Film Joker (2019)

[arthurka]

It was bloody fantastic. Watched it again after a long time and absolutely loved it. This one didn't hold me for more than 20 minutes on second viewing. Mostly because its so straightforward and unsubtle. A few posters above have captured those limitations pretty well.

I have a son and "sadly" have to watch all of this nonsense again and again. I will say this the Nolan Batman trilogy is probably the best superhero trilogy out there. But that isn´t really saying much.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I have a son and "sadly" have to watch all of this nonsense again and again. I will say this the Nolan Batman trilogy is probably the best superhero trilogy out there. But that isn´t really saying much.

Smart kid. Superhero movies tend to be mediocre. But this one was an exception. And IMO this comparison is one of those rare ones where the realistic film is nowhere near as good as the comic book blockbuster.

 

[Fortitude]

Easier? Phoenix did very well but it was a really hammy peformance which the movie completely served on a platter for him to over indulge. Ledger had to work within the confines of being one of the characters in a film rather than canvass especially put up for him to do his acting thang. And Phoenix in the time that he was the Joker showed that it isn't really to be that enigmatic iconic character. He didn't have the voice and intimidation when did portray the Joker. Each did well in their domain. I don't believe one is much easier than the other.

Psychopaths aren't necessarily more enthralling. Walter White remains the most fascinating character I've seen in any piece of entertaining - film, shows etc and he wouldn't fit that description. He was nuanced and he was human rather than being overly manic. But it was as incredible a peformance as I've seen. It helps when your script is miles better than the Jokers of course but it is what it is. For me, Joker was a good film but predictable and unoriginal (clearly) which makes the lead protagonist as well to an extent those things.

You're skipping context here - I said: 'it's far, far easier to play a psychopath than a possible paranoid schizophrenic descending into a state of mental collapse.'

You've mentioned intimidation more than once whilst not considering, that fundamentally, one version of The Joker (psychopath) conveys that, whilst others (in this instance, the one trying to keep it together as a normal, functioning human being) simply do not. As I said, a follow up movie, which delves into a sociopathic Joker and thoroughly explores him as a fully invested deviant would determine what Phoenix could do with the character in a direct comparison - his Joker, in this film, was supposed to display, vulnerability, angst, weakness and a whole host of other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with psychopathic Joker of The Dark Knight.

Your second paragraph: Walter White is not a psychopath. It is very important that you make the distinction as otherwise, there are no layers to delve into - sociopathy can be triggered or descended into, and Walter White displays that in exemplary fashion. In the first seasons, it is very clear he is a normal person, with genuine feelings and emotions that aren't dialled down or accessibly switched on or off. His trauma triggers him and turns him into the beast he ends up being, very much like Phoenix's Joker. There is literally none of that, zero resource, shown in Ledger's Joker because it is not the same thing. It's easier for me to put this up than go on and on:


All throughout the film, he exemplifies psychopathy - to that end, the depth is pushed outward for the viewer to see with very little implied and no journey for you to go on with the character as he transforms from one being to another, as you will see in any sociopathic potrayal with an origin story attached. Cue your: Tony Soprano's, Walter White's, Phoenix's Joker's and so forth as opposed to your Anton Chigurh's, Gordan Gecko's, Ledger's Joker and so on. One is much easier to make a film (singular) out of and the other is better suited to TV, or at least, a series of films that let you see the beginning, middle and the end as you (we) get to voyueristically observe.

As I say, seeing Phoenix, fully-fledged, if you will, off his meds and fully transitioned into an uncaring and detached individual would give a fair comparison on what Phoenix can or cannot exude as a fearsome Joker. In this film, the tidbits we got at the end as he started to dip his toes in that proverbial water is about right. The way the role was played lends itself to the questions that should be asked as to why this character wasn't helped along the way with an intervention staged and that is what it was supposed to do. Low key with a few spikes, as opposed to fully turned up dial of the type of Joker you prefer (one with menace, charisma and all that).

 

[Irwin99]

Just realised there’s a tiny clip of Arthur being body slammed by the guards on the monitors after the incident of the show. He does his ‘Goodnight, and remember that’s life’ but finishes the sentence, laughs and then gets taken down.

I hope if they do a sequel they kind of keep some of what happened in this film a mystery (neither confirm or deny it). I’d be disappointed if he didn’t do most of the stuff but it’s clearly a warped version of events by the most unreliable narrator.

 

[Spoony]

Can't compare Ledger's Joker to Phoenix's, the latter was a character study and the former a virtual cartoon character.

 

[Bilbo]

I rewatched this last night and enjoyed it just as much the second time around.

I assume its safe to talk about this without spoilers by now? If so, what are peoples theories about how much of this, if any, actually happened? The closing scene in the asylum just confuses everything, and throws the whole thing into question.

 

[MadMike]

I rewatched this last night and enjoyed it just as much the second time around.

I assume its safe to talk about this without spoilers by now? If so, what are peoples theories about how much of this, if any, actually happened? The closing scene in the asylum just confuses everything, and throws the whole thing into question.

My theory is that everything is fantasy from the moment he lost access to his prescribed drugs. If I recall correctly that happens after he's killed the finance bros. So I reckon he got apprehended not long after, found to be mentally ill and he's imagining the rest from his asylum bed. The ideas that he stepped on the stage to delivery comedy and that it went well (with Sophie attending)... or that his clip got played on the Murray show and he got a call to attend... or that he managed to evade tight security and confront Wayne at the opera... or that riots are breaking out and he's become an icon... all those don't fit with the reality of who Arthur was and how he was perceived by people.

 

[AaronRedDevil]

It would be extremely clever if they made the exact same story only have a different settings with nearly the same outcomes with inconsistencies in it. Like exactly how the joker did in the comics and Heath ledger joker. Both kept bringing up their past but kept changing the details. But kept some parts the same.

 

[SteveJ]

My theory is that everything is fantasy from the moment he lost access to his prescribed drugs. If I recall correctly that happens after he's killed the finance bros. So I reckon he got apprehended not long after, found to be mentally ill and he's imagining the rest from his asylum bed. The ideas that he stepped on the stage to delivery comedy and that it went well (with Sophie attending)... or that his clip got played on the Murray show and he got a call to attend... or that he managed to evade tight security and confront Wayne at the opera... or that riots are breaking out and he's become an icon... all those don't fit with the reality of who Arthur was and how he was perceived by people.

This idea, fittingly, matches the 'fairy tale' ending of Taxi Driver - in reality, there's surely no way that the aftermath of Travis' shoot-out concludes with the wish-fulfilment of the following:

Travis' shoot-out is seen by the police and press as an attempt to rescue Iris from armed gangsters. He is not prosecuted, and is hailed as a local hero in the press. He receives a letter from Iris' father, thanking him for saving her and revealing that she has returned home to Pittsburgh, where she is going to school. After recovering, Travis returns to work, where he encounters Betsy as a fare. Travis drives her home, then refuses to let her pay the fare, driving away with a smile.

 

[Irwin99]

I rewatched this last night and enjoyed it just as much the second time around.

I assume its safe to talk about this without spoilers by now? If so, what are peoples theories about how much of this, if any, actually happened? The closing scene in the asylum just confuses everything, and throws the whole thing into question.

Just realised there’s a tiny clip of Arthur being body slammed by the guards on the monitors after the incident of the show. He does his ‘Goodnight, and remember that’s life’ but finishes the sentence, laughs and then gets taken down.

I posted this above but I think a lot of it happened but with some big distortions. The fact that the film shows the monitors with the chaos happening all around the city and also what Joker did on air indicates that it did happen (at least in my opinion). If they ever did a sequel though they have a lot of room to maneuver either way. Personally, I'd be a bit disappointed if everything had just been imaginary.

 

[Bilbo]

Just realised there’s a tiny clip of Arthur being body slammed by the guards on the monitors after the incident of the show. He does his ‘Goodnight, and remember that’s life’ but finishes the sentence, laughs and then gets taken down.

I posted this above but I think a lot of it happened but with some big distortions. The fact that the film shows the monitors with the chaos happening all around the city and also what Joker did on air indicates that it did happen (at least in my opinion). If they ever did a sequel though they have a lot of room to maneuver either way. Personally, I'd be a bit disappointed if everything had just been imaginary.

I think I agree. Without the last scene in the asylum there is no question that the majority of the film happens.

We know there is a scene with Fleck in the TV audience at the start, but that's immediately given up as fantasy in the movie. The romantic aspect is much more drawn out, with the love interest included in a number of scenes. Again, the movie eventually gives this up as fantasy so we have no doubts about the reality here.

Thats why the final scene is such a curveball for the audience. It doesn't fit with the rest of the movie, and you can't help but question everything that happens before it.

Its quite far-fetched that Arthur's comedy show would be filmed, and eventually lead to him appearing on the very show that he fantasise about.

 

[noodlehair]

Watched it recently.

It was alright. Think people are reading a lot into things that just aren't there. Just seemed to me like a story about a poor person living with medical and mental conditions, told from the perspective of someone who has very little clue what that is actually like. Made more interesting by tying it into a comic book villain origin story. If there was anything more deep orimaginative going on it wasn't done well enough to draw my interest.

A lot of the characters and lines were quite unrealistic. Bruce Wayne's father is a fully ridiculous character. I mean he'd be pushing it as a villain in an actual comic book film. but Pheonex did play his role pretty well.

 

[el3mel]

I finally managed to watch this about 2 days ago and absolutely liked everything about it. Grabbed my attention from first second to last. Easy 9/10 for me.

Probably the biggest dosage of good acting I have got from a superhero movie for a long time.

 

[Sylar]

I do think it's pushing it calling this a superhero movie

 

[PeteManic]

It is not a superhero movie. In fact, it's trying to humanise and explain a character whose power lies in being unexplainable. Ridiculous. I saw it last year in the cinema and thought it was incredibly overrated. Do we need another movie about a white dude struggling with society? No.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Watched it recently.

It was alright. Think people are reading a lot into things that just aren't there. Just seemed to me like a story about a poor person living with medical and mental conditions, told from the perspective of someone who has very little clue what that is actually like. Made more interesting by tying it into a comic book villain origin story. If there was anything more deep orimaginative going on it wasn't done well enough to draw my interest.

A lot of the characters and lines were quite unrealistic. Bruce Wayne's father is a fully ridiculous character. I mean he'd be pushing it as a villain in an actual comic book film. but Pheonex did play his role pretty well.

What things do you think people are reading into?