With such materials available worldwide, why does it only happen in the US?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Leaked Clips from The Joker [WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS] Up: Second Clip Leaked [SEE STAFF POST]
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
So many people with agendas in this thread. Acting as if this movie is going to unleash some incel war on society. Thanks for parroting shitty right wing talking points that movies and games cater to violence.
Woof, my memory is going to shit, thanks for setting me straight.
Regardless, doesn't really change my point of view. He considered several different venues and means of killing people...
...but ultimately thought that a movie theater fit his "plan" best. The movie playing didn't really seem to have anything to do with it.
The problem I have with this is that it essentially says that decrying an ideology requires no acknowledgment of legitimate material conditions that might explain it. It has to just be this evil, wrong thing that people identify with solely because of their personal moral lack.
Granted, unlike most, I don't think these clips do much to make the movie look good, as it seems incredibly over-the-top and on-the-nose, but the rot that births mass shooters and reactionaries is not moral in nature. Capitalism, technological innovation, and social change have converged on a moment where people can be both part of a generalized overclass (i.e. straight, white male) and yet absolutely miserable because whatever material advantage their intersecting privilege markers may be granting them do not actually result in a better, more fulfilling life, thanks to how atomized and antisocial so much of culture has become. There is a decently large class of people that have intrinsic advantages yet have few to none of the tools to actually benefit from them, and a million ways to further isolate themselves into self-selecting echo chambers where they can egg each other on into more and more detached, "pure" visions of what they think is happening in the world.
This is not to deny that there are genuinely bad, unsalvageable people that affix themselves to these movements, especially in the leadership ranks, where ruthlessness and interpersonal cunning seem inevitably to bestow advantage. Mike Enoch, one of the biggest alt-right podcasters, has a history that suggests he talked himself into the ideology partially because he just really loves being a contrarian dick.
But there is also a reason that these ideologies, which have been kicking around the American underbelly in one form or another for decades, are finding traction now, and I think it has a lot to do with how our various systems of privilege have changed in their outcome as the overall economic and political system have streamlined themselves into vehicles that are hyperefficient at distributing wealth and benefit into the hands of a select few.
That fact, in combination with the decentralization of culture via technological change, has created a situation where the remaining 98+% of people are scrambling for cultural space and attention. This has been a boon to marginalized people, who have been able to lift themselves and their culture out of the underground and into the mainstream, but that (clearly good) trend has the unfortunate side effect of pushing aside and diminishing the sense that there is some grand, coherent, central cultural project to which privileged people not sharing in the narrowly-distributed bounty can feel tethered. (Personally, I would also argue that the extreme dumbing-down of culture, via corporations' relentless and inevitable push toward the lowest common denominator, also contributes, by rendering what remains of the hegemonic culture extremely hollow and vapid, but I'd need more space to expand on that.) This also dovetails quite nicely with our country's rather appalling mental health services, and the destruction of communal spaces that can give people the sense of belonging that is central to mental wellness (a separate factor, for it's simply not true that all of these mass shooters are mentally ill).
This is essentially what every person who deradicalizes from these movements says, in one way or another. They were in a place where they were lost, and they found community and belonging in these movements. This does not cover every denizen of these reprehensible spaces, as some really are just unmitigated bigots from the word go, and others are hucksters looking to make their name. But it does explain a palpable chunk of them, at least in part. This movie, in what looks from the clips to be a rather blunt and artless way, seems to depict that path rather frankly, albeit in an earlier, pre-technological era. It's trying to do a King of Comedy meets Taxi Driver by way of Network thing, and it looks like it's basically a clumsy script leavened by some good acting.
But the act of depicting that descent is not, in and of itself, immoral, nor encouraging of violence. You have to be able to deal with these things frankly, and that includes dealing with the fact that this shit often comes from an effable place while trusting that the vast, vast majority of people understand that violence is bad and that action taken from a film like this should be directed at fixing the social mechanisms that spur people to do this kind of stuff in the first place.
It's neither liberal nor Leftist to argue from the position that explaining narratively how someone reaches a place where they do a bad, horrific thing is tantamount to excusing or encouraging it.
Lol, right? This moral panic is exactly like right-wing boomers saying video games cause violence, Dungeons and Dragons and Harry Potter are turning kids into satanists, etc.
Both clips were great, but that first one with Joker's leg bouncing as it sets in what has happened and the shaking starts is just *chefs kiss*
The concern trolling is off the chart. Don't think we have ever seen this for a movie, let alone a comic book movie, before.
You seemed to have missed my point? I'm not saying it will cause mass shootings. In fact if you look at mass murders world wide there are many similar factors that don't involve media influence e.g. being a straight male, disillusioned with life, being socially isolated (outside of extremist groups), potential mental illness. I think there's a small aspect that's not really being discussed here of extremists weaponizing memes as recruitment tools but in regards to the Joker it would be another meme if not him, it's not like Pewd haplessly pushing kids to alt right figureheads through his entertainment.
To be honest if there seems to be a message in the film it seems pretty liberal. Anybody who rises up against the systems that oppress them through violence are clearly numpties being inspired by a violent psychopath. Of course people will probably focus on Arthur taking revenge against a seemingly untouchable elite that ruins his career/life (through cancel culture due to publicly airing a routine where he flopped ;) ) through the only means that he can.
Anyway, that's just me assuming before I see it. I'm kind of more interested in the film because whilst the first clip was what I expected I really liked the second. Joker telling somebody they're free to go, faking them out with a boo along the way, then the camera panning over to reveal they can't reach the lock for the door is the kind of sadistic joke I want from the character, not the blatant stuff in the first scene.
I liked that interview clip. The people surrounding the Joker gave the proper response to his words and actions in a way that didn't feel like idolization at least for me. He looked/sounded pathetic, dangerous and not aspirational in both clips and I did feel shades of what I've seen before in Taxi Driver. The rest of the movie remains but I feel comfortable at least expecting that this won't be a glorifying take of the character. There are people with an inner James Holmes who will come away from those clips seeing the Joker as the hero but IMO the framing so far seems to be diametrically opposed to that interpretation from those people is the least of what artists should be doing. I''d totally understand if people didn't think it was enough though.
Joaquin's acting is good stuff and the violence leaves a big impression but that script doesn't leave much of an impression, especially if this is supposed to be a climax. Feels more like it's browbeating the viewer rather than posing any real questions about the character's ethos.
There isn't any "yikes". What's your opinion on it? What does it matter to you that I enjoyed it?
I didn't miss your point. There is no correlation in media with mass shootings period, even the one incident was not attributed to the Joker.
I totally get how people may identify with this but these are people pre-disposed to it in the first place. If it wasn't this movie, it'd be another, a book, a manifesto, a real life incident etc.
This is clearly not a movie that idolizes the lead. It really doesn't matter how a movie tackles themes or if they mishandle them, people who are inclined to do mass shootings have proven time and time again, that they'll take inspiration from anywhere and whatever manner they wish. Reasoned thinking is not part of the equation.
What I take issue with is that this is clearly an American issue, not a global one. So why suggest censorship when it clearly doesn't impact other countries in the same way. There are far more significant systemic issues in the US that provide the impact we're seeing such as gun control, poor access to healthcare, huge inequality in access to schooling, racism, a society that thrives on irrational fear, police violence, nauseating adoration of the military etc. A movie is so far down the list it doesn't even register.
Yeah no it isn't exactly like it at all. There's a difference between directly causing violence and what media actually does which is reinforce themes and ideals that are reprehensible. Game critics like Feminist Frequency exist not because Anita believes games lead to violence or sexism but because the thematic and interactive elements of many games steeped in the status quo reinforce or at best do nothing to challenge regressive ideals within the audience. There is a reason why games like say Rapelay or Hatred are actively pushed back against and not Team Fortress or Torchlight. Because Hatred, despite being about shooting like 90% of video games, has themes and elements specific to it that are gross and ugly.
In the realm of film, God's Not Dead isn't just a movie. It's not interchangeable with Back To The Future or The Lion King or anything else. It's a movie that actively perpetuates & reinforces ideas & rhetoric about how Christianity is the only moral way to live, Christian persecution is the biggest injustice in modern times and those who aren't Christian deserve divine punishment. GND doesn't "cause" violent crimes fueled by religious fanatical xenophobia but it does make sure that anyone already violent and xenophobic walks away confident that their ideas are righteous. No one wants JP's and Todd Phillips' head on a platter. No one is eager to buy up and burn every future Joker Blu-ray. And no one is interested in "cancelling" this movie in place of actually discussing and addressing other facets of society that need to progress. But creators and audiences need to keep asking who the themes of a work of media serve & how they are framed and expressed because there are a lot of straight white men who have been, are or considering violence because they believe "society" is against them who will feel spoken to or justified in their mindset coming away from Joker if the message of this movie about a white man becoming dangerously violent because he's been put upon by society is mishandled. That is in no way the same as Satanic Panic or the crusade of stains like Jack Thompson.
Last edited:
But I never said there was a correlation between media and mass murders, possibly with the exception of the Great Replacement being a common trope with modern Right Wing shooters. Also I clearly never mentioned censorship. The whole point of my post was to establish that people shouldn't be shouting people down critics who suggest the film does a poor job addressing its themes, nor should they see any form of criticism as a call for censorship.
There's a post on the first page that says straight up that the clip is from the climax. I don't know how accurate that is though.
Side note. With God's Not Dead 3, there is some (not enough, but some) honest introspection; a self awareness that noticeably changes the read of it's narrative compared to 1 and 2.
Funny enough, it's the one entry that gets a lot of flak from the community it represents.
I had the exact same reaction
I don't really care it was a spoiler, but holy hell that one shot felt like I watched it on an actual late night show
LOL I genuienly didn't remember there was a third film until you mentioned it. Hopefully, one or more people at the helm of that franchise are evolving a bit. Not surprised that its targets didn't respond well haha Maybe they'll slowly grow too and get accustomed if the creators keep incrimentally making the films more aware and less vile.
I didn't imply you said there was a correlation. It was a generalization of all the criticism levied at it.
Art doesn't need to be a moral compass or held responsible for larger societal issues. I disagree with the notion that it must be criticized in how it addresses these issues, it's not the responsibility of the film maker to do so unless they make the decision to do so. If they choose to make a political statement so be it but this movie isn't speaking about the alt-right, it's set in a different era, thematically there are correlations to what we're seeing today but there is no requirement to acknowledge that.
Yeah, not native english here so I don't know how I would explain this, but you perfectly summed up my feelings about it. People who keeps going "concern trolling" or whatever are clearly missing the point.
That's fine then, I guess? I wouldn't hold criticism that doesn't do that to a very high standard. Something like Birth of a Nation shouldn't be criticised solely based on it's merits as a film. Mel Brooks should be held into account for the homophobia in his films as much as he should be cheered for how he challenged other societal issues. The key argument was that I expect critics to take into account how well a films handles the themes it's attempting to cover regardless of if their political in nature. Plus I think it's pretty disingenuous suggest that film makers aren't responsible for the art they create, if they create a racist or homophobic piece they're either a racist or a homophobe. To add to that, despite the 80s backdrop Joker clearly address issues present today.
Once again I'm not calling for a ban or saying this will inspire the alt right. I'm saying it will be a poor movie if it fails to address the themes it's tackling which I've already listed.
I said it doesn't "need to be a moral compass or held responsible for larger societal issues". If a film chooses to make a statement, provide commentary or engage in bigotry, obviously those decisions should be questioned.
A movie about a mentally deranged person doesn't necessarily speak about the alt-right, nor does someone dressing up as a clown. It certainly talks about mental illness and how that addresses it will be interesting. However, the era and subject matter are not a direct commentary on the current political climate we have, so assuming that it must address it is being unfair to those involved with the film. To suggest otherwise implies that any movie about a mentally ill, white male must be about incels and the alt-right, therefore must touch on the subject in a certain way. Ultimately, it's up to the stakeholders in a movie to make the decisions in what they should and shouldn't address, and a movie should be judged on its merits, not whatever political statement people believe it should be making.
Ah yes sorry. I read some comments that said its not but that scene really looks like the end.
Yeah, you know, if it wasn't for that darned Joker character, this Holmes person would have been a saintly member of this fine American society. His weapon stock pile would have been no more dangerous than a kid's bottle cap collection.
It's very believable though. There is a lot of people who think like that.
The fact that it's weak is part of the point. It's a weak as fuck position and they still manage to justify it.
The film is making a statement and providing commentary whether it wants to or not. Every film does these things. It can't not, because it's made by people who live in these times. As such, it's open to criticism for making a statement that is completely empty and banal, like "people snap when other people are mean and that's why violence happens in society".
I understand the talk that "it's just a movie" and that people should assume a medium of art and entertainment is going to inspire violence, especially on a game board. I do get that.
But we live in a world where someone saying a phrase like "14 words" inspires violence. We live in a world where idiots don't understand satire and ficiton and form fight clubs. We live in a world where people feel the only way to deal with their indignation is violently. To me, it's irresponsible on their part to use lines like that "what you deserve" joke which is straight from an incel message board to tell their story. This movie will inspire bad elements, or worse, justify the feelings they already have.
But we live in a world where someone saying a phrase like "14 words" inspires violence. We live in a world where idiots don't understand satire and ficiton and form fight clubs. We live in a world where people feel the only way to deal with their indignation is violently. To me, it's irresponsible on their part to use lines like that "what you deserve" joke which is straight from an incel message board to tell their story. This movie will inspire bad elements, or worse, justify the feelings they already have.
Joaquin looks great, but I think people are really forgetting how great Heath was....
No need for thanks. Despite missing the early thread, I'm happy I was able to catch the clips to confidently say my piece before they and the topic went down.
So what's the solution? Don't create anything that can potentially be misinterpreted?
Again, mass shootings are a USA problem. Issues like this seek to divert attention away from the real issues you have in your society.
Without the Aurora shooting, coupled with the current political climate, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Discourse suggests directors shouldn't even bother to tackle mental health as a films subject because it will always be tenuously linked to the current climate, regardless of merit. Movies like We need to talk about Kevin wouldn't even be attempted now, not because they shouldn't, but because people are way too interested in blaming media for systemic political and social issues.
He doesn't come off as the Joker at all. More like a very unstable person sort of along for the ride with his own illness, giddy at the idea of saying and doing whatever comes to mind.
Which is actually a great idea. If you're going to follow the concept of "making grounded movies with comic book characters" to its logical conclusion, this is probably what the Joker would be. Some sad lunatic who almost can't believe he's finally doing the awful things he fantasizes about.
Which is actually a great idea. If you're going to follow the concept of "making grounded movies with comic book characters" to its logical conclusion, this is probably what the Joker would be. Some sad lunatic who almost can't believe he's finally doing the awful things he fantasizes about.
You're using an 8 year old movie as an example of "what wouldn't even be attempted now".
In a thread about a blockbuster comic book movie covering the exact same thing you consider so risqué.
I'm aware of that. Discourse is a hell of a lot different now to what it was in 2011.