JOKER |OT| Viviamo in una società |SPOILERS|

Felt

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,057
I loved this film. I'm annoyed with all the bull shit media around it that tortured the creators as the articles obviously were stretching to find problems with the movie.

The plot had various weaknesses that were blown away by the tremendous performance by Joaquin. I loved that scene where he is rehearsing for the show by himself in his room.

I thought if anything the movie could have been longer and explored more of Arthur's descent. The fantasy girlfriend didn't need to be spoon-fed. Her shock of seeing Arthur was enough. The plot line with the crazy mom was also kind of awkward - like the Wayne butler response of "that bitch was cray" and Wayne himself "you were adopted lol she was crazy PUNCH".
 

BossAttack

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
19,044
My issue with this movie is that at the end of the day it doesn’t believe in anything either. It doesn’t take a position on ANY of the themes it explores.
I mean, theme does Taxi Driver explore?

I think it's a bit too hasty to say the film doesn't believe in anything because it doesn't wrap its theme in a nice, little bow. Again, that is a bit weird to say when the film can so so VERY un-subtle most of the time. But, the film it heavily riffs from, Taxi Driver, is not one that slaps you with any readily available theme. Hell, fools think Travis Bickle is a hero in the film. I think the film needs to be digested more before such statements can be made.

I think a crucial point is the ending where Joker is celebrated despite stating he isn't political, yet is still co-opted by the political movement. Is the film commentating on the media's role on popularizing shooters, creating a narrative involving their actions that likely does not exist? I don't know yet.

The message that mental health care is important isn’t necessarily a new or unique idea.
Why does a message need to be "new" or "unique?"
 

Dust

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,383
One thing that stuck with me is Joker’s outfit, I fucking love this colour palette.
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
I mean, theme does Taxi Driver explore?

I think it's a bit too hasty to say the film doesn't believe in anything because it doesn't wrap its theme in a nice, little bow. Again, that is a bit weird to say when the film can so so VERY un-subtle most of the time. But, the film it heavily riffs from, Taxi Driver, is not one that slaps you with any readily available theme. Hell, fools think Travis Bickle is a hero in the film. I think the film needs to be digested more before such statements can be made.

I think a crucial point is the ending where Joker is celebrated despite stating he isn't political, yet is still co-opted by the political movement. Is the film commentating on the media's role on popularizing shooters, creating a narrative involving their actions that likely does not exist? I don't know yet.



Why does a message need to be "new" or "unique?"
I think you are giving this movie far too much credit. To me, it is all style and no substance.

It’s strengths are in the lead performance, the technical qualities and in the mood and feeling it creates in the viewer. But the main reason why this movie is so unsettling is because there is a dissonance between what you are feeling as you experience it on an emotional level (it’s VERY effective at creating sympathy for its hero) and what you are thinking on an intellectual level. Basically, it works no differently than the best propaganda.

I’m surprised that you have refused to take a position on this movie because once you reflect on it for any significant amount of time there’s not much there there.

The mental health message is extremely simplistic because it’s very much at odds with how modern society treats mental health disorders. It’s like a movie out of time.

Every single person in this movie besides the helpless midget is rotten to Arthur. It’s just dumb.
 

Illusion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,085
I loved this film. I'm annoyed with all the bull shit media around it that tortured the creators as the articles obviously were stretching to find problems with the movie.

The plot had various weaknesses that were blown away by the tremendous performance by Joaquin. I loved that scene where he is rehearsing for the show by himself in his room.

I thought if anything the movie could have been longer and explored more of Arthur's descent. The fantasy girlfriend didn't need to be spoon-fed. Her shock of seeing Arthur was enough. The plot line with the crazy mom was also kind of awkward - like the Wayne butler response of "that bitch was cray" and Wayne himself "you were adopted lol she was crazy PUNCH".
They really made Thomas an asshole in this film and truly did painted him as a villain. Calling the lower class clowns really painted a terrible picture of him. But then again, the whole punch bit or Alfred telling Arthur that his mom was crazy could have all be a hallucination.

The film really wanted to make people think this could be Joker's origin another choice in the long list of multiple choice answers.

I liked the film, but I'll probably will never see it again because of how bored I was through most of it.
 

BossAttack

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
19,044
I think you are giving this movie far too much credit. To me, it is all style and no substance.

It’s strengths are in the lead performance, the technical qualities and in the mood and feeling it creates in the viewer. But the main reason why this movie is so unsettling is because there is a dissonance between what you are feeling as you experience it on an emotional level (it’s VERY effective at creating sympathy for its hero) and what you are thinking on an intellectual level. Basically, it works no differently than the best propaganda.

I’m surprised that you have refused to take a position on this movie because once you reflect on it for any significant amount of time there’s not much there there.

The mental health message is extremely simplistic because it’s very much at odds with how modern society treats mental health disorders. It’s like a movie out of time.
Disagree.

The more I think on it, the more I find things to think about. For instance, Arthur is only seen by society once he commits an act of extreme violence. Beforehand, he is a nobody. He then conflates the public's view of himself with his personal identity which leads to him developing an entire fantasy life of himself full of self-confidence, charisma, and humor. It's not a coincidence that when his sense of identity is threatened by the Wayne revelation, he comes invisible to society once again, hence not being able to get into the hospital automatic door. And then immediately after, he is confronted with the "reality" of himself through the Murray clip. Thus, he seeks reassert his identity through violence again, becoming more and more "secure" in his identity with each additional act of violence until he becomes the Joker.
 

Shaun Solo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
651
Disagree.

The more I think on it, the more I find things to think about. For instance, Arthur is only seen by society once he commits an act of extreme violence. Beforehand, he is a nobody. He then conflates the public's view of himself with his personal identity which leads to him developing an entire fantasy life of himself full of self-confidence, charisma, and humor. It's not a coincidence that when his sense of identity is threatened by the Wayne revelation, he comes invisible to society once again, hence not being able to get into the hospital automatic door. And then immediately after, he is confronted with the "reality" of himself through the Murray clip. Thus, he seeks reassert his identity through violence again, becoming more and more "secure" in his identity with each additional act of violence until he becomes the Joker.
I think these are good observations (particularly the door bit which was also quite funny), but Arthur fantasizes himself as more self-confident before he ever commits an act of violence when he watches the Murray Franklin show with his mom. This is well before he murders the wall street guys.
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
Ehhh the automatic door thing was because he tried to go through the exit side instead of the entrance. It wasn’t that the door didn’t recognize him ha

Good observation though. But unfortunately I think another case of reading into something that isn’t there
 

Gustaf

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
7,644
Ehhh the automatic door thing was because he tried to go through the exit side instead of the entrance. It wasn’t that the door didn’t recognize him ha

Good observation though. But unfortunately I think another case of reading into something that isn’t there
so every interpretation for you would be "giving the movie too much credit"
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
so every interpretation for you would be "giving the movie too much credit"
No. Not at all.

The scene is not what Boss stated. He tries to go in thru the wrong side. The detectives even point it out. Arthur was flustered because they were onto him. It wasn’t because the doors didn’t recognize his existence
 

harSon

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,631
I think you are giving this movie far too much credit. To me, it is all style and no substance.

It’s strengths are in the lead performance, the technical qualities and in the mood and feeling it creates in the viewer. But the main reason why this movie is so unsettling is because there is a dissonance between what you are feeling as you experience it on an emotional level (it’s VERY effective at creating sympathy for its hero) and what you are thinking on an intellectual level. Basically, it works no differently than the best propaganda.

I’m surprised that you have refused to take a position on this movie because once you reflect on it for any significant amount of time there’s not much there there.

The mental health message is extremely simplistic because it’s very much at odds with how modern society treats mental health disorders. It’s like a movie out of time.

Every single person in this movie besides the helpless midget is rotten to Arthur. It’s just dumb.
As someone who has worked extensively with homeless populations, I'd just like to say that you're 100% wrong.
 

BossAttack

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
19,044
I think these are good observations (particularly the door bit which was also quite funny), but Arthur fantasizes himself as more self-confident before he ever commits an act of violence when he watches the Murray Franklin show with his mom. This is well before he murders the wall street guys.
Again, I disagree.

Arthur doesn't fantasize about being more confident or even humorous. The early Murray fantasy is actually fascinating as Arthur fantasizes about acceptance as opposed to a fantasy version of himself. He's singled out in the fantasy because of his weird laugh. Everyone in the audience and show notices how weird it is, which means Arthur understands how off-putting his laugh is. Yet, while the audience laughs at him, Murray accepts him. This happens again when he mentions living with his mother. The audience laughs at him, meaning Arthur realizes how it looks being a middle-aged guy living with his mom. But again, Murray accepts him, invites him down, and tells him he's like a son. In this fantasy, Arthur's fault's are on full-display. He's not confident or charismatic, he's just Arthur. Yet, Murray accepts him.

Later on, he no longer seeks acceptance as Arthur, but gains confidence and acceptance as Joker.

Ehhh the automatic door thing was because he tried to go through the exit side instead of the entrance. It wasn’t that the door didn’t recognize him ha

Good observation though. But unfortunately I think another case of reading into something that isn’t there

Nah, the intent is clear as day. This is not reading too much into the film, it's right in your face. How can people accuse the film of being so in-your-face, but miss the most basic stuff?
 

Prine

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,299
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.
Yeah, Thomas Wayne played a significant role in inflaming the situation. Guy was a pompous twat that thought little of the vulnerable and downtrodden (doesn't mean Arthur was part of that group).
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
Nah, the intent is clear as day. This is not reading too much into the film, it's right in your face. How can people accuse the film of being so in-your-face, but miss the most basic stuff?
I mean, dude, no it's not. He attempts to go in the wrong side of the doors and that's why the sensor doesn't recognize him.... because uhh... there's no sensors on that side of the doors because it's an exit. It's a moment of levity in a dark film. You have absolutely read too much into this scene.
 

Shaun Solo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
651
Again, I disagree.

Arthur doesn't fantasize about being more confident or even humorous. The early Murray fantasy is actually fascinating as Arthur fantasizes about acceptance as opposed to a fantasy version of himself. He's singled out in the fantasy because of his weird laugh. Everyone in the audience and show notices how weird it is, which means Arthur understands how off-putting his laugh is. Yet, while the audience laughs at him, Murray accepts him. This happens again when he mentions living with his mother. The audience laughs at him, meaning Arthur realizes how it looks being a middle-aged guy living with his mom. But again, Murray accepts him, invites him down, and tells him he's like a son. In this fantasy, Arthur's fault's are on full-display. He's not confident or charismatic, he's just Arthur. Yet, Murray accepts him.

Later on, he no longer seeks acceptance as Arthur, but gains confidence and acceptance as Joker.
He's singled out because he yells out "We love you Murray" or something like that, no? And then in the fantasy he has the confidence to talk in front of everyone without his laughing tick going off which is completely at odds with how he functions in real life at the point. That to me read as more confident. But I do think your interpretation is valid. It IS also about him feeling accepted and in my mind, accepted by a father figure he never had.
 

BossAttack

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
19,044
I mean, dude, no it's not. He attempts to go in the wrong side of the doors and that's why the sensor doesn't recognize him.... because uhh... there's no sensors on that side of the doors because it's an exit. It's a moment of levity in a dark film. You have absolutely read too much into this scene.
Because the film needed a "logical" explanation as to why the door doesn't see him, but the intent is clear. A scene can be conveying more than two things at once.

Arthur literally says, "for my whole life, I didn't know if I even really existed." After the shootings, he tells his therapist that "he does" exist and "people are starting to notice." When his identity and thus new found confidence is challenged, he's no longer "seen" he no longer "exists." The door refusing to open for him is 100% meant to convey this.

You really think Todd just put that specific type of scene there for a laugh? He explicitly chose a physical gag where Arthur is not seen/recognized by the world as just a laugh?

He's singled out because he yells out "We love you Murray" or something like that, no? And then in the fantasy he has the confidence to talk in front of everyone without his laughing tick going off which is completely at odds with how he functions in real life at the point. That to me read as more confident. But I do think your interpretation is valid. It IS also about him feeling accepted and in my mind, accepted by a father figure he never had.
Yes and no. His weird laugh is present in the fantasy, and then he shouts out "We love you Murray" which then gets him noticed. Arthur is capable of speaking without constantly laughing, so I never saw that scene as him projecting confidence as opposed to his need for acceptance.
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
Because the film needed a "logical" explanation as to why the door doesn't see him, but the intent is clear. A scene can be conveying more than two things at once.

Arthur literally says, "for my whole life, I didn't know if I even really existed." After the shootings, he tells his therapist that "he does" exist and "people are starting to notice." When his identity and thus new found confidence is challenged, he's no longer "seen" he no longer "exists." The door refusing to open for him is 100% meant to convey this.

You really think Todd just put that specific type of scene there for a laugh? He explicitly chose a physical gag where Arthur is not seen/recognized by the world as just a laugh?
An easier way to convey this would have been for him to go through the correct doors but they fail to recognize him, forcing someone from inside to come and open them for him. The way it's executed just makes it seem like Arthur didn't see the door there lol. It's like those america's funniest home videos of people accidentally walking into glass.

It's not the only example of "Todd" constructing a scene for laughs. He does the same with the midget character's tiny size making him unable to open the door to escape Arthur's apartment.
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
10,237
Yeah it says don't care for the poor and mentally ill out of compassion, do it because they might snap and murder you if you don't.
That's reductive. Fleck's misery is plenty sympathetic, long before he goes over the edge. The violence is a sad result of his downward spiral, not some twisted indictment of the mentally ill, or some sort of weird "help the Arthur Flecks of the world, or else" message.
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
That's reductive. Fleck's misery is plenty sympathetic, long before he goes over the edge. The violence is a sad result of his downward spiral, not some twisted indictment of the mentally ill, or some sort of weird "help the Arthur Flecks of the world, or else" message.
If the movie has a message: this is it



 

Felt

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,057
They really made Thomas an asshole in this film and truly did painted him as a villain. Calling the lower class clowns really painted a terrible picture of him. But then again, the whole punch bit or Alfred telling Arthur that his mom was crazy could have all be a hallucination.

The film really wanted to make people think this could be Joker's origin another choice in the long list of multiple choice answers.

I liked the film, but I'll probably will never see it again because of how bored I was through most of it.
I ain't buying the hallucination ideas - the movie spelt out the hallucinations with his neighbor so I'm not going to assume any other parts were imagined.

I agree with you there though, it will be a hard re-watch. The pace just wasn't right. I wonder if they toned down the movie due to the media reception pre-release.
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
4,580
Biggest problem with the movie is that it just feels like they tacked on the DC universe onto another movie. Nothing about it has anything to do with the Joker or the DC comics, it's purely name dropping and a coat of Joker paint on a character. The murder of Thomas Wayne in the Alley is the only thing lifted from the mythos, everything else is purely a different movie. It's like they had a script about a guy with mental illness and said HEY, Lets make this into a Joker movie and with a few minor name changes and tweaks, boom! Make sure and name drop Arkham Asylum.... yea...

Movie was alright, JP acting was amazing of course, but yea this was just .... meh. If this movie didn't have the Joker name slapped onto it, it would be an indie film that audiences would not be going to see in droves. Take random script and slap on some comic book character names and visuals and BOOM MONEY!
 

BossAttack

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
19,044
Biggest problem with the movie is that it just feels like they tacked on the DC universe onto another movie. Nothing about it has anything to do with the Joker or the DC comics, it's purely name dropping and a coat of Joker paint on a character. The murder of Thomas Wayne in the Alley is the only thing lifted from the mythos, everything else is purely a different movie. It's like they had a script about a guy with mental illness and said HEY, Lets make this into a Joker movie and with a few minor name changes and tweaks, boom! Make sure and name drop Arkham Asylum.... yea...

Movie was alright, JP acting was amazing of course, but yea this was just .... meh. If this movie didn't have the Joker name slapped onto it, it would be an indie film that audiences would not be going to see in droves. Take random script and slap on some comic book character names and visuals and BOOM MONEY!
I don't see this as a problem.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,057
My thoughts after seeing it just now:

Joker is excellent. It is a beautiful contradiction of empathy for a deeply disturbed and abused man, joy in him embracing what he was denying in himself and by extension freeing him from self-torture, and finally horror at how that manifests.

I consider this Joker the best of all of them. His final outing in full Joker makeup at the end? Wonderful in all it's horrifying beauty.

Would I think the same if he was real? Of course not. He'd be beyond terrifying, but that's the great thing about fiction. You can entertain those contradictions but go home and sleep soundly.

---

As for my thoughts as to whether it was real or not: I'm going with real. I consider it straying into fantasy shortly after he kills Murray. But Joker does get captured and sent to Arkham regularly so it isn't out of the question that it was all real with the joke he remembers being the recollection of all of the events.

Not that it really matters.
 

Jangowuzhere

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,379
Biggest problem with the movie is that it just feels like they tacked on the DC universe onto another movie. Nothing about it has anything to do with the Joker or the DC comics, it's purely name dropping and a coat of Joker paint on a character. The murder of Thomas Wayne in the Alley is the only thing lifted from the mythos, everything else is purely a different movie. It's like they had a script about a guy with mental illness and said HEY, Lets make this into a Joker movie and with a few minor name changes and tweaks, boom! Make sure and name drop Arkham Asylum.... yea...

Movie was alright, JP acting was amazing of course, but yea this was just .... meh. If this movie didn't have the Joker name slapped onto it, it would be an indie film that audiences would not be going to see in droves. Take random script and slap on some comic book character names and visuals and BOOM MONEY!
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to make a character driven story around a popular DC character so they could get higher budget and better talent.

I don't see anything wrong with this. And it's not like they made something COMPLETELY different. The story they created is definitely in the spirit of the Joker character.
 

-JD-

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
3,100
I had a discussion with a friend after seeing this, and he argued that a lot of the murderous violence that occurred in the story would have happened eventually without Joker's inciting moment of killing those 3 Wayne Corp employees, making Joker's involvement in the murder of the Waynes purely incidental and therefore lessened in the significance/connection to the murder and larger upheavals happening on the larger stage. Gotham was already a pot on the verge of boiling over, it wouldn't barely taken a small occurrence to make it spill out in explosive ways. Joker as a character didn't matter, ultimately. He wasn't an essential element of his own larger story.

I think he took this stance out of a dissatisfaction with Joker's own scant significance in the larger story being told -- that of class warfare and the festering resentment of the forgotten members of the population. This was to him the more important story, that of Gotham itself. For the movie to make Joker a mostly tangential player in the proceedings lessens the dramatic...potential of the character when the history of the character is considered. He asked me if I thought that Arthur seemed like someone who would become the criminal mastermind the character was known to be in most, if not all, previous renditions of the of the Batman mythos. His origin and involvement in the major events of the movie not being an intentional act of his own accord or planning. It just happened to happen that way.

I think he went in with certain expectations and was disappointed. I was did not and was not. I have some reservations, but I think this is an extremely valid take on the character, completely divorced from history. Who needs it?

I do agree with him on one point though -- that Arthur Joker isn't so much a fully realized character but instead a vessel or symbol to portray the themes and social ideologies of the writers. It came off to me that way, between the not-subtle script and the many, many slow-mo shots lingering, idolizing on Arthur as something potentially larger than he actually is.

I liked Joker. It's so close to being great to me. But that's okay.
 

spx54

Member
Mar 21, 2019
2,590
this was honestly much better than I thought it would be. expected it to be super hamfisted and heavy handed with the social commentary, but it didn't bother me that much. not even when joker drops the "society" line in the insanely disturbing talk show scene at the end. speaking of that scene, I saw the camrip version that leaked a few weeks back, but fuck was that scene even more disturbing seeing it in the theater.

my main takeaway is that WB needs to offer Joaquin boatloads of money to get him in a Batman movie. Holy shit he knocks out of the park. He didn't top Heath Ledger, but he came pretty fucking close.
 

ElBoxyBrown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,658
That's reductive. Fleck's misery is plenty sympathetic, long before he goes over the edge. The violence is a sad result of his downward spiral, not some twisted indictment of the mentally ill, or some sort of weird "help the Arthur Flecks of the world, or else" message.
Arthur's misery is mostly his own doing.
 
Last edited:

Betty

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,730
I really don't see the city deserving someone like Batman after the events at the end, in fact it makes the whole idea of something like Batman as a joke.

Good film but Joaquin carried it a long way.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
42,426
I had a discussion with a friend after seeing this, and he argued that a lot of the murderous violence that occurred in the story would have happened eventually without Joker's inciting moment of killing those 3 Wayne Corp employees, making Joker's involvement in the murder of the Waynes purely incidental and therefore lessened in the significance/connection to the murder and larger upheavals happening on the larger stage. Gotham was already a pot on the verge of boiling over, it wouldn't barely taken a small occurrence to make it spill out in explosive ways. Joker as a character didn't matter, ultimately. He wasn't an essential element of his own larger story.

I think he took this stance out of a dissatisfaction with Joker's own scant significance in the larger story being told -- that of class warfare and the festering resentment of the forgotten members of the population. This was to him the more important story, that of Gotham itself. For the movie to make Joker a mostly tangential player in the proceedings lessens the dramatic...potential of the character when the history of the character is considered. He asked me if I thought that Arthur seemed like someone who would become the criminal mastermind the character was known to be in most, if not all, previous renditions of the of the Batman mythos. His origin and involvement in the major events of the movie not being an intentional act of his own accord or planning. It just happened to happen that way.

I think he went in with certain expectations and was disappointed. I was did not and was not. I have some reservations, but I think this is an extremely valid take on the character, completely divorced from history. Who needs it?

I do agree with him on one point though -- that Arthur Joker isn't so much a fully realized character but instead a vessel or symbol to portray the themes and social ideologies of the writers. It came off to me that way, between the not-subtle script and the many, many slow-mo shots lingering, idolizing on Arthur as something potentially larger than he actually is.

I liked Joker. It's so close to being great to me. But that's okay.
Joker has remarkably little agency in this movie. He rarely acts as much as reacts.
 

Grunge_Hamster

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
5,365
Biggest problem with the movie is that it just feels like they tacked on the DC universe onto another movie. Nothing about it has anything to do with the Joker or the DC comics, it's purely name dropping and a coat of Joker paint on a character. The murder of Thomas Wayne in the Alley is the only thing lifted from the mythos, everything else is purely a different movie. It's like they had a script about a guy with mental illness and said HEY, Lets make this into a Joker movie and with a few minor name changes and tweaks, boom! Make sure and name drop Arkham Asylum.... yea...
This is true. Honestly, in the vein of Logan.
But there is space for this kind of thing, since there have been so many versions of the Joker on screen.

What I don't see likely is a Batman appearing in this universe, it seems more likely to go like Marvel Ruins, where everything goes wrong.
 

Jeremy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,162
Is Arthur a comic book Joker in some of the comics?

I still thought it was Jack Napier, but I assume they retconned it?
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
42,426
That's reductive. Fleck's misery is plenty sympathetic, long before he goes over the edge. The violence is a sad result of his downward spiral, not some twisted indictment of the mentally ill, or some sort of weird "help the Arthur Flecks of the world, or else" message.
The problem is he only kills assholes in this movie

His murders come off as over the top karma.

He spares good people lol. Literally if you were nice to him he didn't kill you.

They should have had the guts to show him truly monstrous. Murray should have been a sympathetic father figure instead of an asshole who just wanted to mock Arthur on national tv.

He should have been killing people who weren't assholes. This Joker is a murderous Santa Clause you better be nice.
 

Deleted member 19218

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,323
Because the film needed a "logical" explanation as to why the door doesn't see him, but the intent is clear. A scene can be conveying more than two things at once.

Arthur literally says, "for my whole life, I didn't know if I even really existed." After the shootings, he tells his therapist that "he does" exist and "people are starting to notice." When his identity and thus new found confidence is challenged, he's no longer "seen" he no longer "exists." The door refusing to open for him is 100% meant to convey this.

You really think Todd just put that specific type of scene there for a laugh? He explicitly chose a physical gag where Arthur is not seen/recognized by the world as just a laugh?
I took it at face value as a gag. The film has been criticised for lacking subtlety and being to obvious with its messages so I don't know if the director was intending any other take on the situation.