The Real Problem with Joker (and how to fix it... sort of)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2020
- Joker has been talked to death... So let's talk about Joker!
Music:
Deep Space by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Artist: audionautix.com/
I think to me the question of "Who is the Joker?" Is really answered in The Killing Joke. He's anyone, and everyone. His whole premise is he was a normal guy who had "one bad day". The dominant factor is he loses everything he cherishes in one fell swoop. His mentality is life is one big, sick joke, so why not be the one laughing? Nothing affects him, except Batman. Bruce is the one person who doesn't treat anything like a joke, and unlike many, he truly wants order. He's the Joker's opposite half, and that angers and excites him. He's literally his toughest critic. As to why he does what he does, it's nothing more complex that he can. He snapped when his world fell apart, and decided if the rules were against him, then the key to life is to have no rules. Do whatever you want, to the fullest. He is the emboidiment of doing any desire that crosses your mind. The sane person THINKS of harming annoying or frustrating people but will think of morality as well as consequences. Joker has no morality and doesn't care about consequences. He'll kill an ant, kitten, or human being with the same level of indifference.
Came here to say this 👏🏼
I can't agree more with this! Very well said!
the laughing isn’t to try to make him seem crazy, he has a neurological condition, as someone with tourette’s the way they depicted it was accurate and impressive because you can see how painful it is, you don’t just have neurological issues from stressful situations it can just be random like how it was on the bus, and you aren’t treated fairly is also accurate
I disagree about the use of ineffective antagonists. For me, this caused a deep sense of disease, a generalized and impersonal sense of persecution. Arthur's clumsy explanation fits perfectly in the zeitgeist. He cannot articulate his persecutors. His enemies are spectral systems. His development is delayed by intergenerational trauma. His violence resolves nothing but provides momentary catharsis. It gives him meaning as the antithesis to the systems which created him.
Exactly. This study is as lazy as he claims the film to be.
4:11 he's reliving the memory of being attacked for no reason by those kids. That's stressful for him, and that causes him to lapse into laughter.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about this story really seems to me to flirt with violent incel type logic. Like it really wants to say, "Nobody cares for Arthur, nobody loves and looks out for him, he's not wanted anywhere, so it's okay for him to go around shooting people." But at the same time the movie recognizes how horrible that is, so it also has people conveniently violently attack him first, multiple times, so that his violence is seen as justified self-defense. He shoots the men in the train because they're attacking him, but that's not the reason he gives for his actions, for why he's angry. In his words he's angry about being alone, about society being cold and neglectful and shutting him out. It's like the bit where he's defending himself is just a superfluous layer of plausible deniability layered over that emotional core.
Do you even know what an incel is? God filmbros are all so pretentious
The movie introducing Arthur with a laughing fit is us being introduce to him the same way a random person at a bus would. You can disagree that it doesn't work narratively but its simply more than just there to be shallow imagery and to be disturbing as you describe it.
I do think there's an interesting thing to note with this movie:
Every scene with Arthur, his outfit matches his surroundings. And the ending with him being interviewed, can open the possibility that the entire film was simply the story as he told it, not the true events.
"it was all a dream"
@@endaburns2121 As Arthur said, "You wouldn't get it" which really summarizes the entire movie
@@allannjenga3489 And then Arthur singing along to "That's Life" by Frank Sinatra! 😘👌Chef's kiss!
Oh wow it was all a dream... how intriguing.
the best way i can describe this movies problems is that it’s like Fight Club without the third act...
And their audiences largely learned the wrong lesson.
With the joker film we seem to have watched two different films.
Ledger's Joker always struck me as a pretty boy who lost his looks and lost his mind. The way he reacts when Batman calls him ugly.
One thing that wasn't discussed here, that I do find important to the film - "society" is one of the leading antagonists. The system kept Arther with an abusive unstable mother ( which likely caused his mental illness), the, as an adult, the powers that be cut funding to the program that's helping Arther stay afloat. His first victims being wealthy and white and therefore deserving of public outcry is important. Arther and him mother, the single mother that lives down the fall, all the frustrated people that rally at the end have been let down by "society" they've fallen through the cracks, had their resources taken away, and watch the wealthy of Gotham thrive while poverty and crime run their lives. While I agree the set up wasn't done that well - I do think it's important to this story that all these thing happen TO Arther, and not because of his own actions. His character has a job, goals, ambitions, loves his family - these are thing we hold up as important - but they din't matter, as a victim of circumstance, there is no amount of "pulling up his bootstraps" that Arther can do to improve his life.
That's a great point. Some characters are in impossible situations and there's nothing they can do to get out like 12 years a slave, brokeback mountain, trishna, or never let me go. You can imagine yourself in those characters' shoes and feel just as trapped because there's no obvious solution. But they still try to get out, and we don't know if they're going to succeed. We know what they want but we don't know how or if they're going to get it. That creates drama.
Arthur's story isn't like that. It's violent and disturbing but it isn't very dramatic. It often IS obvious what he should do. Don't chase the kids. Don't take the gun. Don't go to the open mic. Don't bathe your naked mother. Don't murder the guy you've already shot who's running away from you in terror...
kill whitey
@@davescripted3796 he's not supposed to be mentally fit enough to make those decisions, though. I don't know if you'll read this, but I wish you went over the good points of the movie, why it was fairly popular. Perhaps my favorite point is related to people who feel really screwed over where few, if any, people care.
{Edit} Also, the movie's probably best interpreted as more so impressions than strictly literal (e.g. the ills of society dealing with the lower classes).
@@davescripted3796this response has the exact same vibes as "if you're not paid a living wage you should go find a better job"
@@thomsoap Agreed. Just another person sitting on their perch of privilege, crying thay something is bad because they don't understand it.
This movie was not what I thought it would be, but still I liked it a lot. His life seemed so sad it made sense to me he went crazy mad, sad, hopeless… I absolutely can empathize (having depression and anxiety myself) with Arthur and feel his experience with ‘society’ was awful. He had problems in his life before adulthood - poor self esteem (because of his uncontrollable laughing), being his mother’s keeper (mother having mental problems herself) - and in adulthood - not being able to keep a job, not being successful at his preferred career, being lied to by his mother about his origins - and then ‘society being awful’ - the violence, the mocking, the bullying by children and adults.
Randall acted like he was a friend giving Arthur the gun to protect himself, yet when Arthur got fired he came to his apartment not to see if Arthur was ok, but to cover his ass… His mother might have wanted a great life for Arthur, but effectively she lied to Arthur making a fool of him. Murray was Arthur’s idol, so being made fun of must have really hurt a lot when he was already hurting, but then being invited to his show just to be made fun of…
I don’t think Arthur wasn’t able to distinguish when he was laughed at vs. when people laughed with him. He, as many comedians, wanted to make people laugh, because he knew how it hurt being sad, mocked, kicked while one is down. He wanted to make the world better instead he kept getting kicked by life.
Arthur was being kicked by life from near and far and he is pretty accurate in his perception of society (based on his life experience). Arthur was broken by life, by society. He just wanted a basic calm life, a father, a normal mother, being accepted. He got nothing. He got less than nothing for his attempts.
He was (mentally) weak before this succession of events and he just broke.
He is hopelessly broken and prepared to watch this broken cruel world burn. He started as a clown (to make the world laugh) but ended up as the Joker (laughing at the world burning).
The way you’re explaining it makes it sound like you wanted it to be like any other movie or something. This Joker movie wasn’t even necessarily about the Joker (none of them really are).
I'm not sure what you mean by any other movie. I'm fine with him not being the real joker but that doesn't make it a good story.
most criticisms of this movie boil down to the critics expecting a superhero movie, but instead getting served a moody character study, a la Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy, with a protagonist that starkly contradicts the established superhero mythos. everything else is just them rationalizing their negative experience with the movie.
@@arsenii_yavorskyibro, it’s a shit story. If you think the guy who made this video wanted a super hero movie, this discussion isn’t for you.
@@fersuviousbut they clearly wanted it to be tho. The whole video is spent him complaining why the protag is not an "evil for the sakes of being evil", supervillain type of character. He is upset that he can't idealise this guy, that we arent getting a cleancut fairytale so to say, a superhero story, but something akin to the russian realists. The point of this movie is to say that "there is no purely evil, no one is evil for fun in real life, people get to these places and situations by having a shit background, untreated mental illness that the society around them shunns and bullies, poverty and an abusive home, and total and complete lack of support from the system that is supposed to provide a social net". Gotham has always been a metaphore for the real world, very specificly for america and its workings, the difference with this movie is : who writes it, and who they put to be a protagonist. And i think its a shame this guy just. Simply didnt get that.
@@the_beholding259 fair enough…I don’t agree but I see it what you’re getting at. That being said, main character aside….from a narrative/storytelling standpoint the movie is still pretty bad. Structurally and motivationally it is very sloppy.
Basically the improvements needed in this movie are similar to the comic book The killing Joke, it explores a origin story of the Joker.
The antagonist is not as much physical as it's circumstancial. This movie doesn't have a protagonist-antagonist structure. It's a vilain origin story where the protagonist is pushed to his last nerve. He doesn't need to have an antagonist, he is struggling but still functioning. He does bad decision but still is kinda redeemable until he slips into absolute madness. He is a trainwreck of a person but somehow you still kinda want him to get better until he becomes the joker. He is kinda fighting this part of himself that is the Joker but still is Arthur Fleck until he embodies the persona that is the Joker. He is not to be looked as someone we should empathize with, he is a vilain and that's his story. He could've overcame the struggles and find the light at the other end of the tunnel or gets himself out of this situation but that wouldn't be a villain origin story then. Joaquim Phoenix did a great job at performing this part with all the subtleties this role demanded. It's not a masterpiece but it doesn't try to either. It was a character study.
Character study is a perfect descriptor for this story! Thank you! Great perspective!
You don't have a full understanding of the terms protagonist and antagonist. They aren't synonyms to good and evil or hero and villain. Every story has a protagonist and antagonist, because the protagonist is who the story is about, on a quest to achieve a goal, and the antagonist is whatever is interfering with the protagonist reaching their goals. The antagonist doesn't have to be a person. The antagonist could have been Arthur's mental illness. Imagine how good this movie would be if it really centered his mental illness as the antagonist. If it was about how Arthur wanted to be a comedian but his mental illness prevented him from understanding and relating to people enough to be considered a good performer. But the movie doesn't tell a complete story about his mental illness, or about his struggles with random violence, or about his struggles with identifying who his father is. The movie dips one toe into each of these without fully committing to any of them, making it feel unsatisfying.
And as for the fact that Arthur shouldn't be sympathized with, I think that's lazy storytelling. There is no such thing as a bad person, the world is far too grey for that, and even more than that - I have yet to meet anyone who whole heartedly believes they are a bad person. Maybe some traumatic injuries or intense trauma can alter a person's thinking to be that extreme, but I truly believe that for the most part we are sympathetic characters in our own stories. Even killers have reasoning that makes sense in their head. And again, if the movie had leaned more into his mental illness or the depravity of the world around him, I might buy into his reasoning. If he put his all into comedy but couldn't succeed because he wasn't able to connect with people socially, I've had social struggles before that would relate to that. If he put his all into clowning but couldn't succeed because of the violence around him, I've tried so hard to make something work but had it ripped away from because of forces that were out of my control. Those are stories I could relate to, but the film doesn't fully capture either story.
All of the conflict feels shallow and that's when conflict becomes unrelatable - many people can relate to feelings of disappointment, fear, or insecurity but not many can relate to learning a millionaire is your father (but then he isn't) or being fired from a job because you drop a gun in the middle of a children's hospital, aka Arthur's literal circumstances. Because the movie was more focused on what happened to Arthur rather than Arthur's actual emotional life, it just falls flat.
We are all talking about how Arthur wasn't very sympathetic but the thing is a lot of people online found him so there was such a huge outcry for this iteration of the Joker character that the sequel was immediately green lit and a bunch of posts to this day talk about how he was a good guy. Which just makes me think about how each audience member can take away something vastly different than the other.
It is the same problem with Rob Zombie’s “Halloween” no one was interested or curious what made Michael Myers a villain. The unknown and the facelessness and remorselessness is what made Michael Myers effective.
I understand your point, but at the same time I feel like this is one of those rare movies made to disturb. I couldn't relate to Arthur but I didn't have to, I was there to watch his sad and mentally ill life experience unfold, if that makes sense. And in that regard, I think it's very effective.
It gave me a similar feeling as Mother! by Aronofsky in which I did not relate to the characters or the story (nor did I want to), but it disturbed me in a way I will never forget.
I hear what you're saying, and I totally agree the movie was disturbing. I just don't think it was much else.
I haven't seen Mother! but I saw Taxi Driver years ago, which a lot of people compare Joker to and which is also a disturbing movie about a guy slowly going off the deep end. But I found that movie a lot more gripping because he wasn't WAY crazy like Arthur, he was actually kinda normal. You could see something of yourself in him, unlike with Arthur
I liked the movie. It's about a man with everything against him. I feel like I can empathize deeply with him. No one understands him, and when the pressure is too much, he explodes. Rather than understand the underlying issues, people around him disregard it as him veing crazy.
I don't find it difficult at all to relate to Joker
I remember Arthur's mother allowed Arthur to be abused by her boyfriend thus Arthur would blame her for his current state. That plus the false hope of his father.
Half of this video, feels like a complaint that the main character isn’t rational, and it makes me want to scream, because THAT IS THE POINT! Arthur isn’t acting rationally, because he is a mentally disturbed person with no help, no understanding from the people around him, all he has left is lashing out!
a character study where the main character has no internal consistency is a bad character study.
also arthur isn't mentally ill, he's brain damaged, which was literally the stupidest thing they could have written.
@@endaburns2121 Why though, is that a rule you just made up ?
@@jonnyso1 pretty much, yep. what is your rule though? what do you like in character studies? if there's no character to study, what is the movie?
@@endaburns2121 Its about what you feel, that's all there is to it. You can talk about the techniques, and writing and ways to tell a story but in the end the way you get there is less relevant than the result.
@@jonnyso1 sure, i agree that art is primarily about the emotions it sparks. you can say any "objectively" good movie sucks cause you just weren't feeling its vibes or whatever. but to bring up this fact in a discussion of narrative techniques is unhelpful because its self-evident. the discussion is consciously a step beyond whether you like it or not.
i'd be happy to agree to disagree with me saying "jonkler movie >:3" and you saying "jonkler movie :3", but that's not what the video or this thread was about.
I heard someone upset with the movie bc they were expecting to see a batmobile. Joker being a terrible comedian was brilliant, some of the best scenes. The imaginary gf plot felt forced. that's my biggest nitpick and Bruce Wayne's father being heartless, not a perfect movie but many of your suggestions would have made a less compelling movie.
I don't know if I agree that your changes would necessarily improve the movie. Give it better structure, yes. Make the character more sympathetic, yes. Be a better origin story for the Joker, yes.
But its strange flow, unsympathetic character, and subversive and somewhat unremarkable origin for the character are what makes the movie so gripping and terrifying. It was actually like watching a crazy person, which as a person who has lived in big cities my whole adult life makes me uneasy. He's the weirdo at the grocery store you try to pretend isn't there, and walk briskly away from when he wanders too close to you. This movie captures that feeling, and holds you there for hours (which is why I haven't watched it a second time; it's too unnerving!)
I do like your suggestion of getting rid of the Bruce Wayne angle, and giving that role to Murray, that makes a lot of sense narratively. And there are some changes I'd suggest too (the "twist" with his relationship with his neighbor was entirely too predictable; the reveal made me laugh a bit because the movie acted like it was this great twist, but everyone was like "yeah, we know...")
The concept that The Joker is Evil simply because Evil Exist deal with it is one I hate. I enjoy most of those Joker stories you praised because I don't need to agree with a story to enjoy it. But I do consider fundamentally destructive to society to just write off evil people as evil. Joker 2019 is a great elseworld origin story for The Joker because it explores the actual society issues related to mental illness and class struggle while not taking away the basic concept of Joker as a symbol of chaos.
His not having control is the point, no I do not think characters are only interesting in what they do effect a story.
The fact is Joker isn't another Nerd movie awkwardly throwing in politics to make a popcorn film more marketable, it's a political film using the anime recognition of The Joker to get people to watch it, and since it does fit what themes The Joker has always been linked to (Nolan did describe his Joker as the ultimate Anarchist). That's why all your judging it by the standards of other Superhero films is pointless.
The fact is Arthur doesn't exactly know what he wants during those parts of the film, and that is itself pretty relatable to me.
The fact is the people who don't understand this movie need to watch Peter Coffin and Jack Saint's videos on it. They don't even say exactly the same thing but both get at the gist of it. CInemaWins also did a decent video on it.
He's not "Crazy" at the start of the film, he's mentally ill, saying pre-film Arthur was "crazy" is in fact very offensive to the mentally ill.
I got confused after watching it because I thought the father and the comedy host were the same persona
Dude that’s some insane facial blindness lmao
This feels a lot more like your expectations weren't met than an objective analysis of wether this is good or bad.
The movie is a ripoff of better Scorsese movies and didn't include any actual comic book accuracy.
@@TiberiusX the first criticism, fair enough, the second, again, just your expectation or rule that you made up that the movie had no obligation to fullfill, it would also have very little impact on the quality of the movie anyway.
@jonnyso1 the movie starring a comic book character had no obligation to follow the comics, and it's only my expectation that it would be so? Don you know how dumb that sounds? You must work in Hollywood to have such little brain power to call on.
Love your channel
I think it was intentionally done this way. The Joker is supposed to be this unreliable narrator who literally said in The Killing Joke that he'd rather have a multiple choice origin story (which also happens in The Dark Knight). That's why there are so many inconsistencies in the plot.
"you don't understand bro, its bad on purpose!!!!!"
Your comment? Yes.
There rebuttal you replied to? No. It's good.
@@endaburns2121 It isn't "bad on purpose", but Arthur is an unreliable narrator, similiar to Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver or Edward Norton's character in Fight Club. When you have a story with a unreliable narrator (or a main protagonist from whose perspective the movie is told), you better expect inconsistencies in the story....in that case it's not bad writing, it's writing from the perspective of somebody who's a compulsive liar and/or is so mentally deranged that they cannot tell the difference between what is happening in reality and what is only happening in their head. I know that this concept overburdens part of the audience, because some people cannot understand that in a story with an unreliable narrator NOTHING is certain. Maybe Arthur killed all those people, maybe he didn't...maybe EVERYTHING that is happening in this movie only happens in Arthur's head, maybe some parts happen and others don't. We don't know....because the narrator of this story is UNRELIABLE. Take Fight Club f.e....have you ever rewatched that movie and concentrated on Marla? Nobody adresses Marla directly..except "Jack" and Tyler. There is no scene in which Marla talks to somebody without "Jack" (Ed Norton) being present... Given the fact that "Jack" suffers from multiple identity disorder (combined with certain traits of psychosis) it might very well the case that Marla is ALSO just a figment of his sick mind, another one of his multiple identities. Think I am nuts? Go rewatch Fight Club and really look close to all scenes with Marla...you'll see. I am not even saying that she isn't real but only another of "Jack"'s alter egos, but it IS possible and the movie doesn't explicitly show any proof that she is real nor that she's just another figment of "Jack"'s sick head. We can't say for sure, because "Jack" is an UNRELIABLE NARRATOR!
@@NKA23 okay. what effect does the unreliable narrator in joker have? how is it good? pointing out narrative techniques is nothing. you have to explain its place in the text.
also, i'm not sure you are super well acquainted with the concept of an unreliable narrator. its not just when the narrator has a loose grip on reality (though it can be). For instance, Wuthering Heights notably has multiple unreliable narrators, all of which are completely lucid (with one possible exception). i could elaborate more on this if you want.
@@endaburns2121Wym what effect does the unreliable narrator have? Tf do you want him to explain here? Hes mentally ill, the technique used is an unreliable narrator. Thats all
I dont know man, its true that the movie lacks ANY subtlety but I dont really think the movie fails at allowing the audience to sympathize with him. The actions that inspire the joker and is supposed to make us sympathize with him is simply that the society, people, the higher class everyone is a piece of shit, therefore making the killings not about individual characters but the general premise that people like arthur/the joker have to live this terrible life because of those people. I watched a couple of your videos and although i agree with some aspects of your analysis, it really seems as though your criticism roots from a belief that a story needs to be a one specific way to be a successful one. Regardless, i wish you luck.
To the contrary, I don't think it's hard to sympathize with him at all. I did feel bad for him. It's easy to feel bad for someone in a difficult situation. But as I said in the video, sympathy is easy. Empathy is hard. That's where the film is lacking
I don’t sympathize with the Joker’s character or actions because them fighting against “oppression” is just an excuse for their actions. His killings are personal, he kills murray because murray makes him feel insecure, and he spares one of his coworkers due to having a personal relationship with him. Not to mention, beyond having no subtlety, the bad things that happen to Arthur are so ridiculous (e.g him getting beaten up by children for no clear reason) that it made it clear to me while watching this film that it made a conscious effort to pander to lonely young men who blame all their suffering on others. The joker is an inconsistent character, and the film tries to portray him as having no freedom or control at the beginning of the film in a ridiculous way, making him a shallow character. Also the film has little actual commentary when it comes to it’s “society is bad” parts, as all the film manages to do is show how ridiculous it is to judge literally everyone, especially when I don’t feel like I know much about any character other than the joker, except for “they are bad too”.
Came here to say almost exactly the same. I did empathise with Arthur a lot. I found several of the scenes in Joker very powerful because I saw my own frustrations with the world exaggerated.
I also think the confused approach to antagonists is part of the point, none of the named antagonists do anything particularly bad to Arthur, but he responds violently because he embodies antagonistic qualities. All those conflicts where there’s nothing holding him back from “getting what he wants” (which is invariably violent retribution), are supposed to be moral conflicts. Why don’t you kill people? Because you have a moral compass. Why haven’t you strangled your parent(s) even when you were angry at them? Morals, and the fact that they are missing in Arthur, is the point. And that’s his character growth. Crazy=/= violent. He starts the story crazy, but he ends the story violent. It’s the degradation of his morals at the hands of his experiences that form the through line for his character.
Yeah, I watched Joker once, liked it, but would never watch again for uncertain reasons.
Thats great❤️
This was a great video it helped me pinpoint why I left the theater feeling disappointed after seeing this movie. I agree with your final point that the real problem with this movie is that the most satisfying back story for the joker is him not really having one. I think the movie tried to make arthur sympathetic in the wrong ways. They were so heavy handed with trying to make society the antagonist Arthur lacks agency. He doesn't do things in the world the world just does stuff to him or around him. I think thats what made the movie feel so aimless. The main issue I had with the movie is that Arthur really didn't embody the joker at all. The joker is cunning and he has elaborate plans. I think the way to fix the movie would be to show Arthur as a well adjusted person in the beginning. They could even keep the idea that he has always had a mental illness but show that he is stable until the funding for his mental health services has been cut. Then his primary emotion could be anger instead of helplessness and sadness. He would get more and more angry as he learns about his mother's lies, his neighbor's unfamiliarity with him, the abuse he suffered, random people beating him up, and people not enjoying his comedy. He should go on Murray's show with the intention of starting a riot because he's angry at the whole town and purposefully wants to destroy it. I also think it would be great to emphasize that Arthur started the idea of the joker but that someone else goes on to be the joker who battles with batman. I know the movie did this but I think more time should have been spent on the idea. They could then tie the movie to previous ones by saying the joker is just a persona several people have taken up to use for their own reasons. I hope someone bothers to read all this nonsense.
Yeah, I like those ideas. They make ARthur more active and less passive. And you're right, he doesn't embody the chaotic force of the Joker. Arthur going head to head with batman would be the most lopsided battle ever
Honestly "The Killing Joke" is a much a better origin story for the Joker than this movie.
the reality for most people is that there is very little actual control of their life and the world shifts and changes while they do their best to hold on and keep things together
@@thomsoapbut that doesn’t make for a good story
@@garygordle5146 thats extremely subjective but many authors would disagree, stephen king, kafka, Dostoyevsky, shirley Jackson etc. its a pretty long list
Good video! I also didn't think Joker worked. I don't agree with your criticisms of 'lack of motivation', 'weak antagonist' and 'un-empathetic protagonist' because, although they are correct observations, I think they'd also apply to Taxi Driver, which is a similar film to Joker, but it worked. I think, as you point out, subtlety is a huge weakness of this film.
I thought it's greatest flaw was I felt the ending wanted me to view Arthur's actions as righteous revenge, when it was actually the murder of increasingly innocent people. Compared to Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle was clearly not the hero of that story.
Hi! this type of videos are actually really helpful for aspiring screenwriters and writers, you are really good at analysing and I hope to see more in the future 😊
I thought the controversy around this film was that a lot of guys actually did relate to it.
Yea, the controversy was literally that incels, which, according to polling data make up about 25 million or so people in the country, would relate to Arthur. Then, inspired by the violence in the film, would rise up and start killing people. That was 80% of the media cycle leading up to the movie's release.
@@reezethevampire well, technically that DID happen (incels relating to the movie) just without the mass shootings lol
How I interpreted the movie Joker, I actually had very different take away that sort of aligns with how you would have fixed it. How I took in the story was the feeling of being intrigued for most of the movie, curious where they were going with him, since I have been a long time fan of the character from the cartoons, movies, comics and video games. I felt curious, sympathetic, and then uncomfortable for most of the movie right up until the last couple scenes, where I felt everything was flipped on its head. The ending tipped the audience off with a couple of subtle clues that what had happened might've not actually be true and it left me questioning everything.
I had no idea what was actually the fact, I simply couldn't distinguish whether what I had watched up until that point was what actually had happened...
1. Everything happened in sequence that we saw with reasoning that doesn't quite line up and characters making out of character decisions.
2. What if what was shown to us was from Arthur's perspective as his sanity progressively unraveled (perhaps exponentially) and we don't know when he actually went fully clinically insane to the point where he started imagining/hallucinating experiences, retelling his experiences to himself and then later again to other regardless of it contradicting what actually happened as a form to coping with reality. To repress and make up something that he can live with. Rather than live with being beaten up, he can live with being the one to beat up other and be stronger than he actually was in those moments, in order to fortify his mind and be able to continue on.
3. What if he was more mentally ill than we realized from the very beginning, already clinically insane and that all of the events, his experiences, and the relationships with he had people were all a fabrication of his ill mind which kept changing and twisting the story because his perception is warped from his illness. We can't actually know what's going on because the story is being told from Arthur's perspective. We only get to the story from the lens an already insane individual.
I'm torn between the latter interpretations.
To me, its ambiguous in a different way than the other tellings with its misleading red herrings, with the switches/twists, and with a different storytelling style that differs from the traditional Western Three-Act Structure and antagonist (he's his own antagonist). Personally, I think the creative and non-traditional liberties that were taken in the making of this film did the character justice and aided to highlighting the Joker's insanity. I felt this way despite my love of the character's original and classic stories, especially "The Killing Joke" by, one of the most influential comic book authors, Alan Moore, which still stands as my favourite to date.
Another thing that left me questioning things was the song choice at the end, with Arthur singing "That's Life" by Frank Sinatra. It really goes with the notation that he writes his own story/stories.
I certainly agree that much of the film's style and the story itself wasn't narratively cathartic, although I do think it aids to the uncomfortable, distraught, questioning feeling that I got the impression was the goal.
Years later after watching Joker, I finally got around to watching the anime movie "Perfect Blue" (2000 directed by Satoshi Kon) which left me with with the same feeling. Highly recommend watching it despite it being a tough watch.
The anime series "FLCL" (2000 by Kazuya Tsurumaki, assistant director of Neon Genesis Evangelion and other Evangelion series) and anime movie "Paprika" (2006, also directed by Satoshi Kon) are two other very feverish examples of different storytelling which is more like watching an experience rather than being told one. Many of the works by Studio Ghibli are known for this as well with many of their films resembling experiences such as imaginative childhood in "Spirited Away."
Another movie off the top of my head that reminds me of a different yet still twisted story is "Taxi Driver" (1976 directed by Martin Scorsese, who also directed Fight Club, Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, etc.). It's differs from Joker and Perfect Blue in a few ways but the endings have twists and commentary on mental illness that are really interesting and not common place in the film industry or really many storytelling industries.
Another one is a more recent film that would aid well to this discussion on telling fact from fiction is "The Last Duel" (2021 directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed Alien, Gladiator, etc.), in which the same story is told three times from three different perspectives. We'll never know which one is the full truth or if each of them tells partial truths of the full situation. It's an excellent example when looking at stories like these. Another tough watch, as well.
In many industries, there's big discussion and speculation on memory being fact or fiction. It's interesting food for thought, especially when weighing it with these masterpieces.
I'd be curious on your thoughts on these things.
I think you missed some things here, and for the most part I really disagree with your take, but I respect the fact that you made and kept up this video about a movie praised as the holy grail by almost everyone who saw it.
i'm no batman nerd, but i do have a problem with some of these criticisms. namely the ones that condemn him as an "un-empathetic character" and that "it's not rational, therefore it's a bad story and a bad portrayal"
firstly, the very fact that so many people, even in this comment section alone, do empathise with arthur fleck, shows that that criticism is not valid. just because you cannot empathise with him, doesn't mean no one can.
second, "it doesn't make sense" + "it happens for seemingly no reason" - thats sort of the point... he is an unreliable narrator. this movie isn't showing you character growth & development, it's showing you a man spiralling downwards. he's losing his grip, and he's losing his desire to even _have_ a grip.
if you've never experienced a reality-distorting mental illness then i get why to you it just seems totally nonsensical. but you not being able to understand that mentality doesn't make it a bad story.
again, with this movie, you aren't watching him *gain* anything, whether it be clarity or wealth or ambition - you are watching him *lose* control. batman and the joker are two reactions to the same issue. the world is unjust, so batman seeks to improve it. the world is unjust, so the joker adds to it.
i feel all this video tells us is that you haven't been unlucky enough to be in a position to understand anything about arthur fleck.
"the kids beat him up for no reason" - a visibly lower class, mentally ill, lonely, weak person is often the target of needless violence.
"she kept her delusional belief a secret for no reason" - do you really think every person with a delusion goes around yelling it through loudspeakers? come on man.
i wouldn't call it a perfect movie or a masterpiece but it just sounds like you were disappointed it wasn't a conventional story. imo this movie does a pretty good job of showing that "Some people just want to watch the world burn"
I'm late to this video, but I really enjoyed it. I also really liked this movie, but I never considered the points you made here before. It's an interesting perspective, and I think I'd need to watch it again now that I've seen your analysis. The lack of subtlety didn't bother me personally, but I can see how it may have taken away from the story a bit. I appreciate this video, because I like to see things from others POV and challenge my own thoughts. Thanks for this!
No.. no.. NO! Arthur doesn't laugh when he's "anxious", he laughs when he finds something upsetting, or, more to the point, UNFAIR. He laughs when his innate sense of justice is disturbed.
I don't understand how you can claim that Arthur isn't an empathetic character or that he isn't relatable; seems like backward rationalization to me. You don't enjoy the movie (because it contradicted another Joker?) so you're grasping at excuses like "Arthur isn't empathetic and sympathy isn't a strong enough emotion." Arthur is absolutely an empathetic character - he's a person in trapped in a giant system he struggles to understand while that system continuously beats him down through political strife, economic collapse, lack of social services, increased violence, and constant isolation from others. These are things most people in the world encounter often in their life.
If you don't find Arthur relatable, that speaks more to your lack of struggle than it does the the movie's writing. I mean, that's quite literally the point of the movie; your lack of empathy toward Arthur proves the movies themes. It certainly doesn't help that the driving force behind your criticism is that this movie doesn't work well with the internal logic of Dark Knight which is, in itself, ridiculous and effectively renders your arguments pointless. Every point of criticism in this video has plenty of counter-points, and I mean NUMEROUS counter points.
I think Arthur isn't relatable or empathetic because of how he decides to handle his problems, namely, with violence and aggression. Lots of people are trapped within arcane and unjust systems, and most of them don't become violent or deliberately go out of their way to harm others. The mental illness doesn't even make a particularly compelling explanation, because most folks struggling with mental illness don't become violent either.
So that's why I don't find him an empathetic character. Yeah it's sad that he's a victim of systemic violence, but so are my wife and I in a number of ways, and neither of us are about to shoot someone on live TV. To use another of Dscripted's videos as reference, this story doesn't feel inevitable to me, like it's the only way it could have happened. It feels like the director decided that he wanted to tell a violent story and then worked backwards from there to justify it, but didn't produce an explanation that I find very compelling.
Also the director deliberately chose to associate with the body of work that already exists on the Joker. He could just as easily have called the film something else. But he made this one because he wants to engage directly with the Joker character, which means he is directly inviting comparison. He doesn't get excused from that comparison if it should happen to be unfavorable.
This was so perfect. Why isn't this channel more popular??
You're the best! 🙏
could it be because he only ever listens to yes-men?
Care givers who do not have support do have to do things such as bathing their invalid parents. Arthur's card explained he has a condition (pseudobulbar affect, matbe) that makes him involuntarily have inappropriate responses.
I loved The Joker the first time I saw it...
When it was called Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin were far better characters than Arthur Fleck, who appears to be an amalgam of the two. Outside of the film being distractingly derivative, it was kind of a mess. There is also a significant fraction of the movie's fan base, who have come away from it with a new hero. I get that. I do. I was the same way with Alex DeLarge, so I don't doubt that age grants perspective, and many in the predominantly male fandom will find their fondness for this particular film, fade over time. Maybe not. WTF do I know? Who am I? Rex Reed?
I’m baffled because I agree and disagree with you. Yes he’s crazy from before the film starts but I thought it was established that Arthur was struggling to conform to society - as in throughout most of the movie he was he had an idea of what was ‘normal’ and ‘socially’ acceptable and was trying hard to get to get to a point where he felt normal and accepted by society. We saw snapshots of the reality in the film and spent most of the film in his false reality until a line of events shattered that false reality and brought him back to the real one. He killed Murray because everything he believed in up until the point where he met Murray had turned out to be a lie. The relationship he had with his neighbour, the truth about his mum the realisation that Murray wasn’t going to be kind and accepting towards him like how he dreamt he would.
Like just because someone isn’t mentally stable doesn’t mean that they don’t have moments of clarity. Some of his questionable decisions don’t make sense but of course not who does he have in his life that keeps him grounded and normal. Whats the issue with showing that Arthur has to look after his mum. Do people who have to care for their parents not bathe them? What normal influences did Arthur have that were displayed in the film? There are definite plot holes in the film but I wouldn’t call it awful. You left a lot of things out that happened in the film which makes me curious as to why? But also you were very biased and focused on pointing out all the parts that you felt were bad or didn’t make sense rather than keeping it balanced. Like I said I agree with you and I also don’t. By agree I mean I mean yeah there are a few minor problems but I overall disagree with how dismissive you are of Arthurs character his and mental health.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 exactly
You're right. No movie is completely bad. There were places here and there I liked. I had to refer back to my notes for this... I liked when his mother says, "Don't you have to be funny to be a comedian?" When he drops the gun in the hospital. When he pursues the guy he shot. When he starts following Sophie, which could have been interesting but the tension is ruined when she says she doesn't mind that he's following her. When he makes it look like he's going to kill himself on air, which is a clever bit of misdirection. And I liked when he's being chased by the detectives and then hides amongst everyone wearing masks. There. That's the entirety of what I liked. I'm guessing it's well less than ten minutes of screen time. Beyond that there was potential, but nothing developed.
Your reasons for why he kills Murray are fine, but he doesn't say to Murray 'You're not as nice as you were in my dreams.' He gives this grandiose speech about society that feels like the writers telling us the audience the core message of the movie, which we shouldn't need to be told. Tell a good story and the message will take care of itself.
Of course there's nothing with wrong with caring for aging parents. But Arthur's mother seemed perfectly capable of bathing herself. For me that scene, like most of the movie, was more about showing what a disturbing life he leads.
I gotta say i had a good chuckle when you said the film lacked subtlety before spending the rest of the video missing the entire point of the movie
Dude 100%
What was the point of the movie?
Idk i really liked it but i also liked arrival
This video was amazing and really broke down why the movie wasn't as revolutionary as it was expected to be. Awesome
What you ignore is that _Joker_ is a film of social critique, not of backstory to a comic book villain. All his problems stem from a Welfare State coming to ruins, whilst the rich get richer by making the poor poorer. The film critiques mass media (television) and its power over the general imagination (people's imaginary, what they think reality is, what they _can_ think or what they think is possible, etc.). All his problems begin when his social security breaks, and it ends on a mental asylum. It is very explicit that the film is a social critique of the downfall of the Welfare State in favour of contemporary virtual capital and its new rich mofuggas.
The problem with tho is that it doesn’t make sense to use joker as a vehicle for that. Joker is the kind of person who just feeds off of chaos and conflict for the sake of it.
my god, you managed to say "i didnt understand this movie and i hate complex stories" in 15 minutes, and i am just sat here, stunned, how you did that, how you managed to walk RIGHT past the message of the movie, the issues it wants to tackle, its relations to other jokers, and the STUFF IT ACTUALLY DOES BADLY!!! (khm not to mention that for a guy who loves subtelty, your blatant ableism is SO OBVIOUS - and part of the reason why you are unable to make a compelling argument about this movie without sounding like a media illititaret)
This was the only movie I don’t agree with you so far. Jokes is supposed to be hazy,fever dream like. The judgement this video essay brings upon this movie does not feel like it is understood, (which isn’t supposed be either way, you are not supposed to empathize with him) before judged
im tha jokah baybee
the worst part for me was how the movie basically equates mental illness and evilness, or at least blames Arthurs evilness on his mental illness. I like that the original joker wasn't crazy, he was just evil because people choose to be evil. That is more interesting and more real.
I didn't interpret the movie equating mental illness with evil, but that malice and apathy of society significantly contributed to a mentally ill person not getting proper treatment before they turned into what they did.
No it doesn't. Arthur is mentally ill and If the system and society haven't abandoned him he wouldn't snap.
Sometimes mentally ill people ARE evil. This story only points out a big reason *why* they become so. If he had gotten actual help, he may have been okay. It only hurts people to pretend that mental illness is an excuse for atrocity.
My step dad was mentally ill and still did sick things to me. He invited other mentally ill drug addicts to do the same. Is it excused? Are we supposed to see him in a sympathetic light now because he was sick? Was I supposed to cry when he died because he "couldn't help it because he was sick"?
The movie asks people like *you* to face the reality of the situations you create with your weaponized ignorance and insistence to stay comfortable by keeping people you don't want to see invisible, rather than fund low income apartments near your home with your tax dollars so vulnerable people can stay off the streets. You don't want them that close, and it isn't *your* fault they're vulnerable, so why should *you* pay one or 2 hundred more dollars a year in taxes, right? How dare these people show the realities of a negligent society to your precious eyeballs?
Or maybe stop pretending you care with your little sympathies and actually listen and do something about it. You're the reason privilege is such a dirty word, now.
Batman
Bro never heard of an unreliable narrator
1 ez fix: The movie would have done better if it had no ties to the Batman series
Life is usually aimless and people usually don't know what they want. It usually lacks clear antagonists and sucks for no real reason. Murders in life aren't satisfying. I think his speech isn't meant to actually justify killing 3 people I think it's meant to portray someone dodging justifying killing 3 people by venting their general life grievances without getting specific to avoid counterarguments.
This movie is obviously lame if you watch it expecting it to be narratively traditional or simply an OG story.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think you are kinda missing the point of the story. This is going to be really long but I'm just going to to try to address some of your points.
1. "He's insane."
Having mental health issues does not inherently make you insane. That's like claiming everyone with depression or anxiety are all crazy. To be fair he does end up insane by the end of the movie but he doesn't start out that way. There is actually reasoning to his actions.
2. "You can't empathize with him."
If you grew up in a nice household with a functional family in a nice city then yes you cannot empathize with him. But, if you are someone who grew up in bad situation- usually abuse or, grew up in less than ideal situation, or have mental illness. Then you really can, not everyone gets the same set of cards dealt to them, so to generalize the human experience to be 'if your in a bad place you must of done something to get there.' is just too general. For some people that could be the case but for ex. a person who was abused as a child, you wouldn't tell them they must of been a abused because they did something or deserved it. I think it is a similar case here, is Aurthur a good person? Hell no. But the question the movie answers is how did he get there? No one wakes up one morning and decides to commit mass murder just for fun. 99% of the time they have their reasons, whether they are justified reasons is a whole other thing. As someone who has struggled with the mental health in the past I almost empathized with him too much to the point I couldn't watch the movie again (despite wanting to) because it was just too close to home.
3. His laugh
It is explained at some point in the movie but he laughs when he is stressed. Mental illnesses don't usually have one specific trigger. So that's why he is laughing in the therapist office. Because, he will no longer be able to receive the little help he was getting for his health and is being discarded once again.
4. There is no subtly.
This is the joker we are talking about. When have you ever known his character or story to be one of subtly? His whole brand is being over the top and larger than life, why would he be subtle? To be honest I think you are missing the psychology of his character in the movie. He is not your average person person and Gotham is not your average city and to go in with that viewpoint is a mistake. Gotham and the Joker are suppose to be exaggerations of real life. Gotham being New York City around the 90s. Corruption everywhere, the people of Gotham being so use to the injustice and cruelty of the city that they do nothing about it. The Joker being someone who struggles with mental health- and in this case one that is outwardly visible highlights what a broken system can do to a person. The lack of resources, the judgement, and the disregard for him as a person. Its the perfect storm to create the joker. Is it exaggerated? Yes of course. But that's kinda the point.
Theres so much more I could say about this movie but you nor idea probably have the time to go over all of it lol. And, if it wasn't already obvious I loved the movie and really think it was well done. Of course you have every right to disagree but I do hope that you at least try to see a different perspective. Anyways this is way too long and I'm sorry for that lol, but I'm done now.
1. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said having mental health issues makes you insane. I said Arthur's insane. I base that not just on his actions, but on him being confined to a mental institution before the timeline of the story begins. For an adult to be locked up against his will he needs to be deemed an immanent threat to himself or others. It's a high threshold to meet and Arthur meets it. By societal standards, he's insane.
2. Who are you even responding to here? 'if your in a bad place you must of done something to get there.' Are you implying I said that?
'for ex. a person who was abused as a child, you wouldn't tell them they must of been a abused because they did something or deserved it.' Where in my video do I say anything remotely close to that?
If you relate to Arthur because of what you've been through, that's great. But you shouldn't have to have the same problems a character goes through in order to relate to them. Good writing, which Joker does not have, can make anyone relatable (Norman Bates, Travis Bickel, Hannibal Lector, etc).
3. Arthur doesn't lose his therapist and his meds until halfway through the movie. That's well after his laughing fits have been established. It's also after he committed the clown killings.
4. If you don't think I get the psychology, that's fine. But as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to get. Joker is not a deep movie. It just smacks you in the face with what a disturbing character Arthur is and what a sad life he lives. Saying he's a mentally ill person let down by a broken system may be true, but that does not make this an interesting story.
@@davescripted3796 It's impossible to make every character relatable to everyone. I don't find any of the characters you mentioned relatable which, by your logic, must mean it's bad writing.
@@CorralSummer I don't think you understand what he means by relatable. People relate to Arthur's situation, but not him as the character, as he is not very well defined, meanwhile Patrick Bateman is a character that's situation is not very relatable to most, but things like his envy, and insecurities, are very relatable.
@@tmantonytv1166 to me they're not.
So it's bad writing.
I identified to the Joker so much ... :(
I wanted to but I couldn't
I understand.. but perhaps it is because we are too used to a « cliché » of what a mental disorder is ... the reality is raw, random, hypertrophic and I thought the movie depicted it very well (sry for bad english)
But... you aren't supposed to identify with the joker. If you identify with the joker they didn't write a good joker movie.
I treated the whole movie as being unreliably narrated by Arthur to us (to himself). Which explains all the inconsistencies.
If you don't have empathy for someone who has had a random terrible thing happen to them then IDK man, congrats on having an incredibly sheltered life I guess, but that's a you thing.
@DaveScripted, hi! I watched this video like 5 weeks ago but I'm commenting now bc my sister thinks it's cute when I comment on all your videos. I don't really have anything to say the anyone hasn't already said here, just keep up the good work my dude!
Hi!!!😂
The thing that i liked a lot about the movie is that it did not make any sense, i mean its a joker backstory, is that not what it should be? A confusing story with no real direction but just shows how the the joker "thinks". Honestly if you think of it in the eyes of a villain, it makes sense how Joker vilifies all the "antagonists" whom to us the rational viewers just seem like a normal actions.
Who the Joker was before is irrelevant, it's what he is/represents that matters. I enjoy killing Joke as a quasi origin for Joker but even that cheapens the mystery/scare factor of the character, he just is, that's what makes the Joker intriguing. Todd Phillips Joker is literally what if I made a Joker movie like Taxi Driver, with some King of Comedy, but a less interesting version of those movies. I didn't hate Joker 2019 I enjoy parts of it despite it's overall flaws, but was it over hyped, you bet, was it a good movie, sort of not really.
Insanity is a legal term not a psychological one. Also the idea that the Joker is just evil is such a tired concept. The very concept of evil is a tired and religious concept. The Joker himself rejects the concept of good and evil. He is philosophically minded, a Moral, Existential and Political Nihilist.
Wow…. Douche alert!!
MY takeaway was that this is not the Joker's origin story.. most of it is happening in his head.. it's not meant to tell a story, it's supposed to show how insane the inside of his head is.
yeah, this analysis would be spot on if there were only one type of story.
I feel like Joker has many more problems than that. It's a bad movie disguised as good movie because it has cool cinematography, nice soundtrack, beautiful performance and a lot of visually awesome looking scenes that mean NOTHING. Any scene with Joker dancing or starring is like metaphor for entire film. Beautifully shot, well acted, and with implied significance that turns out to not mean anything.
The biggest problem is that this movie says nothing. What was it about? There are too many themes brought up in the movie - class inequality, mental illness, domestic abuse (one of the worst representations btw since the movie implied it was the mothers fault that she and her kid were abused), loneliness, bullying, media - and none were developed. This movie literally says nothing. Joker has no real motivation, his character changes for no reason (he is suddenly well spoken and without the laughing tic during the show), he has no arc, he kills De Niro's character again for no reason, the events that happen in the movie happen because script tells them to happen and not because it was a natural progression. I don't think there was a single event that affected the plot, that was character driven, except for maybe when he shot De Niro. This is a character study yet it tells nothing about the character.
This movie is just a hollow nice looking piece of nothingness. I hate how I was anticipating this movie to be good, because it's such garbage, albeit well shot and well acted.
I love the analogy you make of the dancing scenes representing the whole film. It feels half the movie would disappear if you got rid of the scenes in which he's dancing while this ambient cello plays in the background
DaveScripted yeah and those would be cool scenes if they were a catharsis of some strong character progressing sequence. But they weren’t. The plot just stopped to make room for some dancing. They looked great in the trailer thought lol
I never even bothered to watch this move. I’ve been a huge batman fan for years and years and in my eyes the character of the Joker is ruined once you give him an origin story. The Joker isn’t interesting for who he is/was, the whole point is what he represents. He is chaos personified to directly mirror batman as a representation of order. The reason joker is scary is because he represents the faceless, senseless violence that exists in any society. Not all violent crimes can be rationally explained. Humanising the Joker and giving him a sob-story background that essentially “excuses” his actions by blaming them on mental illness, desperation and mistreatment breaks his core concept. Not all evil acts are caused by mental illness. Not all evil acts are motivated by desperation or abuse. If you want to write a film about desperate people being driven to violence and crime, go right ahead, there’s a place for that kind of film. But the Joker is not the right guy for presenting those ideas. A bunch of comic book creators have spent the last 70 years building him up to represent the unexplainable, why would you want a movie that tries to explain him?!
Right on!
Really makes ya think
I thought the joker wasn’t that bad of a movie but that was only because I was looking for the disturbing imagery
But past that
I don’t know what else it had to offer because at the end of the movie I didn’t really see it as a joker movie as it just a physiological movie more than anything
Yeah if you want disturbing imagery and violence, you'll get it. If you want something more then disturbing imagery and violence...
Yes bro! Thank you so much. My homie and I went to watch the movie and left thinking it was okay but we really couldn't put our finger on why we didn't like it but you explained it very well. Without agency a story falls apart.
🙏
At 1:50, you ask, "What went wrong?" But your video hadn't yet established any reason to believe something went wrong with Joker. Your essay seems to be arguing for a conclusions you've formed on your own. "This movie is bad." "What went wrong?" "What went wrong is this is bad." It's circular, right? Conclusion informing questions to arrive at conclusion?
We don't know the joker background? We don't know his scars and smile? Mate, have you watched the Batman from 1989 With Mikael Keaton and Jack Nicholson? This is the film director wanted us to see the Joker and this is what we have seen as (everyone can be a joker, everyone can wear a mask of insanity). There can be other Joker film, but this one is ugly and defective as the Joker in it.
I can't really find a good reason to criticize Arthur's own logic (when trying to justify his killings) for not making sense..... of course it doesn't make sense, that's kind of the point
I want to like your movie reviews but you just can’t seem to expand your mind to understand CORE messages presented in movies
Okay, so what's the core message I failed to understand?
Not saying Joker is a perfect movie, but judging by your analysis you personally prefer the cookie cutter narrative structrure over anything else. The fact that Joker has it more random, cluttered and speradic doesnt really make it an unrelatable experience. I mean how would you analyse Mullholand Drive, or any old Tarkovsky films by that logic?
I actually love Mulholland Drive and Solaris (the original). There's always something to think about or to try and figure out. The characters are deep. It's fun to get in their heads.
In Joker I never once wondered what the characters were thinking. They never felt like real people with real motivations. They felt like two dimensional constructs there to be disturbing and to lead us to an ending we all know was coming. That's cookie cutter
DaveScripted you won't get it
This 15 Minutes are a great example of a person thinking art is math.
Why is this channel not exploding yet
THX dude!!🙏
Great analysis. Thank you.
Another aspect of this movie that I absolutely loathe is that the writers could not help themselves and right at the end they turned a mediocre story about the Joker into a goddamn Batman origin story instead.
There is literally no reason to cut away and see Thomas and Martha Wayne being murdered in a back alley other than to showcase Batman's origin. We don't even see Arthur learn about it or react to it or even mention it. It serves absolutely no purpose other than the writers wanting to go "SEE! SEE! JOKER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BATMAN IN A ROUNDABOUT INCREDIBLY INDERECT WAY!"
Imagine being upset that a movie about Joker makes reference to Batman.
To me this movie feel like Its Taxi Driver / King of Comedy and Falling Down for people without without Any Self Awareness
the perfect movie for incels and edge lords
its taxi driver, king of comedy and falling down for people who have only ever watched mcu slop and don't know movies are allowed to be good
Yes! I also feel like people like the movie because it glorifies acting out, if you squint really hard. It's superficially edgy and people gobble it up
It's a bad ripoff of Scorsese movies.
It doesn't glorify acting out....Arthur is never portrayed as a heroic person who acts in a way people should glorify and emulate.
if I ever need an example of a pretentious critic who completely misunderstands every single aspect of a film while self-indulgently delivering condescending judgments, I'll just point to this video.
So, so true.
So so so true. For me the entire film is in the jokers head. Total fabrication.
It's ok to dislike an opinion but you can't just posit somebody is completely wrong and not even offer a single reason why...
@error.delete4945 I think his opinion is valid. Also, the narrative structure in this movie sets it up as being total fantasy in the jokers head. That's how I interpret it. I could be wrong, though, because I'm insane.
Did his critique hurt your feewings? I thought his analysis was spot on. Don’t critique the critics of you don’t know the basics of storytelling.
You miss read the movie. The joker is delusional. We see the movie through a delusional person's perspective. What we understand is what Arthur understand. What we see is the consequences of a delusional person. This is not a linear narrative.
Tons of films narrated the rise and downfall of unsympathetic monsters. Scarface, Taxi Driver and Catcher in the Rye all share the same lack of relatability. They’re meant to be portraits of monsters as young men. They’re not anti-heroes. They’re making their way into being evil to the core. I’m not sure that these criticisms negate the film’s quality so much as indicate it’s from a genre of storytelling that doesn’t prioritize relatable characters driven by healthy desires.
bruh what makes you think Holden Caulfield is evil?
I'm not particularly a fan of the movie, however, I think you seem to have an idea how how movies/narratives are supposed to be told and you seem to think things that deviate from that are bad (or poorly written). Much of your suggestions of how to improve it misses the point.
For example with the antagonist issue, there is either "man vs man", "man vs nature", "man vs himself", or "man vs society"
joker is the latter two. On one hand there's the fight against himself and trying to be "normal" and then society that keeps pushing him down no matter what he does. In the end he blames society for all his problems and kills the guy he wanted to be like.
As far as empathy goes, Authors is a character with mental issues who didn't get the proper help he needed for them. While this may not be relatable to some, it is something that happens quite often in real life. Protagonists don't need to be relatable, they just need to have an interesting story to tell. Is the story interesting? idk, certainly a lot of people seemed to like it so who am I to say they were wrong? All I can say is I wasn't a fan.
Totally agree! For me this movie feels like a self-pity story and that's too vague for the real Joker, whom is a deep and a genius character who chooses be evil just for the sake of it.
The point you make in this comment self-contradicts. A Joker who is evil for the sake of it isn't deep and the benefits of Joker stated in this video are that his story is vague, so how is it a criticism that Joker as a movie is vague (even though it very much isn't).
It's not supposed to make sense. It's Joker. The story is as disjointed as the character. That's the beauty of it.
You speak as one imprisoned in the narrative you critique, refusing to unsuspend your disbelief for long enough to make an objective statement.
absolute genius. criminally underrated. you earned my sub
🙏
Nice to finally hear someone say this! The joker for me was far too obvious with the commentary and messages it wanted to present. The "evil" characters existed solely to push Arthur to his final transformation into the joker. Overall the movie was full of cliches which disappointed me. Great video!
2:24 when you have -50 iq and make a video
That's the point of the film.
Honestly when I first saw it
I said this
If you change the cities name to San Francisco
The name Joker to Bozo The Clown
And the Wayne's to the Jeffersons you get the exact same movie and a typical one Joaquin Phoenix would play of a man's downfall and weird relationships ( like Walk The Line or Her) but they made thise changes to make it not just an Oscar movies but a billion dollar marketable Oscar movie
do you honestly think super hero movies aren't marketable lmao? do you think this movie didn't make a load of money?
whats the last slow-burn, talky, high brow movie you have watched?
whats the last superhero movie you watched?
God this movie is so dumb.
Firstly, I'm typing this comment BEFORE watching your video. I enjoyed your Dexter video too. I'm in the process of making a series of videos for my own channel called 'The Cutting Room Floor.' In it I am going to be reviewing and comparing 2 similar films. The first video will compare the highly over-rated 'Joker' film and a very highly UNDER-RATED gem of a movie that many people gloss over... NIGHTCRAWLER with Jake Gyllenhaal. Should be a lot of fun. Spoiler alert: Joachim Phoenix is NOT THE JOKER and the film 'Joker' is just a poor man's mash-up of parts taken from better films. Among them, Taxi Driver, Death Wish and more significantly, THE KILLING JOKE.
i am going to make a 10 hr reaction vid how mad i am that you didn't call it a master piece
Joker is “people who think they know about movies” favorite movie, but when people who actually know about movies say it’s shit, the aforementioned people start doing backflips to try to show the person in the know why they didn’t get it. They will also inevitably include the words “character study” and “taxi driver” in their rebuttals, respectively, a concept they couldn’t explain in rudimentary terms, and a movie, they most likely have never actually seen. But it sounds smart to mention it.
Imagine having such an awful take on one of the greatest films of all time (Joker).
Imagine having such an awful lack of mental maturity that this is how you react to movie criticism
you problem with this movie is that it lacks a plot. dont deny it. you constanly say its aimless and with no direction. but this movie isnt a plot driven story , its a character piece that shows are intrusive dark thoughts about pesimmistic views on society which are based on emotion not logic. this isnt a fault with the movie, its a fault with you
and your complaints about him being stupid , its Arthur being on a tragedy. a type of story where characters are needed to be stupid . name any tragedy where the characters actually thought things through . you cant, cause its not how tragedy works. and his stupid acts are done where is very stressed and not there in the head. dont act all mighty , you would have done much worse in his situation.
and this gotta be a very silly statement. make a character feel empathetic not sympathetic? thats dumb. empathy is a very subjective and bias thing which isnt good character writing. you are not agreeing with the joker. i dont agree with what the joker does but i get where he is coming from. i sympathize with him cause i get how he got where he got. which is a much better narrative tool than forcing someone to buy into ones worldview. making a character lose his parents its like the oldest trick in the book to make them likeable but its also subjective. there people who had shitty parents so they cant relate to bruce for losing his.
and stop with the edgy stuff. i have seen pretty disturbing stuff that have being use for just to disturb , either cause they wanted horror or the author thought it was deep. yet this things werent the things that made like this movie. compare this to "swear to me " and you cannot tell me are the same. so cut the crap
you are claiming this movie is a greek tragedy? do you know what that is?
"empathy is subjective" sure, but so is everything in art.
"forcing someone to buy into ones worldview" not what empathy is. you can empathize with patrick bateman's feelings of social isolation and desire to be seen as an individual without buying into his worldview.
"i have seen pretty disturbing stuff that have being use for just to disturb , either cause they wanted horror or the author thought it was deep" what? you are saying violence can't be disturbing in a movie unless its not the most disturbing movie? well then whatever "swear to me" is, its not remotely disturbing because "salo, or the 120 days of sodom" also exists