democratic is the best possible, and that, while we should strive to make it more just, et cetera, we should not challenge its basic premises. This is why he welcomed precisely what many leftists saw as the big deficiency of the anti-Communist protests in Eastern Europe: the fact that this protests were not motivated by any new visions of the post-Communist future � as he put it, the central and eastern European revolutions were just what he called �rectifying� or �catch-up� revolutions: their aim was to enable central and eastern European societies to gain what the western Europeans already possessed, i.e., to rejoin the Western normality. However, the ongoing wave of protests in different parts of the world tends to question this very frame � and this is why figures like �jokers� accompany them.

When a movement questions the fundamentals of the existing order, its very foundations, it is almost impossible to get just peaceful protests without violent excesses. The elegance of Joker resides in how the move from self-destructive drive to a �new desire� for an emancipatory political project is absent from the film�s storyline: we, the spectators, are solicited to fill in this absence.

ruddiger fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 24, 2019

# ? Dec 24, 2019 02:28

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

zizek posted:

The paradox is that you become truly violent (in the sense of posing a threat to the existing system) only when you renounce physical violence.

zizek you lived through the yugoslav wars

# ? Dec 25, 2019 01:07

The REAL Goobusters: Apr 25, 2008

Sleeveless posted:

I think I'll take the interpetation of an actual leftist film maker about whether Joker is actually leftist or just a dumb comic book movie trying so hard to be Real Cinema.

Boots is a clown sometimes and I really liked sorry to bother you. Joker does have real leftist themes sorry

# ? Dec 25, 2019 03:33

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Joker to me is just white working class Americans that let their lives slide into poo poo via do nothing apathy getting owned by a clown

# ? Dec 25, 2019 04:16

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

It would probably be best to not use the word "leftist" because it's incredibly vague and can mean anything from democratic party voters to naxalites.

# ? Dec 25, 2019 04:17

SUNKOS: Jun 4, 2016

Zizek posted:

at the film�s end, the anti-hero is powerless

He seems anything but, given everything that's happened within the city and his own personal life. It seems more like he's taken the reigns of his life for the first time and finally has control.

HorseLord posted:

zizek you lived through the yugoslav wars

Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. Wonder how things would be going for the people of Hong Kong right now if they all just bent over. Maybe they could say "Hi" to the Uighurs.

# ? Dec 25, 2019 04:38

HorseLord: Aug 26, 2014

SUNKOS posted:

Wonder how things would be going for the people of Hong Kong right now if they all just bent over.

exactly same as it's going now because most of hong kong society is bored and annoyed at what amounts to some teenagers making noise and littering everywhere for obscure reasons

# ? Dec 26, 2019 00:27

ruddiger: Jun 3, 2004

Todd Phillips put the script online in case anyone wants to count how many times he wrote Joker taking a drag from his cigarette.

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/joker-script-final.pdf

# ? Dec 27, 2019 08:52

Kill All Cops: Apr 11, 2007; Pacheco de Chocobo; Hell Gem

I'm glad they replaced the opening scene, and Joker squirting his flower after he is beaten in the alleyway wasn't in the script.

# ? Dec 27, 2019 10:44

ruddiger: Jun 3, 2004

Yo Sleeveless, you going to comment on that Zizek review or what?

On an unrelated note:

https://twitter.com/mexicansoflate/status/1190105311337730050?s=21

# ? Jan 5, 2020 08:57

Prince Myshkin: Jun 17, 2018

ruddiger posted:

Yo Sleeveless, you going to comment on that Zizek review or what?

I can't speak for Sleeveless but will go ahead and speak for myself by telling you to gently caress off.

# ? Jan 5, 2020 17:22

ruddiger: Jun 3, 2004

Prince Myshkin posted:

I can't speak for Sleeveless but will go ahead and speak for myself by telling you to gently caress off.

It�s called Cinema Discusso, not Cinema Shitpost and runaway like a coward.

# ? Jan 5, 2020 17:23

Prince Myshkin: Jun 17, 2018

ruddiger posted:

It’s called Cinema Discusso, not Cinema Shitpost and runaway like a coward.

The only way you know whether he's seen your post of the Zizek review is if he posts in the thread, and he hasn't, so send a PM or quit being a weirdo.

# ? Jan 6, 2020 00:18

RBA Starblade: Apr 28, 2008; Going Home.

Games Idiot Court Jester

There's no real reason to read or pay attention to the dumpster man

# ? Jan 6, 2020 01:12

ruddiger: Jun 3, 2004

https://theplaylist.net/bong-joon-ho-parasite-joker-theaters-20191209/

quote:

Bong Joon-Ho Compares �Parasite� To �Joker� & Talks His �Obsession� With The Theatrical Experience

Without a doubt, Bong Joon-ho is a master filmmaker and one of the very best working today. And that can be seen in his latest film, the Palme d�Or-winning �Parasite.� Thankfully, even though the film is in Korean, the family dramedy has been welcomed with open arms by American audiences over its theatrical run. And according to a new interview with the LA Times, Bong has some ideas as to why �Parasite� has been such a crossover hit.

When the question about why Bong thinks his film has been able to succeed in American theaters, which are notoriously bad for international films, the director thinks it has something to do with the universal nature of �Parasite.� And it�s in the nature of that story where a film like �Parasite� can be seen as similar to a box office behemoth like �Joker.�

�I think the story about the rich and poor is something that�s applicable to any country around the world,� said the filmmaker. �When you say �international,� you�re basically saying that each country is different. But I think there�s no point in really dividing nations because, in this current era, we all live in this one giant nation of capitalism. And I think that�s something that �Joker� is about as well.�

Many people view �Parasite� as Bong Joon-ho�s masterpiece, particularly after the rather ho-hum reception that his previous film, �Okja,� received in 2017. That film is probably best known for sparking the most recent issues between Netflix and the Cannes Film Festival, as well as the release strategy of streaming films as we move into the future. And while Bong says he enjoyed his time at Netflix, he was let down that �Okja� didn�t get an exclusive theatrical window. However, he�s happy with the strides the streaming service has made in 2019.

�So Netflix has been creating amazing films like �The Irishman� and �Marriage Story,�� said Bong. �And I had a great experience working with them because they gave me full creative control.�

He added, �And now I know they�re becoming more flexible with their distribution policy. So I think that�s great. But I still can�t lose my obsession for the movie theater. That�s still my best platform. It�s the only place where the audience can�t press the pause button.�

So while he may have been a bit upset that �Okja� never had the theatrical release he was hoping for, the new strategy that Netflix has introduced with the streamers 2019 awards contenders might be enough to entice Bong Joon-ho back to the platform. But after �Parasite,� you have to expect that Netflix won�t be the only studio trying to get in the Bong Joon-ho business.

Kojima has something to say about the movie too.

https://twitter.com/alfreid17/status/1177841944845643778?s=21

Del Toro and a few other filmmakers put it in their top ten as well.

ruddiger fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 6, 2020

# ? Jan 6, 2020 02:44

Tulip: Jun 3, 2008; yeah thats pretty good

ruddiger posted:

E:

https://theplaylist.net/bong-joon-ho-parasite-joker-theaters-20191209/

Kojima has something to say about the movie too.

https://twitter.com/alfreid17/status/1177841944845643778?s=21

Del Toro and a few other filmmakers put it in their top ten as well.

Yeah the comparison to Parasite seems apt. The biggest difference is Parasite has enough interpretative space that I've met quite a few people who read Parasite as "oh the poor people are parasites preying on the innocent rich people" but Joker has such a bald hatred of the rich that if you aren't willing to go along with "the rich are a destructive force" you wind up unable to interpret a very simple movie.

Honestly Joker is so didactic and straightforward I don't know how there's any debate about its themes or content. Literal Maoist propaganda from the Cultural Revolution has more sympathy for capitalists than Joker. The interview with the social worker is so overt about the original sin of the fiction that I'm surprised it didn't have footnotes with page citations about deinstitutionalization.. That I run into professional film critics that call it cynical, confused, and unclear is the sort of thing that makes me think "it is impossible to make a movie immune to willful misinterpretation."

I liked the movie but it's incredibly direct and unsubtle.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 05:54

Donovan Trip: Jan 6, 2007

ruddiger posted:

E:

https://theplaylist.net/bong-joon-ho-parasite-joker-theaters-20191209/

Kojima has something to say about the movie too.

https://twitter.com/alfreid17/status/1177841944845643778?s=21

Del Toro and a few other filmmakers put it in their top ten as well.

Wrap it up Jokerailures it's time to acknowledge this was a great movie

# ? Jan 7, 2020 06:04

CROWS EVERYWHERE: Dec 17, 2012; CAW CAW CAW; Dinosaur Gum

Tulip posted:

Yeah the comparison to Parasite seems apt. The biggest difference is Parasite has enough interpretative space that I've met quite a few people who read Parasite as "oh the poor people are parasites preying on the innocent rich people" but Joker has such a bald hatred of the rich that if you aren't willing to go along with "the rich are a destructive force" you wind up unable to interpret a very simple movie.

Honestly Joker is so didactic and straightforward I don't know how there's any debate about its themes or content. Literal Maoist propaganda from the Cultural Revolution has more sympathy for capitalists than Joker. The interview with the social worker is so overt about the original sin of the fiction that I'm surprised it didn't have footnotes with page citations about deinstitutionalization.. That I run into professional film critics that call it cynical, confused, and unclear is the sort of thing that makes me think "it is impossible to make a movie immune to willful misinterpretation."

I liked the movie but it's incredibly direct and unsubtle.

There were people in this very thread who thought "he's just imagining being in a romantic relationship with his neighbour!" was ambiguous or straight up didn't get that they weren't actually dating. You could hit people in the face with a sledgehammer that says "KILL THE RICH - JOKER (2019)" and someone would go nah I think maybe the film sides with the capitalists???

# ? Jan 7, 2020 07:00

Tulip: Jun 3, 2008; yeah thats pretty good

CROWS EVERYWHERE posted:

There were people in this very thread who thought "he's just imagining being in a romantic relationship with his neighbour!" was ambiguous or straight up didn't get that they weren't actually dating. You could hit people in the face with a sledgehammer that says "KILL THE RICH - JOKER (2019)" and someone would go nah I think maybe the film sides with the capitalists???

I wonder if the superhero baggage lead to some of this? Like, the movie really, truly hates Thomas Wayne, but if you're thinking of this as a "Batman movie" you have this meta-textual information that Thomas Wayne is a good guy because, hey, Batman's dad.

The Batman stuff felt pretty tacked on and non-essential. Thomas Wayne felt like this unholy Ed Koch-Michael Bloomberg-Jeff Bezos character, and he's very comprehensible as a representation of "financiers who got into politics as a means of hurting poor people," but the superhero elements didn't add a lot.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 08:18

exquisite tea: Apr 21, 2007; Carly shook her glass, willing the ice to melt. "You still haven't told me what the mission is."

She leaned forward. "We are going to assassinate the bad men of Hollywood."

I finally saw this movie and... I thought it was fine. It was okay. As a reverential sendup of better movies like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy with a supervillain twist, it mostly delivered. The cinematography was good and Joaquin Phoenix is the best actor alive, so it's got all that going for it. But in terms of dialogue and themes I found it all way too on-the-nose. Way too many instances of characters just saying exactly what ~the message~ was, self-indulgent slo-mo scenes with music track choices that reminded me of Suicide Squad with how painfully obvious they were. It's no wonder I see Hideo Kojima loved this film, he could have written it lol. Would have worked much better with half the dialogue and cutting that bad Beautiful Mind twist.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 11:07

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

I'm looking forward to the first Joker Universe Batman movie where Batman rescues Gotham from craziness with modest reforms and rational third wayism.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 11:51

Necrothatcher: Mar 26, 2005

Tulip posted:

Honestly Joker is so didactic and straightforward I don't know how there's any debate about its themes or content. Literal Maoist propaganda from the Cultural Revolution has more sympathy for capitalists than Joker. The interview with the social worker is so overt about the original sin of the fiction that I'm surprised it didn't have footnotes with page citations about deinstitutionalization.. That I run into professional film critics that call it cynical, confused, and unclear is the sort of thing that makes me think "it is impossible to make a movie immune to willful misinterpretation."

I liked the movie but it's incredibly direct and unsubtle.

Trying to argue this with people who read one scorching hot take about incels from someone who hadn't seen the movie and made up their mind was exhausting. Weirdly I remember doing the exact same thing with Starship Troopers back in the 90s when people thought it was straightforward fascist propaganda rather than a blindingly obvious satire.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 12:13

iamsosmrt: Jun 14, 2008

I'm very curious about how the movie's dialogue was translated for various international audiences. Being that it was a huge success abroad, I mostly assume is based on the appeal of it's class warfare themes and revolutionary escapist fantasy.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 16:06

Dog_Meat: May 19, 2013

upgunned shitpost posted:

hollywood budgets and revenue are distorted to help facilitate crime, they're not to be taken seriously.

They also have a lot of other baggage assigned to them. Like the astronomical cost of Superman Returns was largely down to failed rewrites and other crap being put onto the ledger to write them off.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:18

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Finally re-watched it today. Still so good. Noticed a couple things:

- In the Wayne murder scene, an Excalibur poster with "RESIST" spray painted on it (BvS had an Excalibur poster in its scene)
- In the scene with Bruce standing over his dead parents, a Wolfen poster on the wall. Maybe a reference to when Arthur says "They just think we'll just sit there and take it like good little boys, and we won't werewolf and go wild."

Roman fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jan 14, 2020

# ? Jan 14, 2020 02:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 14:57

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Also it seems like Phoenix is right handed (he uses it to open doors, etc.) but writes with his left hand, which is why his journal writing looks so goofy.

# ? Jan 14, 2020 07:28

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Joker (This Thread Made by Gang Weed)

«‹›25 »