Who saw Joker?

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

9 minutes ago, jehurey said:

And that "reveal montage" is..........lame.

 

Because that "reveal" isn't remotely clever. This actually HURTS the movie's attempts at using "unreliable narrator" multiple times because that instance is SO OBVIOUS, you immediately see it when they begin attempting it.

 

He get's a ring at the doorbell, and she immediately calls him "Arthur" when you know she doesn't know his name at that point, and any possible EXPLANATION for why she would know his name would be lame.

 

They immediately give it away. I easily know that was a delusion.

 

The exchange with the clerk at Arkham Hospital is un-explainable in making it seem "heavy." He's pulling the file out for him already, which means he must've told him that he is Penny Fleck's son.......and he clearly must've believed it.

 

So after that short discussion about why people go crazy, and the clerk gives him this super serious face, he goes and looks into the file and he gets even more serious and asks "so..........you said you're her son?"

 

And he says "yeah". And all of a sudden the clerk gets scared. The only rational thing to think at that moment is "he must think Arthur is lying because he saw something in the file that indicates she has no son."

 

But that's debunked just a few minutes later when Arthur steals the file, look in it, and we see the adoption papers.

 

What the fuck was the clerk spooked about when he looked in the file? He thought he wanted to spare Arthur of his OWN childhood history? Because of..............reasons?

 

The movie makes multiple sloppy mistakes like this in order to make it seem so melodramatic.

You're saying it was so obvious yet you somehow came out of the movie with this impression:

'For example, if he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.'

and that wasn't even a reveal or anything really, it was just plain told to you. 

 

I don't care if you don't like the film, that's fine, just clearing up CLEAR things you criticised for not being there when they clearly are.

[jehurey 3,227]

1 minute ago, madmaltese said:

You're saying it was so obvious yet you somehow came out of the movie with this impression:

'For example, if he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.'

and that wasn't even a reveal or anything really, it was just plain told to you. 

 

I don't care if you don't like the film, that's fine, just clearing up CLEAR things you criticised for not being there when they clearly are.

Dude.........you're trying to "clear" this up for me with the following:

 

Quote

"Well there was that one line where the lady said 'why do you think you were in the hospital before?'"

So what you are saying is that movie has super-direct explanations, like the laminated card...........and super vague one liners?

 

And you call that "clear"?

 

The movie establishes a certain quality of explaination when it wants you to know something about Arthur Fleck.

 

An incredibly flimsy vague one-liner is not it. Stop trying to pretend that its obvious.

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Dude.........you're trying to "clear" this up for me with the following:

 

So what you are saying is that movie has super-direct explanations, like the laminated card...........and super vague one liners?

 

And you call that "clear"?

 

The movie establishes a certain quality of explaination when it wants you to know something about Arthur Fleck.

 

An incredibly flimsy vague one-liner is not it. Stop trying to pretend that its obvious.

It's been obvious enough that literally everyone else I know that has seen the movie and others here and pretty much everywhere I've noticed have gotten the fact he was previously in the mental ward fairly clearly.

The abuse leading to his mental issues is even more obvious than that. Don't know what to tell you man. Don't know how else you want the film to tell you that the abuse led to his condition without it being even more obvious. 

 

Early in the movie: Get told Arthur has neurological issues and severe mental illness

Later in the movie: Reveal he suffered abuse and head trauma as a child

 

I'm sorry if that's not obvious to you. 

 

 

[jehurey 3,227]

2 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

It's been obvious enough that literally everyone else I know that has seen the movie and others here and pretty much everywhere I've noticed have gotten the fact he was previously in the mental ward fairly clearly.

The abuse leading to his mental issues is even more obvious than that. Don't know what to tell you man. Don't know how else you want the film to tell you that the abuse led to his condition without it being even more obvious. 

 

Early in the movie: Get told Arthur has neurological issues and severe mental illness

Later in the movie: Reveal he suffered abuse and head trauma as a child

 

I'm sorry if that's not obvious to you. 

 

 

So

 

guy have a neurological disorder = "somebody must've beaten him"

 

I think you are taking GENERAL knowledge of the Joker character having always been a patient in a mental ward and applying it to this movie.  Within this movie, they don't do a good job of establishing this.

 

Its an origin story, so why would I automatically assume that he is already a crazy person when the movie begins?

[Vini 430]

This is not an origin story of a man becoming crazy. It's an origin story of a crazy man becoming a murderer. Told from his completely unreliable point of view. 

 

Why are people confused about this? 

 

 

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

Just now, jehurey said:

So

 

guy have a neurological disorder = "somebody must've beaten him"

 

I think you are taking GENERAL knowledge of the Joker character having always been a patient in a mental ward and applying it to this movie.  Within this movie, they don't do a good job of establishing this.

 

Its an origin story, so why would I automatically assume that he is already a crazy person when the movie begins?

Who is talking about when the movie begins? You are posting your thoughts after watching the whole movie meaning you have already gotten all the story beats.

The film establishes things then reveals the reasons. It's incredibly heavy handed in it's way of doing this.

 

At the start you know he has a condition, the movie literally gives you a card explaining it, word for word. Then later in the movie it reveals why he has that condition. Then you came here and said:

'If he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.'

 

The movie could not be any more clear in conveying that message. It's not a point of interpretation at all. It's told to you. It's not even a dramatic cinema style reveal like the delusional relationship, it's just information told when he gets his file and learns about his past.

 

Then beyond that, within the first 20 min you learn about his neurological issues, you learn he sees a psych, the psych says 'do you know why you were in hospital before', you get told he is on a shit tone of meds, you see how he acts. It's beaten over your head that this is a man that suffer from mental illness.

[jehurey 3,227]

6 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

Who is talking about when the movie begins? You are posting your thoughts after watching the whole movie meaning you have already gotten all the story beats.

The film establishes things then reveals the reasons. It's incredibly heavy handed in it's way of doing this.

 

At the start you know he has a condition, the movie literally gives you a card explaining it, word for word. Then later in the movie it reveals why he has that condition. Then you came here and said:

'If he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.'

 

The movie could not be any more clear in conveying that message. It's not a point of interpretation at all. It's told to you. It's not even a dramatic cinema style reveal like the delusional relationship, it's just information told when he gets his file and learns about his past.

 

Then beyond that, within the first 20 min you learn about his neurological issues, you learn he sees a psych, the psych says 'do you know why you were in hospital before', you get told he is on a shit tone of meds, you see how he acts. It's beaten over your head that this is a man that suffer from mental illness.

Your explanation as to WHY ITS OBVIOUS that we should know that he's been in a mental ward is because at the BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE, the lady asks "why do you think you were in the hospital before"

 

You are telling me that the view should have derived that piece of knowledge within the first few minutes of the movie, right?

 

Quote

'If he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.'

That's right...........just like it CLEARLY showed the "unreliable narrator twist" with the girlfriend that wasn't the girlfriend

 

That means they should've showed a flashback scene of that boyfriend hurting him, as his mother allowed it, and we see the very moment where he begins to have that compulsive laugh, either within his own home or when he's in a hospital when he was a boy.

 

That would MAINTAIN C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y with how they reveal the girlfriend-who-isn't-actually-his-girlfriend.

 

Dude............do I need to explain BASIC rules for how a film needs to be CONSISTENT with itself????????????

Edited October 9, 2019 by jehurey

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

The only thing you’re explaining is what a dumbass you are. You are asking for a cinematic reveal sequence for info that is just given to you. No one else who saw this is treating the ‘child abuse led to laughing condition’ as some major reveal because it isn’t. It’s just part of the story that is told through the movie. You just somehow missed clear given information. we learn the info as Joker learns it, unlike the delusions reveal where it is a reveal to the audience only, hence the sequence. 
 

the funny part is we do get the flashback anyway. We get a flashback to his mum being interrogated and that information is said. What do you want? To see him be abused as a kid too? Cause the movie isn’t over handed enough lol 

 

You really can argue about anything. 

[jehurey 3,227]

15 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

The only thing you’re explaining is what a dumbass you are. You are asking for a cinematic reveal sequence for info that is just given to you. No one else who saw this is treating the ‘child abuse led to laughing condition’ as some major reveal because it isn’t. It’s just part of the story that is told through the movie. You just somehow missed clear given information. we learn the info as Joker learns it, unlike the delusions reveal where it is a reveal to the audience only, hence the sequence. 
 

the funny part is we do get the flashback anyway. We get a flashback to his mum being interrogated and that information is said. What do you want? To see him be abused as a kid too? Cause the movie isn’t over handed enough lol 

 

You really can argue about anything. 

Yeah, I am asking for a reveal.........because they made a reveal for something that isn't as big a revelation in the movie.

 

So why wouldn't they do that for the movie's BIGGEST revelation?

 

We get a flashback of his mom in an interrogation room..........that would impossible for young Arthur Fleck to remember because he was never there. Think about that.

 

This reeks of sloppy direction. Maybe I'm almost willing to assume that Todd Phillips must have had footage of young Arthur being abused, and MAYBE the movie studio told him he couldn't show that so he cut.

 

Like that's the only feasible excuse I could think, because its the very apex of Arthur's evolution throughout the movie, and they just don't drive that point.

 

I guess Fight Club is stupid for making its climatic twist direct by showing you almost every possible scene in the movie in which they have "fooled" you with misdirection.

[James Skywalker 528]

6 hours ago, Optimus Jim said:

I watched the Russian version of Joker from a cam version I downloaded off iptorrents and the video was different. The card Arthur gives to the black woman on the train was in a different language. The book of jokes was also written as an idiom that was peculiar to me. The signs that were held in the protest I couldn't read because it was in Russian. The note his mother had that Arthur read about Thomas Wayne being his father was also undistinguishable to me. 

Just something I noticed watching it a second time was that when Arthur is running from the detectives and gets hit by a car, wouldn't he lose his gun? I mean if he lost it so easily just dancing around in the hospital with the children shouldn't being hit by a vehicle undoubtedly cause him to drop his weapon?

 

Surprised that there weren't more torrents already on the website because it's been out a while anyway. I'd rather have an English version than the USSR's. 

I’m just surprised they filmed it again in different languages. I wonder how many languages they did.

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

5 hours ago, Vini said:

This is not an origin story of a man becoming crazy. It's an origin story of a crazy man becoming a murderer. Told from his completely unreliable point of view. 

 

Why are people confused about this? 

 

 

Exactly. It’s open to interpretation as to what happened or didn’t happen, besides the obvious reveals with the neighbor  (which I think were more of a mental breakthrough for Arthur, since it happened while he was off his meds, than a “gotcha” moment for the viewer”)

Edited October 9, 2019 by -GD-

[54212 432]

18 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

What are they trashing the movie for that you think is woke leftist material?

 

Oh hell, pick:

 

[54212 432]

And the irony of the leftwing press rooting for a rightwing incel to shoot up a Joker screening is that the Joker's followers in the film are leftwing Antifa incels like Jerry. But don't let that stop you, guys. 

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

I may see it a third time as a “fuck you” to the Network media and critics. 

[roflpwnedz 289]

I would have been a better Joker

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

3 minutes ago, roflpwnedz said:

I would have been a better Joker

That’s because you are joker, joker. 

[roflpwnedz 289]

1 minute ago, -GD- said:

That’s because you are joker, joker. 

They stole my name. I'm already getting shit about it. 

 

I think he's just too relatable to a lot of people.

Edited October 9, 2019 by roflpwnedz

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

Just now, roflpwnedz said:

They stole my name. I'm already getting shit about it. 

I think you know what you need to do. Take it back, and let the world know you are indeed the joker. 

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

6 hours ago, Vini said:

Most critics of the film are triggered wokes

 

The director pointed this out. And he was right. 

Well, shit, comments from the director prior to the movie coming out about not being able to make comedies because of Twitter mobs is definitely a good example of reviews knocking it for political reasons.

 

5 minutes ago, Saucer said:

Oh hell, pick:

None of those are reviews, but here's the CNN review and I don't find it to be particularly woke.

 

12 minutes ago, Saucer said:

And the irony of the leftwing press rooting for a rightwing incel to shoot up a Joker screening is that the Joker's followers in the film are leftwing Antifa incels like Jerry. But don't let that stop you, guys. 

I'm not sure I'd go as far as you, but even Vini pointed out earlier that the movie has what are generally viewed as left leaning political stances. Coupled with De Niro being in it and I'm not sure why anybody would really view it as some kind of rightwing propaganda movie. It's how I knew Cooke hadn't seen it and why I think the blaming middling reviews on woke culture is stupid.

 

The press leading up to the movie was gross in it basically wishing for and trying to build up a shooting, though.

[Vini 430]

4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Well, shit, comments from the director prior to the movie coming out about not being able to make comedies because of Twitter mobs is definitely a good example of reviews knocking it for political reasons.

 

None of those are reviews, but here's the CNN review and I don't find it to be particularly woke.

 

I'm not sure I'd go as far as you, but even Vini pointed out earlier that the movie has what are generally viewed as left leaning political stances. Coupled with De Niro being in it and I'm not sure why anybody would really view it as some kind of rightwing propaganda movie. It's how I knew Cooke hadn't seen it and why I think the blaming middling reviews on woke culture is stupid.

 

The press leading up to the movie was gross in it basically wishing for and trying to build up a shooting, though.

 

The real criticism from the woke community if you will isn't obvious but it's there in most of the negative reviews you read. The problem they have is the movie has a mishmash of social issues without anything coherent to say. They always want a movie to have a clear moral compass pointed towards social justice and this movie simply doesn't have it The point they are missing is that's because Joker himself doesn't have anything  coherently interesting to say about society he doesn't believe in anything as pointed out in the movie, he doesn't care about the income inequality or any other social issues woven into the background of this story. 

 

Also the midget jokes are "punching down" and problematic. You shouldn't joke about midgets. I mean little people.