• To celebrate the release of Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam, Xbox Games Studios has provided 5 Steam copies of the game and 5 Xbox One copies of the game! We will be giving these away in the Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Some Steam copies will also be given away to the PC Gaming Era community.
  • An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 6 days, 11 hours, 37 minutes, 26 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

JOKER |OT| Viviamo in una società |SPOILERS|

JB1981

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,386
In Arthur's fantasy of being on Murray's show at the beginning of the film, imaginary Murray tells Arthur something to the effect that he'd like to have a son like him. Arthur fantasizes about Murray being a father-figure. When he betrays Arthur by mocking his stand-up he becomes a stand-in for Arthur's rage against Thomas Wayne.
Yes
 

cabelhigh

Member
Nov 2, 2017
235
In Arthur's fantasy of being on Murray's show at the beginning of the film, imaginary Murray tells Arthur something to the effect that he'd like to have a son like him. Arthur fantasizes about Murray being a father-figure. When he betrays Arthur by mocking his stand-up he becomes a stand-in for Arthur's rage against Thomas Wayne.
Ok, that makes sense. Did not make that connection.
 

est1992

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,808
Joaquin getting that Oscar fasho. Movie was intense from start to finish.

Eager to see how DC continues these Black Label movies. They certainly have the rogues gallery to do it.
 

Hawk269

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,818
He has an unhealthy obsession with Murray, similar to how his mother is obsessed with Thomas Wayne. Arthur fantasizes about Murray being the father he never had. And when he sees him publicity humiliate him for his stand-up routine he targets him for revenge.
That is exactly how I took it. He idolized Murray, had dreams about being on the show, hell in that one scene you see them hug and Murray saying something about him being a son he never had or something alluding to that. When Arthur see's Murray making fun of him, he kind of snaps and kills him because of that.
 

UnknownSpirit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
800
I’m just gonna post my few thoughts I have.
I think the movie is incredible.

I truly love the last 30 minutes, and I leaned over to a friend of mine and said “I’m kinda upset I won’t see him again.”

His slow transition to the joker is incredible to watch, and I loved the paralleling of the Birth of Joker and the Birth of Batman at the end.

It is dark, but I think people should see it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,420
While obviously they're not meaning to follow this up with any direct Batman sequels and it's not important, I don't think their age difference is that outlandish when playing around with the idea.

Joaquin is 45. His age isn't necessarily exactly the same as the character. Could we say that his character is a rough 40 from a hard upbringing? We know this dude has some mileage on him. (I dont remember if any hard age was established in the movie)
Dante is ~10. Could we say Bruce is 11, or possibly stretch to 12?
Bruce usually becomes Batman somewhere around age 22ish depending on the continuity, sometimes earlier sometimes later. Lets lean earlier and go with 21.

So believably, these two could clash at ages 21 and 49. Batman could always beat Joker to a pulp in a straight fight, so there's no change there. Dude would have to pull his punches which plays right into their dynamic anyway. And a 49 year old Joker isn't so old that he can't be manipulative, crazy and scheming. That's all in the head. So... what's the difference?

Those two could clash for 10 years and the Joker wouldn't yet be out of his 50s. Nolan Batman was active for less total time than that. If Tom Cruise can do what he does at 57, make-believe character Arthur Fleck could remain perfectly slippery at 49.

Their future together is still perfectly viable and that imaginary sequel would then take place in 1990.
 
Last edited:

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,061
That is exactly how I took it. He idolized Murray, had dreams about being on the show, hell in that one scene you see them hug and Murray saying something about him being a son he never had or something alluding to that. When Arthur see's Murray making fun of him, he kind of snaps and kills him because of that.
he doesn't kill him because he made fun of him, but because he called him out on his actions.

murray making fun of arthur was just arthur's justification
 

JB1981

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,386
he doesn't kill him because he made fun of him, but because he called him out on his actions.

murray making fun of arthur was just arthur's justification
He literally tells him he’s awful because the only reason he booked him to be on the show was to make fun of him.

Hell, Arthur NAMES HIMSELF joker because it’s what Murray called him before introducing his clip. He absolutely killed Murray for the public humiliation
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,837
Phoenix, AZ
While obviously they're not meaning to follow this up with any direct Batman sequels and it's not important, I don't think their age difference is that outlandish when playing around with the idea.

Joaquin is 45. His age isn't necessarily exactly the same as the character. Could we say that his character is a rough 40 from a hard upbringing? We know this dude has some mileage on him. (I dont remember if any hard age was established in the movie)
Dante is ~10. Could we say Bruce is 11, or possibly stretch to 12?
Bruce usually becomes Batman somewhere around age 22ish depending on the continuity, sometimes earlier sometimes later. Lets go with 21.

So believably, these two could clash at ages 21 and 49. Batman could always beat Joker to a pulp in a straight fight, so there's no change there. Dude would have to pull his punches which plays right into their dynamic anyway. And a 49 year old Joker isn't so old that he can't be manipulative, crazy and scheming. That's all in the head. So... what's the difference?

Those two could clash for 10 years and the Joker wouldn't yet be out of his 50s. Nolan Batman was active for less total time than that. If Tom Cruise can do what he does at 57, make-believe character Arthur Fleck could remain perfectly slippery at 49.
i don’t think Arthur is supposed to be that old. I got more of an early - mid 30s vibe.
 

JB1981

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,386
what theory man?, he was going to kill himself, not kill arthur, he snapped when arthur started calling him out on his killings

lol
You keep saying it was his justification. You just made this up. I don’t even know why you’re debating me on this point. The sequence of events and motivation is clear as day
 

Bad Vibes Dio

The Fallen
Apr 13, 2018
6,539
Black Sabbath - Paranoid energy says Joker knew he was gonna pop Murray from the moment he got invited, but changed the script to add that kill himself angle to fuck with you, his audience.

Yet another twist in the Jokers everlasting tale.
 

B.C.

Member
Sep 28, 2018
904
Brilliant critique, even if I happen to disagree. The performance beneath Phoenix's laughter fascinated me, he stiffens up and strains against the laugh, and I saw fear, self-hatred and physical pain in his eyes. The social anxiety of waiting for it to bark out at any moment was torturous. Phoenix made it feel truly involuntary in a way that reminded me of DiCaprio's incredible stammer in Once...

And that fuckin' music cue, man. It absolutely feels like a "cool rock and roll victory strut" when it SHOULD BE underscored with that Guðnadóttir shit, giving that staircase scene the eerie majesty befitting Arthur Fleck fully abandoning his humanity to become the theatrically evil Clown Prince of Crime.
This.

The laughter was wholly a part of the character himself. Not just some random act but a part of him like his vertebrae, elbow, heart or lung. And making it an actual condition gave substance like no other iteration of the Joker ever has. I loved this film on so many levels - I'm still reeling over it and saw it two days ago. My girl and I are going to see it again in a couple of weeks. I can't wait!
 

thecouncil

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,989
While obviously they're not meaning to follow this up with any direct Batman sequels and it's not important, I don't think their age difference is that outlandish when playing around with the idea.

Joaquin is 45. His age isn't necessarily exactly the same as the character. Could we say that his character is a rough 40 from a hard upbringing? We know this dude has some mileage on him. (I dont remember if any hard age was established in the movie)
Dante is ~10. Could we say Bruce is 11, or possibly stretch to 12?
Bruce usually becomes Batman somewhere around age 22ish depending on the continuity, sometimes earlier sometimes later. Lets lean earlier and go with 21.

So believably, these two could clash at ages 21 and 49. Batman could always beat Joker to a pulp in a straight fight, so there's no change there. Dude would have to pull his punches which plays right into their dynamic anyway. And a 49 year old Joker isn't so old that he can't be manipulative, crazy and scheming. That's all in the head. So... what's the difference?

Those two could clash for 10 years and the Joker wouldn't yet be out of his 50s. Nolan Batman was active for less total time than that. If Tom Cruise can do what he does at 57, make-believe character Arthur Fleck could remain perfectly slippery at 49.

Their future together is still perfectly viable and that imaginary sequel would then take place in 1990.
i don’t think Arthur is supposed to be that old. I got more of an early - mid 30s vibe.
I think it was said that his mom worked for the Waynes 30 years ago. If Thomas Wayne knew of his adoption and his mom was able to make him think he was Thomas Wayne's son, maybe he was a baby when he was adopted? Anyway, I would've thought he was supposed to be early to mid-30s
 

B.C.

Member
Sep 28, 2018
904
I don't sympathise with him at all, letting out anger by hurting and murdering other people is senseless and cowardly.

At least when the joker killed ppl in the dark Knight he had a purpose.

Like when those guys attacked him on the train, OK he shot one, which is still to much, but shooting the others makes no sense., same goes for killing his clown friend.
When he killed de Niro that was a bit better because he had a reason to.

This joker movie is like a documentary of a mass shooter.
I dont think you were supposed to feel sympathetic to Arthur Fleck murdering people. Even in the subway scene once he kills the Wall Street guys, I never once felt like, "I understand where Arthur is coming from."
In fact, I was shocked! Even moreso when he chases the last guy and guns him down. Not once does this film ask you to sympathize with Arthur Fleck and his increasingly bad choices. In fact, when you remember his downward spiral throughout the entire film, each act of violence equates to being steps towards a real tragedy (that being his life in general), as it's somewhat heartbreaking to watch Arthur descend down his path. But it's also his destiny - seemingly from birth.
 

TheAvatar

Member
Nov 4, 2017
419
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.
american physco is another film which people over think and the director of that movies says as much,
While obviously they're not meaning to follow this up with any direct Batman sequels and it's not important, I don't think their age difference is that outlandish when playing around with the idea.

Joaquin is 45. His age isn't necessarily exactly the same as the character. Could we say that his character is a rough 40 from a hard upbringing? We know this dude has some mileage on him. (I dont remember if any hard age was established in the movie)
Dante is ~10. Could we say Bruce is 11, or possibly stretch to 12?
Bruce usually becomes Batman somewhere around age 22ish depending on the continuity, sometimes earlier sometimes later. Lets lean earlier and go with 21.

So believably, these two could clash at ages 21 and 49. Batman could always beat Joker to a pulp in a straight fight, so there's no change there. Dude would have to pull his punches which plays right into their dynamic anyway. And a 49 year old Joker isn't so old that he can't be manipulative, crazy and scheming. That's all in the head. So... what's the difference?

Those two could clash for 10 years and the Joker wouldn't yet be out of his 50s. Nolan Batman was active for less total time than that. If Tom Cruise can do what he does at 57, make-believe character Arthur Fleck could remain perfectly slippery at 49.

Their future together is still perfectly viable and that imaginary sequel would then take place in 1990.
to be honest in the movies universe, he could be even younger than 40 in some ways, could be 35 for all we know, he is poor as hell, doesn't eat right at all(look how skinny he is), dealing with a lot mental anguish, that ages your life A LOT quicker than a normal person.
 
Feb 10, 2018
15,529
I dont think you were supposed to feel sympathetic to Arthur Fleck murdering people. Even in the subway scene once he kills the Wall Street guys, I never once felt like, "I understand where Arthur is coming from."
In fact, I was shocked! Even moreso when he chases the last guy and guns him down. Not once does this film ask you to sympathize with Arthur Fleck and his increasingly bad choices. In fact, when you remember his downward spiral throughout the entire film, each act of violence equates to being steps towards a real tragedy (that being his life in general), as it's somewhat heartbreaking to watch Arthur descend down his path. But it's also his destiny - seemingly from birth.
Tell this to the poster I quoted. Im in a agreement with u.
 

JB1981

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,386
Sooo how did you guys interpret his condition? Did his mom think he had something wrong with him because he was a happy and laughing a lot? There wasn’t really anything wrong with him until he suffered head trauma from one of her boyfriends?
 

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,061
Sooo how did you guys interpret his condition? Did his mom think he had something wrong with him because he was a happy and laughing a lot? There wasn’t really anything wrong with him until he suffered head trauma from one of her boyfriends?
i think that's the reason why he killed her, he could have been someone "normal" but she not giving a fuck about him is what fucked him, what made him this "broken" person.

i dont think he cared that much about Thomas Wayne not being his father.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,101
It may not be the popular opinion but I hope The Batman lays off going too damn dark/depressing.

I'd like something tonally darker and more grounded than the two Burton films but not as realism oriented as the Nolan films. Basically maybe something along the lines of the Arkham games.

I'm fine with this being a one off and this version of the Joker not being continued.
 

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,061

Baconmonk

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
4,724

SalvaPot

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,166
I don't think this movie needs a sequel to be honest, I think this joker works fine as a standalone, if anything I feel the Bruce subplot feels like a contractual obligation that something the movie needs.
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,837
Phoenix, AZ
It may not be the popular opinion but I hope The Batman lays off going too damn dark/depressing.

I'd like something tonally darker and more grounded than the two Burton films but not as realism oriented as the Nolan films. Basically maybe something along the lines of the Arkham games.

I'm fine with this being a one off and this version of the Joker not being continued.
nah give me more of the realism. that’s always what I found so appealing about Batman movies, especially the Nolan ones and this Joker film, is that Gotham parallels real life’s issues in a way that’s ultimately relatable. It’s a breath of fresh air from the more fantastical fluff of Marvel movies.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,101
nah give me more of the realism. that’s always what I found so appealing about Batman movies, especially the Nolan ones and this Joker film, is that Gotham parallels real life’s issues in a way that’s ultimately relatable. It’s a breath of fresh air from the more fantastical fluff of Marvel movies.
The Nolan movies already did it though. To be honest this version of the Joker is depressing and even Batfleck was a bit ridiculously dark.

I'd like something more like the Burton films but more grounded. Joker is supposed to be fun at least a little bit.
 

Prine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,683
nah give me more of the realism. that’s always what I found so appealing about Batman movies, especially the Nolan ones and this Joker film, is that Gotham parallels real life’s issues in a way that’s ultimately relatable. It’s a breath of fresh air from the more fantastical fluff of Marvel movies.
Honestly, this x1000.

We need to be careful to not fall into the assembly line superhero mould that stifles independent expression, I love that WB are maintaining this form of approach to thier franchises.
 

Severance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
129
It was a solid film carried by the one and only Joaquin Phoenix. I’ll say this.. i went into the film expecting Joker to be portrayed as sympathetic and likeable due to the buzz leading up to its release. I found Joker’s portrayal throughout the film to be straight up unnerving. I had no sympathy for him, except for the broader aspect and implications of Gotham cutting it’s social services and dropping it’s mentally ill patients. Which is also something that has already happened in America.
 

JB1981

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,386
I think this movie would have been a lot more interesting if Arthur actually did attach himself to the disaffected lower classes and became a kind of champion of their cause. Would have been a very interesting subversion of the conventional Batman story, with Joker a figure of the proletariat and Batman a defender of the bourgeoisie.
 

JB1981

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,386
It was a solid film carried by the one and only Joaquin Phoenix. I’ll say this.. i went into the film expecting Joker to be portrayed as sympathetic and likeable due to the buzz leading up to its release. I found Joker’s portrayal throughout the film to be straight up unnerving. I had no sympathy for him, except for the broader aspect and implications of Gotham cutting it’s social services and dropping it’s mentally ill patients. Which is also something that has already happened in America.
I don’t understand how anyone can say this. 95% of the movie is dedicated to scenes of Arthur being shit on and misunderstood by every person in Gotham, regardless of class or background. They even show him going out of his way to be nice to the midget character. He’s absolutely sympathetic!
 

MillionIII

Member
Sep 11, 2018
3,267
I think this movie would have been a lot more interesting if Arthur actually did attach himself to the disaffected lower classes and became a kind of champion of their cause. Would have been a very interesting subversion of the conventional Batman story, with Joker a figure of the proletariat and Batman a defender of the bourgeoisie.
But that’s not the character at all, he doesn’t believe in anything political.
 

Visceir

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17
I liked how the riots and uproar of the masses built up in the background. How Arthur triggered it, but Thomas Wayne's interview and general state of the world that got the ball rolling, equating the lower-class citizerns to clowns etc.

Liked how focused on Arthur the movie was, while giving some justification for his actions he'd still come off as a crazy maniac in the end. Former co-worker coming over to show support to Arthur just for Arthur to kill him. The ending to that scene with the locked door was legit funny!

Seems weird for posters to be so hung up on Joker's intelligence. Don't think there ever really was any clear display of Arthur's intelligence or the lack of and most of it could be moreso explained with Arthur's lack of confidence, really. Arthur seemed more like a beaten and caged dog that was finally set free at the end of the movie. Looked like quite a suave motherfucker after having escaped the cops in the subway.

Would actually be pretty cool get a movie of Joaquin Phoenix playing that ending Joker for a whole movie. Wouldn't even want batman in it, just have him face off against another villain or just turn Gotham into an even bigger hellhole. Could use it to further explore some themes that don't get much spotlight in your usual hero movies.
 

8byte

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,976
Kansas
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.
Comedy Clubs (real ones) have recorded comedians (both professionals and open micers) for decades. It is extremely common practice, for two reasons. First, many professional comics are looking footage of their set after a show to review. Second, Clubs often used the video as scouting material to find new hosts / features for traveling comics / weekly shows.

This practice isn't quite as common today, because most comedians travel with their own cameras or recording devices (phones) and use that instead.
 

Gustaf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,061
I liked how the riots and uproar of the masses built up in the background. How Arthur triggered it, but Thomas Wayne's interview and general state of the world that got the ball rolling, equating the lower-class citizerns to clowns etc.

Liked how focused on Arthur the movie was, while giving some justification for his actions he'd still come off as a crazy maniac in the end. Former co-worker coming over to show support to Arthur just for Arthur to kill him. The ending to that scene with the locked door was legit funny!

Seems weird for posters to be so hung up on Joker's intelligence. Don't think there ever really was any clear display of Arthur's intelligence or the lack of and most of it could be moreso explained with Arthur's lack of confidence, really. Arthur seemed more like a beaten and caged dog that was finally set free at the end of the movie. Looked like quite a suave motherfucker after having escaped the cops in the subway.

Would actually be pretty cool get a movie of Joaquin Phoenix playing that ending Joker for a whole movie. Wouldn't even want batman in it, just have him face off against another villain or just turn Gotham into an even bigger hellhole. Could use it to further explore some themes that don't get much spotlight in your usual hero movies.
people questioning his intelligence is quite moronic since we are shown that he either is restricted because of his depression or his medicine or everything around him.

at the end being totally free of all burden, he is totally another person.