Joker (2019)

[Wayne49]

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.

Never claimed to be a Bundy fan? Here's your statement -

"I gotta be completely honest with folks here and say killers like Ted Bundy fascinate me. The way they see the world, the way they present themselves with superficial charm and how they generally get what they want by being not just calculating, but bold. We don't have to like what they do, but people like Joker and Bundy are high performance animals."

You're not just a fan, you're damn near a groupie. And yes, you connect the two with your comparison.  Look at the admiration you give him. Perhaps we should resurrect him so you can have his autograph? And then you want to deflect your admiration of this dog by suggesting he's not real anymore because it happened in the past? REALLY? Ask the families impacted by him if it still feels real for them? Talk about being detached and unsympathetic. Ask the families in mourning regarding the events of today's date that occurred 18 years ago.

And the use of themes in a globally recognized property ARE important, especially in an arena where kids can get a hold of it. What was the theme of Bundy since you link the two? You actually believe someone who had the ability to disarm people to get them in a compromised position is something to be admired? You understand the art of communication and its intention reside on two different platforms, yes? So if we're going to go down the road of themes in film, please tell me what you surmise this film will be about and how that correlates with Tedd Bundy. I'm not the person here having the problem with understanding how film operates.

I understand this is a licensed property that originates in comic books. But what is the responsibility of Warner Bros to the demographics this will likely touch? Can we cover those themes as well? Is it just about making a buck? Is this character now just a vehicle for shock value? Should Rob Zombie have a crack at it next? Because when I hear the desire to link this to something in society, like this character and his audience should be open to that kind of exploration, what are we asking this property to represent? Those are valid questions that reach beyond the limited scope of someone who just wants to gore out the concept for shock and hide behind ignorant pop psychology references to give it false weight.

[Travesty]

I dunno, just because someone is fascinated with something, doesn't mean they're a "fan" of that thing in particular. I'm an atheist, but I'm fascinated with religion, so I read as much as I can on a variety of religions. It doesn't mean I'm a "fan" of certain religions, or that I'm even religious, it just means it peaks my interest. I also have a friend who can't stop reading UFO cases and conspiracy theories, and he's a huge skeptic who doesn't believe in any of it. He just finds that area of study interesting, so he reads up on it constantly.

[johnnygobbs]

I think both the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords all need to simmer down, and think more reasonably about what is ultimately a piece of art/entertainment, instead of pushing their own political agendas.

Artists do have some responsibility to the world at large, in terms of how their art affects the minds of the most vulnerable and impressionable individuals, but much greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of our law-makers, our law officials and our medical services.

Moreover, as we saw with the Beatles' Helter Skelter, and in the UK the powerful and compassionate BBC TV drama 'Three Girls', which concerned the grooming and abuse of young girls in Rochdale, England, even the most innocuous and ostensibly inoffensive works of art can be seized on and distorted by sickos to justify their messed-up world view and actions.  Thus, it's hard to know where to draw the line outside snuff films, hardcore porn, and the most violent 'video nasties' in terms of what might detrimentally affect a film audience.

I personally welcome this film, but I also hope it will be appraised in a certain context that acknowledges the issues it explores.  I also hope it is an exploration rather than an endorsement of the type of nihilistic world view The Joker represents.  One can sympathise and understand the mindset of troubled people like Arthur Fleck without supporting and defending their actions.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

Rereading my post, I'm at a loss to understand where the critical reaction to this movie is coming from.

But since we're on the subject anyway, Titanic has an RT score of 89%. Clearly they enjoyed the film and considering the movie's success, I'd say general audiences did as well. The same general statements can be made of The Dark Knight (94%), The Godfather (98%), The Aviator (86%), Back To The Future (96%), etc etc etc.

My point is that there are instances where critical reception and public opinion align rather nicely with each other. At a minimum, the rave reviews JOKER has earned indicates that critics are more open-minded about the film than they were for most of Snyder's DCEU films. I don't assign any particular value or importance to the fact that critics have greeted JOKER warmly.

Frankly, a great deal of my enthusiasm for JOKER stems from the film's influences by Scorsese's Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy, both of which I enjoy and both of which are sort of obvious sources of inspiration for this character.

In the end, the most anybody can say is that I'm willing to hear Phillips out. There's nothing wrong with that, as I'm sure you would agree.

the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords

You just can't let up, can you? Other members are clearly going to pains to ignore the semi-political controversies this film has been subjected to but that's somehow not good enough for you, is it?

[johnnygobbs]

the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords

You just can't let up, can you? Other members are clearly going to pains to ignore the semi-political controversies this film has been subjected to but that's somehow not good enough for you, is it?

This is a bizarre attack bearing in mind that my comment was a response to a dispute that is already occurring on this board, and one I was attempting to diffuse by taking a centrist, non-partisan position that condemned both some of this film's most ardent critics and some of its most ardent champions.

In fact, I was arguing against political factions, both on the left and the right, politicising this film.  Please stop attacking me for doing the one thing I am in fact fighting against.

[thecolorsblend]

the pearl clutching social justice warriors and the alt-right edge-lords

You just can't let up, can you? Other members are clearly going to pains to ignore the semi-political controversies this film has been subjected to but that's somehow not good enough for you, is it?

This is a bizarre attack bearing in mind that my comment was a response to a dispute that is already occurring on this board, and one I was attempting to diffuse by taking a centrist, non-partisan position that condemned both some of this film's most ardent critics and some of its most ardent champions.

In fact, I was arguing against political factions, both on the left and the right, politicising this film.  Please stop attacking me for doing the one thing I am in fact fighting against.

Unless I've missed something, there hasn't been a specifically political opinion made with respect to the movie by a member of this board in this thread.

I can't speak for anybody else but I at least am not involved in a "dispute" in this thread, least of all a political one. My posts have been made to express my opinion and the posts directed at me seem similarly designed to express that member's opinion. Wayne and TDK may be involved in a "dispute" (that's for them to determine) but what I've read of their posts lacks any obvious political connection.

In fact, the only one mentioning political factions in any capacity in this thread is you, afaik.

Nobody could've predicted that.

[The Dark Knight]

I dunno, just because someone is fascinated with something, doesn't mean they're a "fan" of that thing in particular. I'm an atheist, but I'm fascinated with religion, so I read as much as I can on a variety of religions. It doesn't mean I'm a "fan" of certain religions, or that I'm even religious, it just means it peaks my interest. I also have a friend who can't stop reading UFO cases and conspiracy theories, and he's a huge skeptic who doesn't believe in any of it. He just finds that area of study interesting, so he reads up on it constantly.

Absolutely right. It is a shameful and disappointing display by Wayne in this thread. On the subject of mental health, we have Wayne giving a false diagnosis. He claims to know me better than I know myself. He won't let the Bundy topic go because he foolishly thinks he's onto a winner. He's not.

Bundy and the Joker are high performance animals and bold. I don't walk away from that, and why would I? Would I want to have a beer with them? Absolutely not. Both deserve the chair. But that doesn't change the fact they literally go out and do something. Revisiting crime scenes with police still around, escaping custody twice and brazen shoplifting. Wayne takes a leap in logic to claim I see this in admiring terms. As I said, we don't have to like what they do. But to not see the link between killing and thieving personalities is unrealistic? That makes Wayne the joke.

I like the intent of JOKER because it is a lower budget, character driven piece. At the end of the day, Wayne doesn't get JOKER and he should just spare himself the agony of watching it. He sounds like an overly anxious mother from the Batman Returns era, worrying so much he's about to pass out. He claims to understand what the film is about, but everything he posts is contrary to that statement.

[Wayne49]

Absolutely right. It is a shameful and disappointing display by Wayne in this thread. On the subject of mental health, we have Wayne giving a false diagnosis. He claims to know me better than I know myself. He won't let the Bundy topic go because he foolishly thinks he's onto a winner. He's not.

Bundy and the Joker are high performance animals and bold. I don't walk away from that, and why would I? Would I want to have a beer with them? Absolutely not. Both deserve the chair. But that doesn't change the fact they literally go out and do something. Revisiting crime scenes with police still around, escaping custody twice and brazen shoplifting. Wayne takes a leap in logic to claim I see this in admiring terms. As I said, we don't have to like what they do. But to not see the link between killing and thieving personalities is unrealistic? That makes Wayne the joke.

I like the intent of JOKER because it is a lower budget, character driven piece. At the end of the day, Wayne doesn't get JOKER and he should just spare himself the agony of watching it. He sounds like an overly anxious mother from the Batman Returns era, worrying so much he's about to pass out. He claims to understand what the film is about, but everything he posts is contrary to that statement.

This is hilarious. In your last response you wanted to redefine reality based on how long someone has been dead and now you're going to split hairs over the definition of the term 'fascination' and try to place the shame of your obsession on myself? Your examples are baseless because you want to marry a fictional character to a real life monster. You're using your fandom of the Joker to justify your position on Bundy. That's why you introduced him into this conversation. You believe the two correlate with one another because they can both commit similar crimes, thus giving merit to your "fascination" and desire to romanticize Bundy as some kind of real life "Joker".

Can we just get to the bottom-line? The Joker and Batman are not real by any stretch of the imagination. These characters are OTT images of people (symbols if you will) who run out into their worlds (not ours) and impose their will on society by saying " I am".  Its very cathartic and designed to reinforce certain values bestowed upon them to transform their society. All of these characters are based on this notion that we can change the world if we will it hard enough. So we use these characters as expressions to illustrate ideas in our society. I fully understand it is not always a black and white, good vs bad, throw down to profile basic values. People are flawed. None of that is lost on me.

But I absolutely disagree with this idea that people try to use these symbols to blur the lines between what is a controlled message in a contrived world versus reality that has far greater consequences and far more players than a two hour movie that preys on your emotions with added style points from a comic book character. No matter how you want to frame it, the Joker is NOT a poster child for misunderstood or misdiagnosed mental illness brought on by social oppression. And if we really want to be fair to the examination of these topics, then we already have to say a character like the Joker is honestly not built to carry this examination with any given seriousness. If this character did, then maybe they should make a stand alone movie about Hermey the dentist from Rudolph and entitle it " We're all Misfits".

At the end of the day this is a fictional character which the writers took and said, " Lets have him suffer through these series of events to generate a prescribed response from the audience. Then we'll have the world around this character react in a way we think bests fits the message we want to sell." Well... that's a contrivance. Whether you want to call that "art" or a "psychological study", none of it is based on real life measures. Someone has their finger on the pulse of this story and what it wants to say all the way through. And when many a reviewer says the director borrows heavily from other films, that tells me there's allot of formula assigned to this as well. So this is not a "case study" of anything. Its all make believe and falls into all the cliche's of a comic book style environment. What is troubling is some people can't separate the two.

[The Dark Knight]

The thing with boneheads such as yourself is the inability to accept the truth that is being told, either because of outright stupidity or a stubborn refusal to back away from a failed argument. I don't have any shame whatsoever in saying I find Bundy fascinating, nor am I trying to place any shame blame onto you. So that comment is way off the mark, which once again shows your poor judgement.

I also find L. Ron Hubbard and the tactics of Scientology extremely fascinating, along with Robert Mugabe – a man who remained in power for three decades, going from champion to hated tyrant. Absolutely fascinating. I know these individuals are bad eggs and I don't see them as heroes. To claim fascination equals love is simply not true and goes beyond reaching. And yet you cling on to that interpretation like a distressed pig wearing a dunce hat. The term romanticize is all you – I have not spoken in those terms whatsoever, and yet it all gets ignored to push your sour grapes narrative.

I also have a keen interest in John Lennon and Elvis Presley, among others. I know about all these people inside out, and I'm fascinated by who they really were, warts and all. Humanity is three dimensional and it's good to have a perspective on all of its aspects.

You say I seek to redefine reality because I correctly state the past doesn't exist whatsoever in the current day. This is another prime example of a bonehead refusing to accept reality himself. The past is dead, gone, finished and unalterable. That is not up for debate, that is a stone cold fact. The future also only exists in our minds because it has not yet happened. There is only the present. If you find that troubling, you really are a lost cause – and need to evaluate what reality actually is.

So in summary, we have a mind reader who fumes at the accepted reality of time, and calls a movie he has not yet seen one note – but in the same breath pretends he wants to give it a chance. Keep digging that hole, because you have exposed yourself for all to see on this forum. You offer nothing of value and everything you type can safely be dismissed. The depth of your analysis amounts to saying Batman and the Joker are not real.

[Wayne49]

Dark Knight... I have stayed on point this entire conversation. I didn't ask you to make a self-described "confession" about Bundy. I didn't ask you to defend said interest by defining reality for us. And last I read, I didn't see anything about a personal "score sheet" I had in our discussion regarding who is "winning". All of these are manifestations born from your frustration (and insecurity) to anchor your position in this discussion.

I've been talking about a movie regarding a licensed DC character named Joker. I've stated from the START, this is a discussion about the conjecture of said movie. And I have revisited that point repeatedly. I also stated what I HOPED the movie would actually cover. I can't draw a map of the world any clearer to illustrate that point.

You've been off in the weeds on Bundy, some bizarre notion about reality, and now John Lennon, Elvis, and Scientology. BTW your fascination with Scientology is a complete contradiction to your displaced theories on reality and death, since that belief system follows the idea of nurturing an IMMORTAL SPIRIT. Say hi to Lennon for me. I can only imagine...  Now back to point.

I'm going to see this movie when it opens. If the content matches the conjecture discussed here, I will not like the film. Joker is a comic book character that, in my opinion, is not built to convey a positive message about social oppression or mental illness in the real world, since those are not his story responsibilities in a greater canvas involving Batman (stand alone tale or not). But if the story gives multiple examples of characters placed in the spin cycle of hard luck with Arthur and offers the audience a message about choices, then there might be a redeeming story to be told here. Because at the end of the day, its not what happens to you that defines you. Its how you handle it that measures your value.