Joker (2019 Joker film)

[Kelvin]

Here's that monologue:

I know the Joker is hardly the most reliable of sources, but I don't think he's lying here, and I think this speech is what Nolan wants us to believe about the Joker. He is fairly literally announcing what he symbolises as a character. He's "an agent of chaos", a "wrench in the gears". He opposes plans and organisations and "schemes" but he comes up with more of them in the film than anyone else.

So do you think that's the writing/film being inconsistent, or the charachter simply not seeing his plans as the same type of scheming he highlights? Not trying to be awkward, I'm just not clear from your posts.

Edit: phantom power has made my point there.

[popcorn]

So do you think that's the writing/film being inconsistent, or the charachter simply not seeing his plans as the same type of scheming he highlights? Not trying to be awkward, I'm just not clear from your posts.

Edit: phantom power has made my point there.

Perhaps I'm being overliteral, but I think having the character talk explicitly about how plans and schemes are bad while hatching a series of cartoonishly elaborate schemes himself is contradictory, yes.

Perhaps the character sees his plans as somehow different from other plans, fine. Or perhaps the contradiction is deliberate and points to something else. But I don't get either from the text and I think those readings muddy rather than clarify the themes.

[garbed_attic]

From the trailer, my feelings are basically this:
https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/joker-movie-batman-toxic-masculinity/

That said, I don't think I really get superheros full stop. I liked Batman Returns!

[Blumf]

Okay, here's a question: Would the Joker work as a non-white character?

I think I can see most the other Batman foes as whatever. But the modern Joker does seem to be somewhat tied up in a certain lone nutter mould that seems 'white'. From the Unibomber to that recent NZ cunt.

Please deposit your hot takes below. Don't forget to wipe.

[garbed_attic]

Okay, here's a question: Would the Joker work as a non-white character?

I think I can see most the other Batman foes as whatever. But the modern Joker does seem to be somewhat tied up in a certain lone nutter mould that seems 'white'. From the Unibomber to that recent NZ cunt.

Exactly. I think that's why I'm wary of a film that ostensibly seems to be a sympathetic portrait - there's been enough of those of real life white terrorist shooters already and on some level I fear that this film might inspire more :/

[phantom_power]

Another thought experiment. If this film wasn't called "Joker" and was just about a fucked up bloke who turns to violence after being ground down by years of abuse or whatever, would there be such a stink? I know it is an over-done theme for a film but I don't think people would be quite so arsed if it wasn't tied to a superhero franchise. Isn't a lot of it down to how the film actually portrays the character and events, something which no-one knows yet. It could be like The Assassination of Richard Nixon, or it could be like Chapter 27

[St_Eddie]

All I know is that I don't agree with censoring or holding back in art/entertainment, out of fear of inspiring an unhinged individual.  People like that are going to find some reason to snap eventually, regardless.  No person sane of mind is going to watch Joker and suddenly decide to go postal.  A person who kills out of disillusioned rage isn't doing so as a direct result of a film/book/videogame.  They're merely using the media in question as inspiration for their method.  Don't blame the art, blame the individual.

I don't agree with censorship in general and certainly not out of fear of the 0.01% of the population who may choose to use a piece of art as their excuse for doing what they were destined to do anyway without intervention/therapy.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I'm for total censorship of superhero films

[colacentral]

All I know is that I don't agree with censoring or holding back in art/entertainment, out of fear of inspiring an unhinged individual.  People like that are going to find some reason to snap eventually, regardless.  No person sane of mind is going to watch Joker and suddenly decide to go postal.  A person who kills out of disillusioned rage isn't doing so as a direct result of a film/book/videogame.  They're merely using the media in question as inspiration for their method.  Don't blame the art, blame the individual.

I don't agree with censorship in general and certainly not out of fear of the 0.01% of the population who may choose to use a piece of art as their excuse for doing what they were destined to do anyway without intervention/therapy.

I'd argue it's less about censorship and more about film makers and writers being thoughtful about what they're putting out into the world. You can tell this story in a few different ways and I do fear that the Joker will be glorified, but we've seen things like Falling Down and Breaking Bad which told the same story but made a point of undermining the "protagonist," making it clear how foolish they are. The Dark Knight went too far in making the Joker out to be cool, in my opinion. If this film shows sufficient tragedy in the choices the character makes then it could be okay.

That monologue quoted above makes me cringe, 4chan all over.

[Kelvin]

Okay, here's a question: Would the Joker work as a non-white character?

I think I can see most the other Batman foes as whatever. But the modern Joker does seem to be somewhat tied up in a certain lone nutter mould that seems 'white'. From the Unibomber to that recent NZ cunt.

Please deposit your hot takes below. Don't forget to wipe.

I don't see why the charachter would be tied to race, at all. The core traits of the character would all make every bit as much sense with a black actor in the role. He's not privileged or discerning in who he kills. His background is a psychotic break. His motives are usually apolitical.

Outside of certain aspects of the fandom, I don't see anything in the core charachter, or even Ledger's version, that would lead you to the conclusion he was a uniquely 'white' nutter. Maybe an Asian version might have problematic associations with terrorism, but I don't think that makes the charachter emblematic of white men.

[popcorn]

That monologue quoted above makes me cringe, 4chan all over.

Yes, perhaps it's better that he's just made to look daft after all. It's handled oddly though.

[garbed_attic]

All I know is that I don't agree with censoring or holding back in art/entertainment, out of fear of inspiring an unhinged individual.  People like that are going to find some reason to snap eventually, regardless.  No person sane of mind is going to watch Joker and suddenly decide to go postal.  A person who kills out of disillusioned rage isn't doing so as a direct result of a film/book/videogame.  They're merely using the media in question as inspiration for their method.  Don't blame the art, blame the individual.

I don't agree with censorship in general and certainly not out of fear of the 0.01% of the population who may choose to use a piece of art as their excuse for doing what they were destined to do anyway without intervention/therapy.

Everyone agrees with censorship to some degree though - I was listening to Michael Blyth on Evolution of Horror podcast and it was quite striking to hear him say that he doesn't believe in censorship for real violence against people or animals on screen. He didn't quite move on to say he was against the censorship of real child abuse, but it felt like the conversation was edging in that direction, but host Mike Muncer was understandably getting a bit uncomfortable, I think.

So, while I wouldn't want a film like Joker to be banned, effectively advertising and corporate systems can create their own functional censorship. I think it's a shame that so much money is going into a film like this and that it'll undoubtedly make so much money.

Also, it's often not hard to predict which works are likely to inspire copycat killings. Like, as soon as I read Death Note I said to my friend that it was all but guaranteed to inspire vigilantes because it mostly makes Light seem really fucking cool to people inclined towards that way of thinking. Same with Dexter.

[mothman]

I thought Rachael Stott (comic book artist, draws DW and Marvel) had an interesting take on it.

https://twitter.com/RachaelAtWork/status/1114813482183090176

It's a longer follow-up to this initial post (dunno if you'd call it a hot take, I don't really know what they are).

https://twitter.com/RachaelAtWork/status/1113566596298158081

[Kelvin]

Perhaps I'm being overliteral, but I think having the character talk explicitly about how plans and schemes are bad while hatching a series of cartoonishly elaborate schemes himself is contradictory, yes.

Perhaps the character sees his plans as somehow different from other plans, fine. Or perhaps the contradiction is deliberate and points to something else. But I don't get either from the text and I think those readings muddy rather than clarify the themes.

But the section you quoted is in response to Dent explicitly pointing out that the Joker makes plans, so both the script and charachters are aware of this contradiction. Joker seems to think his plans are on a different scale than society's 'rules', and downplays his own behaviour/responsibility. So even if we see him as a hypocrite, it is at least acknowledged and justified by the charachter in the film.

[popcorn]

But the section you quoted is in response to Dent explicitly pointing out that the Joker makes plans,

Oh. I don't remember that.

Sounds weird!

edit: Here's the context:

DENT

Your men. Your. plan.

THE JOKER

Do I really look like a guy with a
plan, Harvey? I don't have a
plan. . .

I think this is weird! He does have a plan. But I don't think this is a sophisticated bit of contradictory character work. I just think it's confused. I think it "sounds cool" for the Joker to respond with this 4channy speech but in fact it makes no sense. Just like loads of Dark Knight stuff, such as Gordon's impenetrable "not the hero we need right now" line.

[Kelvin]

Fair enough. I disagree, though. I don't think it's particularly sophisticated, but I do think it's a case of the charachter being a bit of a hypocrite and trying to downplay his own behaviour to direct Dent's anger elsewhere.

[popcorn]

I think if the film had really tried to expose the Joker as a hypocrite and a showoff and just a crap angry little man that would have been an interesting use of the character. But I just don't think it's there.

edit: though you weren't necessarily saying that's what the film does either.

[Kelvin]

I think if the film had really tried to expose the Joker as a hypocrite and a showoff and just a crap angry little man that would have been an interesting use of the character. But I just don't think it's there.

edit: though you weren't necessarily saying that's what the film does either.

No, I don't think that is what the film is saying. Certainly not as a focus.

He is shown to be (at least partially) wrong, though. We see that not all people are as selfish and easy to break as he believed, so while he's never shown as pathetic, he is shown to be wrong about society, to some extent.

[popcorn]

No, I don't think that is what the film is saying. Certainly not as a focus.

He is shown to be (at least partially) wrong, though. We see that not all people are as selfish and easy to break as he believed, so while he's never shown as pathetic, he is shown to be wrong about society, to some extent.

Yeah, which, as I said above, is also a thing I find disappointing. Because it's just revealed in a crass "and so actually even criminals have a heart of gold" way.

The way I feel The Dark Knight wants to use the Joker is to suggest he personifies some monstrosity inside society. Some dark part of the human condition, or perhaps a byproduct of society. And that's an interesting and powerful idea, I reckon. But I think the satisfying answer to that is to say "yes it's there and it's real, so we have to create society in order to deal with that, and contain it, and that's fine". But instead the film kind of says "actually it isn't there at all, the Joker is just wrong". Which is too easy.

[colacentral]

I wonder if Batman or someone revealing his background to be boring and pathetic - spoiled kid who did the scars to himself or something - would have been a decent payoff to his mysterious background speeches. It irks me that he's left as a mystical figure at the end of the film. Most other portrayals do a better job of making a fool of him when he's foiled, which makes the character easier to stomach.

[Kelvin]

The way I feel The Dark Knight wants to use the Joker is to suggest he personifies some monstrosity inside society. Some dark part of the human condition, or perhaps a byproduct of society.

I disagree. I think he's more a force of nature than a real person created by society's ills -  a clown Godzilla. He's meant to represent a nihilistic viewpoint on society and people, while highlighting some of it's genuine contradictions and hypocrisies. I think he's meant to be right about enough to be compelling/frightening, but wrong about the depths of it - as highlighted when the boats refuse to kill each other. For what it's worth, I also dislike the boat scene, but more because of the contrived setup and convenient way it's resolved than because of what it tells us about the themes.   
   

And that's an interesting and powerful idea, I reckon. But I think the satisfying answer to that is to say "yes it's there and it's real, so we have to create society in order to deal with that, and contain it, and that's fine". But instead the film kind of says "actually it isn't there at all, the Joker is just wrong". Which is too easy.

As I say, though, I don't think he is shown to be entirely wrong. He's shown to be right about all sorts of things, and much of what he says rings true to some extent. He's just not right in his belief that everyone becomes a savage when the chips are down. Although Dent does.

Ultimately, Bruce and Joker are shown to be right about different aspects of the argument, which is surely how it should be in a story about those characters. Joker has to tap into some deeper truth that needles at the core of Batman's beliefs, and Batman has to prove him wrong, but not conclusively.   

I wonder if Batman or someone revealing his background to be boring and pathetic - spoiled kid who did the scars to himself or something - would have been a decent payoff to his mysterious background speeches. It irks me that he's left as a mystical figure at the end of the film. Most other portrayals do a better job of making a fool of him when he's foiled, which makes the character easier to stomach.

Again, though, in that film, and often in the comics, Joker is more a force of nature than a real, rounded human being. He's scary because he isn't easily dismissed as a lunatic or a loser. He's actually very perceptive and his words have a ring of truth that makes other characters doubt themselves. That lack of humanity and vulnerability may not sit easily with people who worry about him representing "toxic masculinity", but I do think that's a big part of why the character has such traction and long term appeal.   

[colacentral]

I don't mean that he needs to be humanised but that he needs to be undermined, as he often is. The film attempts this slightly by having him hang upside down in his last shot , but doesn't go quite far enough. Look at the way the animated series often had him undermined for dozens of examples; it's part of the character, being the fool.

TDK leaned too heavily into him being dark and mysterious, for me. I only use my bad suggestion of a pathetic backstory reveal as a means to do that because it's in relation to something that's in the film, and which probably does the most to build a cool rather than funny aura around him.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

I agree more with the idea that he was channelling Brandon Lee's performance in The Crow.

There's definitely a big dollop of Tom Waits' distinctive vocal mannerisms and physicality in there. Watch practically any Waits performance or interview and you'll see traces of Ledger's Joker.

[St_Eddie]

Everyone agrees with censorship to some degree though...

Yes, I suppose.  I draw the line at the point where any living person or animal is caused actual bodily harm (or severe psychological trauma) 'in the name of art'.  Aside from that, no, I don't agree with censorship.  At all.

Do I think that a comic book movie is the best form to tackle societies ills and the issues revolving around a disillusioned and disenfranchised generation, pent up with frustrated rage?  No, I really don't.  Do I find it somewhat distasteful?  To an extent, yes, I do.  However, that doesn't mean that I think that such movies should be censored.  It is not my place to decide what is appropriate and what is not, just as it is not any man, nor woman's, place to do so.

Freedom of speech, by its very nature, encompasses things which we'd rather care not hear about.  As long as nobody, nor no thing, is harmed in the formation of artistic expression, then people should be free to express their inner most thoughts, no matter how egregious, or indeed objectionable, we may personally find those thoughts and concepts to be.  One needn't appreciate the message of any given piece of art.  One merely need tolerate and accept it.  The moment that one starts to dictate what can and cannot be said in art, is the moment that we, as a society, have lost our way.

[popcorn]

I disagree. I think he's more a force of nature than a real person created by society's ills -  a clown Godzilla. He's meant to represent a nihilistic viewpoint on society and people, while highlighting some of it's genuine contradictions and hypocrisies. I think he's meant to be right about enough to be compelling/frightening, but wrong about the depths of it - as highlighted when the boats refuse to kill each other. For what it's worth, I also dislike the boat scene, but more because of the contrived setup and convenient way it's resolved than because of what it tells us about the themes.   

This makes sense and sounds right. I haven't seen the film in ten thousand years as is probably evidenced from my vague waffling about it.

[Mister Six]

Okay, here's a question: Would the Joker work as a non-white character?

[SavageHedgehog]

Wesley Snipes in Demolition Man would (have) be(en) a good Joker.

[greenman]

It reminds me most of all of You Were Never Really Here. Seems to have the same mum character.

Which really seems like the main appeal to me, seeing Phoenix have the kind of role he's pulled off in a lot of artier cinema in something that's going to be seen by a mainstream audience which these days does generally mean a franchise film and mostly a superhero film. From the sound of it that's really what was behind this film being made in the first place, he was turning down MCU like roles but wanting to do a one off character studyish film of a superhero villain.

[phantom_power]

I don't really see how there is enough evidence in that trailer to have any sort of hot take on the film itself. As I said it could be The Assassination of Richard Nixon or it could be Chapter 27, or something worse. Getting all "the state of modern film" or "why I will not watch this film" about it seems very premature.

[Mister Six]

Again, though, in that film, and often in the comics, Joker is more a force of nature than a real, rounded human being. He's scary because he isn't easily dismissed as a lunatic or a loser. He's actually very perceptive and his words have a ring of truth that makes other characters doubt themselves. That lack of humanity and vulnerability may not sit easily with people who worry about him representing "toxic masculinity", but I do think that's a big part of why the character has such traction and long term appeal.

Yeah, I just want to back up Kelvin here - The Joker of modern comics, and of TDK, is the ultimate in motiveless malignancy. He has no origin story (even The Killing Joke, which this new Joker film is drawing from a bit, only offers up "failed comedian" as one possible origin, as he's too mad to even remember his own past) and no motivation beyond doing whatever seems amusing to him at any given point. Well, that and being obsessed, possibly in love, with Batman.

TDK did the best job imaginable of translating modern comics Joker to the screen, and I think having the point he's trying to make be proven wrong is about as much of an upbraiding as you can give him without fundamentally defanging that character.