JOKER |OT| Viviamo in una società |SPOILERS|

[Cpt-GargameL]

The Joker wakes up in Arkham Asylum in 2019 after having dozed off watching The King of Comedy in the common room.

"What a weird dream. Oh well, time to kill the Batman!"

Joker Part 2 - Coming Fall 2021 from Warner Bros!

Any takers?

Alternatively, Joker wakes up in whatever year the Robert Pattinson Batman is in. Fight!

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't put it past them to actually pull this off lol I wouldn't mind it actually.

I like the theory that he is in the mental institution the intire time and just remembering the events.
He looks too old to someone claim that he is Wayne son. So he maybe remembering things in the past and inserting himself how he looks right now in those events. Plus he suffers from demencia, so he might be remenbering some things wrong, and he was never jumped and his boss was right about him stealing the sign.

Click to shrink...

This can actually a possibility and I'd be all for it. I too thought that he looked older during that final scene in Arkham. It would make sense if so.

Hmmm

Click to shrink...

The reach of the century lmfaoo but also very neat lol

 

[BossAttack]

Joker would have to be like 70 years old. I don't think it would work. They'd have to recast Phoenix. If they use him again it would go against the whole grounded thing.

Click to shrink...

Simple. You keep him the same age. Why doesn't he look like he aged? Who said anything he told you was real? Who said it took place in the 1970's? Blah, blah.

It's a comic-book movie, get over it.

 

[fracas]

Caught this last night. Overall definitely mixed, but Phoenix was phenomenal. Dude deserves Oscar noms for carrying that film the way he did.

I thought for a while there that the psychologist Joker spoke with at the end would've been hinted at as Harley Quinn. I thought for sure she was going to say something like "try me" when Joker said she wouldn't understand what he was laughing about, then cut to black.

 

[Deleted member 21339]

Im pretty sure the only ones that can claim the "real way" how to interpret the movie do not have an account on resetera.
It's fine someone else view a few scenes differently from you. Does not make one wrong and other right.

Click to shrink...

Uh, no.

That post misrepresents the conversation between Arthur and his boss. His boss never claims that Arthur stole the sign from the business. He says he doesn't believe that Arthur got jumped and thinks he's still holding onto the sign. He thinks Arthur is a weirdo looking for attention.

And with Randall we have two scenes that support that he gave Arthur the gun: his nervous/angry reaction when Arthur tells everyone at work that Randall gave it to him and Randall showing up at his apartment wanting to know what he told the authorities. There is no evidence to support that Arthur stole the sign and made up being jumped or that Arthur bought the gun on his own. It's a completely unsubstantiated theory.

Plus, the movie goes out of its way to specifically call out those times when Arthur is fantasizing or hallucinating. Those are the rules the movie establishes with the audience. There's nothing in the movie to indicate that we should call into question EVERYTHING that happens in the movie.

 

[The Artisan]

Enjoyed it immensely, but what do people think about the timeline of the film particularly if you try to imagine this version of young Bruce going on to become Batman. Assuming he's around 10 in this film and Joker around 44 (Joaquin's age), that puts Joker around 55 or 60 by the time "Batman" actually arrives. Are we to believe Arthur is a lot younger than Joaquin for this to make a bit more sense?

Click to shrink...

Yeah I didn't get that either. I think the character was supposed to be in his 30s, although I have nothing to back that up off the top of my head but it wouldn't make sense for Bruce to be a child if this movie ends with him in Arkham

 

[excelsiorlef]

I

Hmmm obviously some stuff was delusions but hadn't thought of everything being such

Click to shrink...

Don't buy this because of the fake girlfriend reveal being so explicit

 

[smisk]

Can't believe this movie has such a high rating on letterboxd. The performances and production design are great, but ultimately its a pretty shallow character study that is never as insightful as it thinks it is. Pretty boring movie too, don't see why you'd watch this over any of the movies that inspired it.
I gave it a 2.5/5.

I don't buy this because of the fake girlfriend reveal being so explicit

Click to shrink...

Yeah me neither. The movie seems to go out of its way to hit you over the head with everything.

 

[Dust]

I kinda want Pattinson's Batman to be in the same grounded tone. Bruce as a broken, fumbling and generally more damaging than helpful vigilante. Also make him cloaked and mostly hidden in the dark.
Everybody is scared of some insane man in giant bat suit beating people up.

 

[Biggersmaller]

I really didn't like this. I felt very conflicted about whether to feel sorry for a mass-murdering psychopath (!) or if I was supposed to 'cheer' for him because he inspired a movement and a cult. The film clearly asks us to 'cheer' for Joker and that's extremely disturbing/dangerous to me.

Phoenix was good and did what he could with the role, a better director and writer could have put more of a character on the page though. Tbh, I really don't know why this film needed to exist in the first place. All the Batman lore really pulled me out of the film too. I would have greatly preferred if it was its own thing and not connected to anything else. Just felt completely unfocused.

Click to shrink...

I disagree. This film works very hard to make Joker the least likable film version of the character. Clearly by design, the audience is forced to understand what the cult-like rabble in the film doesn't: the extent to how much a disturbed mentally ill homicidal schizophrenic he is. That he felt justified for a long time because the lovely woman who told him he was right to murder those men on the train was a fantasy. I strongly believe the riots themselves are a commentary on how gravely misplaced people's hero worship can be. The audience is never meant to join them on any level.

The primary "message" the film makes crystal clear is: fund public mental health services.

 

[Dennis8K]

Hmmm

Click to shrink...

THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

 

[CloudWolf]

Hmmm obviously some stuff was delusions but hadn't thought of everything being such

Click to shrink...

Have people like this ever seen a film before?

 

[Prine]

Cant stop thinking about the movie, really left an impression on me. Really applaud both Fox and WB for taking on more adult themes with Superhero movies.

 

[Deleted member 21339]

I disagree. This film works very hard to make Joker the least likable film version of the character. Clearly by design, the audience is forced to understand what the cult-like rabble in the film doesn't: the extent to how much a disturbed mentally ill homicidal schizophrenic he is. That he felt justified for a long time because the lovely woman who told him he was right to murder those men on the train was a fantasy. I strongly believe the riots themselves are a commentary on how gravely misplaced people's hero worship can be. The audience is never meant to join them on any level.

The primary "message" the film makes crystal clear is: fund public mental health services.

Click to shrink...

Funny, the message I got was if you treat people badly don't be surprised when you get a bullet to the head.

Victim blaming writ large

 

[Rare Opiums]

Cant stop thinking about the movie, really left an impression on me. Really applaud both Fox and WB for taking on more adult themes with Superhero movies.

Click to shrink...

Didn't see any superhero in this movie...

 

[LatteToGo]

This movie is so good. The gloom atmoshpere really nailed it, and so was the music, really give the tension on it. Did Arthur kill the women in the end?

 

[Rogote]

Funny, the message I got was if you treat people badly don't be surprised when you get a bullet to the head.

Victim blaming writ large

Click to shrink...

I find that to be an unfortunately shallow interpretation of it, even if I can kinda see how you got to that conclusion, I just happen to disagree with it wholeheartedly.

 

[Angie]

Uh, no.

That post misrepresents the conversation between Arthur and his boss. His boss never claims that Arthur stole the sign from the business. He says he doesn't believe that Arthur got jumped and thinks he's still holding onto the sign. He thinks Arthur is a weirdo looking for attention.

And with Randall we have two scenes that support that he gave Arthur the gun: his nervous/angry reaction when Arthur tells everyone at work that Randall gave it to him and Randall showing up at his apartment wanting to know what he told the authorities. There is no evidence to support that Arthur stole the sign and made up being jumped or that Arthur bought the gun on his own. It's a completely unsubstantiated theory.

Plus, the movie goes out of its way to specifically call out those times when Arthur is fantasizing or hallucinating. Those are the rules the movie establishes with the audience. There's nothing in the movie to indicate that we should call into question EVERYTHING that happens in the movie.

Click to shrink...

Uh, yes ( I guess I can be condescending too )

Anyway, I guess I would say that the reason almost everything in the movie is up to interpretation is because basically the whole movie is seen from Arthur's point of view, and the film pretty quickly establishes that Arthur is very unreliable narrator. just like the character of joker is in the comics

The film is obviously taking a lot of notes from Taxi Driver, but it also reminded me of American Psycho in how we can't really trust what is real. I do agree with you in that arthur propably didnt hallucinate being jumped and his Sign getting stolen/broken, but I don't think it's wrong to think that way.

 

[Vampirolol]

Funny, the message I got was if you treat people badly don't be surprised when you get a bullet to the head.

Victim blaming writ large

Click to shrink...

It's pure victim blaming. Every single character/scene in the movie is there to justify this guy becoming the Joker. Even his mom tells him that he can't make people laugh. It's so exaggerated and in your face that it really touches parody at times. Like when his boss suggests that he kept that sign (really? why?), when that woman doesn't apologize after discovering that he has a condition (really?), when his therapist can't even do her job (way before that funding problem, first 10 minutes). You even see Alfred being kind of a dick, I mean, fucking Alfred. All characters here are two-dimensional bad guys that hurt him, except for his "lover". No human interaction is realistic here, yet the movie wants to have that tone. I mean, they use the laughing-condition 3 times to make him look like a victim.
After 10 minutes I just wanted to see him kill all Gotham.

 

[Rogote]

Great film. Better than I even expected, and the hard reset button I needed from the other typical comic book movies we're bombarded with.

 

[Cpt-GargameL]

Uh, yes ( I guess I can be condescending too )

Anyway, I guess I would say that the reason almost everything in the movie is up to interpretation is because basically the whole movie is seen from Arthur's point of view, and the film pretty quickly establishes that Arthur is very unreliable narrator. just like the character of joker is in the comics

The film is obviously taking a lot of notes from Taxi Driver, but it also reminded me of American Psycho in how we can't really trust what is real. I do agree with you in that arthur propably didnt hallucinate being jumped and his Sign getting stolen/broken, but I don't think it's wrong to think that way.

Click to shrink...

.

 

[Deleted member 835]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/gary-glitter-rake-fortune-joker-20528595

Easily the biggest problem with the film

 

[Deleted member 21339]

Good article critical of the movie's message:

https://www.cbr.com/the-problem-with-rooting-for-arthur-fleck/

 

[VeryHighlander]

Except barely anyone was there. One of the people we thought was there wasn't even there. The whole plot point is founded on the notion that someone was going to film this guy no one showed up for and then not only replicate it but pass it around. It would be one thing of this were a comedian who developed a fan following, but one disastrous stand up routine leading to it coming to the attention of a nationally televised TV show is an enormous contrivance.

Click to shrink...

Jesus if you can't buy the fact that a comedy joint would keep a camera pointed at the stage for 4 hours how the fuck did you manage to get to the ending of this movie without an aneurysm?

 

[Ultimadrago]

Did anyone notice the co-worker (that handed the gun to Arthur) call the Hispanic kids that jumped Arthur "animals" and "savages" when speaking with Arthur about the incident?

It's made pretty obvious, but I thought I'd bring it up in case it wasn;t.

 

[Prine]

Good article critical of the movie's message:

https://www.cbr.com/the-problem-with-rooting-for-arthur-fleck/

Click to shrink...

I mean, of course its wrong to root for Joker, just as it is to root for Tony Soprano. But we shouldn't shy away from exploring their warped and twisted sense of justification and victimisation. When he sat there with a murdered Robert DeNiro it was stomach turning, horrific, but thats who this character is supposed to be. This is the type of man Batman can end but will not.

 

[JS3DX]

The (awkward) introduction of the Murray Show interview with the Joker reminded me of Phoenix's interview with Letterman:

 

[2b_miner]

The boss didn't say he stole the sign. He just didn't believe that people would jump him over a sign and thinks he's making it up for attention

Click to shrink...

One more thing, his mom's report isn't really hers it sort of alludes to his character , narcissism ,violent etc he loves playing the victim card

 

[upinsmoke]

Just got back from seeing this and I thought it was really good. I dont watch loads of films to be honest but the performance from Joaquin Phoenix was
brilliant and one I'll always remember.

Its not the first time I've seen this type of character but the delusions he has and the way he could get them across on screen and portray that type of person you almost pity for their empty existence.

 

[Goodstyle]

My hope for this film's influence on the Joker character in DC continuity is that it is represented as just one of the many ways he remembers his past. I love the idea of his past being multiple choice, and this film does feel kind of like a dream or nightmare the Joker has in remembrance of a past he had. Not all of it makes sense, a lot of the details are flubbed, but the core idea of a series of random misfortune breaking a man remains. His whole ideology is that nihilism is the only correct way to look at the world because random circumstance and human cruelty can ruin anyone's life at any time. In the Killing Joke he says he remembers his past one way sometimes, and other times he remembers it differently, but it always leads to his conclusion that everything's pointless.

 

[Biggersmaller]

It's pure victim blaming. Every single character/scene in the movie is there to justify this guy becoming the Joker. Even his mom tells him that he can't make people laugh. It's so exaggerated and in your face that it really touches parody at times. Like when his boss suggests that he kept that sign (really? why?), when that woman doesn't apologize after discovering that he has a condition (really?), when his therapist can't even do her job (way before that funding problem, first 10 minutes). You even see Alfred being kind of a dick, I mean, fucking Alfred. All characters here are two-dimensional bad guys that hurt him, except for his "lover". No human interaction is realistic here, yet the movie wants to have that tone. I mean, they use the laughing-condition 3 times to make him look like a victim.
After 10 minutes I just wanted to see him kill all Gotham.

Click to shrink...

I think it's fine other characters in the movie contributed to his breakdown, including his victims. To mark that as an interesting narrative is not victim blaming or a justification. Mainly because they contributed to his breakdown as much as his disease, economic pressures and lack of affordable healthcare. The film makes clear those additional factors as reasons for his rampage.

If this were yet another thriller about a killer who only murders strangers with unclear personal motivations would have been disappointing.

 

[Gustaf]

I think it's fine other characters in the movie contributed to his breakdown, including his victims. To mark that as an interesting narrative is not victim blaming or a justification. Mainly because they contributed to his breakdown as much as his disease, economic pressures and lack of affordable healthcare. The film makes clear those additional factors as reasons for his rampage.

If this were yet another thriller about a killer who only murders strangers with unclear personal motivations would have been disappointing.

Click to shrink...

yeah, it;s not only the people, its the system, people can joke all they want about the "society" thing, but it is the message.

the saddest thing is that, 95% of people dont become "super villains" they just kill themselves ;/

 

[Elderly Parrot]

The conversation with the boss was like:
Why did you take the sign
You didn't hear I was jumped by kids
For a sign lol why would anyone do that just give back the sign
But why would I take a sign that makes no sense
I don't know why people do anything just give it back
It's ironic because the boss doesn't believe the kids would steal a sign for no reason but then thinks the joker took the sign because people do stupid shit for no reason and shows how fucked people in powers minds are and how you just can't win

 

[VideogameVices]

The Half in the Bag on this is so half arsed. They didnt even end up saying if they'd recommend it or not.

This movie is so unimportant.

 

[Thordinson]

Except barely anyone was there. One of the people we thought was there wasn't even there. The whole plot point is founded on the notion that someone was going to film this guy no one showed up for and then not only replicate it but pass it around. It would be one thing of this were a comedian who developed a fan following, but one disastrous stand up routine leading to it coming to the attention of a nationally televised TV show is an enormous contrivance.

Click to shrink...

You can see before he goes on stage that there is a camera pointed at the stage. On the TV backstage you see the guy before him performing.

Not saying that makes it better but it does make sense.

 

[TyraZaurus]

You can see before he goes on stage that there is a camera pointed at the stage. On the TV backstage you see the guy before him performing.

Not saying that makes it better but it does make sense.

Click to shrink...

So there was. Alright then. I still think it's a stretch that it got into Murray's hands, given the way the reception to Arthur's stand up.

 

[Biggersmaller]

The Half in the Bag on this is so half arsed. They didnt even end up saying if they'd recommend it or not.

This movie is so unimportant.

Click to shrink...

However you feel about their review (I personally thought it was fine), it's odd you find it "unimportant" - given the relentless press it received and BO numbers.

 

[Youngfossil]

I thought the movie was OK. but it was a bad Joker movie imo.

Yes Joker is psychotic but, he also has charm and is actually a little funny. I didnt laugh once in a Joker movie.

Phoenix Joker had no charm about him, no likability

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

The Half in the Bag on this is so half arsed. They didnt even end up saying if they'd recommend it or not.

This movie is so unimportant.

Click to shrink...

What does this actually mean? How is the importance of art quantified? It's certainly led to an abundance of conversation on a variety of topics.

 

[m23]

I thought the movie was OK. but it was a bad Joker movie imo.

Yes Joker is psychotic but, he also has charm and is actually a little funny. I didnt laugh once in a Joker movie.

Phoenix Joker had no charm about him, no likability

Click to shrink...

You're supposed to like him? I never got the sense that I would be laughing during this movie, even though it happened once or twice.

 

[Youngfossil]

You're supposed to like him? I never got the sense that I would be laughing during this movie, even though it happened once or twice.

Click to shrink...

Not the Phoenix version no, but every other version of joker has charm and was smart, otherwise he's just a killer. That's what makes the joker such a good villian, you hate to like him. Phoenix joker was just a mental patient you felt sad for. He's not a joker that could go toe to toe with a batman.

And yes, Joker has funny (dark) Jokes that are self aware. This move had none of those. (except for my death will make more cents one, needed more of those)

 

[m23]

Not the Phoenix version no, but every other version of joker has charm and was smart, otherwise he's just a killer. That's what makes the joker such a good villian, you hate to like him. Phoenix joker was just a mental patient you felt sad for. He's not a joker that could go toe to toe with a batman.

And yes, Joker has funny (dark) Jokes that are self aware. This move had none of those. (except for my death will make more cents one, needed more of those)

Click to shrink...

This is the origin story of Joker, right at the beginning, of course he can't go toe to toe with Batman at this stage.

Also I think he became what we think of Joker while he was on the talk show at the end. The kiss on the show was a pretty funny moment imo, and there were a couple other moments as well. I didn't see the "my death will make more cents" as a joke at all.

 

[Deleted member 2109]

Not the Phoenix version no, but every other version of joker has charm and was smart, otherwise he's just a killer. That's what makes the joker such a good villian, you hate to like him. Phoenix joker was just a mental patient you felt sad for. He's not a joker that could go toe to toe with a batman.

And yes, Joker has funny (dark) Jokes that are self aware. This move had none of those. (except for my death will make more cents one, needed more of those)

Click to shrink...

By the end I think you see the beginnings of a Joker who could take on a Batman. Not physically but which movie Joker could? This one has a cult to do his bidding.

 

[Youngfossil]

This is the origin story of Joker, right at the beginning, of course he can't go toe to toe with Batman at this stage.

Also I think he became what we think of Joker while he was on the talk show at the end. The kiss on the show was a pretty funny moment imo, and there were a couple other moments as well. I didn't see the "my death will make more cents" as a joke at all.

Click to shrink...

What? it was in his joke book. It was the only Joker level joke in the whole movie.

 

[Youngfossil]

By the end I think you see the beginnings of a Joker who could take on a Batman. Not physically but which movie Joker could? This one has a cult to do his bidding.

Click to shrink...

I dont mean physically, I meant mentally. He's a simpleton in the movie, 10 year old Bruce could out smart him. He showed no signs of strategic intelligence that Joker is known for or could even build upon.

 

[m23]

What? it was in his joke book. It was the only Joker level joke in the whole movie.

Click to shrink...

It was introduced as his diary, and he said he also notes his jokes in it. But yeah, I didn't take that as a joke, I took it as one of his thoughts when writing - maybe that's just me.

I dont mean physically, I meant mentally. He's a simpleton in the movie, 10 year old Bruce could out smart him. He showed no signs of strategic intelligence that Joker is known for or could even build upon.

Click to shrink...

Again, he just became Joker in this movie. And once he made the turn, there was a massive difference in his personality from the rest of the movie, someone that could grow.

 

[tadaima]

I could not suspend my disbelief as the talk show segment went on. What kind of host would let some random serial killer carry on? Where was security? Why didn't anybody move once they realised they were in the company of such a dangerous person?

 

[cabelhigh]

I could not suspend my disbelief as the talk show segment went on. What kind of host would let some random serial killer carry on? Where was security? Why didn't anybody move once they realised they were in the company of such a dangerous person?

Click to shrink...

That ending was so unbelievable and poorly done I was laughing in the theater. Literally, what was the host doing? If earlier in the movie he had been shown as a shock jock or someone who profited off controversy, then it would make sense to keep him on. But since they didn't it was so ridiculous that they kept him on.

And why did joker kill him? His ire was always with Thomas Wayne, who was built up the whole movie to stand on opposition to the joker, from a moral and class perspective. The talk show host barely seemed to effect joker.

 

[BossAttack]

I could not suspend my disbelief as the talk show segment went on. What kind of host would let some random serial killer carry on? Where was security? Why didn't anybody move once they realised they were in the company of such a dangerous person?

Click to shrink...

Simple answer:
Ratings.

That ending was so unbelievable and poorly done I was laughing in the theater. Literally, what was the host doing? If earlier in the movie he had been shown as a shock jock or someone who profited off controversy, then it would make sense to keep him on. But since they didn't it was so ridiculous that they kept him on.

And why did joker kill him? His ire was always with Thomas Wayne, who was built up the whole movie to stand on opposition to the joker, from a moral and class perspective. The talk show host barely seemed to effect joker.

Click to shrink...

He booked him on the show expressly to make fun of him. He allowed him to wear the clown makeup, over the concerns of his manager, cause he thought it would help the ratings.

 

[Calamari41]

I dont mean physically, I meant mentally. He's a simpleton in the movie, 10 year old Bruce could out smart him. He showed no signs of strategic intelligence that Joker is known for or could even build upon.

Click to shrink...

I had a thought during the movie and I thought they were going to go with this and was surprised they didn't, and they mentioned it in the Half in the Bag episode, but this could be dealt with by making him a Munchausen by proxy case with his mom. Maybe he didn't actually need half of those powerful anti-psychotic drugs that he was taking, and once he got off of them, his mind started to clear up a bit.

 

[MillionIII]

I could not suspend my disbelief as the talk show segment went on. What kind of host would let some random serial killer carry on? Where was security? Why didn't anybody move once they realised they were in the company of such a dangerous person?

Click to shrink...

Well he wasn't dangerous until he pulled the gun