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.
Oh, yes, all caps for this flick! What a great week for a geek like me! Joker gets released and the DC Universe just announced a call for scripts and ideas (check out my other thread in 'contests').
No Spoilers!
Joker is a serious and dark take on Gotham and society as a whole. This is no fairy tale and could be happening as I write this. Just an absolute brilliant take on the Joker origin story. If Ledger got an Oscar for his portrayal, Phoenix is destined for the podium!
I grew up in NJ and they portrayed Gotham just how I remember NYC as a kid in the late '70's. Garbage strike and all.
Could have been so much more. The idea was there. Aesthetically it was there. The cast was good. However, the movie was pretty straight-forward. It is what you pretty much expect it to be.
The movie could have been much more interesting if they didn't make the Joker to be so much of a victim.
Incredible Central performance, legendary cinematography and a really bold and interesting journey that was both tragic and comedic, disturbing and inspirational.
Incredible Central performance, legendary cinematography and a really bold and interesting journey that was both tragic and comedic, disturbing and inspirational.
Never thought I would hear that about a Todd Phillips flick. Gotta check this out.
Gotta admit, I'm increasingly intrigued by this one. I had absolutely no interest at first, from the initial announcement up to and including the trailer (Joaquin Phoenix notwithstanding); I've had enough of superheroes and all things related, even "darker"/more adult takes like The Boys. My interest was piqued when the controversy and comparisons to Scorsese/King of Comedy started to roll in. I didn't even realize The King of Comedy was a thing to anybody, but the plot sounds terrific and an oddly specific/random thing to be compared to (need to watch ASAP).
Since then, I've heard many a great thing from my personal go-to critics/Internet personalities -- folks who wouldn't normally be into this sorta thing. The negative reviews have largely painted it as something I'd really like to see, despite the intention usually being the opposite. Seems very polarizing and imperfect, but a lot of the best stuff is. I think I've got reasonable expectations at this point. I'm expecting something like Watchmen: bleak, gruesome, and entertaining but surface-level and subtely-free despite much reaching (with the director bearing the brunt of scrutiny)... could be a bit of fun.
That said, I'll wait to catch it at home. Flick is 2 hours plus 20-30 minutes of (mostly) bad trailers. Not trying to sink my weekend on another okay-ish franchise film that's longer than it needs to be. But I'm interested.
The Villain's Journey has arrived! Joker takes the hero's arc and reverses it. The story is good, could be better, but what ultimately raises this is to epic is Joaquin Phoenix's amazing performance.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Get it while you can! It was posted on a certain site a week or so ago and then pulled in a flash, so it might not last... Unless it makes Awards season nominees.
Get it while you can! It was posted on a certain site a week or so ago and then pulled in a flash, so it might not last... Unless it makes Awards season nominees.
Nope - misses for me. Yes, Joaquin is amazing - kudos for the performance. I just felt the story was a bit empty - Joker starts at the near bottom and descends further.
My main grips as an origin story as I can't imagine how this particular character would ever evolve to the arch villain Joker. He has little physical ability, no mental acuity, no special talents. I think he needed to be a brilliant dude that devolved.
I loved it but agree with Dave that I can’t see where this Joker goes on to become an arfch-villain... but that’s completely fine for me as I see this as a one-off and totally stand alone drama.
Nope - misses for me. Yes, Joaquin is amazing - kudos for the performance. I just felt the story was a bit empty - Joker starts at the near bottom and descends further.
My main grips as an origin story as I can't imagine how this particular character would ever evolve to the arch villain Joker. He has little physical ability, no mental acuity, no special talents. I think he needed to be a brilliant dude that devolved.
Each to their own, but I feel that you're bringing in false expectations and judging the film based on what you wanted it to be, rather than what it is.
It's called Joker, not The Joker. Who says he's the actual Joker? And who says the actual Joker is even one person?
Nobody knows "The Joker's" real name or his real origin, that's part of the fun.
His most common name is Jack Napier, but he often says in the comics that he can't remember his own past and he prefers it to be multiple choice.
He's been John Doe, Jack Napier and Melvin Reipan (Napier backwards), and now Arthur Fleck.
In the comics it's frequently the real joker who kills the Waynes...it wasn't Fleck who did that in this movie. It was a random guy in a clown mask...was that the actual Joker?
As Philips himself said: “Maybe Joaquin’s character inspired the Joker,” Phillips said. “You don’t really know.”
I also think a lot of people are missing some essential things:
1. Whether any of the events even happened at all, or whether it was all a King of Comedy type delusion and he's been in a mental hospital the whole time.
2. The central point that everything is perspective.
What's funny and what's not is entirely subjective. What some find offensive or even terrifying, to someone else can be hilarious.
It's the same with the idea he descended further. From whose perspective? From, our 'normal' perspective he's gone insane, but from other people's perspective he's a hero.
That was the real genius of the story, for me. It was a very truthful appraisal of violence. Of its power to make impotence itself impotent. All you have to do to get respect is smash someone's head in....and if enough of you do it, you become the Kings and rulers and you get to impose your perspective on people. That is the joke.
I really liked this, very powerful, visceral and unapologetically miserablist. Fascinating character study, so timely. It followed through with its convictions. The unremittingly bleak tone will be trying for some. However, for me, there are just enough punctuations of twisted humour and manic elation to stop it becoming a slog. In fact, there more than a couple of really standout, bravura sequences, plus a healthy dose of weirdness..and all from a mainstream studio film that's cleaning up at the box office? Ironically, there is hope after all!
Most of us would've known Joaquin Phoenix had this performance in him. In my opinion. he has been the best actor of the past decade since his "return". My biggest surprise was, as someone else mentioned, who knew Todd Phillips had this in him? Other than his college documentary "Hated" I haven't been a fan of his work so I wasn't anticipating this at all, Phoenix's inclusion notwithstanding. He seems to have come full circle in a way from that aforementioned doc. I was proved wrong, well done, sir.
The score should also get special mention. Somewhere between haunting and ecstatic, depending on what images it was accompanying. See public bathroom scene.
My one big criticism was his imagined relationship with his neighbour because it was so obvious. I was waiting for it to be revealed as that since it would've made zero sense otherwise.
Not to pile on Dave's comment but I think the fact that Arthur isn't particularly smart, or charismatic or strong is part of the point. He's a symbol of the disenfranchised and disaffected, he has tapped into the raging pulse of the zeitgeist, he's the instigator...and that's all it takes. In times of stress and desperation, he is exactly the type of person people will turn to for answers or guidance. See POTUS I take your point about it seeming at odds with the traditional DC Joker but I can't speak to that as I'm not well versed on the lore. I do see a kinship between this Joker and Heath Ledger's though.
Also great to see Robert De Niro in a substantial role referencing King of Comedy. An often overlooked (but increasingly less so) Scorsese gem.
I think Dave's point is not so much that people wouldn't follow him, more that Fleck is not capable of doing the things the Joker traditionally does. In all representations of him, he's always super smart and inventive, capable of creating advanced technology, bio chemical weapons and creating vast, complex plots.
But I don't think he's The Joker. He's just A Joker.
but I feel that you're bringing in false expectations and judging the film based on what you wanted it to be, rather than what it is.
I think this is the main problem with most critisim.
Who says that in this NEW version of the story, THE Joker has to be super smart and inventive? Maybe he just has a huge following and is super chaotic. Maybe he'll die in the first encounter with Batman. Maybe he'll become some sort of a cultural icon. The rules you know about THE Joker don't have to apply here. This is a new universe, with its own story and rules.
Each to their own, but I feel that you're bringing in false expectations and judging the film based on what you wanted it to be, rather than what it is.
It's called Joker, not The Joker. Who says he's the actual Joker? And who says the actual Joker is even one person?
Nobody knows "The Joker's" real name or his real origin, that's part of the fun.
His most common name is Jack Napier, but he often says in the comics that he can't remember his own past and he prefers it to be multiple choice.
He's been John Doe, Jack Napier and Melvin Reipan (Napier backwards), and now Arthur Fleck.
In the comics it's frequently the real joker who kills the Waynes...it wasn't Fleck who did that in this movie. It was a random guy in a clown mask...was that the actual Joker?
As Philips himself said: “Maybe Joaquin’s character inspired the Joker,” Phillips said. “You don’t really know.”
I also think a lot of people are missing some essential things:
1. Whether any of the events even happened at all, or whether it was all a King of Comedy type delusion and he's been in a mental hospital the whole time.
2. The central point that everything is perspective.
What's funny and what's not is entirely subjective. What some find offensive or even terrifying, to someone else can be hilarious.
It's the same with the idea he descended further. From whose perspective? From, our 'normal' perspective he's gone insane, but from other people's perspective he's a hero.
That was the real genius of the story, for me. It was a very truthful appraisal of violence. Of its power to make impotence itself impotent. All you have to do to get respect is smash someone's head in....and if enough of you do it, you become the Kings and rulers and you get to impose your perspective on people. That is the joke.
And yet I still didn't like it for the reasons I stated. Glad you did.
There’s something about this film that makes people oddly defensive of it.
I wrote a throwaway comment not too dissimilar to what’s written here on a public Facebook thread, and a few guys inboxed me to query how I couldn’t see why it’s so brilliant.
For me, that’s a more interesting question than any posed by the film!
I think this is the main problem with most critisim.
Who says that in this NEW version of the story, THE Joker has to be super smart and inventive? Maybe he just has a huge following and is super chaotic. Maybe he'll die in the first encounter with Batman. Maybe he'll become some sort of a cultural icon. The rules you know about THE Joker don't have to apply here. This is a new universe, with its own story and rules.
The main problem...???
Pretty much all criticism of film is basically rooted in what you wanted the film to be. There's nothing invalid about an expectation that something marketed as the Joker's origin story would be the origin story of THE Joker rather than A Joker. That was my personal promise of the premise. I can't certainly understand if the expectation was different for others. But bringing one's own expectations into play when reviewing any film is not a problem. It's inherent.
But let's put that aside - there are other reasons I didn't like the film despite a great performance - I simply didn't find a character arc of a man starting in madness descending further into madness all that compelling. I would have found it more compelling if it were a full descent from normalcy. Again - yes that is rooted in my expectations - but that doesn't make it any less valid.
I had a similar reaction to Judy - another film with a stellar performance by an actor that I thought missed. Too much of it focused on Judy in her last six weeks rather that the full arc of her story.
There’s something about this film that makes people oddly defensive of it.
I wrote a throwaway comment not too dissimilar to what’s written here on a public Facebook thread, and a few guys inboxed me to query how I couldn’t see why it’s so brilliant.
For me, that’s a more interesting question than any posed by the film!
I think Dave's point is not so much that people wouldn't follow him, more that Fleck is not capable of doing the things the Joker traditionally does. In all representations of him, he's always super smart and inventive, capable of creating advanced technology, bio chemical weapons and creating vast, complex plots.
But I don't think he's The Joker. He's just A Joker.
There’s something about this film that makes people oddly defensive of it.
I wrote a throwaway comment not too dissimilar to what’s written here on a public Facebook thread, and a few guys inboxed me to query how I couldn’t see why it’s so brilliant.
For me, that’s a more interesting question than any posed by the film!
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.
As for issues with the character arc starting at a low place and only descending. To most people, or at least the decent people among us, yes that is his trajectory but in Arthur's eyes, he doesn't descend, he ascends. He is finally heard, appreciated, people start to take notice of him. more than he ever could have imagined. He's gone beyond caring if its for the right reasons though.
.... his trajectory but in Arthur eyes, he doesn't descend, he ascends. He is finally heard, appreciated, people start to take notice of him. more than he ever could have imagined. He's gone beyond caring if its for the right reasons though.
That is an interesting take. I didn't look at it from that perspective. Food for thought.
Pretty much all criticism of film is basically rooted in what you wanted the film to be. There's nothing invalid about an expectation that something marketed as the Joker's origin story would be the origin story of THE Joker rather than A Joker. That was my personal promise of the premise. I can't certainly understand if the expectation was different for others. But bringing one's own expectations into play when reviewing any film is not a problem. It's inherent.
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.
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 appreciate your opinion. Just don't agree with it.
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.
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.
Caught this last night. Definitely had its number from the getgo.
Quoted Text
...something like Watchmen: bleak, gruesome, and entertaining but surface-level and subtely-free despite much reaching (with the director bearing the brunt of scrutiny)
In fact, I'd say this was several kicks down from Watchmen, which I happen to have many issues with in and of itself. Watchmen still has original dialogue from Alan Moore, which is often thoughtful and evocative, no matter how clunky/embarrassing the acting/directing makes it seem. That quality of writing is definitely missing in Joker. It's not so much reaching for bigger themes as it is gesturing at them, if not just name-dropping. The whole rich vs. poor "theme" in particular was absolutely DOA.
The Scorsese comparisons are on point in a sense but don't amount to anything. You can tell Todd Phillips wants you to know he's seen those films, but the influences aren't substantive. Where they seem substantive, I think it's generally just riding coattails. Something seems to work in Joker because they worked in King of Comedy, say, and Joker makes you think of King of Comedy (based on some superficial visual or narrative reference).
At the same time, I more or less enjoyed the film. Joaquin Phoenix is great, of course. I don't think the film can really take credit for that; he's gonna do his thing no matter what. But he does help. And while many of the sequences are obvious (I'm sure thousands of comic book nerds/wannabe screenwriters have conceived of the exact same stairs sequence, song and all), they are fun to have seen actualized. I also do have to give the film credit that I never really thought of it in terms of Batman, comic books, or anything like that even though it's totally tied to a franchise. That's gotta be a small victory, for sure.
I'm also glad it was made. For all intents and purposes, this is a character study. It's not smart or deep (far from it), but it's the kind of flick I'm glad to see make a billion dollars. That goes double for it being as ugly as it is. Certainly the ugliest film to make a billion dollars, which is another win as far as I'm concerned.
But... definitely overblown. People have called this a masterpiece. HA!!! I'd love to have that kind of mindset; you'd get to see a masterpiece practically every week by that metric. Also, people were offended by this? Before it even came out??!! Some folks need to get a fucking life!
Caught this last night. Definitely had its number from the getgo.
In fact, I'd say this was several kicks down from Watchmen, which I happen to have many issues with in and of itself. Watchmen still has original dialogue from Alan Moore, which is often thoughtful and evocative, no matter how clunky/embarrassing the acting/directing makes it seem. That quality of writing is definitely missing in Joker. It's not so much reaching for bigger themes as it is gesturing at them, if not just name-dropping. The whole rich vs. poor "theme" in particular was absolutely DOA.
The Scorsese comparisons are on point in a sense but don't amount to anything. You can tell Todd Phillips wants you to know he's seen those films, but the influences aren't substantive. Where they seem substantive, I think it's generally just riding coattails. Something seems to work in Joker because they worked in King of Comedy, say, and Joker makes you think of King of Comedy (based on some superficial visual or narrative reference).
At the same time, I more or less enjoyed the film. Joaquin Phoenix is great, of course. I don't think the film can really take credit for that; he's gonna do his thing no matter what. But he does help. And while many of the sequences are obvious (I'm sure thousands of comic book nerds/wannabe screenwriters have conceived of the exact same stairs sequence, song and all), they are fun to have seen actualized. I also do have to give the film credit that I never really thought of it in terms of Batman, comic books, or anything like that even though it's totally tied to a franchise. That's gotta be a small victory, for sure.
I'm also glad it was made. For all intents and purposes, this is a character study. It's not smart or deep (far from it), but it's the kind of flick I'm glad to see make a billion dollars. That goes double for it being as ugly as it is. Certainly the ugliest film to make a billion dollars, which is another win as far as I'm concerned.
But... definitely overblown. People have called this a masterpiece. HA!!! I'd love to have that kind of mindset; you'd get to see a masterpiece practically every week by that metric. Also, people were offended by this? Before it even came out??!! Some folks need to get a fucking life!
It's a difficult film to talk about because ultimately there are two schools of thought:
1. It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others.
This school of thought sees how heavily layered each scene is in terms of psychology, power structure, entitlement, race, gender, perspective etc and marvel at how the film subverted the Hollywood 'Rags to riches" template and forged its own identity by using obvious influences while managing to transcend them in the process.
2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched.
Only joking, of course
It's a great film that will be talked about for years. It's the only film I've seen for a long, long time that has provoked conversation amongst normal people. Hairdressers leaving their station to offer their opinion on it, couple's arguing about it in a restaurant. Only great films do that.
The film got eleven nominations in the Baftas, more than even Once Upon a Time and The Irishman...films directed by legendary Directors... so it's comfortably in the masterpiece territory based on expert opinion.
Wow, James. I'm totally with Rick here. I thought it was a VERY powerful film. Hard to watch at times, but brilliant regardless. I think this will be a classic for sure. I mean, who even talks about Shape of Water or Moonlight anymore? Joaquin should absolutely win an Oscar for his performance, IMO.
It's a difficult film to talk about because ultimately there are two schools of thought:
1. It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others.
This school of thought sees how heavily layered each scene is in terms of psychology, power structure, entitlement, race, gender, perspective etc and marvel at how the film subverted the Hollywood 'Rags to riches" template and forged its own identity by using obvious influences while managing to transcend them in the process.
2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched.
Only joking, of course
It's a great film that will be talked about for years. It's the only film I've seen for a long, long time that has provoked conversation amongst normal people. Hairdressers leaving their station to offer their opinion on it, couple's arguing about it in a restaurant. Only great films do that.
The film got eleven nominations in the Baftas, more than even Once Upon a Time and The Irishman...films directed by legendary Directors... so it's comfortably in the masterpiece territory based on expert opinion.
I see you're one of the "masterpiece" folks. Not my intention to call anyone out, as it were; I've listened to a lot of podcasts recently where people have called the film a masterpiece. Very popular amongst comedians, strangely.
Anyway, I appreciate your take. I meant what I said in my initial post. If I'd had a different mindset, I would've had the more positive experience between the two parties. That'd be a win, I expect.
I do think conceptually, the film is inherently compelling. I mean, I was adamant about avoiding it back when I thought it'd be just another comic book movie and was successfully flipped in the end. Rare that that'll happen, especially with a film like this, which is still a franchise film at the end of the day. I also agree films that are polarizing and create discussion are usually successful films. Even from the other side, the fact that this film has been so polarizing does mean something to me.
Just so happens I was less than impressed with the execution this time around. That doesn't mean much, frankly. Ultimately, I can't say I didn't enjoy the film, and there are still many things about it that I do appreciate, including being able to join in on an interesting discussion.
Wow, James. I'm totally with Rick here. I thought it was a VERY powerful film. Hard to watch at times, but brilliant regardless. I think this will be a classic for sure. I mean, who even talks about Shape of Water or Moonlight anymore? Joaquin should absolutely win an Oscar for his performance, IMO.
Nice to see a standout film for a change!
Hey Pia! Didn’t see you there. Looks like we posted around the same time.
Believe me, I really wanna like this more than I did. The general approach, vibe, and themes are all firmly in my wheelhouse. In fact, I think that might be part of the reason why I expected more from it. As bleak as it is, I still feel like a lot of the heavier stuff was handled in too broad strokes. Although based on some folks’ response, perhaps it might’ve been too much for some people if it went the way I expected and wouldn’t have been as successful (said success being an absolute win IMO; that would’ve been the case even if I hated the film).
Agreed on the rest though. Phoenix absolutely deserves an Oscar. In fact, I had to check just now to see if he’s ever gotten one (I always assumed he had) and he hasn’t. Borderline disgraceful. This really oughta be the year.
I guess I had trouble with this because it felt like it was reaching for profundity that it never got to. It really felt a lot like an emo 14 year old's journal. The characterisation of the Joker is really "stacked" in such a way to evoke sympathy and almost in an attempt to excuse his violence. Literally everybody in his life mistreats him and his life is impossibly bleak. It also keeps touching on class issues but never really explores them in any real way; there's a great thought in there about how Arthur's experience of violence begets more violence due to his position in life, and Batman's experience of violence makes a super hero. But instead, we get an A to B to C plot with everything explained the natural result of the event before it.
It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others.
Makes me think of Pauline Kael on Straw Dogs:
Quoted Text
What I am saying, I fear, is that Sam Peckinpah, who is an artist, has, with Straw Dogs, made the first American film that is a fascist work of art. It has an impact far beyond the greedy, opportunistic, fascist Dirty Harry or the stupid, reactionary The Cowboys, because—and here, as a woman, I must guess—it gets at the roots of the fantasies that men carry from earliest childhood. It confirms their secret fears and prejudices that women respect only brutes; it confirms the male insanity that there is no such thing as rape. The movie taps a sexual fascism—that is what machismo is—that is so much a part of folklore that it's on the underside of many an educated consciousness and is rampant among the uneducated. It’s what comes out in David’s character—what gives him that faintly smug expression at the end. Violence is erotic in the movie because a man’s prowess is in fighting and loving. The one earns him the right to the other. You can see why Peckinpah loaded the dice against David at the beginning: he had to make David such a weakling that only killing could rouse him to manhood. [...]Despite Peckinpah’s artistry, there’s something basically grim and crude in Straw Dogs. It’s no news that men are capable of violence, but while most of us want to find ways to control that violence, Sam Peckinpah wants us to know that that’s all hypocrisy. He’s discovered the territorial imperative and wants to spread the Neanderthal word.
Anyway, it's interesting to hear you articulate the main strengths of the movie for you, Rick. And it's definitely true that wide release movies aren't typically thematically coherent enough to be explained this way, or gutsy enough to take a stance on the Big Questions.
I dare say this has been growing on me. I might revisit with a friend who's a big Joker fan. He'd been intentionally avoiding this one but seemed to come around after we'd discussed my experience (I don't think he was crazy about the take, initially, and he's something of a Jack Nicholson fanboy -- don't see a lot of those around, do you?).
At the very least, I'll concede that this is not several kicks down from Watchmen. I tend to look back at Watchmen through Rorschach-colored glasses, but I forgot how much dumb shit there is in that movie. Plus Todd Phillips is definitely a couple kicks up from Zack Snyder, Hangover sequels and all. But again, I enjoyed and was dismayed by both films.
It's a difficult film to talk about because ultimately there are two schools of thought:
1. It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others.
This school of thought sees how heavily layered each scene is in terms of psychology, power structure, entitlement, race, gender, perspective etc and marvel at how the film subverted the Hollywood 'Rags to riches" template and forged its own identity by using obvious influences while managing to transcend them in the process.
2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched.
Only joking, of course
Three schools:
3. Those who think it's neither a masterpiece nor trash, just mediocre.
I was fully invested in Phoenix's performance almost immediately. I felt sympathy for Arthur; I felt Phoenix did a good job of showing Arthur's anger and humiliation at not being able to control his nervous laughter condition. Those moments were effective, I thought.
But after the subway killing, I felt the movie jumped the rail and only grew more and more preposterous as it went along -- and took Phoenix's performance with it. Even ignoring the lazy, cause-and-effect movie psychology (I'm an experienced social worker and dual diagnosis counselor, I know what real mental illness looks like), so much of what happens in the movie makes no sense. For instance, a single subway shooting involving a guy in clown make-up immediately inspires a violent and murderous city-wide revolt with people killing police in the street?
I've read some fans arguing that the movie is supposed to be preposterous, that the subway shooting was Arthur's breaking point that detached him from reality and that everything that happens after that point is all in his head. But that's a lame excuse, IMO, and is basically the same thing as the ol' "it was all a dream" twist. And even if that is the case, the final scene blows that notion right out of the water.
Phoenix is a fantastic actor, but I think he's given better performances than this, in better films than this. For this movie to be given 11 nominations would make me believe that every other movie this year was so turd-tastic that this flick must have looked like pure gold in comparison. But I know that's not true, because I've seen better movies and better lead performances this year. The only thing I would have nominated this flick for would be the cinematography. It really captures the gritty big city feel of the early '80s, while also making it feel modern.
Phoenix deserves an Oscar. And I'm sure some day he'll get it. But not for this performance, and not for this film.
3. Those who think it's neither a masterpiece nor trash, just mediocre.
I was fully invested in Phoenix's performance almost immediately. I felt sympathy for Arthur; I felt Phoenix did a good job of showing Arthur's anger and humiliation at not being able to control his nervous laughter condition. Those moments were effective, I thought.
But after the subway killing, I felt the movie jumped the rail and only grew more and more preposterous as it went along -- and took Phoenix's performance with it. Even ignoring the lazy, cause-and-effect movie psychology (I'm an experienced social worker and dual diagnosis counselor, I know what real mental illness looks like), so much of what happens in the movie makes no sense. For instance, a single subway shooting involving a guy in clown make-up immediately inspires a violent and murderous city-wide revolt with people killing police in the street?
I've read some fans arguing that the movie is supposed to be preposterous, that the subway shooting was Arthur's breaking point that detached him from reality and that everything that happens after that point is all in his head. But that's a lame excuse, IMO, and is basically the same thing as the ol' "it was all a dream" twist. And even if that is the case, the final scene blows that notion right out of the water.
Phoenix is a fantastic actor, but I think he's given better performances than this, in better films than this. For this movie to be given 11 nominations would make me believe that every other movie this year was so turd-tastic that this flick must have looked like pure gold in comparison. But I know that's not true, because I've seen better movies and better lead performances this year. The only thing I would have nominated this flick for would be the cinematography. It really captures the gritty big city feel of the early '80s, while also making it feel modern.
Phoenix deserves an Oscar. And I'm sure some day he'll get it. But not for this performance, and not for this film.
3. Those who think it's neither a masterpiece nor trash, just mediocre.
I was fully invested in Phoenix's performance almost immediately. I felt sympathy for Arthur; I felt Phoenix did a good job of showing Arthur's anger and humiliation at not being able to control his nervous laughter condition. Those moments were effective, I thought.
But after the subway killing, I felt the movie jumped the rail and only grew more and more preposterous as it went along -- and took Phoenix's performance with it. Even ignoring the lazy, cause-and-effect movie psychology (I'm an experienced social worker and dual diagnosis counselor, I know what real mental illness looks like), so much of what happens in the movie makes no sense. For instance, a single subway shooting involving a guy in clown make-up immediately inspires a violent and murderous city-wide revolt with people killing police in the street?
I've read some fans arguing that the movie is supposed to be preposterous, that the subway shooting was Arthur's breaking point that detached him from reality and that everything that happens after that point is all in his head. But that's a lame excuse, IMO, and is basically the same thing as the ol' "it was all a dream" twist. And even if that is the case, the final scene blows that notion right out of the water.
Phoenix is a fantastic actor, but I think he's given better performances than this, in better films than this. For this movie to be given 11 nominations would make me believe that every other movie this year was so turd-tastic that this flick must have looked like pure gold in comparison. But I know that's not true, because I've seen better movies and better lead performances this year. The only thing I would have nominated this flick for would be the cinematography. It really captures the gritty big city feel of the early '80s, while also making it feel modern.
Phoenix deserves an Oscar. And I'm sure some day he'll get it. But not for this performance, and not for this film.
My two cents.
1. A single shooting didn't cause the unrest, it sparked an already inflamed situation in a dog eat dog world where the economy and the moral framework of the country had already broken down.
It's going back to the central point that humans only need a small excuse to become violent.
It's a profound mirror of the real world, where before it was released Left wing papers were worrying that the film itself might spark copy cat violence.
2. The movie is silent on whether he's mentally ill or not. It's deliberately ambiguous...another example of its subtle genius that people are missing.
Is his laughter condition real? We don't know. Sometimes he can control it. Is he mentally ill? We don't know. None of his medication has any effect. Is that because he's not actually mentally ill?
What a pile of shite. I watched this last night and was really let down with the preposterous story and stupid acting. I didn't believe Joaquin at all. Anyone calling this a masterpiece is clearly a sheep - following the herd, baaing away.
Pages: 
Author
Joker
Logged
I take your point about it seeming at odds with the traditional DC Joker but I can't speak to that as I'm not well versed on the lore. I do see a kinship between this Joker and Heath Ledger's though. 
Locked Board