Too many people lump in "comic book movies" as if they're all identical. Obviously they're not. Just because something comes from a comic book source doesn't make these movies one size fits all. But that doesn't stop people from saying "I don't like comic book movies", as though stuff like "Joker" or "Logan" is just the same as "Catwoman" or "Ghost Rider"...
I’m pretty annoyed with most of what’s on Twitter at this stage, but I did see a good very quick quip encapsulation of this film: This film is a filmic Rorschach Test. The reactions (well, some of them anyway) are fascinating. I think a bunch of people (a lot of critics, and some op-ed writers, and some people who have seen or not seen the film) are having trouble figuring out what to do with this film and how to react to it. It’s like moving a dog’s food dish; they’re confused. Critics who don’t like big, dumb, bombastic “comic book movies” are trying to also dismiss “Joker”, leaving you wondering if maybe they should just stop trying to watch or review this stuff. Some detractors tried to discuss the level of gore and violence without having seen it; which leaves egg on their face. Yes, I get why the context of the violence in “Joker” makes it a difficult comparison. But at the end of the day, John Wick has about ten thousand more bloody shooting deaths than “Joker.” And if we’re just talking about actual deaths, Superman and Zod or whatever it was in “Man of Steel” killed surely thousands of people. I’ve seen people who have it out for this film have to shift their argument. It started with the film being too disturbing and violent. Then when people starting seeing in en masse and saw that, while the context of the violence in the film is certainly disturbing enough (it’s supposed to be!!!), this film is not anywhere near the most grotesque or violent film of even recent recent years, even just among relative mainstream films. So now some critics are starting to morph their arguments into just dismissing the film as slight or not substantive. Obviously to each their own. I’m not even a huge Joaquin Pheonix fanboy (he has usually been good in the hand full of his films I’ve seen), and I don’t find any interest in any of Todd Phillips’s other work, but despite not being the typical type to just *rave* about an acting performance all the time, it’s in my mind impossible to deny Phoenix turns in a monumental performance in this film. However hard you think he’s acting, or however much you think he’s just weird and partly just playing himself, whatever it is he’s doing in this movie and however he’s getting there, it’s a unique and potent performance. His face acting alone (again, he’s a weird dude in real life and he’s probably partly channeling that) makes this film worth watching. And yeah, Phillips’s work as director may not be like an absolute masterpiece, master work that is the one and only go-to movie to show to film students or something, it’s very, very good. Much, much, much more substantive than any of his other work. I’m stunned that some critics are so dismissive of Phillips doing something so potent and different. Critics dogpile on run of the mill directors who do base sort of comedies or stuff of that nature. So when this guy does something about a million times more substantive, I think critics should note that even if they don’t love the film. Imagine if Tyler Perry had switched gears and made “The Babadook” or something, or if those Seltzer/Friedberg guys all of a sudden made “District 9” or something. These aren’t great analogies, but hopefully it gets my point across. I’ve rewatched “Joker” now. It’s not a perfect film. But it’s very, very, very good and a million times more substantive than MCU fare. I think the “controversy” around this film could easily get its *own* documentary at some point, but the criticisms and controversy are, in my opinion, way off the mark, but in a way that is complicated and takes some pretty detailed explaining. Now “Joker” is doing well at the box office, so it’ll be interesting to see how critics turn *that* into something dismissive as well. Make no mistake, there is certainly a “Fight Club/Breaking Bad” element of *some part* of the audience of “Joker”, meaning a group of people that are (in my opinion) missing the point and just like the base violence in the film. Some people liked “Fight Club” because bloody fight scenes are cool. Some people liked “Breaking Bad” solely because “Heisenberg is a ‘badass’”. So sure, some people are missing all of the context and subtext and Phoenix’s powerful performance and seeing “Joker” because it appeals to some weird base instinct of theirs. But so what? “Fight Club” and “Breaking Bad” are great pieces, and I just ignore if some people agree with me that they’re great, but for (seemingly, in my opinion) all the *wrong* reasons. Separately from all of that, one interesting thing that I’m surprised isn’t getting discussed as much as it should (perhaps because of the continuing “controversies” around the film) is that this film has some pretty obvious (some might argue too obvious) allusions to toying a great deal with the concept of fiction/fantasy/delusion versus reality. I’ve been surprised by some of the even positive reviews of the film just taking everything that occurs on the film at face value. So for instance, when there is a particular revelation, followed by a character saying that revelation isn’t actually true, I’m surprised some reviewers are just taking that character at their word instead of noting that the revelation then becomes very unclear and ambiguous (in a good way in my opinion).
I don't want to dogpile on, but I'd say there are non-comic book movies that are more comic-book-ish than "Joker" is. I'd say stuff like "Mission Impossible" or "Fast and the Furious" or even "John Wick" have more in common with MCU "comic book movies" than "Joker" does. Have you seen Phoenix in "You Were Never Really Here"? "Joker" is closer to that than Spider Man or Iron Man or even Batman v Superman or Wonder Woman or Suicide Squad. The closest analogy in terms of the film being a "barely even a comic book film other than using character names and traits" would be "Logan", but even "Logan" (which is a *great* film by the way) pulls in a little bit more of comic book lore (and previous X-Men films) than "Joker" does. "Logan" avoids any specific film timeline, but it pulls details from previous movies and books. "Joker" uses a few DC character names, pulls in a few specific shots from comic books, but truly could have been called "Fleck" and still worked almost the same. I've seen a few enthusiastic fans of "Joker" start trying to map out how Phillips and Phoenix, seeing the financial success with "Joker" will proceed to, even if not tying to other DC Films, try to go PG-13 and have Phoenix go up against a Batman or Lex Luthor or something. I HIGHLY doubt that. I'm not saying another "Joker" film with this team is 100% impossible, but without going into "spoilers", another film would have to almost be more of a *remake* or alternative version than a sequel.
I've never met a dog who got confused because I moved her food dish. Dogs wanna eat - they'll find food wherever it is!
This is why "comic book movies" is useless as a genre term. Even within the MCU, there's a tremendous amount of variation. It's like the way "sci-fi" means "anything that takes place in space". By that token, we should dismiss "2001" because it's in the same genre as "Battle Beyond the Stars"...
I agree. In defense of some people who use these terms, sometimes we have to call them *something*. But yeah, it reminds of one of those dumb movie fight contests on YouTube where people have to argue, say, "Best Ben Affleck Movie", and inevitably an argument ensues over whether they mean a *Ben Affleck* movie (as in, a movie prominently featuring him, usually as the lead), versus "any movie that happens to have Affleck in it." "Joker" is a "comic book movie" in that it uses some DC character names and vague traits/motifs. But people view "comic book/superhero" films as more of a style/genre than a literal categorization regarding trademark usage. Much like any popular music of various genres get put in the "Rock" section at a record store, even when some bands don't have an actual rock and roll bone in their body. "Joker" is a drama, indeed. Not sure why some critics and commentators are having trouble just saying that instead of acting confused about how a "Joker" film exists that doesn't involve characters shooting beams and throwing buildings at each other.
Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be "after putting the food dish in the same spot for 10 years, then proceed to keep taking their food dish away every 30 seconds and hiding it behind a series of locked doors!"
Ehh, my Putty would still find the food! That dog will pretend she doesn't hear me yelling at her to come inside when she's 15 feet away. But when she's upstairs and I drop a potato chip in a room 100 feet from her, she hears that and comes running!
Oh, I get that, and despite my protestations here, I don't mind the term anymore than I get panties bunched about "sci-fi" being such a broad catchall. I only get annoyed when "comic book movie" gets used as a pejorative and dismissive term. It's that snobby "they're not cinema!!!" attitude that paints each one as identical that drives me nuts!
As I have said before,the only type of sequel that makes sense to do that includes Batman is a fully R-rated adaptation of The Killing Joke. You can't just put this incarnation of the Joker in a mainstream PG-13 Batman film. Otherwise,id rather they leave it as intended. A one off.
I fully agree with you on all of the above except the part about Heath Ledger not communicating his character. He communicated perfectly what the director intended for the Joker at that time and place. The Joker had become, as Alfred the Butler told Bruce Wayne, "A man that just wants to watch the world burn." That may not be a direct quote, but I recall him saying that some men don't have a reason for their evil, and just enjoy watching others suffer. With that in mind, Heath knocked it out of the park. But I do agree how important it is to finally see just how and why such a man is made.
Saw it, liked it - no hype needed, not the best ever, not more brutal than anything we have seen hundred of times, just a good, solid movie.
I probably will never see this film, but I have to agree with your point. Some folks will squirm seeing a comic character analyzed this way, but I think a deep character study well done could be interesting. I've seen plenty of arguments how "comic films are becoming WAY too full of themselves" etc and YES there's a point to that. While DC movies are oddly devoid of the humor of the Marvel films, at least they are true to the early dark side of DC and are trying to do a better job of writing characterizations. Why do these guys wear Spandex®? What are they so angry about? What motivates them? Movies are about the characters that populate them, not about creating an endless storyline across multiple titles. I panned the latest "Spider-Man" for some of these reasons. The early books were fun, taut cops'n'robbers thrillers that starred a remarkably conflicted teenage hero. Was he doing it to attract girls or to honor the life of Uncle Ben? Sometimes it wasn't clear. Why did Mysterio go bad? The film spends perhaps two minutes on the point then goes back to theatrics. Comic book movies are about action. But all that action is naught unless we get a well-written story about how all the characters got to that point.
I think one of the few issues I had with this movie was I had a hard time thinking of this Joker as a criminal mastermind. He was a victim of horrific abuse & so damaged he could hardly function day to day. While it was an amazing performance, it just didn’t feel like this character was going to go on to criminal greatness.
Anyone here have law enforcement present in the lobby of the theater? Mine did. Two county sheriff officers. And here I was a lone male, younger looking than my age going back and forth to check distance of my assigned seat in the theater due to vision issues with me becoming way too self conscious the officers see me as some lone nut casing the theater out. And sure enough as I got my concession goodies and walked to the theater one of the sheriff officers went ahead of me following along till I entered the theater. Just glad he didn't follow me in to see where I sat. I've never been so paranoid attending a movie in my entire 60 years.
For the people who have seen this - how does it compare to Falling Down? (I think Falling Down is a truly reprehensible fantasy movie.) I'll probably go see The joker this week when the theaters are a little less crowded.
Yep. Though, it was a theater in a mall, so they could've been there for the mall. It was a kinda long way to the specific theater from where they were.
Apparently Michael Moore posted this on Facebook and someone sent it to me. Reposting here without comment: Spoiler On Wednesday night I attended the New York Film Festival and witnessed a cinematic masterpiece, the film that last month won the top prize as the Best Film of the Venice International Film Festival. It’s called “Joker” — and all we Americans have heard about this movie is that we should fear it and stay away from it. We’ve been told it’s violent and sick and morally corrupt — an incitement and celebration of murder. We’ve been told that police will be at every screening this weekend in case of “trouble.” Our country is in deep despair, our constitution is in shreds, a rogue maniac from Queens has access to the nuclear codes — but for some reason, it’s a movie we should be afraid of. I would suggest the opposite: The greater danger to society may be if you DON’T go see this movie. Because the story it tells and the issues it raises are so profound, so necessary, that if you look away from the genius of this work of art, you will miss the gift of the mirror it is offering us. Yes, there’s a disturbed clown in that mirror, but he’s not alone — we’re standing right there beside him. “Joker” is no superhero or supervillain or comic book movie. The film is set somewhere in the ‘70s or ‘80s in Gotham City - and the filmmakers make no attempt to disguise it for anything other than what it is: New York City, the headquarters of all evil: the rich who rule us, the banks and corporations for whom we serve, the media which feeds us a daily diet “news” they think we should absorb. This past week, a week when a sitting President indicted himself because, in true Joker style, he was laughing himself silly at Mueller’s and the Dems’ inability to stop him, so he just quadrupled down and handed them everything they needed. But even then, after ten days of his flaunting his guilt, he was still sitting with his KFC grease-stained nuclear codes in the Oval Office, so he told Captain Sketchy to fire up the helicopter, the sound of its blades revving up, meant only to alert the reporters to scurry outside for the daily “press conference” — Trump walks outside into the deafening cacophony of the whirlybird and publicly and feloniously asks the Peoples Republic of China to interfere in our 2020 election by sending him dirt on the Bidens. He and his magic carpet of hair then walked away and, other than the citizen howls of “CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?!”, nothing happened. As “Joker” opens this weekend, Joker, Jr. Is still still sitting at John F. Kennedy’s desk in the Oval Office on the days he shows up to work, dreaming of his next conquest and debauchery. But this movie is not about Trump. It’s about the America that gave us Trump — the America which feels no need to help the outcast, the destitute. The America where the filthy rich just get richer and filthier. Except in this story a discomfiting question is posed: What if one day the dispossessed decide to fight back? And I don’t mean with a clipboard registering people to vote. People are worried this movie may be too violent for them. Really? Considering everything we’re living through in real life? You allow your school to conduct “active shooter drills” with your children, permanently, emotionally damaging them as we show these little ones that this is the life we’ve created for them. “Joker” makes it clear we don’t really want to get to the bottom of this, or to try to understand why innocent people turn in to Jokers after they can no longer keep it together. No one wants to ask why two smart boys skipped their 4th-hour AP French Philosophy class at Columbine High to slaughter 12 students and a teacher. Who would dare ask why the son of a vice-president of General Electric would go into Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT and blow the tiny bodies apart of 20 first-graders. Or why did 53% of White women vote for the presidential candidate who, on tape, reveled in his talent as a sexual predator? The fear and outcry over “Joker” is a ruse. It’s a distraction so that we don’t look at the real violence tearing up our fellow human beings — 30 million Americans who don’t have health insurance is an act of violence. Millions of abused women and children living in fear is an act of violence. Cramming 59 students like worthless sardines into classrooms in Detroit is an act of violence. As the news media stands by for the next mass shooting, you and your neighbors and co-workers have already been shot numerous times, shot straight through all of your hearts and hopes and dreams. Your pension is long gone. You’re in debt for the next 30 years because you committed the crime of wanting an education. You have actually thought about not having children because you don’t have the heart to bring them onto a dying planet where they are given a 20-year death-by-climate-change sentence at birth. The violence in “Joker”? Stop! Most of the violence in the movie is perpetrated on the Joker himself, a person in need of help, someone trying to survive on the margins of a greedy society. His crime is that he can’t get help. His crime is that he is the butt of a joke played on HIM by the rich and famous. When the Joker decides he can no longer take it — yes, you will feel awful. Not because of the (minimal) blood on the screen, but because deep down, you were cheering him on - and if you’re honest when that happens, you will thank this movie for connecting you to a new desire — not to run to the nearest exit to save your own ass but rather to stand and fight and focus your attention on the nonviolent power you hold in your hands every single day. Thank you Joaquin Phoenix, Todd Phillips, Warner Bros. and all who made this important movie for this important time. I loved this film’s multiple homages to Taxi Driver, Network, The French Connection, Dog Day Afternoon. How long has it been since we’ve seen a movie aspire to the level of Stanley Kubrick? Go see this film. Take your teens. Take your resolve.
Spoiler There is another breakdown that I saw on Instagram of Phillips breaking down the "Bathroom" scene, which I think is the best scene in the whole movie and was the moment the movie for me went from great to what I'd call "Kubrick level" brilliance. Apparently the bathroom scene was scripted differently with Arthur panicking and hiding the gun and washing his make up off. But like in the opening scene they played the music the composer wrote and Joaquin just started that dance and they went with that instead.
