Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Movies

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Storyteller
    started a topic Movies

    Movies

    I just got home from seeing Thor: The Dark World. It was okay; nothing to get excited about. If you are on the fence, my recommendation is to Netflix it. I'm not convinced it was worth the ticket price in the theater.
    Last edited by Storyteller; 11-08-2013, 03:00 AM.

  • Kammerer
    replied
    I second the question above. You keep dishing out talking points unconnected to anything that's in the movie.
    How is it in any way about "societal forces that seek to ridicule and cover up that reality"? What possible part of the movie is about that?
    Last edited by Kammerer; 10-12-2019, 01:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nofather
    replied
    Did you see the movie, ArcaneArts?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nyrufa
    replied
    Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post

    Who the hell is this emotional crybaby?

    Surely they don't think they're worthy to be called the Clown Prince of Crime?

    Last edited by Nyrufa; 10-11-2019, 11:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArcaneArts
    replied
    Also, no, the movie isn't just about being kind to each other making things better. The show isn't about the power of kindness, it's about the reality of pain, and on a broader level the clear understanding that there are societal forces that seek to ridicule and cover up that reality.

    This isn't a bright message painted in a bleak color job-it's central theme is about an ugly, bitter concept, and it's dressed down into a drabber, grim presentation.

    It's a minor, but important distinction. It's not here to highlight "If only we had done better", it's here to say.

    Well.

    It's here to say "You get what you deserve." It's not condemnation with an eye towards hope. It's condemnation, pure and simple. Joker as plague.

    Leave a comment:


  • tasti man LH
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
    That's a dead end discussion. Yes, anything or even everything could be fictional. Now what?
    In the sense that some of the scenes in the movie might very well be Joker embellishing what's actually happening to make himself look better. The scenes that come to mind for me
    are at the end where there's that whole bit where he gets into a car crash, somehow being the only survivor, extracted out by the rioters, and being praised by them like some divine figure...even though, as has been mentioned before, the Joker himself didn't deliberately do anything to start the movement, so why should he or any of the rioters care about him to this extent?


    ...and rest assured, no I'm not bringing this up because MatPat brought it up. The thought occurred to me while I was watching the movie and how odd it seemed.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArcaneArts
    replied
    A variety of jokes. The core joke of the Joker in the metanarrative sense, one of the few cores to adhere to, is "Hurting or Inconveniencing is Funny, I'ma Do That because [X] but really just because it's funny to me."

    The Joke of Joker 2019, the Apotheosis Statement, by contrast, is...well-



    almost tearfully delivered, desperately wanting to come across. "This isn't a joke, I'M not a joke."

    The joke of the Joker is that Everything is Funny. Everything.

    That's why it's also often terrifying.

    The joke of Joker 2019 is that it's no joke.
    Last edited by ArcaneArts; 10-11-2019, 07:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kammerer
    replied
    I'm finding it really hard to parse what you are saying. What "joke" are you talking about? The movie "Joker" that I saw wasn't ridiculing anything.
    IMHO, what the movie is saying is that being kind to people beyond the bare minimum demanded by politness and professional courtesy would go a long way to making everyone's lives better. Just, give a shit a little, without expecting anything in return.

    This is exemplified in the character of Gary, who is the only person in the movie to pay attention to Arthur just because he can. And for that he is rewarded by the narrative with escaping the affair unscathed.
    Originally posted by tasti man LH View Post
    ...BTW, I should note that so far we've been side-stepping the possibility of other things in the movie that might not entirely be what's actually happening. At least considering that Joker is very much an unreliable narrator.
    That's a dead end discussion. Yes, anything or even everything could be fictional. Now what?
    Last edited by Kammerer; 10-11-2019, 06:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArcaneArts
    replied
    Originally posted by Kammerer View Post
    I strongly disagree with the idea that Joker is "legitimate" or is somehow legitimized by the anti-rich movement in this movie. Joker is almost entirely incidental to the movement. He accidentally becomes their mascot when he kills three businessmen, but Joker's motives are completely opaque to the people. And Joker himself openly states that he doesn't believe in anything and supports nothing. Behind his mask is no mere flesh, behind his mask is nothing. He is an anti-V. He is an empty suit on which the protesters project whatever they want. While Joker is never engaged with the protest movement and is on his own personal crusade for recognition. Which Arthur Fleck doesn't get even after a murderous rampage. Joker does.
    Problem.

    The "joke" the movie hinges on is clearly a plea of legitimate cause.

    The joker telling it clearly isn't joking.

    The accident of his mascot-ism is not the issue of the reading. The claimancy of his mascot-ism is. His transcendance moment is that of a person grabbing what fell in their lap and taking it as a mission, not merely a costume.

    An anti-V's joke would possibly be the same?

    But also make it clear the people who might take it seriously are also the punchline.

    The Joker is a Bloody-handed South Park. Nothing is serious, everything is worthy of ridicule, satisfaction of personal hilarity is the only absurdism worth chasing.

    The trailers alone make it clear that that's not what Joker 2019 was going for.

    "You get what you deserve"?

    The Joker's apotheosis statement is "You get what makes me giggle."

    Only people who take things seriously think anyone "deserves" something. Taking things seriously ruins The Joke.

    The Joke Kills For A Reason.

    On a different note, while I'm aware of "Not actually happening" storyline possibilites with Joker (thanks, MatPat!), I really don't have a use for such considerations beyond what that means in it's own contexts and wider implications. Joker doesn't do anything with the latter, so even if it "doesn't actually happen", I have to deal with the film's message as it is, and with that the dissonance of the story's ideas against the metanarrative of the character is dissonant.

    I like the idea of Joker's story. I just can't buy into it as a Joker story, or the alternative.

    Leave a comment:


  • tasti man LH
    replied
    ...BTW, I should note that so far we've been side-stepping the possibility of other things in the movie that might not entirely be what's actually happening. At least considering that Joker is very much an unreliable narrator.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kammerer
    replied
    Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
    Like I said, Joker can make legitimate points, he just can't be legitimate.
    I strongly disagree with the idea that Joker is "legitimate" or is somehow legitimized by the anti-rich movement in this movie. Joker is almost entirely incidental to the movement. He accidentally becomes their mascot when he kills three businessmen, but Joker's motives are completely opaque to the people. And Joker himself openly states that he doesn't believe in anything and supports nothing. Behind his mask is no mere flesh, behind his mask is nothing. He is an anti-V. He is an empty suit on which the protesters project whatever they want. While Joker is never engaged with the protest movement and is on his own personal crusade for recognition. Which Arthur Fleck doesn't get even after a murderous rampage. Joker does.
    Last edited by Kammerer; 10-11-2019, 05:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nyrufa
    replied
    Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post

    Like I said, Joker can make legitimate points, he just can't be legitimate. The main function for doing so, from the idea viewpoint of things, is to get people thinking critically about a point, presenting an angle with a necessary grain of salt that makes it easier to give credence for or against something.
    I feel like people who genuinely think that Joker is going to inspire mass shootings are either too young to have experienced the 90's, or they've forgotten that they were a thing.

    The era of hard boiled, action star anti-heroes. Where the "Rule of Cool" had enough violence, explosions and total disregard for authority figures to make even the most angsty teens happy.

    The world isn't like Demolition Man, where our society can just suppress our darker impulses to the point where they become inconceivable to us. People need an outlet through which to relieve their pent up frustrations towards the world. And fictional media is one of the best ways to do so. It gives the audience the satisfaction of witnessing their fantasies come to life, without the consequences of inflicting real damage on anyone.

    Billions of people all over the world enjoy films, comics and video games with themes like this, and they go through life perfectly fine. If somebody does decide to act upon the themes presented to them, they were probably already going to do so on their own, and the people blaming the fictional media are just using it as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the real issue.

    Hell, this Joker trying to convince society to revolt isn't even an original idea. Does anybody here remember "V for Vendetta?"
    Last edited by Nyrufa; 10-11-2019, 07:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCountAlucard
    replied
    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a Superman: Red Son type of movie. But Red Son, this ain’t.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArcaneArts
    replied
    On record, I personally wasn't saying that Joker origin story isn't a viable thing-in fact, a lot of great nuances have come from him having one-but that it's important to understand that a backstory presented has more to do with the themes at hand rather than commentary on the character or his...well, character.

    Like I said, Joker can make legitimate points, he just can't be legitimate. The main function for doing so, from the idea viewpoint of things, is to get people thinking critically about a point, presenting an angle with a necessary grain of salt that makes it easier to give credence for or against something. Sometimes when the same is done with someone who has more legitimacy, even if they remain a villain, it becomes to easy to invest blindly in the topic and not personally question it ourselves. A sympathetic villain can get you defending the devil, where a irredeemable one can get you appreciating the steps while realizing the outcome is incorrect in some way or form.

    The Joker in particular has had a host of origin stories, and some of his best appearances are centered around the utilization of his particular relationship to that story type. It strikes me that it can continue to be used in future to similar effect. This one movie, though, didn't.

    Also, I really dislike the idea that "non-canon" alternate stories are somehow wastes of storytelling in general even if I'm not impressed by this one, and I really find it laughable when discussing any sort of media related to major American comic book franchises, particularly Batman and doubly so for Joker.

    Leave a comment:


  • tasti man LH
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
    No, thank you.
    There's no need for attitude.

    One more reason to not bother with it then.
    Why not? Why is it suddenly forbidden/taboo to not tell a Joker origin story?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X