Joker (2019)

[Travesty]

So there's 3 leaked scenes floating on YT right now. I'm sure they'll get taken down soon. Two of them are of Joker killing, and it's pretty violent. This is definitely a hard R.

Edit: and they've all been taken down. That was extremely fast.

[The Dark Knight]

The negative one and done commentary ignores the fact Nicholson and Ledger are precisely that. Phoenix will also have one appearance, but guess what? He'll end up having more screen time than both put together. So it really is a moot point

There is nothing "ignored" because the Nicholas and Ledger Jokers were staged against Batman AS INTENDED. This movie wants to step outside that box and give the audience a one note origin story. My response to that is why do it at all if the suggestion is not to go any further?  Would you have preferred Nolan stop at Batman Begins? Do you build the world's fastest car and decide not to equip it with wheels? If the argument is, "This is for the art of it", then what is the statement? And please don't tell me it's to romanticize Tedd Bundy.

I laughed out loud recently when I read how people were outraged at the idealized ending for Tarantino's current film, " Once upon a time in Hollywood". Somewhere along the way people forgot to read the title or understand this was NOT a biography on the Manson family. IT IS FICTION. I'm finding myself reacting the same way to those who want to embrace this project because a critic called it a "masterpiece". And then we have the reaction in Venice to this film as well. Is Venice now the beacon of truth in art or can we just apply a tad bit of transparency and understand all of this is well crafted MARKETING to influence opening weekend that is just under a month away? Funny how that works...

The Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. All of the sprinkles of social allegory (that most movies carry anyway) will never get me to consider this interpretation as a serious study of mental illness or class warfare as conceptualized by Joaquin Phoenix.  I see with better eyes than that and understand what is commercial and what is window dressing to make a buck. If you had one of these disorders would you enjoy seeing it portrayed by a fictional homicidal villain? Might set you back a bit. But the responsibility of that is for another discussion. All of that being said, my reaction is to the conjecture of this film. I'm hoping to like this movie, but I don't have to guess at my disappointment if they do not marry it to a Batman film to give it completion. There is no case study to be had on a fictional antagonist, nor is there a payoff if the fictional protagonist is never intended to share center stage with him.

Jack Napier killed young Bruce's parents in B89, long before they met again as adults. At that point Napier didn't have green hair or bleached skin, but he was already a homicidal nut who made an everlasting impact on a young boy. Fleck could do the same but instead he's already wearing the clown gear. If B89 was a strict Napier origin story and ended with the Wayne murders, Bruce was still going to become Batman.

We don't need Batman to appear for Phoenix to be considered 'legitimate'. I think it's best to approach JOKER as something that includes 'Joker' themes, but exists as its own thing, which I find allows a mysterious disconnection from the other Joker actors while still embodying their spirit. 'It's not exactly the same as the comics or even the other films, therefore it's invalid' is dead end thinking. JOKER is a bit like The Shining – some things align but others don't.

I embraced the stripped down, character focus well before the glowing reviews came out. In this film, the impact Fleck has on others is there, but the main focus is Fleck's own mental evolution, or devolution – that point is a matter of perspective. His change of personality is largely dependent on the way society treats him, or how he perceives society treating him. Becoming a costumed killer represents the end of HIS arc, as he's certainly not going back to his Arthur days. This is him now. That is the sense of completion with the story they're telling.

Throwing down with Batman in a mudhole with copious CGI isn't what this film is about. Nor should any hypothetical sequels be that way inclined. If you're not on board with that concept it seems you won't be enjoying this 'one note origin story'.

[Wayne49]

We don't need Batman to appear for Phoenix to be considered 'legitimate'. I think it's best to approach JOKER as something that includes 'Joker' themes, but exists as its own thing, which I find allows a mysterious disconnection from the other Joker actors while still embodying their spirit. 'It's not exactly the same as the comics or even the other films, therefore it's invalid' is dead end thinking. JOKER is a bit like The Shining – some things align but others don't.

I embraced the stripped down, character focus well before the glowing reviews came out. In this film, the impact Fleck has on others is there, but the main focus is Fleck's own mental evolution, or devolution – that point is a matter of perspective. His change of personality is largely dependent on the way society treats him, or how he perceives society treating him. Becoming a costumed killer represents the end of HIS arc, as he's certainly not going back to his Arthur days. This is him now. That is the sense of completion with the story they're telling.

Throwing down with Batman in a mudhole with copious CGI isn't what this film is about. Nor should any hypothetical sequels be that way inclined. If you're not on board with that concept it seems you won't be enjoying this 'one note origin story'.

Again... what is the purpose of a character study for a fictional villain when history tells us it always diminishes their appeal? We had three films in Star Wars that explained the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. At least  there was an endgame to all of it. We saw how that would play out in the other three "chapters". But in retrospect, it did nothing to enhance the villain because it stripped him of any mystery and actually made him more one dimensional. One of the 20 century's great sci-fi monsters was reduced to a whiny, immature brat. So much for that character study.

So now the thinking is we need to see why the Joker is disconnected from reason? My hunch (and hope) is this so-called "origin" is actually going to demonstrate that he is the author of his own madness and that  environmental issues are more a narrative that he purposely embellishes to justify his compulsions for violence (Very much in the same way Ledger's Joker changed the story of his scars). The LAST thing we need is a story using armchair reasoning to bail out a fascinating character like this as a 'byproduct of society'. What an unoriginal and completely pandering message that would be to the new "victim" generation.

The counter narrative in these stories, namely Batman, shows an identically scarred mind coming at the same issues from a different perspective. Its the battle of the wits (and ideology) that make Batman and Joker the premiere showcase. Not some "slug fest in the mud" as you demean it to be. I'm sorry if I find those possibilities far more challenging and intriguing as a character study than a superficial profile on the Joker that hides behind medical disorders as the commercial "hidden novel" (and crutch) for selling Hollywood's skewed view of "morality". Respect the source material instead of using it as a platform for personal agendas.

[The Dark Knight]

'I want to like this movie', claims the user who trashes the very concept of it, automatically calling it one note and superficial. The premise that fans are only embracing the film because of critic reaction, and nothing else, is shallow and ignorant. Nobody could like the concept based on their own free will, could they?

This is also the same user who seriously argues there is no case study to be had on a fictional protagonist. That is your opinion, but it happens to be a garbage opinion. As you say, the Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. And? Therefore these characters cannot be taken seriously under any circumstance?

If that's your thinking, you don't respect the credibility of the source material. You demean it. You clearly don't want to like the movie from the outset, and cannot accept its intent. This IS a psychologically based movie, not action based. That was my point about the throwdown in the mud, but like a lot of things, it went right over your head.

[thecolorsblend]

Again... what is the purpose of a character study for a fictional villain when history tells us it always diminishes their appeal? We had three films in Star Wars that explained the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. At least  there was an endgame to all of it. We saw how that would play out in the other three "chapters". But in retrospect, it did nothing to enhance the villain because it stripped him of any mystery and actually made him more one dimensional. One of the 20 century's great sci-fi monsters was reduced to a whiny, immature brat. So much for that character study.

This a very specious comparison. Star Wars is a story told primarily in feature film. It is immaculate inasmuch as there are not multiple iterations of the story and characters. There are no other takes on Star Wars, generally speaking. There isn't an alternative interpretation out there to choose from.

That is obviously not true of Batman, his world and his supporting characters. JOKER no more eliminates the mystery to the character by showing an origin than B89 did. On that subject, JOKER is not the final word on the character. Even those of us eagerly anticipating the film will acknowledge that much. There will be more comic book iterations of the character and adaptations of the character into other media in the future. Surely one of those will be more to your tastes. If JOKER is a creative success, it should be celebrated. If it is a creative failure, it should be dismissed. But either way, it won't poison the well on the character simply because Batman and his universe are bigger than that.

Further, your remark about Vader being stripped "of any mystery" intrigues me. I wonder if your view is similar to that insipid "the Joker shouldn't have an origin" BS which is prevalent among fans. If your critique about Vader's lack of mystery extends to JOKER as well, (A) yours is not the consensus view among fans and (B) your attitude ignores the origins which have been affixed to the character over the decades. I would sooner relate to arguments about a professed reluctance to JOKER because the origin it provides the character seems seems to deviate from the character's established origin in multiple media.

But that does not appear to be your objection.

As a general statement, I find your critiques to be spurious, not least because you have not seen the movie. And yet, you are pronouncing judgment against it anyway. I look forward to seeing the film and believe that films like this -- if they're good -- will ultimately be beneficial to the Batman mythos. However, I make no assumption about the film's quality at this time. I'm reserving judgment until I see the final product.

Put plainly, I believe I'm being fair to the film by keeping an open mind. However, I don't see very much fairness in your approach of condemning it without having seen it.

[The Joker]

I kinda get the feeling that some are more than eager to refute whatever it is this movie is saying - if anything at all - for the possibility that it might be against their own personal positions. None of us here have seen this movie yet, and from the reviews I've read (out of curiosity, and to amuse myself in just by how much some of them tend to cannibalize each other's reviews), have gone both ways. However, what is fairly consistent, is that they are highly galvanizing. It's not the typical "critic" review stating that the movie is simply "Ok", or another comic book popcorn flick. It's either JOKER is a complete waste of a movie, or it's an absolute masterpiece of filmmaking art.

[The Dark Knight]

Even before Phoenix arrived we had a sea of Jokers to choose from, all with their own histories.

The Killing Joke and B89 have been so prevalent in DC media over the decades that the idea the character can't have an origin story goes against known fact.

Jack Napier was a completely new name for Nicholson's take, and Arthur Fleck is a completely new name for Phoenix's take. JOKER will outright show Fleck's rise and fall, just as B89 spelled out exactly who Napier is with a three tiered progression. We saw Jack as a young man killing the Waynes, as a Grissom heavy and finally as the Joker.

Napier was set up over a woman - and he killed his boss because of it. There is no sense of mystery in Nicholson's origins, but do I dislike him because of that? Nope. I only find him more fascinating in the way he contrasts to his earlier personas.

I don't forsee Phoenix's Joker being funny in the way we've come to expect, but rather someone choosing to embrace bad luck, pain and suffering in the tradition of 'can you believe it?'. Instead of crying, he's choosing the laugh. The Killing Joke could serve as a general guide, specifically "Do you know what triggered the last World War? An argument over how many telegraph poles Germany owed its war debt creditors! Telegraph poles!"

There's also an aspect of owning bullies that I think will gratify certain members of the audience. The trailers show a well-intentioned man being mocked on television, assaulted on a train and bashed on the street. When the tables are turned, the fun becomes self-satisfaction in claiming revenge – the joke's on you. Instead of being a meek victim like before, I'm going to roar like a lion and get the final say.

A pile of dead bodies means nothing to a nihilist, and because of that, they don't mind if more pile up. They care even less if those bodies are their oppressors, or people who align with their oppressors.

The Joker can be presented as a transparent character to the audience, but to the society that made him he's an enigma. To them, he just represents a philosophy of anarchy and death.

[Wayne49]

'I want to like this movie', claims the user who trashes the very concept of it, automatically calling it one note and superficial. The premise that fans are only embracing the film because of critic reaction, and nothing else, is shallow and ignorant. Nobody could like the concept based on their own free will, could they?

This is also the same user who seriously argues there is no case study to be had on a fictional protagonist. That is your opinion, but it happens to be a garbage opinion. As you say, the Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. And? Therefore these characters cannot be taken seriously under any circumstance?

If that's your thinking, you don't respect the credibility of the source material. You demean it. You clearly don't want to like the movie from the outset, and cannot accept its intent. This IS a psychologically based movie, not action based. That was my point about the throwdown in the mud, but like a lot of things, it went right over your head.

This statement coming from a confessed Tedd Bundy fan. Clearly ALLOT goes over your head when it comes to separating entertainment from something involving a real life coward who beat girls in their sleep or charmed them into his car so he could kill them. Yeah... That's something to wrap up in a blanket and watch with warm milk and cookies, yes? Let me introduce you to his victims parents or other family members and see if they respect your dribble used at their expense to VALIDATE a comic book villain.

I'm sorry, but if the expression of violence is now a consideration for sympathy regarding a "complaint" against society then the analytical aspect of this profile is utterly pointless, because it's all built on this notion that how the Joker sees it is the right way. A psychological study, as Dark Knight hopes, is NOT a skewed chain of events used to validate a pre-subscribed outcome. This is a fictional story about a fictional villain in a fictional society designed to produce a comic book character who fits the popular profile. Lets get 'Psychology Today' out of this, because there is no basis for that if people like Dark Knight want to compare Tedd Bundy to the Joker. That's absurd... and dangerous.

Lashing out to counter balance the feeling of being compromised (whether the infliction was done by words or deeds) is setting up a nonproductive message in an era where people already have intense, knee-jerk, reactions on a daily basis to anything presented to them as "wrong" on social media. Is Batman now the villain and the Joker the new anti-hero? Scary...

[Wayne49]

This a very specious comparison. Star Wars is a story told primarily in feature film. It is immaculate inasmuch as there are not multiple iterations of the story and characters. There are no other takes on Star Wars, generally speaking. There isn't an alternative interpretation out there to choose from.

That is obviously not true of Batman, his world and his supporting characters. JOKER no more eliminates the mystery to the character by showing an origin than B89 did. On that subject, JOKER is not the final word on the character. Even those of us eagerly anticipating the film will acknowledge that much. There will be more comic book iterations of the character and adaptations of the character into other media in the future. Surely one of those will be more to your tastes. If JOKER is a creative success, it should be celebrated. If it is a creative failure, it should be dismissed. But either way, it won't poison the well on the character simply because Batman and his universe are bigger than that.

Further, your remark about Vader being stripped "of any mystery" intrigues me. I wonder if your view is similar to that insipid "the Joker shouldn't have an origin" BS which is prevalent among fans. If your critique about Vader's lack of mystery extends to JOKER as well, (A) yours is not the consensus view among fans and (B) your attitude ignores the origins which have been affixed to the character over the decades. I would sooner relate to arguments about a professed reluctance to JOKER because the origin it provides the character seems seems to deviate from the character's established origin in multiple media.

But that does not appear to be your objection.

As a general statement, I find your critiques to be spurious, not least because you have not seen the movie. And yet, you are pronouncing judgment against it anyway. I look forward to seeing the film and believe that films like this -- if they're good -- will ultimately be beneficial to the Batman mythos. However, I make no assumption about the film's quality at this time. I'm reserving judgment until I see the final product.

Put plainly, I believe I'm being fair to the film by keeping an open mind. However, I don't see very much fairness in your approach of condemning it without having seen it.

Lets start with the fact that my discussion with Dark Knight was prefaced with the statement that my reflections are based on the conjecture of the film and not the film itself, because I have not seen it. I will go see this film and if the conjecture matches the final product, then yes, no crystal ball will be needed to know my opinion about this project. And since we're in that rabbit hole of pre-subscribed opinions, be careful how much you defend this film, since you too have not seen it. That pendulum swings both ways.

In terms of critical reviews and calls for awards, I find your support of those comments nothing but gratuity thrown at something to further illustrate your bias for a pre-determined conclusion. Since when has a critic's analysis ever matched note for note with anyone here or in society as a whole? Try never? And if NOW, for the sake of this subject, all the merits SHOULD go to the critics, then who do we pick? The ones who love it or the ones who equally hate it? Or does the majority rule? Sorry, but hopping on a band wagon speaks more to the spurious nature of your comments, instead of finding suspect in mine.

And lastly, there is nothing removed about the comparison of one villain origin to another if the defense is to argue the weight of mystery. By every measure known in the literary field, less is often more if you cloak the antagonist with a shadowy past left to the imagination of the viewer. If every motivation has to be explained, that limits the scope, thereby reducing appeal to many who might have thought the villain sat on a broader canvas.

And if you want to delve into the history of the Joker, be it in film, graphic novels, or fan fiction, this film does not appear to be doing anything new based on those who have seen it, except exploit how much the Joker enjoys kicking a puppy. What is mystery inducing about being endlessly cruel when modern story telling has already covered that point in great detail regarding this character?  When do people who have a professed knowledge on this character stand up and ask for something less cliche? Is the Joker now just a modern slasher with a social message? Are we supposed to desensitize ourselves to his cruelty because he was sent to his room without supper?

At the end of the day, I find it very problematic that people can look at what is being said about this movie and feel what the antagonist does is somehow just a cathartic expression that is well served and therefore something that should be "examined". Reading comments from people who pull real life monsters into the conversation, really underscores my concern with that disconnected thinking.

[The Dark Knight]

'I want to like this movie', claims the user who trashes the very concept of it, automatically calling it one note and superficial. The premise that fans are only embracing the film because of critic reaction, and nothing else, is shallow and ignorant. Nobody could like the concept based on their own free will, could they?

This is also the same user who seriously argues there is no case study to be had on a fictional protagonist. That is your opinion, but it happens to be a garbage opinion. As you say, the Joker is a comic book character in a comic book world. And? Therefore these characters cannot be taken seriously under any circumstance?

If that's your thinking, you don't respect the credibility of the source material. You demean it. You clearly don't want to like the movie from the outset, and cannot accept its intent. This IS a psychologically based movie, not action based. That was my point about the throwdown in the mud, but like a lot of things, it went right over your head.

This statement coming from a confessed Tedd Bundy fan. Clearly ALLOT goes over your head when it comes to separating entertainment from something involving a real life coward who beat girls in their sleep or charmed them into his car so he could kill them. Yeah... That's something to wrap up in a blanket and watch with warm milk and cookies, yes? Let me introduce you to his victims parents or other family members and see if they respect your dribble used at their expense to VALIDATE a comic book villain.

I'm sorry, but if the expression of violence is now a consideration for sympathy regarding a "complaint" against society then the analytical aspect of this profile is utterly pointless, because it's all built on this notion that how the Joker sees it is the right way. A psychological study, as Dark Knight hopes, is NOT a skewed chain of events used to validate a pre-subscribed outcome. This is a fictional story about a fictional villain in a fictional society designed to produce a comic book character who fits the popular profile. Lets get 'Psychology Today' out of this, because there is no basis for that if people like Dark Knight want to compare Tedd Bundy to the Joker. That's absurd... and dangerous.

Lashing out to counter balance the feeling of being compromised (whether the infliction was done by words or deeds) is setting up a nonproductive message in an era where people already have intense, knee-jerk, reactions on a daily basis to anything presented to them as "wrong" on social media. Is Batman now the villain and the Joker the new anti-hero? Scary...

I never claimed to be a Bundy fan. That's you putting words in my mouth. I said I found his worldview fascinating, and this is largely because such personalities are so deviant from the norm. I also said killers like him disgust and intrigue in equal measure. The term disgust is not a glowing endorsement. If you cannot remotely compare someone like Bundy to the Joker that failing is on you. It's not like I'm comparing fluffy Pikachu to Sauron here.

Being fictional or real means absolutely nothing when themes are being discussed. Bundy may as well be a fictional character now. He's been dead 30 years. The past is not real. It's just a dream. And as for wrapping myself in a blanket? I'll take the cookies (better than the words you like putting in my mouth) but warm milk isn't my thing. Make it an ice cold Coke.

Even if Joker is right in his grievance, it doesn't give him the right to murder. Yes, those killings will gratify CERTAIN members of the audience. But in the eyes of the law, the act of cold blooded murder automatically crosses him into villain territory. You really have a serious problem with this being a fictional story with a fictional villain...and frankly, you're just dribbling. That's what's really absurd here. You have closed your mind and refuse to accept a comic book film having these themes. That disqualifies you are a credible poster in this thread.