All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I won't speak for those people who inboxed you, that's a bit much but I can certainly understand why people are so passionate about it, both lovers and haters of the film as it has proved extremely divisive.
The themes its exploring couldn't be more current, they're very controversial and people have strong opinions about them. Also, combine that it being supposedly, depending on your take, an origin story for probably the most iconic villain in comicdom and you are going to get a lot of emotionally driven reactions flying about.
I'm a fan of the film but I can see why others are not. It seems to me primarily an ideological debate and that's fine, I won't be firing out any messages to strangers who disagree with my opinion. To me, the film would've failed in its ambitions if it were universally liked.
For me, what has accelerated discussion of this movie in culture stems less from questions posed by the film itself, and more to do with something much more mundane.
As soon as Phillips made it clear he moved away from comedy due to the woke scolds, they had it in for Phillips and this movie. What ensued was a laughable attempt to characterise this movie as championing white supremacy, even going as far as to question why it chose to depict black characters the way it did.
That then kicked in a very defensive attitude from supporters of the movie, and deepened criticism from the woke set. It's basically become a proxy for the kind of discussions around white supremacy, intersectionality and so on that we see play out day in, day out on Twitter.
I'm someone who sits just as a casual observer that is kind of fascinated by this playing out, who is simply judging the movie on its merits.
Pros:
- Excellent aesthetic - Strong central performance - Strong scaffolding in the main plot (loser finds meaning in violence and gains prominence in an environment malleable to chaos) - Interesting angle on Thomas Wayne
Cons:
- The romantic element is not simpatico with the film; the decision to effectively make it a dream that's later revealed adds no intrigue to the story, and as a device within the script, it's simply there to reinforce the idea he is losing his mind. This is something all plot lines are there to achieve; rather than working seamlessly to reinforce the central idea, this works more to hit you over the head and lacks imagination - The whole mummy and daddy issue is just a little boring; this is best emphasised by a very dull scene when he discovers his mother's mental health issues - The De Niro thread runs through the movie, and I can see what they're doing with this slow build, but it's running parallel to the work thread, the mummy and daddy issue thread and the romantic thread, and all of these threads are working to make the same point: he is a loser searching for connection and meaning. Sure, the intention is to highlight the cumulative effect of these different areas of his life unravelling leading him to violence, but it over eggs it. And isn't especially entertaining in doing so.
I do recognise the points you and others are making about the depth of his character, but setting up a sad sack in a world owing an enormous debt to Taxi Driver and KoC gives the basis more for the conclusions derived from the movie than the movie itself.
What it does do skillfully is utilise the mythos of Nolan's Batman and Scorsese's work, and ties it up with a strong performance from Phoenix, but that's it. The film doesn't do any heavylifting in creating a world it's not overly indebted to from better movies, and as a standalone on its own merits, it doesn't really innovate even. We get a reptitive set of reasons for why his world is falling apart, and an attempt to appeal to the base instincts of humanity. So what?
I don't hate this film, I just find it as curious extension of social media with an outsized influence based on factors not linked to the quality of the movie itself.
I really don't think it's going to capture the zeitgeist in a way its supporters do, but that's just my view, and mainly for reasons listed above.
It is my opinion that you have to judge a movie on what it is. Not on what you wanted to be. Is the movie the best type of movie it tried to be, given the parameters it set out? This movie set up that it's set in its own universe, so criticism that it's not compatible with previous versions of the Joker are not valid, in my opinion. It's not trying to be that. They said it's conceived as a one off. stand alone, gritty drama, set in the 80s, that's not really connected with the DC universe movies. So, they were going for their own kinda thing. They set their creative license.
I think criticism here should be based on how you think they could have improved the movie to be the best movie given the constraints and themes they were going for.
I second this. The few professional critics I follow often check themselves when they realise they are doing it so it's definitely a perceived pitfall within that world. However, I also agree that we can't help but infuse our opinions about something with our own biases. Its almost unavoidable.
I've probably banged on about this before but the question number 1 for me when critiquing something is "Did it accomplish what it set out to achieve?" Is a horror movie scary, is a comedy funny, broadly something like that.
Having said that, even though a film might answer this question with a "Yes" you can't legislate for personal taste. Thus, you might still not give it a positive critique. The important thing is to recognize that distinction.
For me, what has accelerated discussion of this movie in culture stems less from questions posed by the film itself, and more to do with something much more mundane.
As soon as Phillips made it clear he moved away from comedy due to the woke scolds, they had it in for Phillips and this movie. What ensued was a laughable attempt to characterise this movie as championing white supremacy, even going as far as to question why it chose to depict black characters the way it did.
That then kicked in a very defensive attitude from supporters of the movie, and deepened criticism from the woke set. It's basically become a proxy for the kind of discussions around white supremacy, intersectionality and so on that we see play out day in, day out on Twitter.
I'm someone who sits just as a casual observer that is kind of fascinated by this playing out, who is simply judging the movie on its merits.
Pros:
- Excellent aesthetic - Strong central performance - Strong scaffolding in the main plot (loser finds meaning in violence and gains prominence in an environment malleable to chaos) - Interesting angle on Thomas Wayne
Cons:
- The romantic element is not simpatico with the film; the decision to effectively make it a dream that's later revealed adds no intrigue to the story, and as a device within the script, it's simply there to reinforce the idea he is losing his mind. This is something all plot lines are there to achieve; rather than working seamlessly to reinforce the central idea, this works more to hit you over the head and lacks imagination - The whole mummy and daddy issue is just a little boring; this is best emphasised by a very dull scene when he discovers his mother's mental health issues - The De Niro thread runs through the movie, and I can see what they're doing with this slow build, but it's running parallel to the work thread, the mummy and daddy issue thread and the romantic thread, and all of these threads are working to make the same point: he is a loser searching for connection and meaning. Sure, the intention is to highlight the cumulative effect of these different areas of his life unravelling leading him to violence, but it over eggs it. And isn't especially entertaining in doing so.
I do recognise the points you and others are making about the depth of his character, but setting up a sad sack in a world owing an enormous debt to Taxi Driver and KoC gives the basis more for the conclusions derived from the movie than the movie itself.
What it does do skillfully is utilise the mythos of Nolan's Batman and Scorsese's work, and ties it up with a strong performance from Phoenix, but that's it. The film doesn't do any heavylifting in creating a world it's not overly indebted to from better movies, and as a standalone on its own merits, it doesn't really innovate even. We get a reptitive set of reasons for why his world is falling apart, and an attempt to appeal to the base instincts of humanity. So what?
I don't hate this film, I just find it as curious extension of social media with an outsized influence based on factors not linked to the quality of the movie itself.
I really don't think it's going to capture the zeitgeist in a way its supporters do, but that's just my view, and mainly for reasons listed above.
Good points, acute observations, all well articulated.
Honestly, I check out of most of that overtly moralising, reactionary, tribalist "debate" going on in the culture right now. A lot of it is silly and said just to be polarising, just to have opinion, to pick a side and defend it to the last. Whether you are jumping on what's considered progressive popular thought or looking to ruffle feathers, the majority of it is just noise. For a lot of people, it doesn't matter if you actually believe in what you are saying or not. the important thing is that you are heard, that you are chiming in with your two cents. "Empty vessels make the most noise" kind of thing. Which is one of the themes touched on in Joker actually.
And yeah, as I said originally, I do agree that the "relationship" with his neighbour is one of the film's weaker elements. Plus, in parts, it does wear its influences all too obviously.
Good points, acute observations, all well articulated.
Honestly, I check out of most of that overtly moralising, reactionary, tribalist "debate" going on in the culture right now. A lot of it is silly and said just to be polarising, just to have opinion, to pick a side and defend it to the last. Whether you are jumping on what's considered progressive popular thought or looking to ruffle feathers, the majority of it is just noise. For a lot of people, it doesn't matter if you actually believe in what you are saying or not. the important thing is that you are heard, that you are chiming in with your two cents. "Empty vessels make the most noise" kind of thing. Which is one of the themes touched on in Joker actually.
And yeah, as I said originally, I do agree that the "relationship" with his neighbour is one of the film's weaker elements. Plus, in parts, it does wear its influences all too obviously.
On the money time and again with the debates we are seeing play out.
It's incredibly tiresome. There is room for good debate online, and funnily enough I'm actually working on a social media app (which has a 0.000000001% chance of succeeding) to address these issues but also *the* issues.
Back to Joker, yeah, we just see the movie differently, which is all good
The beauty of film, of course, is that there really isn't a right or wrong. We can assess movies on an intellectual level, and go back and forth on their merits, but ultimately it's all just an opinion.
It's incredibly tiresome. There is room for good debate online, and funnily enough I'm actually working on a social media app (which has a 0.000000001% chance of succeeding) to address these issues but also *the* issues.
Back to Joker, yeah, we just see the movie differently, which is all good
The beauty of film, of course, is that there really isn't a right or wrong. We can assess movies on an intellectual level, and go back and forth on their merits, but ultimately it's all just an opinion.
Right. As I said in a previous post, for the type of film Joker is, I feel it would've dropped the ball somewhere if it were getting Shawshank levels of appreciation.
Oh wow, what's more depressing than this movie. It had such powerful affect on me that I'd never recomend it to anyone.
I also think that it should ended differently or earlier when he was lying sprawled on the car. And they could show us him being captured. But the last scene was very much extra and added nothing. The movie otherwise was making a lot of sense.
The last scene was important for the whole King of Comedy thing: Did any of it even happen, or was the whole thing just in his head and he's been in a mental asylum the whole time.
The last scene was important for the whole King of Comedy thing: Did any of it even happen, or was the whole thing just in his head and he's been in a mental asylum the whole time.
Well that just makes the whole movie trivial. It�s like telling a screenwriter not to make anything about it being someone�s dream.
The ending is what saved it in my opinion. The whole film we're projecting our own thought of what the Joker should be on to Arthur. He's not focused on causing mayhem and destruction but trying to spread smiles across the world. He reaching outside of himself for love and affection because he doesn't love himself. He knows he's f'd in the head, making things worse. SPOILERS!!!!!! I warned you. This last scene when he's talking with his social worker in the asylum. He laughs to himself. She asks:"what's funny? He says " I just thought of a joke." She asked him to tell her. He says: "No you wouldn't get it......" At that point Arthur stopped being funny. He stopped looking at the good in people because they will never understand him. He finally closed himself off from the world. Thus becoming the JOKER.
Dull. Less dull than most of the other superhero ones this decade, I guess, but more dull than any of the movies it's riffing on, by a long shot. A cheap remake of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, but more so just a cheap remake of Death Wish without the chutzpah to take a stance. Because really, whether you're there to tearjerk about how hard society makes life for people like Fleck or there to gloat that a sense of impotence sometimes leads to violence, you're actually just watching a movie about some guy who becomes a famous vigilante. We used to be able to do that story without all the pretensions of nihilism and ponderous stylistic posturing.
I didn't think the directing was particularly good. The tone wobbled between Scorsese, Death Wish, and generic arthouse, and the performances were just kind of dour. Some GREAT shots of Joker walking around, though.
To me this one was a classic example of content passing for theme. This movie's not "about" mental illness, or the state of society today, or how violence metastasizes, or what tips people from alienation to violence. It just kinda has those ideas in it, and says nothing about any of them. And frankly, a lot of that stuff -- the question of perspective, the reality of violence and power, etc. -- was done first, better, and cleaner by Nolan's film, in a couple conflicting stories about where the poor guy got those scars.
Anyway, some great-looking shots and especially a wonderful look for the city. Joaquin unsurprisingly good, though the role didn't give him near as much to play as De Niro got to in King and Driver. Fleck running in clown shoes was a highlight for the physical performance. The scene with the poor fellow unable to reach the lock to get out of the apartment was a rare but happy instance of the tone going right and finding some actual teeth.
If the choice is only more superhero movies like Marvel or more superhero movies but some are like this, I vote this, I guess. If this can help get real movies and real characters back into cinemas, that would be awesome.
SPOILERS FOR JOKER AND FOR KING OF COMEDY
The ending is the easy way to differentiate Scorsese's talent from this. When King ends, "it's real" and "it's in his head" are both *plausible* possibilities that deepen the narrative either way. Which ending would we prefer for De Niro's character? What do we think he deserves? What does each ending say about how our society reacts to such people? What does our preference say about us as viewers?
In contrast, Joker gives us two equally boring options: either some/all of it was a fantasy, or we just watched a story about a vigilante who inspired some other losers to riot. The first is plausible but boring; the second is implausible even as presented, yet asking to be taken grimly, deadly seriously.
Dull. Less dull than most of the other superhero ones this decade, I guess, but more dull than any of the movies it's riffing on, by a long shot. A cheap remake of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, but more so just a cheap remake of Death Wish without the chutzpah to take a stance. Because really, whether you're there to tearjerk about how hard society makes life for people like Fleck or there to gloat that a sense of impotence sometimes leads to violence, you're actually just watching a movie about some guy who becomes a famous vigilante. We used to be able to do that story without all the pretensions of nihilism and ponderous stylistic posturing.
I didn't think the directing was particularly good. The tone wobbled between Scorsese, Death Wish, and generic arthouse, and the performances were just kind of dour. Some GREAT shots of Joker walking around, though.
To me this one was a classic example of content passing for theme. This movie's not "about" mental illness, or the state of society today, or how violence metastasizes, or what tips people from alienation to violence. It just kinda has those ideas in it, and says nothing about any of them. And frankly, a lot of that stuff -- the question of perspective, the reality of violence and power, etc. -- was done first, better, and cleaner by Nolan's film, in a couple conflicting stories about where the poor guy got those scars.
Anyway, some great-looking shots and especially a wonderful look for the city. Joaquin unsurprisingly good, though the role didn't give him near as much to play as De Niro got to in King and Driver. Fleck running in clown shoes was a highlight for the physical performance. The scene with the poor fellow unable to reach the lock to get out of the apartment was a rare but happy instance of the tone going right and finding some actual teeth.
If the choice is only more superhero movies like Marvel or more superhero movies but some are like this, I vote this, I guess. If this can help get real movies and real characters back into cinemas, that would be awesome.
SPOILERS FOR JOKER AND FOR KING OF COMEDY
The ending is the easy way to differentiate Scorsese's talent from this. When King ends, "it's real" and "it's in his head" are both *plausible* possibilities that deepen the narrative either way. Which ending would we prefer for De Niro's character? What do we think he deserves? What does each ending say about how our society reacts to such people? What does our preference say about us as viewers?
In contrast, Joker gives us two equally boring options: either some/all of it was a fantasy, or we just watched a story about a vigilante who inspired some other losers to riot. The first is plausible but boring; the second is implausible even as presented, yet asking to be taken grimly, deadly seriously.
Still haven't seen this. I'm officially intrigued. Many conflicting opinions among people whose opinion I usually trust. Rare that that'll happen. A close friend made a projection that I would hate it. We'll see.
I did make a point to see The King of Comedy based on the constant name-dropping in Joker conversations. I thought it was quite good, particularly the ending (that is to say, the "act"). I wouldn't call it spectacular though. It also almost felt like I'd seen it already, given all the hubbub. Will be interesting to see how the parallels play out in Joker.
Pages: 
Author
Joker
Logged
Locked Board