Joker

[OCH]

Spoiler

Joker's "true" origin is always ambiguous. In this film he doesn't really become Joker, until he rejects the system and its half-hearted attempts to aid him, via drugs, therapy etc Likewise killing his mother (and potentially, his neighbour?) is severing the last tie to his old fabricated life and embracing who he really is.

You will certainly never look at Jokers innate laughing in the same context again after seeing this film. Arthur Fleck is a pathetic loser here. By the time of his descent into the Joker, he isn't anymore. The path he treads to reach that point does follow the same beats of Moore's breakdown scenario.

[one-armed dwarf]

See I just see that as you contriving a way to fit that in some comic book lore, while I think this film is way too cynical to give a shit about comics.

 

The way I see it, the ambiguous origin stuff of comic book Joker is all about giving carte blanche to the writers to basically ignore the comics as much as they can.

 

But I find this interesting. I'm not trying to be a dick about this film but it's one of those films which is going to divide people.

[OCH]

Nah, I recognised elements in the film. That's all. Bottom line, Joker wasn't a mobster, an agent of chaos or whatever the hell that thing in Suicide Squad was. At his core, he is a mentally ill individual without remorse or apathy for the crimes he commits and the lives he destroys. That cynicism is the mindset of the Joker.

[Maf]

Joker can literally be anything and you can make an interpretation of him in anyway you want and still find an excuse to do it. He has been the Clown Prince of Crime, he once tried to copyright fish, he once cut off his own face, he once claimed to have no purpose but to cause anarchy, he has once claimed to do what he does to make Batman better, Joker once went into a vegetative state and refused to laugh when he felt he had no purpose, he has hated Batman, he has been in love with Batman, he has been a comedian, a mobster, diagnosed with “super insanity”, diagnosed with actual mental illness, he has had origins, he has not had origins, he came from Batman accidentally dropping him in acid, in his first crime he didn’t know who Batman was despite Batman supposedly dropping him in the acid, in his first crime he was the Red Hood, in his first crime he was the Joker, in his first crime he was the Joker who infiltrated the Red Hood’s gang, he has been Batman’s mum, there is supposed to be 3 Jokers and one of them might be 100’s of years old, Joker has been described as asexual, Joker has been known to always visit a whore house as his first stop every time he breaks out of prison, Joker has a long relationship with Harley Quinn, sometimes it’s abusive, sometimes he actually loves her, Joker was once the United Nations ambassador for Iran representing Ayatollah Khomeini (Yes, I had to Google how to spell that), Joker once tricked a magic imp into giving him god like powers and ruled the universe, Joker has been a mad scientist who can create Joker toxins that lets him control millions of people at a time, sometimes Joker just shoots you and laughs. 

 

Arguing over what Joker is or isn’t or could be or couldn’t be is pointless. Because when it comes down to it Joker can be anything. The one thing he can’t be, though, is without Batman. 

 

This movie is bullshit and just called Joker for cash purposes. I posted this before, I think it’s perfect 

 

 

 

[one-armed dwarf]

Ok, well with that logic then IT can be Joker too I suppose.

 

Have you seen the film?

[Maf]

I saw the trailer. 

 

Also Joker is as about as representative of DC comics as Batman vs Superman was. IE, not at all. It’s just the same thing. They take a character, make him look like the character you recognise, but nothing they say, do or come across is in anyway actually representative of the actual brand they come from. 

 

Despite comics, Joker has actually best been summarised and nailed in The Dark Knight. At the end of the movie, he is hanging upside down, Batman is standing upright, visual metaphor for their juxtaposition, and the Joker says “I think you and I are destined to do this forever”. Which is perfect. 

 

This new movie might be great might be trash I don’t know. But it’s not the Joker. Any comic book fan saying this is a great version of their comic book character is just getting confused because they saw a movie they really liked that has the name of the comic book character they like on it, despite them being basically unrelated. 

[one-armed dwarf]

Oh ok, you're just comic book guy gate keeping.

[Maf]

Maybe I am. Although I don’t really know what I’m gate keeping. The Joker isn’t even a favourite character of mine, I’m not even giving an opinion of the quality of the film, I’m just saying this is not really a Joker movie. So any argument about how faithful it is to the comics is fruitless. Any conversation about mental illness, social politics or headline ripping commentary I don’t know. I haven’t seen it. But if gate keeping is saying “Hey, this thing isn’t really like the thing it’s named after, here is a bunch of obvious reasons why” then I guess I am but I don’t think this is what this is. I mean I did say I think actually one of the best versions of the Joker actually comes from a movie. Just not this one.

[one-armed dwarf]

To be clear, my point isn't that different from your point I think. Although I actually find it hard to understand what your point is as it's sort of rambling. It seems to be saying two contradictory things wrt Joker can be anything, but this isn't Joker etc.

 

I really don't care about the history of comics and can only relate to the high level surface detail stuff. But I think this film's most obvious cousin is something like Logan, which was kind of like a western like Shane or Unforgiven. That film felt like it was borrowing comics to tell a different story in a different genre. But then also the story was based off a comic and the opposite argument could equally be made I'm sure*. But it's the closest thing I can think of to 'Joker'.

 

I know that the comic medium isn't something you can probably sum up reductively like I'm doing here. But unlike with Logan I can barely recognise anything in this that feels like the DNA of a comic film. Other than one key scene, which I spoilered up above. It feels like a film which used comics to tell a different story. Even Chris Nolan's Batman films felt like they were paying tribute to comic books while trying to do something that felt quite complex at the time (although I actually think TDK is a bit of a classic at this point)

 

tbh I'm not super interested in litigating if Arthur is a faithful Joker. The point I was more interested in is that I think this film is pretending to be a comic book film. Which isn't a criticism. I think it's taking the built in captive audience of Batman and DC stuff and launching something at them that they may not have expected. Unless you're very clued in like Och. But I definitely saw a few surprised faces at my screening.

 

Like I could picture David Fincher doing a film like this, it has that Se7en vibe about it.

 

*Please don't launch into a spiel about "Old Man Logan" please, that's what this comment is for ?

[Maf]

I should of said Joker can do anything. Whatever actions he takes in the movie, you will be able to tie it back to the comics because he has done everything. It’s why people can argue that Batman definitely doesn’t use guns despite Batman definitely has used guns and Spider-Man definitely doesn’t kill people despite that Spider-Man has definitely killed people. Comics are so expansive you can find anything to back up an argument. It doesn’t mean it’s true to the character, though. Just because one time this guy did a thing in a comic despite the 1000’s of comics that he definitely does not do that in. 

 

So if in the movie it’s about ‘one bad day’ so clearly it is an homage to the Killing Joke. Well, the point of that book is the one bad day doesn’t happen to Joker, it happens to Jim Gordon, and at the end the Joker is proven to be wrong because Gordon doesn’t crack. So like you can force it, but it isn’t really that. 

 

Also that comic has gimp midgets in it whipping a naked Jim Gordon when he is in a cage and in bondage gear.

 

If the film has that, then point conceded, I guess. 

 

But throughout everything Joker isn’t a person. He is a force of nature. He is as unknowable as he is ultimately evil. The film trying to humanise him, or show him as a person, has before they even started, missed the point of the Joker.

 

Oh, also Joker fights Batman that’s kind of his whole thing.

 

I get what you’re saying that the film is more like Logan in terms of tone, maturity, bleakness. And that’s probably true. I would agree they are definitely taking comics as ‘inspiration’ and doing their own things with it. But Logan is actually a sequel as well to the X-Men movies as well as actually incorporating material from the comics in a mostly meaningful way. Logan is not really a film I like every much but I respect it. This, I can respect it as film, but I can’t respect it as a comic book movie 

 

[one-armed dwarf]

My point with Logan is that this too feels like it's trying to message itself as a departure from 'standard' comic book genre fare. Not necessarily that it is darker.

 

It reminds me of Scorcese's comment the other day that he doesn't consider MCU films 'real cinema', that they're like themepark rides or something like that. Ignoring the implications of that for a second, Joker I think is a film trying to answer that sort of remark with a 'well what about this?'.

 

Scorcese's Taxi Driver is the thing you hear the most when people try to describe this. Tbh, thinking about it I don't know it's really a good comparison cause Travis Bickle didnt' come across too bad in the end. But there's undeniable similarities all the same between the two characters and the narrative technique/style.

 

Personally I think Logan is much more successful and far better cause it feels like they made something for everyone with that film (even if you don't like it). Joker is just very cynical in everything it does. 

[mmmark]

Using a Gary Glitter song in Joker seems like an odd decision.

 

An odd decision

[Maf]

@one-armed dwarf I actually think Logan walks a nice balance between trying to pay respects to Hugh Jackman’s career as Wolverine, the X-Men movies, homaging Old Man Logan, doings it’s own thing, and celebrating being an X-Men related thing. The most poignant part of that whole film to me was the very final shot where the cross falls over and it becomes an X. I thought that was beautiful, actually. 

 

(I just don’t like Wolverine that much or Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of him so even though i think the film is a really good film it just isn’t a film for me)

[HandsomeDead]

I've not seen the film, and after seeing a bit about here and elsewhere it does look like it turned out how I was worried it would. 

 

It's totally in love with the Scorcase aesthetic and character exploration but it just doesn't seem like it's doing a good job of it.  I heard one thing where Arthur gets more 'actualised' after he gives up taking his medication.  I mean oof.  That's pretty dumb. 

 

I disagree this film would still be big if it wasn't a Joker film.  There are quite a lot of films that are character pieces about  troubled people turning bad.  A lot of Scorcase's filmography is exactly this and does a much better job.  In fact reading about Joker I'm also getting a few Fight Club vibes. 

I also think if you want a film that is about someone who struggles with empathy and gets driven down a road of having his worsed intstincts rewarded and doing horrible things then Nightcrawler (not that one) is also an interesting film. 

 

So basically I think a good Joker film shouldn't be what if Taxi Driver / King of Comedy / Fight Club but dumber and worse.  It seems like its kinda getting away with it because it's a comic book film and I guess they've not done something like this in that realm. 

[one-armed dwarf]

So

Spoiler

Depending on how you see it, does Joker get 'actualised' because Arthur stops taking his meds, therefore has less control over his narcissistic ideation and allows 'Joker' in his head to become more real. I don't know, but it's suggested that he makes his fantasy his reality in a way I suppose when he is off them. 

 

Tbh the treatment of all that stuff is very weird, because the only thing they actually explain about his illness is his laughing condition (which is a real condition). On stuff like empathy, I was left wondering if he was supposed to be autistic or something else. It was much more muddled and it's a big reason I was left troubled by the flim. They do say his mother is a narcissistic psychopath I think so I suppose we're supposed to generalise from that and conclude that Arthur is too.

 

We don't know any of that though, because we don't really know what he's receiving treatment for other than 'Mental Illness TM'. Which is a problem because it infects the whole messaging of the film. That's the kind of thing which does need to be extremely specific or the clues need to be a bit better than 'he might be like his mum'.

 

I figure this thread has gotten too one sided though. I think that Phoenix is incredible in this film. There's lots of attention to detail that I really like. The way that they sell the desperation and poverty of Gotham. It reminded me a bit of when I was in Athens a few months ago. Everything always looks dirty and underfunded. Although it's a different situation obviously cause the money exists but isn't being distributed fairly.

 

There's also a weird fixation on dental hygiene in this film. Along with other various indicators of wealth, like how unhealthy Arthur looks compared with some of the investor types he meets. I don't know if all of it a choice or not but they do a good job with how they show the has and has nots and the differences between them. 

[OCH]

Like I said, this is the most accurate portrayal of Gotham to date. The reality to the city they can only give cliff notes on, when viewed from the lofty perspective of Billionaire Bruce Wayne. There is also a larger overarching narrative reflected in that, between the haves and have nots. 

 

@Maf, @HandsomeDead , Go See it. Your questions, circular ramblings and.. well most of what was on the last page, will be addressed and answered.

 

There is even a nice reference to The Dark Knight Returns and Batman '89 you'll enjoy Maf. This is a Super Villain Movie: A completely different animal to regular comic book movies. That is the main point to bear in mind. Joker or Magneto are the only ones that could really make that work without prior context. As much as I love Burton Batman, Joker is probably the second best Batman film to The Dark Knight. A review I watched on YouTube came to the same conclusion.

[HandsomeDead]

I'm unlikely to watch it.  I'm not much of a comic book guy so how comic accurate it is is not a reason to watch it.  I'm not invested in that way. I'd be interested in it as an interpretation to tell a relevant story and a lot of reports says it doesn't do that too well. 

 

And on top of that I'm not that into these kinds of character studies now.  There's a few exceptions but I don't get into them nearly as much.  I don't even like Taxi Driver that much and its considered gold standard.  Sure, Fight Club blew my tiny, teen mind but I have little reason to see more like it.  I get it. 

 

So forgive me for not being excited to see an also ran in the kind of film I'm quite picky about. 

[mmmark]

I can’t wait to see this personally ? Might have to wait until on demand though. It sounds as though Gotham looks like Rotherham ?

[OCH]

Personally, as someone with a bit of a screw loose, Phoenix' performance did resonate on another level too. As I said, I haven't seen Taxi Driver or any of the other films referenced in this, so I just took the film at face value IE the story it was telling. Without overanalysing any kind of deeper meaning from it. I just enjoyed what was in front of me, without preconceived bias. 

But to each their own.

[DANGERMAN]

Will they ever do a version of joker where he's actually funny?