Joker (2019)

[The Joker]

Happy Birthday, Joker.

Thank you, TDK! 

For those buying physical, has anyone made up their mind on which version they are going to pick up?

Reg:

Best Buy Steelbook:

UK Steelbook

4K:


I'll probably go with the Best Buy Steelbook.

[thecolorsblend]

There are certain cherished films that I will only watch once per year, if even that. These are the mandatory classics.

Lord Of The Rings is one example. I only watch those movies once per year. It's okay to do less than once per year but never more than that.

JOKER is in that same class as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to ever become accustomed to it or able to predict it. I want it to be a surprise every time.

[The Dark Knight]

JOKER is in that same class as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to ever become accustomed to it or able to predict it. I want it to be a surprise every time.

JOKER is the type of film I'd want to make. A narrow focus rather than many plot threads allows a much greater connection, and I believe that's why JOKER resonated so strongly with people. We're not following Rey, Poe, Finn, Kylo, Palpatine, Luke and their quests across quadruple planets with several tasks underway at any one time. We're following just Arthur.

I view Arthur much the same as Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two Face. They are characters with grudges that only go so far, specific to the films they appear in.

Arthur only killed people who wronged him, and that's also the case with Eckhart, although he allowed the coin to decide their ultimate fate. Once Arthur killed Murray he effectively reached the end of the line in his personal crusade. Eckhart reached the same conclusion with Gordon's family. Which makes a sequel with either difficult to plot.

[Wayne49]

Was finally able to carve out time to watch this film for the first time and I've got to say it was simply brilliant. I was shocked at how confused critics seemed to be over what this film was. Its a great lesson , once again, to not dispute the findings of critics, because so many of them were just lost on the film.

I think the film gets a bad wrap for supposedly glorifying violence, when in fact it shames it. I never once felt that Arthur was a man who believed in lashing out. He was trying to conform in a world that would not have him. And everything he did to try and compensate for all the shortcomings of his life were slowly stripped away from him as the story progressed.

It was very sad, but also very real to watch him idealize people he might just have a momentary brush with either in the hallway or someone he admired from afar on television and view himself being seen in a favorable light by those people. He wanted someone to see him for how he saw himself. That scene where he fantasizes about being recognized in the television audience for taking care of his mom, then being called to the stage and told by the host, he wish he had a son like him was the foundation of that film. Arthur wanted to believe he was taking those hits because he was living for a cause greater than what his circumstances suggested.

I also liked the way the fantasies blended with his reality. Many of them were subtle because the director wanted to demonstrate how fantasy and reality can feel seamless if we do not anchor ourselves properly. But it also shows how that tool is often used, almost in a primal state, for self preservation. I felt so bad for him because he did not want to become the product of what he was at the end. But every safe space created in his life was ripped away from him. Every inch of dignity he had dreamt about, took beatings for, ultimately proved to be lies. His whole life was a lie. What he coveted was a lie. And the supposed mother he protected and cared for was in fact the author of his pain. The system that was also giving him medicine and counseling walked away.

So as all of these realities came to life, all of Arthur's fantasies began to die. The girl that he fantasized as being a supportive and loving partner, was actually a total stranger who rejected him like everyone else. And sadly the one celebrity whom he idolized and anchored so many of his rights of passage to feel like a human being, also stripped him of his dignity in a very public fashion. So much of Arthur's humanity which he fought to build up inside himself, was torn down and left in ruins. And without any support structure left to reel him back in, he reacted to all of those pressures very much like a cornered animal that had been beaten.

I cheered at how they blended the comic elements in a very subtle way. It begged the question whether Arthur had also fantasized his revenge on society and that the origin of Batman was in fact another one of his delusions. I thought they played that in a very grey area to allow the film to either be taken as a stand alone or as a literal interpretation that demands a sequel. Its such a beautiful story, I'm really on the fence about a followup. In one respect it would be fascinating to see him go up against Batman, but that would really be a tough script to write given how thoughtful this film was structured. I almost think it would be better to leave it up to the viewer as to how all that played out and leave it as is. If this film does not get best actor, best direction, and best picture from the Oscars, something is terribly wrong with that measure of excellence. Easily the best picture of the year, by a mile.

[The Dark Knight]

Good you've seen the film and enjoyed it.

I ultimately see JOKER as a tale of salvation, confidence and letting the past die. A tale of a man taking charge of his life. He ends the film in prison, but what would someone call his Gotham City existence? Was he just meant to stay on the ground as the boots stomped down day after day? Nobody in their right mind would want to keep enduring that. Arthur takes his self loathing and channels it where it belongs. When he decided to FIGHT BACK, Arthur started to have a greater sense of purpose. He saw his life was a lie. He came to accept that and constructed something new in its place.

Yes, the guy isn't the model of perfect mental health, but nonetheless, monotonous drab days started to feel exciting for him for a change. He acts without the baggage of emotion - he just does what he feels needs to be done, such as having pillow talk with his delusional kook of a 'mother' one last time. Killing the Wall Streeters was a shock to his system initially, but it made him much more comfortable with killing by the film's end. Generally speaking, Arthur himself isn't shamed by the taking of life. He's delighted the police who trailed him on the subway were kicked by angry mobs this time and not him.

When Murray's brains are splattered on the wall Arthur doesn't react with remorse. He's absolutely satisfied in a cathartic way. The "how do you like them apples?" glare Phoenix gives the corpse before his laugh sells his sentiment perfectly. He puts himself first for a change, seeing that he does deserve better treatment. He's not going to be given it, so he takes it without negotiating.

"It's better to live one day as a lion than a thousand years as a sheep."

[Wayne49]

Good points Dark Knight and I definitely felt allot of that as I watched it the first time. What I thought was ingenious by Todd Phillips is how he took the comic elements and essentially incorporated those as something you could take literally or as something completely contrived in Arthur's imagination.

As the film unfolds, every element that is a component of Batman's origin is presented in its raw form for Arthur to concoct as a tale for himself. His mother dressing Thomas Wayne up as this "good man" who is a "protector of the city" and the only one who can "save us". Then you have Thomas Wayne himself essentially defining good vs evil and placing the events Arthur was involved in as that of a cowardly criminal with no life. You can see how resentful he is at Wayne dressing him down without knowing his circumstances, so it sets the stage for him to build up these ideas in his head.

Then Arthur see's Bruce Wayne, who of course slides down a pole from his playset as he comes over to meet him. The attendant (or possibly the butler) intervenes keeping Arthur away and acting as if the estate has something to hide. All of these are building blocks to the Batman myth. That's why Arthur is snickering at the end when he appears to be envisioning Bruce standing at the dead bodies of his parents. The director is giving the viewer room to decide if that scene is what he's seeing or something else. But when the counselor asks him what he's thinking, he says "You wouldn't get it." Sounds like he's envisioning a man dressed like a bat.

It's a really powerful story because it truly puts you in the mind of someone who is trying to achieve balance but does not necessarily possess the tools to do this. Note his journal references about expectations of society to define "normal". Also note how he study's the comedians mannerisms on stage as opposed to his material. The same with the girl in the hallway, or the host on TV, or anyone else he bumps into. Then he writes in his journal, ' The worst part about having a mental illness, is people expect you to behave as if you don't.' It's illustrating Arthur's predicament in defining normal in a world where he has never been treated as such. He has to invent it, which is such a tragic quality in this character.

I feel so much heartache for this character throughout the film. And even when he turns violent, it feels (to your point Dark Knight) very cathartic in expression. And unfortunately its a defining moment, because he see's how different the world responds when he acts in this manner. He feels a sense of identity because he's standing up for himself. It's like a moment of rapture in which he can break free of his bonds that have imprisoned him in all of this pain and impose that feeling onto others. It's a very sad conclusion to a man who lived his entire life in quiet desperation. But its so brilliantly conveyed so you can understand it beyond the thin veil of the morality most apply to any day to day event. The pain he is now dispensing is what he wants you to know he has felt his whole life. It's a powerful statement loaded with allot of warnings about how people mistreat one another.

[The Dark Knight]

Good points Dark Knight and I definitely felt allot of that as I watched it the first time. What I thought was ingenious by Todd Phillips is how he took the comic elements and essentially incorporated those as something you could take literally or as something completely contrived in Arthur's imagination.

Exactly. A great victory for JOKER is how it is a character study and addresses societal issues, but also maintains the character's sense of mystery by introducing the unreliable narrator component. It's a great balance that doesn't diminish the Joker's appeal, allowing them to have their cake and eat it too, in a way that doesn't feel like an unsatisfying copout.

[Wayne49]

Good points Dark Knight and I definitely felt allot of that as I watched it the first time. What I thought was ingenious by Todd Phillips is how he took the comic elements and essentially incorporated those as something you could take literally or as something completely contrived in Arthur's imagination.

Exactly. A great victory for JOKER is how it is a character study and addresses societal issues, but also maintains the character's sense of mystery by introducing the unreliable narrator component. It's a great balance that doesn't diminish the Joker's appeal, allowing them to have their cake and eat it too, in a way that doesn't feel like an unsatisfying copout.

Oh you're 100% right. I didn't think that could be done (under any pretext) and Todd Phillips pulled it off. Bro fist pump and a high five you get from me. But you saw the tight rope Phillips had to walk to get there.   So here's the question... Do you make a sequel which thereby eliminates the multi-faceted question left hanging or do you let the film reside as a stand alone?

Even though the comic nerd in me is screaming to have a sequel to see Arthur match wits with Bruce Wayne grown up as Batman, the flip side loves the freedom this film gives to be it's own animal. It can be both social commentary AND a origin without the obligatory run out of sequels that can drain it of it's originality.

[The Dark Knight]

So here's the question... Do you make a sequel which thereby eliminates the multi-faceted question left hanging or do you let the film reside as a stand alone?

I posted something about that at the bottom of this thread's page 15.

[thecolorsblend]

Oh you're 100% right. I didn't think that could be done (under any pretext) and Todd Phillips pulled it off. Bro fist pump and a high five you get from me. But you saw the tight rope Phillips had to walk to get there.   So here's the question... Do you make a sequel which thereby eliminates the multi-faceted question left hanging or do you let the film reside as a stand alone?

I posted something about that at the bottom of this thread's page 15.

Same. Which went a little something like this...

Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam and now JOKER. In fact, people who seem like they're smarter than me are predicting that JOKER will cross $600 million worldwide within the next 48 hours. DC characters on film are officially on a winning streak now. Here's hoping we've rounded a corner. I don't think it's deniable anymore.

So now, the obvious question: sequel?

Honestly, I kind of oppose the principle of a sequel. This flick was meant to be a done-in-one proposition. Creating a sequel necessarily requires clarifying the murky ending of the movie and I don't think I want that. I don't think that would benefit the film. Would it be great to see another outing with Phoenix back in the makeup? Sure. But there's a magic to JOKER that I can't imagine a sequel will ever recapture.

There's a time and a place to put the dice down and make a different bet on something else. Now is that time.