Movies Joker Trailer and Discussion Thread

[skillzdadirecta]

26 minutes ago, johnny said:

I thought the question of is he or isn’t he Wayne’s son not being explicitly answered was on purpose 

 

The movie kinda tries to have it both ways.

[Greatoneshere]

Joker's mom was a crazy bitch and let what happened to Arthur as a child which is what caused his "condition". That's why he kills her - he realized he wasn't even related to her and that she'd lied to him all these years while he was doing his best to take care of her when she never really did for him. He never even had a mother's love, something he had presumed he at least had. I dunno, I felt the film played most things pretty straight. 

 

But the film's ambiguity on these things makes it a more interesting film, not a less interesting one, to me. Though as I said in my original post, the narrative and message is indeed muddled but that shouldn't take away from all the things the film does right. 

[SoberChef]

On 10/3/2019 at 11:25 AM, Bloodporne said:

My money is on full-blown meth addiction ending in a great mugshot somewhere in Florida. 

Fixed that for ya!

I freaking loved this film. I was engrossed & enthralled start to end. Granted, I did happen to laugh at points wherein no one else in the theater was, but as Arthur so eloquently put it, "Who are you to judge what is or is not funny?" right? That scene in the subway however, the man on the stairs in particular, like that FELT as though I witnessed a freaking murder and felt a little bit like an accomplice of some sort just by witnessing it and not reporting it, so very well shot! (No pun intended there.) I really want to re-watch it at least once more in theaters, maybe in a few days time once I have had the chance to process more. Joaquin was fucking stellar however. Also, awesome to see Bryan Callen as the stripper (total hair piece he had on however haha!)

[Wild]

What a miserable, cynical, nihilistic piece of garbage. Phoenix had a great performance, but the directing is absolutely overbearing and atrocious, and the amount of times i saw the director step on Phoenix's performance was frustrating. Then there is the film's script. It's biggest crime? It's pathetically boring. I was waiting for an hour+ for anything to hold onto that made me feel gripped by the film, but it was just sad. Everyone is a bad person. The dialog is bland. There are some really cool concepts that are terribly executed (Joker laughing at things that aren't funny), and a bunch of lame ones like the romantic "relationship" reveal that was super obvious and yet required us to see every single instance of where the director tricked us (haha!). Everything, and I mean literally everything about this film that had a shot at being compelling was stolen (not homaged) from better films, like Taxi Driver, Man on the Moon, and hell even Sixth Sense. This is a muddled mixture brought down by overbearing directing, with a script that's not nearly as insightful as it thinks it is when it comes breaking down a man's mind. They cheated, a lot, and gave the Joker way too many sympathetic excuses. He wasn't perceiving Thomas Wayne as a rich capitalistic asshole who didn't care about Gotham, Wayne was a rich asshole who didn't care about Gotham. That's where they messed up the most, I think. Joker laughing at the wrong times is great, but they needed to carry that trait over to him misunderstanding what others are saying. Things society sees as a positive he should see as a negative, false reinforcement as set up by the film. But it cares too much about its tricks as a movie than holding together its themes through and through.

 

I don't know, there are two shots i really liked, both at the end. One is what the whole film built up towards, and it looks incredible, but was terribly earned. Then you have the very last shot which is amazing and perfectly Joker, only serving to remind you of the film you wanted to see instead of the one you got.

 

Completely aside from it being an Elseworlds, I'm cool with the basic concept here, I just hated it as a film.

[Wild]

Oh, and one more thing, as someone who is sick and fucking tired of watching the Waynes die in every single Batman movie, the fact I just got tricked into a 2-hour origin for that story without Batman even in the movie is completely obnoxious. Good god DC, leave the Waynes off the screen. We don't need to see those pearls a 7th time.

[Slug]

I thought it was...decent. The biggest problem for me was that it could've been a lot shorter for what it was. They kind of beat you over the head with one aspect of it for way longer than necessary before we get to the payoff. It was like, "OK we get it". It started to feel like filler. Ultimately I don't think it was a *bad* movie, there were a few really good moments, but it's not something I'd watch twice. 

[johnny]

The laughing during inappropriate times because he can’t process his emotions properly was something I really liked

[Dre801]

Can't wait until they make, "Luthor."  Come on, DC, make supervillain films a trend, lol.

[skillzdadirecta]

On 10/6/2019 at 9:57 AM, Wild said:

Oh, and one more thing, as someone who is sick and fucking tired of watching the Waynes die in every single Batman movie, the fact I just got tricked into a 2-hour origin for that story without Batman even in the movie is completely obnoxious. Good god DC, leave the Waynes off the screen. We don't need to see those pearls a 7th time.

 

Yeah I don't really understand why we got yet ANOTHER origin for Batman if they're not going to do anything with it. Seeing as how this film was set in the 80's and Robert Pattinson's Batman films will be set in the 90's, I find it hard to believe that DC WON'T connect these two films in some way regardless of WHAT they are saying. Of course Batman would then be fighting a 50 year old Joker then but Nicholson's Joker was probably that old so that shouldn't matter too much. The more I think about the movie the more I feel like it having to serve as an origin story for a well established comic book character took AWAY from the film ultimately... THIS Joker should really just exist in his own reality and his main antagonists should be Cops not ANOTHER costumed lunatic dressed as a Bat unless they want to really play up Batman's OWN insanity as well.

 

I too felt like Joker's motivations were a little too sympathetic as well... those three guys he shot on the subway should NOT have been bullying, wall street assholes. Let's face it, no one in the audience felt bad for those guys... and do you really think heroic characters like Wolverine, Deadpoool, The Punisher, Venom, Deathstroke, Lobo or countless others wouldn't have done something similar? We shouldn't be cheering for The Joker at the end of the film and if we are we should feel somewhat uncomfortable for it.   I think Joker's first kill should have been something a little more horrifying than killing obvious trash human beings. Hell they even gave him a justifiable reason for murdering his own mother as someone in here pointed out. The one horrifying act that The Joker potentially commits occurs offscreen  and I DO think that his obvious violence against women (two women of color) is something that should have been explored even more. I'm not even sure that that was intentional but it was definitely a missed opportunity to delve into another aspect of his depravity and contributes to the feeling that ultimately Phillips was in over his head trying to deal with this material.  The signature performance was great, but the ultimate film was a bit of an underwhelming misfire.

[skillzdadirecta]

15 minutes ago, Dre801 said:

Can't wait until they make, "Luthor."  Come on, DC, make supervillain films a trend, lol.

 

I want for them to make Mr. Myxlplyx: The Movie.

[TwinIon]

On 10/5/2019 at 11:46 AM, Greatoneshere said:

I think that's overly harsh but otherwise on point. This is an open discussion thread so I'm not spoiler marking things.

 

The scene after the Joker kills the subway guys in the bathroom was a scene that alone cannot be denied. When he begins dancing as the curtain pulls on Murray Franklin's show. There are so many mesmerizing scenes that it seems overly harsh to judge it for what it doesn't do than for what it does. 

I'm not trying to judge it for what it doesn't do as much as what it tries and fails to. Stuff like the dancing before the curtain pull is a beautiful image that felt entirely out of place. One of many beautiful pieces of a collage that never quite coheres.

 

If you want overly harsh, I'd very much recommend Richard Brody's take at the New Yorker. He spoke directly to that point:

Quote

The thematic incoherence of “Joker” is inseparable from its aesthetic emptiness. Phoenix, alternately brooding and exulting, dancing extravagantly in his underwear or in a resplendent costume or seething with rage, cringing with horror, or camping it up with an affected accent, isn’t so much unhinged as unmotivated and, to all appearances, undirected. What he delivers is less a performance than a display of his bag of actorly tricks—and they’re pretty wonderful, but they adorn a character who’s an empty framework, and, to all appearances, empty by design, for fear of alienating the target audience. 

 

[Greatoneshere]

25 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I'm not trying to judge it for what it doesn't do as much as what it tries and fails to. Stuff like the dancing before the curtain pull is a beautiful image that felt entirely out of place. One of many beautiful pieces of a collage that never quite coheres.

 

If you want overly harsh, I'd very much recommend Richard Brody's take at the New Yorker. He spoke directly to that point:

 

 

I can see the point being made, but why is it out of place? Most of the film certainly felt like it had a purpose. Perhaps if someone can explain to me why the scene doesn't mean anything? When he dances he becomes the truest version of the Joker, and in the bathroom is when he finally mentally snaps - it's going to be a big moment. Perhaps I am missing something? I don't see how Joker is empty "by design".

[TwinIon]

14 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I can see the point being made, but why is it out of place? Most of the film certainly felt like it had a purpose. Perhaps if someone can explain to me why the scene doesn't mean anything? When he dances he becomes the truest version of the Joker, and in the bathroom is when he finally mentally snaps - it's going to be a big moment. Perhaps I am missing something? I don't see how Joker is empty "by design".

For myself, the dancing in particular felt empty because there was never anything that I could ascribe to it. Like his laughing it was alternatively forced or involuntary, an affectation unrelated to what was going on around him. It didn't seem to be a reflection of his interior self, because we don't really get enough to ascribe his actions to motivations half the time. He's purposefully inscrutable, which makes for a great foil, but a less compelling protagonist.

 

That one moment in particular is a pretty good example. He's already proven an unreliable narrator (or perhaps the direction has proven to be?), so while it seems like his plan was to kill himself on screen, when he murders Murray, it's hard to say if it was reactionary or premeditated. Certainly his subway killings went quickly from one to the other. It's an ambiguity that I understand why some might feel is compelling, but to me it felt like an obfuscation to avoid judgement.

[Guest]

Yes, I was discussing with a friend last night after we caught a screening together that part of the emptiness of the film is that it has no point of view regarding Arthur’s actions. It’s all style.

[Greatoneshere]

14 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

For myself, the dancing in particular felt empty because there was never anything that I could ascribe to it. Like his laughing it was alternatively forced or involuntary, an affectation unrelated to what was going on around him. It didn't seem to be a reflection of his interior self, because we don't really get enough to ascribe his actions to motivations half the time. He's purposefully inscrutable, which makes for a great foil, but a less compelling protagonist.

 

That one moment in particular is a pretty good example. He's already proven an unreliable narrator (or perhaps the direction has proven to be?), so while it seems like his plan was to kill himself on screen, when he murders Murray, it's hard to say if it was reactionary or premeditated. Certainly his subway killings went quickly from one to the other. It's an ambiguity that I understand why some might feel is compelling, but to me it felt like an obfuscation to avoid judgement.

 

I think we are ultimately disagreeing on ambivalence vs. ambiguity. What I took as ambiguity you took as ambivalence, and I think the film is confused on that issue, no question. But when we're all praising Marvel films for being "really good" just for being entertaining enough, surely we shouldn't paint Joker, also a comic book movie, with some harsher brush? It does plenty very well regardless. The movie certainly has more on its mind than the average MCU film.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I think we are ultimately disagreeing on ambivalence vs. ambiguity. What I took as ambiguity you took as ambivalence, and I think the film is confused on that issue, no question. But when we're all praising Marvel films for being "really good" just for being entertaining enough, surely we shouldn't paint Joker, also a comic book movie, with some harsher brush? It does plenty very well regardless. The movie certainly has more on its mind than the average MCU film.

 

I think it’s fair to criticize a film on the basis of its own aspirations.  Joker tries to be something deeper than any MCU movie, so I think we do need to use a more critical approach to determining its success at what it sets out to do.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

I think it’s fair to criticize a film on the basis of its own aspirations.  Joker tries to be something deeper than any MCU movie, so I think we do need to use a more critical approach to determining its success at what it sets out to do.

 

Agreed - what I'm saying is that it certainly tries for much deeper aspirations and it should be given credit for that alone given the current market. The fact that it tries, might have succeeded/might have failed is a big win in my book, perhaps my expectations were low.

[TwinIon]

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think we are ultimately disagreeing on ambivalence vs. ambiguity. What I took as ambiguity you took as ambivalence, and I think the film is confused on that issue, no question. But when we're all praising Marvel films for being "really good" just for being entertaining enough, surely we shouldn't paint Joker, also a comic book movie, with some harsher brush? It does plenty very well regardless. The movie certainly has more on its mind than the average MCU film.

The MCU films don't have a lot on their minds, but they generally accomplish exactly what they set out to do. That might sound like damning with faint praise, but in a year when I've seen King of Monsters and Dark Phoenix and MiB: International all try to do basically those same things and fail, there's a real value in what the MCU attempts and how consistently they're able to accomplish that.

 

With Joker, I do think it wants to be more, and I give it credit for trying, but ultimately I'm going to grade it based on it's own ambitions. I don't think it did a great job of exploring all the things it lays out. I'm glad that it is trying something outside the norm, and it certainly seems there is a real appetite for doing something different with comic book films. I'd be quite happy to see more comic book films with the ambition of Joker, but that doesn't change how good I think the film was.

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

The MCU films don't have a lot on their minds, but they generally accomplish exactly what they set out to do. That might sound like damning with faint praise, but in a year when I've seen King of Monsters and Dark Phoenix and MiB: International all try to do basically those same things and fail, there's a real value in what the MCU attempts and how consistently they're able to accomplish that.

 

With Joker, I do think it wants to be more, and I give it credit for trying, but ultimately I'm going to grade it based on it's own ambitions. I don't think it did a great job of exploring all the things it lays out. I'm glad that it is trying something outside the norm, and it certainly seems there is a real appetite for doing something different with comic book films. I'd be quite happy to see more comic book films with the ambition of Joker, but that doesn't change how good I think the film was.

 

I think when trying to objectively assess films you have to go beyond just what it's trying to do (and failing to do, arguably). On any objective level, the MCU films succeed better at what they are going for over what Joker is going for (I'd disagree) but even if that's true, I would tell any viewer that Joker is a much more overall rewarding cinematic viewing experience. So that has to be taken into account too, and I think that says a lot about its quality.

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

The MCU films don't have a lot on their minds, but they generally accomplish exactly what they set out to do. That might sound like damning with faint praise, but in a year when I've seen King of Monsters and Dark Phoenix and MiB: International all try to do basically those same things and fail, there's a real value in what the MCU attempts and how consistently they're able to accomplish that.

 

With Joker, I do think it wants to be more, and I give it credit for trying, but ultimately I'm going to grade it based on it's own ambitions. I don't think it did a great job of exploring all the things it lays out. I'm glad that it is trying something outside the norm, and it certainly seems there is a real appetite for doing something different with comic book films. I'd be quite happy to see more comic book films with the ambition of Joker, but that doesn't change how good I think the film was.

 

 This is pretty much my rule of thumb for ANY film... does it accomplish what it sets out to do? Does a trashy, 70's exploitation flick which knows what it is succeed in that regard? Does a gross out comedy gross me out and make me laugh? If the answer is yes, then those films succeed. If a film is successful in what it is doing, but I don't like what it is doing then I'm probably not watching that film anyway. I'm sure Downton Abbey is a very good film and is successful at what it is doing. I'll probably never see it, but I also won't fault it for being what it is.

 

As far as the Joker goes, it aspires to be something bigger than a comic book film but I'm not really sure what it is trying to be ultimately. It's well acted and beautifully shot but ultimately I think it fails in its aspirations. Logan was more successful to me in aspiring to be something more than another comic book film than this movie.

[TheLeon]

I've spent the last few days trying to articulate why this movie mostly didn't work for me (if you pressed me for a grade, I would say C-). I still don't have it fully worked out, but I think a lot of it comes from the overwhelmingly dark world it tries to create. From every single angle, Arthur Fleck's world fucking sucks, and we are stuck with him in that for the whole movie. By the end, he is "freed", but we are still stuck in a shitty world that's now going to be overrun with clown anarchy. Maybe there are some deeper themes and meaning in there, but from my perspective everything was just such a massive bummer that it was hard to enjoy. 

 

Some cool shots though, for sure. 

[skillzdadirecta]

11 minutes ago, TheLeon said:

I've spent the last few days trying to articulate why this movie mostly didn't work for me (if you pressed me for a grade, I would say C-). I still don't have it fully worked out, but I think a lot of it comes from the overwhelmingly dark world it tries to create. From every single angle, Arthur Fleck's world fucking sucks, and we are stuck with him in that for the whole movie. By the end, he is "freed", but we are still stuck in a shitty world that's now going to be overrun with clown anarchy. Maybe there are some deeper themes and meaning in there, but from my perspective everything was just such a massive bummer that it was hard to enjoy. 

 

Some cool shots though, for sure. 

 

It's funny you say this because I wondered how they would deal with this in this movie... The Joker is compelling as an adversary because his worldview is the polar opposite of Batman's and without Batman to balance out his point of view, you're left with the world of this movie. I wondered that without Batman would you have someone else in this film that could serve as the Joker's ideolgical counterpoint and NOPE. So yeah, that's probably what you're reacting to. 

[Brick]

Everyone here alive? No one got shot over the weekend? 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

the media is trying!

[Brick]

Just got back from seeing it. Not sure what to make of it. Obviously as everyone is saying, Phoenix is amazing, and this is a pretty good interpretation of a more "realistic" Joker, and how this kind of guy would come to be if it happened before modern technology would flag this guy, and catch him sooner, and what if there was no Batman to stop him, but the movie as a whole I'm not sure. Would have helped if he had killed more innocent people to really show that this guy is not a hero to be worshiped and admired, but I disagree with Skillz that the first kill had to be someone the audience would feel remorse for. Of course the first kill is going to be an asshole because that's what would make Arthur snap, and feel empowered. Again this Joker is not the same kind ee recognize from the comics as a genius criminal mastermind, but I don't think it's trying to be, it's just trying to be a "what if the Joker existed in the real world" tale, and in that sense it mostly works. 

[skillzdadirecta]

 

Did The Joker Kill THAT Character? 

 

This paragraph stood out to me.

 

Quote

The simplest reason would be the viewer would lose any and all empathy they had built up for Arthur during the previous hour and change if he snapped and murdered a woman and her child. All the other characters had been established as having wronged Arthur in some perceptible way -- though of course that’s not an excuse or justification for him killing them! -- whereas Sophie is simply an innocent who was largely a figment of his deranged mind.

With the film then heading into its full-on Joker climax, where Arthur has finally fully embraced his Joker persona and that his life is a comedy not a tragedy, the audience simply couldn’t be along for the ride had they known or seen him killing Sophie. The fact that we are uncertain of her fate is perhaps bad enough but the safest bet is that Arthur didn’t kill her.

 

I think he DID kill her personally but they didn't show it and left it open ended for this very reason which was a mistake... this is why I said earlier the film was trying to have it both ways with this character.

 

[Greatoneshere]

I have 6 or so film critics/reviewers I trust based on reading them/their websites over the years, and one of them has always been James Berardinelli. We don't always agree but oddly enough on Joker we do and his review gets to why I liked the film a lot:

 

http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/joker

 

Just for anyone curious.

[skillzdadirecta]

On 10/8/2019 at 11:33 AM, Greatoneshere said:

I have 6 or so film critics/reviewers I trust based on reading them/their websites over the years, and one of them has always been James Berardinelli. We don't always agree but oddly enough on Joker we do and his review gets to why I liked the film a lot:

 

http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/joker

 

Just for anyone curious.

 

Out of curiosity I read this review and I think this reviewer missed something that was one of my problems with the film and why I think it's confused in what it is trying to say. This bit right here

 

Quote

Is Joker violent? Unquestionably, yes. The violence, however, is designed to shock and upset. It’s not there to quench an audience’s bloodlust or satiate the desire to see “bad” characters get their comeuppance. The body count is much smaller than in, say, John Wick 3, but each death has more impact.

 

Putting aside the once again pointless comparison to John Wick (why these guys are obsessed with Keanu Reeves' franchise escapes me) the reviewer misses the fact that EVERY person in the film that Joker kills wronged him in some way and gave the audience a way to perversely justify his actions. With the exception of his neighbor who he had the imaginary love affair with (who may or may not have been killed off screen) EVERYONE he killed was arguably "bad" and NONE of the Joker's kills were upsetting, shocking or even surprising. He killed everyone who I THOUGHT he would kill. In fact, I thought if the film really wanted to be what it was clearly aspiring to be, they would have been brave enough to have the Joker commit TRULY heinous and unsympathetic acts... like killing the little guy who was nice to him, or killing his neighbor in a less ambiguous way.  I've heard rumors that in test screenings, he walked in on her in bed with another man and killed everyone in the house but they changed that because again, it would make him less sympathetic. But the Joker SHOULDN'T be sympathetic and this film went out of its way to make him some kind of demented anti-hero... which is what I was afraid it was going to do in the first place. Just my two cents.

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Putting aside the once again pointless comparison to John Wick (why these guys are obsessed with Keanu Reeves' franchise escapes me) the reviewer misses the fact that EVERY person in the film that Joker kills wronged him in some way and gave the audience a way to perversely justify his actions. With the exception of his neighbor who he had the imaginary love affair with (who may or may not have been killed off screen) EVERYONE he killed was arguably "bad" and NONE of the Joker's kills were upsetting, shocking or even surprising. He killed everyone who I THOUGHT he would kill. In fact, I thought if the film really wanted to be what it was clearly aspiring to be, they would have been brave enough to have the Joker commit TRULY heinous and unsympathetic acts... like killing the little guy who was nice to him, or killing his neighbor in a less ambiguous way.  I've heard rumors that in test screenings, he walked in on her in bead with another man and killed everyone in the house but they changed that because again, it would make him less sympathetic. But the Joker SHOULDN'T be sympathetic and this film went out of its way to make him some kind of demented anti-hero... which is what I was afraid it was going to do in the first place. Just my two cents.

 

I don't think villainizing the Joker needs to be that explicit. In no way at the end of the film did I perceive Joker as any kind of hero, not even an anti-hero. But that's me. I felt bad at the end, not empowered or pumped up. 

 

I appreciate you taking the time to read the review though, we've all gotten some good discussions going!

[skillzdadirecta]

I respectfully disagree... you can have a villainous character be the protagonist but also still CLEARLY be a villain. Hannibal Lechter comes to mind off the top of my head and even HE has a counterbalance in Clarice Starling and Will Graham.  I think the problem in making the Joker somewhat justified in his actions is that one, it goes against the character in a fundamental way and two, it leads credence to critics of the film who feel that the movie could potentially send the wrong message to certain parts of the population. I'm less concerned with that personally and more concerned with the fact that at the end of the day, for all of it's lofty aspirations, the film STILL played it safe and rather than challenge the audience with a main character who is OBVIOUSLY a detestable villain that no one should sympathize with, they gave us yet another "victim of the system and society" character except this time, it was one of the more irredeemable characters in modern literature. That's artistic cowardice to me.

 

Hell even Alan More regrets humanizing The Joker in killing Joke and I LOVED that story. The difference was that by contrasting how The Joker reacted to his "bad day" with Batman's and Gordon's, their heroism is reinforced and the Joker's villainy and weakness is emphasized.

 

https://www.inverse.com/article/14967-alan-moore-now-believes-the-killing-joke-was-melodramatic-not-interesting

 

Quote

I’ve never really liked my story in The Killing Joke. I think it put far too much melodramatic weight upon a character that was never designed to carry it. It was too nasty, it was too physically violent. There were some good things about it, but in terms of my writing, it’s not one of me favorite pieces. 

 

I'd be curious to see what he thinks of The Joker film which is definitely inspired in part by his take on The Joker.

[Greatoneshere]

16 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I respectfully disagree... you can have a villainous character be the protagonist but also still CLEARLY be a villain. Hannibal Lechter comes to mind off the top of my head and even HE has a counterbalance in Clarice Starling and Will Graham.  I think the problem in making the Joker somewhat justified in his actions is that one, it goes against the character in a fundamental way and two, it leads credence to critics of the film who feel that the movie could potentially send the wrong message to certain parts of the population. I'm less concerned with that personally and more concerned with the fact that at the end of the day, for all of it's lofty aspirations, the film STILL played it safe and rather than challenge the audience with a main character who is OBVIOUSLY a detestable villain that no one should sympathize with, they gave us yet another "victim of the system and society" character except this time, it was one of the more irredeemable characters in modern literature. That's artistic cowardice to me.

 

I'm not saying a person can't do what you're suggesting, I just didn't think this film needed to, is what I'm saying. I grant that the film isn't entirely successful, but one aspect to me doesn't undo an entire film, depending on the nature of that aspect. 

[TwinIon]

34 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I respectfully disagree... you can have a villainous character be the protagonist but also still CLEARLY be a villain. Hannibal Lechter comes to mind off the top of my head and even HE has a counterbalance in Clarice Starling and Will Graham.  I think the problem in making the Joker somewhat justified in his actions is that one, it goes against the character in a fundamental way and two, it leads credence to critics of the film who feel that the movie could potentially send the wrong message to certain parts of the population. I'm less concerned with that personally and more concerned with the fact that at the end of the day, for all of it's lofty aspirations, the film STILL played it safe and rather than challenge the audience with a main character who is OBVIOUSLY a detestable villain that no one should sympathize with, they gave us yet another "victim of the system and society" character except this time, it was one of the more irredeemable characters in modern literature. That's artistic cowardice to me.

 

This is why I think the film would be better off if it wasn't a Joker movie. Watching the film without putting the decades of Joker history on it, and I don't have a problem with the violence. I can watch Taxi Driver and think that both Bickle is a bad dude for murdering people and that the guys he murdered were bad guys. That movie easily could have had him murder the pimps and then successfully kill the politician, crossing the rubicon into the truly irredeemable, but it didn't need to go there. He could be somewhat sympathetic while also being evil.

 

 

There is a lot I don't like about this Joker, but making him somewhat sympathetic is perfectly fine with me. What I really don't think it does is make him the Joker as we've seen in any number of incarnations. He isn't an anti-hero much less a villainous mastermind. I think if they could have taken the character on screen and turned him into the Joker, that would have been a more interesting film, but I don't think we really got that movie.

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, TwinIon said:

 

This is why I think the film would be better off if it wasn't a Joker movie. Watching the film without putting the decades of Joker history on it, and I don't have a problem with the violence. I can watch Taxi Driver and think that both Bickle is a bad dude for murdering people and that the guys he murdered were bad guys. That movie easily could have had him murder the pimps and then successfully kill the politician, crossing the rubicon into the truly irredeemable, but it didn't need to go there. He could be somewhat sympathetic while also being evil.

 

 

There is a lot I don't like about this Joker, but making him somewhat sympathetic is perfectly fine with me. What I really don't think it does is make him the Joker as we've seen in any number of incarnations. He isn't an anti-hero much less a villainous mastermind. I think if they could have taken the character on screen and turned him into the Joker, that would have been a more interesting film, but I don't think we really got that movie.

 

 

The difference with Taxi Driver and Travis Bickle vs this character is that we were literally in Bickle's head. He was our narrator and we could get from him first hand how fucked up he was and how he saw the world because he TOLD us. There was a clear contradiction between who Bickle believed he was vs who he actually was and the audience saw that. He despised pimps and prostitutes but spent most of his free time in porn theaters. He scores a date with a hot Sybel Sheapard and takes her to a porn movie then can't understand why that would turn her off. Bickle is sympathetic in how pathetic he is but as we see his decent into madness and obsession, it's clear that he's a fucked up guy. Shit he tries to kill HIMSELF after his shooting spree but is out of bullets.

 

This movie didn't give us the same journey as Bickle and again, like you said, it's hurt by having the history of the character that it had to weigh itself against. 

[Kal-El814]

I think “grounding” the Joker kind of makes little to no sense as a concept. The Dark Knight struck an interesting balance with the character by making him consistently contradictory, someone who deliberately didn’t “make sense” in a universe that spent A LOT of time trying to “make sense” of Batman in a more grounded way. But even in TDK, his origin is deliberately obfuscated, similar to what Joker said in the previously referenced Killing Joke. “Something like that happened to me, you know. I… I’m not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another…If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!”

 

In TDK, if Joker said that, it’d be hard to tell if he was lying but it would be on brand. “Do I look like a guy with a plan,” he asks... but clearly CAN plan and DOES plan. He might not have an endgame in mind, but he is the schemer he claims that Gordon and Batman are. In The Killing Joke, it’s clear that he means that line honestly.

 

If Fleck said that... I don’t think I’d know if HE knew what it means to him? And I don’t know what to make of that.

[skillzdadirecta]

37 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I think “grounding” the Joker kind of makes little to no sense as a concept.

That's pretty much the conclusion that Alan Moore came to... I don't know that I necessarily agree but I DO think that The Joker makes makes even less sense without an ideological counterpoint like Batman or Jim Gordon.