Joker (2019 Movie) (1 Viewer)

[Bryan^H]

How can you say this....



...and then go on to say this?



Bit of a contradiction?

Just my opinion. There is no right, or wrong answer. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. We are both guessing about how the ticket buying public feels about the role that Robert DeNiro played in "Joker"

Colin is of the opinion he was miscast, and not right for the part.
I am of the opinion that he was fine in the part.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Colin is of the opinion he was miscast, and not right for the part.
I am of the opinion that he was fine in the part.

One more time: my comments echoed the oft-stated sentiment of others. I didn't take my own opinion and generalize it to the world.

I'm neither here nor there on De Niro in "Joker" - I don't think he totally works as a talk show host, but I understand he's there for reasons in addition to his acting skills, so I'm fine with him in the movie.

 

[Bryan^H]

One more time: my comments echoed the oft-stated sentiment of others. I didn't take my own opinion and generalize it to the world.

You said "most people" Colin that is a generalization if ever there was one.
Because you were not specific on what you meant is not my fault. I can't decipher what your intented comments mean if you aren't being direct.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You said "most people" Colin that is a generalization if ever there was one.

My prior post said I didn't take my opinion and claim that the world shared it.

Obviously I made a statement about the general view of De Niro's performance, but your claim that it was my view as well is incorrect...

 

[Bryan^H]

My prior post said I didn't take my opinion and claim that the world shared it.

Obviously I made a statement about the general view of De Niro's performance, but your claim that it was my view as well is incorrect...

Glad you clarified that. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Tino]

For the record, I liked De Niro in Joker. I thought he did fine.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

DeNiro as a talk show host is an oxymoron if you've ever seen him on an actual talk show. He is the worst guest possible, who barely answers any question with more than a grunt. Colbert turned this around on him last time he was on, switched roles, and showed him just how impossible he is as a guest. So for him to play a talkative host was at least a stretch from the roles he's walked through lately. I also find it an ironic, and probably intentional, nod back to the original man goes mad in the big bad city; Taxi Driver.

 

[JohnRice]

I finally watched Joker.

I think this is what happens when an Arthouse Drama gets a big budget, massive marketing and $B ticket sales. Massive confusion and hatred.

It's been my observation that a lot of people get extremely upset when there's no way to figure out exactly what's "real" and what isn't in a movie.

"What's so funny?"
"I was thinking of a joke?"
"Do you want to tell it to me?"
"You wouldn't get it."

I suspect those final four lines in the movie encompass a lot.

Finally, I see no clear indication this is an origins movie. I have no idea if we ever knew the Joker's real name. It very well could be more of a genesis movie. Then again, it might not. Refer back to my second comment.

Interesting movie. Really, very well done. Most definitely not for everyone, which should be obvious by now.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I personally think that all of the theorizing about where it fits into the Batman mythos kinda misses the point. I don’t think the filmmakers were thinking about how this tied into anything else.

This is essentially a one-off comic book, and there have been plenty of those in the comic world that decide to tell a one-and-done story that’s not meant to tie into anything. It has a complete beginning, middle and end. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a launching pad for this iteration of the character to one day fight Batman in an action movie. Like Taxi Driver, it’s a movie that puts you as a viewer in an uncomfortable position because part of you wants to know what’ll happen next, and you might even have moments of rooting for the guy because he’s stuck in a system that has no place for him and that seems unfair and wrong, but his responses aren’t justified by that either. It can be uncomfortably fascinating to watch someone snap as in both Taxi Driver and Joker, understanding how and why it happened and feeling for the person, but also knowing that none of that justifies the actions.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable that some viewers, after ten years of shared universes and whatnot, could just have a tough time accepting that this movie isn’t meant to fit with any of the other movies but to exist as it’s own thing. And I think it’s also possible that some viewers could just be confused of what to make of it all without a Batman character to anchor it all.

I’m still not sure what I think of the movie but I don’t regret seeing it. I’m not sure it’s meant to convey as much of a message as some people might be looking for in it. But maybe I’m just missing the point too.

 

[JohnRice]

I personally think that all of the theorizing about where it fits into the Batman mythos kinda misses the point. I don’t think the filmmakers were thinking about how this tied into anything else.

What I find interesting is that with so many franchises, comic adaptations included, going in ten different (often conflicting) directions at once these days that so many viewers insist this one movie fits perfectly into one established reality, with a bow on top.

 

[JohnRice]

BTW, I'll toss in that while I understand the comparisons to Taxi Driver, I will say that a much more fitting comparison to the real theme of Joker might be American Psycho.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wonder if that’s because the movie is effective at making this iteration of the Joker seem justified at lashing out (or at least, providing a credible explanation at how someone could go down that road) that it makes some people uncomfortable for that to exist without some kind of counterweight. The movie suggests in part that society is at fault for making this guy go too far, but stops short of showing someone standing up to push back against him, and I wonder if it’s more comfortable for some viewers to imagine a scenario where all of this makes some kind of sense by knowing that Batman is coming for him one day.

 

[JohnRice]

I wonder if that’s because the movie is effective at making this iteration of the Joker seem justified at lashing out

I'm treading on thin ice regarding HTF rules, but we do live in a society where someone pushed another person to the ground (significantly less than what was portrayed in the movie) at a convenience store, was shot to death, and the shooter was exonerated without a trial. There's a lot that's unsettling between this movie and reality.

I seriously do NOT want to start anything with that comment. I am not being political. It IS what occurred to me during the movie, though.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The part of the movie that sticks with me is the run-in he has with the Wall Street guys on the train. Those guys were bullies and it seems clear from the filmmaking choices that if Arthur wasn’t on the train, that they would have assaulted and raped that woman they were terrorizing. And when they set their sights on Arthur, they were fully prepared to beat him to death. Arthur would have been dead if he didn’t shoot the first guy, and probably still dead if he didn’t shoot the second guy. But he didn’t need to get off the train to follow the third guy, although it’s hard to feel that much sympathy for a guy who would have raped a woman and murdered a man if Arthur hadn’t fought back. I don’t know if any of that can be construed to have a deeper meaning or if we should even try to find one. But it’s interesting to me that what the film portrays as Arthur’s turning point is one of the fewer times that I’m not so sure he was wrong. Ok, he shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place, but what was he supposed to, let those guys beat him to death?

(edit: wrote this before reading John’s comment above)

 

[TonyD]

I'm treading on thin ice regarding HTF rules, but we do live in a society where someone pushed another person to the ground (significantly less than what was portrayed in the movie) at a convenience store, was shot to death, and the shooter was exonerated without a trial. There's a lot that's unsettling between this movie and reality.

I seriously do NOT want to start anything with that comment. I am not being political. It IS what occurred to me during the movie, though.

If you’re talking about the event that hdpoened in Clearwater he was convicted of manslaughter.

Anyway the more I think about the movie the less I think of it.
What was the point of it?
What is the story?
What is the entertainment value?

 

[JohnRice]

To be honest, there are a lot of movies I see that I don't feel were very good, or were even bad. I don't spend weeks posting dozens of comments in the thread dedicated to them.

The part of the movie that sticks with me is the run-in he has with the Wall Street guys on the train.

Actually, the opening sign-spinning scene really stood out to me. I thought, "This guy really has an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong." Who would run after those guys? I'd go into the store and tell them someone attacked me and stole the sign, and be done with it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I’m not sure it was supposed to be entertaining in the same way that I don’t think Taxi Driver is meant to be fun entertainment. The entertainment is meant to come from being told a compelling story in an interesting way, not necessarily from it being a pleasant experience to watch. A Clockwork Orange isn’t really entertaining either, it’s horrifying, but it’s interesting filmmaking.

I think the story and the point was to show that crazy weird psycho villains don’t just come out of nowhere fully formed, and that the actions and inactions of society do have consequences. Was Arthur born predisposed to mental illness, or did a failed system that allowed an abandoned baby to be placed with an abusive, unfit woman lead to that? Do the funding cuts that cause Arthur to lose his access to mental health care bear any responsibility for his actions? Is he a guy that could have gone either way but had enough buttons pushed that he lost control? Was he turned into a monster by his surroundings, or did his surroundings just let something out that was always in him? Do we as a society bear any responsibility when we let all of this happen? Or are people entirely responsible for their own actions?

I’m not sure that the movie has any answers to those questions. Whether it’s successful or not at it, I think it did want to pose some of those questions.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Actually, the opening sign-spinning scene really stood out to me. I thought, "This guy really has an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong." Who would run after those guys? I'd go into the store and tell them someone attacked me and stole the sign, and be done with it.

I only saw the movie once so I could be misremembering this detail. But what I recall was that the shop owner had made it clear (maybe offscreen?) that Arthur had to bring back the sign or lose the job, and that the owner was not a nice/understanding employee. So if Arthur goes back emptyhanded right away and tells the truth, he’s still fired. And we’re led to believe the economy is so bad and Gotham is such a lousy place that people on the lower rungs are that desperate and feel like they have to go through something as dehumanizing as taking a beating to try to protect a piece of cardboard. What I got from that scene wasn’t that Arthur had an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, but rather, that he was a guy with that little margin for error in his life.

 

[JohnRice]

@Josh Steinberg , you're just remembering the sequence wrong. The discussion you detailed is later in the movie, after the actual event.

 

[JohnRice]

I’m not sure it was supposed to be entertaining in the same way that I don’t think Taxi Driver is meant to be fun entertainment. The entertainment is meant to come from being told a compelling story in an interesting way, not necessarily from it being a pleasant experience to watch. A Clockwork Orange isn’t really entertaining either, it’s horrifying, but it’s interesting filmmaking.

I think the story and the point was to show that crazy weird psycho villains don’t just come out of nowhere fully formed, and that the actions and inactions of society do have consequences. Was Arthur born predisposed to mental illness, or did a failed system that allowed an abandoned baby to be placed with an abusive, unfit woman lead to that? Do the funding cuts that cause Arthur to lose his access to mental health care bear any responsibility for his actions? Is he a guy that could have gone either way but had enough buttons pushed that he lost control? Was he turned into a monster by his surroundings, or did his surroundings just let something out that was always in him? Do we as a society bear any responsibility when we let all of this happen? Or are people entirely responsible for their own actions?

I’m not sure that the movie has any answers to those questions. Whether it’s successful or not at it, I think it did want to pose some of those questions.

Yeah, that's a pretty complete answer, but I don't think it was an honest question.