If you read between the lines, the movie sided with the rich.
It discredits every social upheaval. No one will start unrest, because someone killed three bankers. They start it because of the literal straw that broke the camel's back. The yellow vests happened because fuel prices were increased. And if you travelled in France, those motherfuckers have one of the highest fuel prices in Europe.
Also all Arthur experiences is implied to be delusions.
Arthur is an unreliable narrator.
Just interpret it this way to capture the momentum
i actually teared up a bit during the interview and wayne calling the poor clowns.
Sounds like shitting on political extremists if anything else
No, it couldn't.Arthur is not a proletarian, he is a lumpenproletarian.>>3>It discredits every social upheaval
No, it doesn't, what the fuck?>They start it because of the literal straw that broke the camel's back. The yellow vests happened because fuel prices were increased.What about the social services being closed?
What about people being laid off their jobs?
The movie is set in 2009.>delusions
That is not what the word 'delusion' means normalfag.>>4
Oh boy, are you one of the retards of the Wayne Internet Defense Squad?>you had some rich assholes who where justified in their actions (Wayne punching a weird dude who felt up his son)
Arthur was just being nice with his half-brother since he never got to know him.
It's not Arthur's fault that he is an unfunny weirdo.
Imagine thinking Wayne is a good guy after outrighting stating that proles are clowns, after forging the documents of the madhouse (which is owned by him) and after proving that he is an hedonist asshole.> and the Joker outright states he didn't give a shit about politics
Neither do I and here I am.Politics is not an objective, it is a tool.>It was a character study about a dude with mental problems and a shitty life who finally snapped
Imagine being so much of an NPC that you think that the things you don't understand are not real>It's the kind of movie where people see what they want to see in it
Nice postmodernist analysis bro.>>676
It shits on lemmings that only care about politics while ignoring ethics and the purpuse of such politics
I actually enjoyed it. Was a lot better than the Marvel movies. Glad there weren't many people there because a couple of the murders made me laugh out loud.
>>725>The movie is set in 2009.
uh, dude the movie is set in the early 1980s
Jokes is based.Joker did litterally nothing wrong, also kill the rich.
The movie only gestures in the direction of class warfare and doesn't do anything with it, so politically it's not anything to write home about. However, Arthur's downwards spiral did start because he couldn't get access to his med because of state cuts, which is something at least.
I jizzed a little when he kneecapped that banker
Understanding the movie is impossible without understanding the setting of 1980s New York which it was set in.
This was during the hight of Reganist austerity in America which cut a lot of social services, but especially cut mental health services. This was also way before NYC became a gentrified Porky playground and it was a dirty gritty postindustrial city where a lot of people lived in poverty.
So what was NY like before those cuts? Tbh I always thought NY was a shithole before Reagan came along since he was only a President.
If any political shit could be pulled out of it i'd say it's anarcho-nihilist. he doesn't dream of a better world or even particularly care about the protests he just wants pay back for everyone who lied and hurt him.
NYC used to be an industrial city, when offshoring hit in the 70s it was one of the first cities to suffer this prompted the first wave of budget cuts. Late cuts were came from the feds during Regan.
>Todd Phillips (Joker's director) :>What’s outstanding to me in this discourse in this movie is how easily the far left can sound like the far right when it suits their agenda. It’s really been eye opening for me.>the far left can sound like the far right
Loos like just another centrist to me.
Who was far right in the movie? Wayne?
I'm not sure but I think Todd Phillips wanted to make the clowns rioters looking both like the far left and the far right.
IMO it's a good cautionary tale of what happens if you simply try to react to failing capitalism instead of being proactive with a grounding in analysis. The people were ready to rise up, and the guy who inspired them was just some crazy guy. If you replaced Arthur with someone who had some materialist analysis, the people would presumably follow from that.
Overrated movie. Falling Down is better.
It's a DC remake of King of Comedy, except DeNiro is playing the TV show host this time. It also (partially rips off) some parts of Taxi Driver.
Joker in this film is essentially a lumpen-prole; can't stand up for himself, doesn't try to do anything to help himself or make friends just wallows in self-pity until his underlying psychopathy explodes. The film is still done well but frankly it has little resemblance to Joker.
I never saw it, but I liked Socialism or Barbarisms video on it.https://youtu.be/-hoz10Gobfw
I think the movie can only be perceived as one of Joker's imaginary pasts. Because the actual Joker is anonymous, while this one has been called by his real name on TV. Also no, it's doesn't contain any leftist message, other then what Joker, i.e. the narrator makes up to make his story more appealing.
The movie is overrated tbh
"Kill the rich"… yeah, masses would never go for such a slogan. It's not only too violent, but also just too bland
Another hint that the story is made up (even in the made up DC universe): that short guy (cannot remember what his name was) would report the murder and would also tell the police that Arthur told him he'd be at Murray's show, so Arthur would never make it to the stage.
Might be just a plot-hole though
>>2>the discontented masses will take a homicidal maniac as their leader>everyone bites their tongue and gets on with it
<only the crazies and the criminals riot
Very subtle. Movie was garbage.
the kill the rich stuff was def leftist-ish but also the Joker is the bad guy.
The joker is an unreliable narrator, so the whole movie could have been in his head. The riots might have had nothing to do with him but rather the garbagemen strike. maybe he only killed half the people.
the fact it had revolutionairy stuff going on though is cool. Like Sorry to Bother You, a much cooler film, that had strikes going on. Even mentioning it gives some social conscious to the idea
This tbh, I agree with anon here with joker. Pretty bland with the formula of "we live in a society" critique and doesn't do much. Also the film might as well be tragedy porn.
Back when comics were more openly retarded they were supposed to help him glide
>>2785>Back when comics were more openly retarded they were supposed to help him glide
But that's equivalent of using a sieve for a bucket…
Did it not occur to them the air would just go through the holes of the web ?
>>2793>Did it not occur to them the air would just go through the holes of the web ?
Considering these were comics from the 60s to the 80s? No, not even once.
It wasn't avtually a web, it was just a transparent weaved cloth with web like 'strengthening' web patterns. It was supposed to imitate a Squirrel flight suit.
My experience watching uncut gems. I was dying during most of the fucked up moments and people were giving me weird looks.
what fucked up scene is there even in that movie
the last shot? meh it was surprising and irritating but that's about it.
This. It's just a centrist pseudo cool movie. I mainly think because of this cringe interview >>1325
from the director. You could really feel it during the last monologue joker gave at the show. It was like he was being some mouthpiece of some rich lib twitter righter calling for civility. >>658>>507>>727
Regardless as these anons said. I loved it when those rich rapey bankers got shot. And smiled gleefully during the protests. Watched it a second time today and liked it even more. I am going to interpret it as I want it.
I have taken the Jokerpill.
This movie is not a shitty drawn out unsubtle soapbox tweet from a 50 year old hack who brought us the Hangover movies but actually a bretty movie with nice music that looks cool. It's whatever we want it to be.
Take the Jokepill brothers and sisters. Start the Jokerposting. I know I will :DDD
<At last I have truly become the Joker.2019.1080p.BluRay.x264-[YTS.LT]!
Okay so do radlibs solely hate Joker just because incels find it relatable? Because I’m shocked that radlibs still despise this film for effectively no reason.
Usually I hate these kinds of posts, but this time its actually funny.
>HURRDURR DIS IS LEFTIST
>HURRDURR DIS IS RITIST BRO…
Nigger why can't you just watch the film for what it is? It's a decent homage to Scorsese films and a pretty good film all around. I think it could have done a lot better, but it's not bad. The political message is whatever people self insert into it.
"Bro is this leftist bro is this leftist", isn't analysis, it's self insertion. And it certainly doesn't make you a special non-consoomer.
more like shitty rip off.
>>4363>isn't analysis, it's self insertion
True but no-one is saying this except out of ignorance. Joker has plenty of space for marxist analysis. >>4371
I wouldn't say so.
it's not left wing or right wing. it isn't trying to push any positive agenda other than "things are far from perfect"
WHY WOULD YOU POST REVIEWS THAT ARE IN RUSSIAN!?
Checked quints, my wasteful dude.>Why Russian
Because I speak the language and the reviews are quality stuff. The Russian reviewers all express leftist tendencies and are anti-capitalist.
I find it interesting that the Joker is very different in this movie to his other iterations, a crazy person who breaks under social pressure of his poverty and simply stops caring about norms and just follows his ego. Compare this to the skilled criminal, with wits on par with Batman who, with sociopathic glee, creates chaos and masterminds crime.
Anyone have the video of the Female Joker dancing? It was nice.
They're selling face-masks with the Joker smile on them now, neat.
Isn't killing joke Joker pretty similar?
He was more crazy and psychopathic and was killing random people for the most part. The entire point was a big fuck-you to batman.
The movie Joker, killed 3 asshole businessmen after being provoked and later the TV-showman who he was disillusioned and angry with. His murders weren't noble/revolutionary in their original context, but due to the circumstances came off that way. He also wasn't looking to kill, but to become accepted and celebrated, which is what he got.
Just watched this, and although I enjoyed it and found it was good, something really bothers me about movies like these.
The entire portrayal of a 'freak' who is displayed as a charismatic, good looking guy turned invincible slaughterer couldn't be far from the truth. A real freak, or a mentally ill person is someone you would probably never relate with or feel sympathy for, just because of how royally fucked up and repulsive they might seem to be. Someone who wouldn't die as a martyr, but on a lonely death bed, or a ditch in god knows where. All the pseud, edgy conversation surrounding this movie by people who 'relate' to the protagonist, and would go on the next day making fun of people they deem fit to be so.
I guess the ultimate pill is, you really can never relate to a 'freak', maybe its a paradox.
>>7866>who is displayed as a charismatic, good looking guy
Did you watch the same movie as I did? He's a skinny mentally ill middle-aged dude. He isn't charismatic except in his own mind. >turned invincible slaughterer
Hardly, he just lucked out in the situation >A real freak, or a mentally ill person is someone you would probably never relate with or feel sympathy for
Having known a few 'freaks'… I disagree.
I guess you should try leaving your house and interact with people.
How is that an argument at all. If you think Arthur is anything like a charismatic, good-looking guy according to most people, you haven't paid attention to society
That's almost always the case, seriously mentally ill are treated like tragic romantics or superhuman maniacs, when the reality is closer to something like an episode of hoarders.
>>8053>mentally ill are treated like tragic romantics or superhuman maniacs
Watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The Joker is a tragic romantic he is shown as desperate and deluded, who wants to be admirable and admired but fails because he cannot understand how to do it right and his societal position only further handicaps him. And while a normal person just sucks it up and lives on, he loses it and goes on a mad streak of fame-inducing events.
Literally poor man Scorsese 70's movie.
Was very bad imho.
>>8856>Those Rambo III titles
The irony of your post is that conversation died after it was posted LOL. Revive you glorious thread.
WHY WOULD YOU STEAL SUCH EPIC QUINTS?!
Since this is a Joker thread I might as well ask this. Which version of Jokers - (in films, cartoons/comic-verses or games) - do you like the most?
Which do you hate/dislike?
Personally I think Nicholson plays a good Joker, but is overshadowed by Heath Ledger's Joker. The Joker in Mask of the Phantasm is essentially the same Joker as Batman TAS's Joker and was great. The Batman Beyond Joker was mediocre, it had a similar feel, but compared to the original dynamic was more boring, though Batman Beyond was still great.
Jared Leto was a hip-hop version of Joker that was just cringe… like most DC media of the current era.
Cesar Romero was memeworthy, but was a terrible Joker… (but then again Adam West was a cheesy AF Batman so whatever.
The Joker in Killing Joke was just a bit too edgy and insane to my tastes, compared to the comics, the film was meh. And the version where he killed himself by twisting his head until his neck broke is just obsurd.
I don't know anything about the game Jokers, but apparently one of them roids up or some shit, which was dumb.
Just in general I've always had a preference for characterizations where he actually has a friendly sense of humor from time to time, like he will occasionally just drop the psychopathy and have a laugh with batman.
My favorite one is this"See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum…and one night, one night they decide they don't like living in an asylum any more. They decide they're going to escape! So, like, they get up onto the roof and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away in the moonlight… stretching away to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend daren't make the leap. Y'see…y'see, he's afraid of falling. So then, the first guy has an idea…He says 'Hey! I have my flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk along the beam and join me!' B-but the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says… he says 'What do you think I am? Crazy? You'd turn it off when I was half way across!'"
Pic related is a good encapsulation of >>11133
Honestly while dark capeshit, or a breakdown of capeshit with real consequences is interesting, I feel that outside of escapist consumerism, it only works in films and portions. You see this with Joker (2019) and with Batman TAS and Mask of the Phantasm as they really break down the grime but in the case of TAS don't bog you down with grimdark shit, because that only works with media like Berserk which dedicates itself to that exploration. Where it doesn't work as well/gets bogged down IMO is in media like the recent arcs of BnHA - with its superpowered zombies and backstabbing and killing and deranged factionism reminiscent not of capitalist society, but of a feudal one. Stain had an impact because he was a stark contrast to normal villains and before that everything was still pretty upbeat.
The Joker doesn't go into this with all the 'powers' and crap, and instead hits home with real talk - the people, poor and hungry and uncared for, who are trying to live and struggle every day.
I'm sort of rambling here but my point is dark capeshit is good as singular films or arcs, but when you make massive TV series over it, it begins to get tiresome and edgy.
what happend to socialism or barberism's channel
this image is wrong, e-girls drink white claw
FYI this is an edited repost of another anon's stuff to bump the revived thread.
Jim Carrey already played the Riddler in the old Batman movies, but yeah he would make more sense as the Joker.
Would be pretty cool, like Adam Sandler in Uncut Gems
Mark Fisher would be proud, since the Joker is an analysis of the nihilistic hedonism of late capitalism. There is no politics in Gotham, and Arthur says it explicitly to Murray that he isn't political. The moment that Arthur loses his identity is the moment that he identifies with the clown that everyone sees in him, when he states that his life is a comedy and not a tragedy. When pressed about why he murdered those rich cunts, rather than defend himself (e.g. "they attacked me first") he immediately moralises - "I killed them because they were awful." In fact, his entire appearance on Murray's show devolves into moralisation, signaling his impotence. Even when he shoots Murray, it is an act of senseless rage hat further highlights the power he lacks. Arthur becomes the Joker when he loses all desire and becomes helplessly controlled by a pure drive towards destruction, internalizing a society that is itself self-destructive. The end of the movie is exactly what you'd expect: unguided chaos in a dying city stuck in a deadlock, with no hope of any change but it's own destruction, and the newly born Joker, apolitical and a slave to his impulses, becomes a symbol for it. On the same night, Batman is born when Thomas Wayne finally gets what he fuckin' deserves.
Truth is that it isn't a political movie at all, which is what makes it so political. The creators simply wanted to give a realistic backstory for the Joker, asking how Gotham city might have created him. What they ended up with was a tragic situation so traumatic that in the protagonist must view it as a comedy in order to survive, and that such a situation reflects the state of many under late capitalism so well is striking. One must wonder why so many liberal reviewers seem to hate the movie for it's nihilistic core. What did they expect to see, of course it's nihilistic because it's about the Joker…right?
Yeah he really didn't fit the role of Riddler IMO, it's too close to the parodic Adam West Riddler and like most of Batman and Robin, really didn't fit the set up that Burton made in the prior 2 Batman films.
I think you could do a TV show or some other long-form thing out of it but the catch is that to keep it fresh and not get too grimdark, you would have to keep changing status quo and premise. A show that pulled that off recently was The Good Place, and a similar format could work for something critical of capeshit (or any other ossified genre fiction standing in as allegory for real society). But to do that you would have to dedicate the whole product to it and commit to a series arc that took you through whatever conflict actually does change things, with each "season" or whatever division handling some distinct stage of the process, whether that involves an unstable situation progressively breaking down or progress in the struggle to overturn things.
Unique IPs: 7