The boyfriend was abusive to both of them. There's a photo of Penny with a black eye in the folder (or this might be in the flashback of her in the police station).Does the guy who interviews her make it clear that it was only the boyfriend who abused Arthur? I'll have to watch the movie again but I was under the impression that they were both at fault.
Now that I'm thinking about it, though. That does make sense since I was wondering why they left Arthur with her. If it was just the boyfriend then they probably didn't have a reason to remove Arthur from her.
Why not just lock the deadbolt then? The chain doesn't make much sense to me outside of making a joke at the expense of Charlie (I think that was his name?), which felt par for the course coming from the guy who also directed the Hangover.
Where did you get the idea that Thomas abused Arthur as a child?Yeah, after my second watch yesterday, I really felt like Penny never laid a hand on Arthur. It was Thomas who abused them both.
Anyone else noticed when the Joker got tackled on the Murray show after his stunt? It felt so good.
.... why is this wrong exactly?
Where did you get the idea that Thomas abused Arthur as a child?
I don't see any reason to doubt that Penny was mentally disturbed. Her 40 year old son bathes her for christs sake.
Where did you get the idea that Thomas abused Arthur as a child?
I don't see any reason to doubt that Penny was mentally disturbed. Her 40 year old son bathes her for christs sake.
There's two points I see in the bathroom scene supporting either direction, one being a Thomas saying he signs autographs for everybody and the other that Thomas punching Arthur could mean he was the abusive boyfriend.Arthur was looking at a photo of his mother when she was younger and the back of it had TW initials along with a message that said he loved her smile or something along those lines. The look on Alfreds face when Arthur confronted him at the gate reeked of a cover up orchestrated by one of the richest and most powerful man in Gotham. He forged the adoption papers and had her committed to ruin her character.
At least that's what I took from it.
The writing for Penny is so obtuse that it only works if she is mentally disturbed. If that somehow isn't the case, or it is meant to be ambiguous, then her character dialogue fucking blows.
A lot of the dialogue in this movie is poorThe writing for Penny is so obtuse that it only works if she is mentally disturbed. If that somehow isn't the case, or it is meant to be ambiguous, then her character dialogue fucking blows.
Just cause her son bathes her, doesn't mean she's mentally disturbed. Jesus.I don't see any reason to doubt that Penny was mentally disturbed. Her 40 year old son bathes her for christs sake.
This is also what I took from it. Especially with Alfred's expression.Arthur was looking at a photo of his mother when she was younger and the back of it had TW initials along with a message that said he loved her smile or something along those lines. The look on Alfreds face when Arthur confronted him at the gate reeked of a cover up orchestrated by one of the richest and most powerful man in Gotham. He forged the adoption papers and had her committed to ruin her character.
At least that's what I took from it.
And I thought he looked pretty dope lol (he looked very different)i came to the realization that i hate how he looks on that pose
It's just one of many reasons to believe that Penny is either disabled in a way that isn't made explicit in the movie (Alzheimer's?) and needs someone to tend to her needs or she has psychological problems. Why does Penny need a bath from her son unless she's handicapped or impaired in some way?Just cause her son bathes her, doesn't mean she's mentally disturbed. Jesus.
I just didn't agree with her being mentally disturbed just cause she needed her son to shower her, that's all. Sure it could point to her having alzheimers (and I know all about these sicknesses, I'm dealing with it myself in my family). I'm just not convinced she's the one who abused Arthur, as opposed to her boyfriend doing it. If you feel like she abused him, that's fair, I can see that.It's just one of many reasons to believe that Penny is either disabled in a way that isn't made explicit in the movie (Alzheimer's?) and needs someone to tend to her needs or she has psychological problems. Why does Penny need a bath from her son unless she's handicapped or impaired in some way?
The actress who plays her, Frances Conroy, is 66 not 85. Most 66 year old seniors don't need help bathing
Saw it yesterday, I quite enjoyed it. I thought Joaquin Phoenix did a great job. What really stood out for me was the music though. I loved it.
I've been listening to it all day. Looks like I'll be adding Hildur Guðnadóttir to my list of composers to follow.
i came to the realization that i hate how he looks on that pose
I just didn't agree with her being mentally disturbed just cause she needed her son to shower her, that's all. Sure it could point to her having alzheimers. I'm just not convinced she's the one who abused Arthur, as opposed to her boyfriend doing it. If you feel like she abused him, that's fair, I can see that.
Yeah, I can see this. :)I actually wasn't arguing for that. I don't think she abused her son. I think her boyfriend, or whoever he was, probably did. And I think Alfred and Thomas were telling the truth about her being delusional. Also, Penny struck me as a woman who would be easily taken advantaged of with the right (or wrong) partner
See, all this stuff that's so on the nose and hamfisted and self-seriously pretensious?I think this was a good movie, very well made. The point it tries to get across is clumsy, overly simplistic, and almost juvenile though.
It felt like the nature vs. nurture debate in movie form, at the end of which the movie gets on an almost literal soapbox and screams "IT'S NURTURE, YOU ASSHOLES".
Interesting take, but I'm unconvinced to say the least. The movie's obsession with its own "SOCIETY IS THE REAL VILLAIN" theme is taken to an extreme that becomes detrimental to the overall message, and to the character of the joker himself. The joker in this was solely portrayed as a victim of society, which I'm not sure is something I personally liked.
Beautiful cinematography, incredible score, amazing acting, and interesting ideas for sure, though.
I thought it was pretty weak how the film tries to be sympathetic to marginalised peoples but also uses that character as a punching bag. That said, the moment where he realises he can't get out is one of the highlights of the movie, especially when Arthur scares him before lmao.Anybody else just love the "joke" that he locked the door a little bit to high for the dwarf to reach it. So cruel and evil, THAT was true Joker.
i always thought it funny thats its always been depicted as a robbery with the pearls. Why would a robber rip the necklace off? In Joker it makes sense.At least we get more pearls to add to the "Bruce Wayne's parents dying" supercut.
Honestly I thought it was just ok
The backstory of gotham descending into chaos felt completely disconnected from Arthur so to see his big moment at the end felt like a huge wet fart
Liked phoenix though
It's very similar to Quentin Tarentino movies where they're a slow burn up until the final 20-30 min. Do with this in mind, I didn't mind it at all.Ill have to give it another shot eventually but, didnt love it. Too much build up for the final 30 minutes. You could watch a supercut version of this with the first 90 minutes edited down to 15 and you wouldnt miss much. Phoenix is solid as joker.
Good discussion on Fighting in the War Room this week about Joker. They really nailed the variety of reasons why this movie sucks, IMO. Also they don't really spend any time talking about incels, which I was worried would be the case since Ehrlich is on it.
Discussion starts at 30:55.
Good discussion on Fighting in the War Room this week about Joker. They really nailed the variety of reasons why this movie sucks, IMO. Also they don't really spend much time talking about incels, which I was worried would be the case since Ehrlich is on it.
Discussion starts at 30:55.