Jump to content

DCEU: Killer Clowns from Gotham City


GallowKnight

Recommended Posts

Arthur is mocked, made fun of, misunderstood, ignored, betrayed, and abused by a wide swath of society - teenagers, adults, his clown peers, social services, rich, poor, local news and media, his mother, white people, POC, women, men, and on and on. The only people we see him kill on screen are white men (gun) and his mother (pillow). We might assume he killed his unrequited love interest (I'm not certain he did) and the bloody foot prints indicate he killed his black, female psychiatrist in the state hospital.

When he finally falls off that cliff he becomes an equal opportunity murderous nihilist. 

I've been thinking a lot about this movie and I'm glad I know what it is instead of assuming what it is. My interpretations are just that but I think it's important that the only direct violence at his hands on screen happens to white men (and his mother) prior to his apprehension and commitment to the hospital. 

I was uncomfortable the entire time I watched it but cannot deny so much of it was really very good to excellent. I was a little taken aback when Rock n Roll Part 2 came on but also thought that as a piece of music it was perfect for that moment, especially for the time period the movie lives in. I can only hope GG is not entitled to any royalties and really have no ideas how that works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I still prefer Ledger's rendition of the character it was a good performance by Phoenix.

For a Joker movie... I'm not sure what it was. 

For an eat the rich movie, it was awkward and counter productive. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kairparavel

I like this take a lot.

Regarding the usage of Rock and Roll, Part 2, and royalties paid to GG, I recently read an article about that exact subject (which I can't find now, of course) and the takeaway was that Glitter would be due royalties, but that 1) he's in prison and can't exactly spend those royalties right now, 2) since he's in prison and has had all the negative attention given to him, it's not likely that he or his representatives were able to negotiate for any substantial payment (as an example, Kevin Smith, in his Spiderman: Far From Home review, says that his production for the 2014 movie Tusk, had to pay $250,000 in royalties in order to use Fleetwood Mac's Tusk in that movie) and, 3) since he's in prison for child molestation, those royalties could be subject to capture for any lawsuits that may have been brought against him, or will be, and can be paid out to victims.

Plus, that song has been played at every sporting venue I've ever been to for at least the last couple of decades, so I imagine that it's saturation is such that few would actually associate the song with Glitter himself. It would be much different if they had used, say, a Michael Jackson song, for example (and I totally agree that the song was spot on for that scene).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of the media criticism touched on a few pages ago is related to a certain group of the media, namely what we actually see in the movie.

Spoiler

Late night shows have been for a few decades a big part of TV entertainment, and probably more so in the last decade+, as various shows have touched more and more on political issues. So maybe that's what the media didn't like (I don't know whether or not anyone specifically expressed it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute... Robert Pattinson is the new Batman? Is that a joke? Seriously, tell me that's a fucking joke.

And let me be clear, I thought Affleck would be a great bats, I trusted Nolan on Anne Hathaway to good results. But... d'fuq???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Wait a minute... Robert Pattinson is the new Batman? Is that a joke? Seriously, tell me that's a fucking joke.

And let me be clear, I thought Affleck would be a great bats, I trusted Nolan on Anne Hathaway to good results. But... d'fuq???

It's been announced months ago. Aye, the Dark Knight is now the Twilight Knight. Honestly, though, a lot of people have been praising Pattinson in recent years. I haven't seen any of his indie stuff, so I can't say, but am willing to give him a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

It's been announced months ago. Aye, the Dark Knight is now the Twilight Knight. Honestly, though, a lot of people have been praising Pattinson in recent years. I haven't seen any of his indie stuff, so I can't say, but am willing to give him a chance.

No chance! I deny chance to he, she, they, and them! Oil up the guillotine!

I was going to be rooting against superhero movies in general anyway, maybe he's great though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kairparavel and others that have done this - why is the violence against his mother lumped in with violence against white men or tacked on as an after thought? 

I'm not saying it should be censored, I just find it interesting that a discussion around whether the violence was problematic in terms of alienated white men killing minorities that it's seen as acceptable or unimportant. The kinds of men being discussed as potentially getting influenced by this are a higher risk of abusing their mothers.

Is there an in movie reason for this, such as her being abusive, or is violence towards mothers a blind spot?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@kairparavel and others that have done this - why is the violence against his mother lumped in with violence against white men or tacked on as an after thought? 

I'm not saying it should be censored, I just find it interesting that a discussion around whether the violence was problematic in terms of alienated white men killing minorities that it's seen as acceptable or unimportant. The kinds of men being discussed as potentially getting influenced by this are a higher risk of abusing their mothers.

Is there an in movie reason for this, such as her being abusive, or is violence towards mothers a blind spot?

 

Spoiler

The secrets of what he discovers about his mom, who is also mentally ill, and is another case of being marginalized by society, make him angry with her. That isn't to say that what he does is justified, but I think in terms of the story itself, it was inevitable, given everything else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Wait a minute... Robert Pattinson is the new Batman? Is that a joke? Seriously, tell me that's a fucking joke.

And let me be clear, I thought Affleck would be a great bats, I trusted Nolan on Anne Hathaway to good results. But... d'fuq???

Watch Good Time by the Safdie brothers. He’s actually a really good actor. Roger Eggers wouldn’t have used him for The Lighthouse if he wasn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

@kairparavel and others that have done this - why is the violence against his mother lumped in with violence against white men or tacked on as an after thought? 

I'm not saying it should be censored, I just find it interesting that a discussion around whether the violence was problematic in terms of alienated white men killing minorities that it's seen as acceptable or unimportant. The kinds of men being discussed as potentially getting influenced by this are a higher risk of abusing their mothers.

Is there an in movie reason for this, such as her being abusive, or is violence towards mothers a blind spot?

 

I’d say just watch the movie as none of the these reviews you are reading bare any real relation to the film at all.

Anyway, Pattison is turning into a great actor and so I’m not unhappy to see him as Batman. He’s a bit too skinny and gangly right now, but if he can get hold of some of Bales steroids I think he will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

@kairparavel and others that have done this - why is the violence against his mother lumped in with violence against white men or tacked on as an after thought? 

I'm not saying it should be censored, I just find it interesting that a discussion around whether the violence was problematic in terms of alienated white men killing minorities that it's seen as acceptable or unimportant. The kinds of men being discussed as potentially getting influenced by this are a higher risk of abusing their mothers.

Is there an in movie reason for this, such as her being abusive, or is violence towards mothers a blind spot?

 

I may be one of the ones you were talking about, so I'll explain why I categorized each of the killings.

When viewing the film through the lens of: is this some kind of alt-right fanfic question, it helps to separate out the murders into 2 categories, with one of those having a subcategory. The categories are: 1) Murders for which Arthur receives adulation (3 guys on the train, Murray), and 2a) murders for which Arthir doesn't receive adulation (his mother, his co-worker,  etc., possibly his psychiatrist the end) & 2b) murders that weren't actually murders (Sophie and her daughter).

In this lens, while Athur does commit violence against women (and possibly minorities), but the movie goes out of its way to avoid framing these murders as anything but reprehensible. On the flip sides, the murders that he's celebrated for are against rich, white men. 

So by that metric, the movie is unequivocally making a distinction between murders that could be argued to have a rational reason for the killing, and the murders that have been shown by the structure of the movie that condemns the act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Great Unwashed thanks for the detailed response. That particular question was mostly just prompted by my wife's research into violence against parents by their children making me very aware of this as a largely under researched issue with poor awareness. Just people stop and consider that aspect was all I was really asking for.

HoI - As already stated its not a movie I'm interested in seeing irrespective of politics or any problematic nature - the tone doesn't fit what I want from my entertainment at the moment. When I consume media that is engaging I tend to project fairly deeply into whoever the current point of view character is, and for a movie that is going to largely be concerned with the point of view of a man becoming the joker that is not a healthy pov. I am interested in how others are reacting to and receiving it though, as that doesn't require me immersing myself in a deeply unpleasant character doing awful things - just talking to other people about a movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, karaddin said:

HoI - As already stated its not a movie I'm interested in seeing irrespective of politics or any problematic nature - the tone doesn't fit what I want from my entertainment at the moment. When I consume media that is engaging I tend to project fairly deeply into whoever the current point of view character is, and for a movie that is going to largely be concerned with the point of view of a man becoming the joker that is not a healthy pov. I am interested in how others are reacting to and receiving it though, as that doesn't require me immersing myself in a deeply unpleasant character doing awful things - just talking to other people about a movie.

The reaction to the movie is almost as interesting as the movie itself i agree. Only is as much as it seems to have been used as some sort of political football, something everyone can overlay their own agendas onto.

Really the movie makes very few political noises and the ones it does make about capitalism and inequality or the media are either blindingly obvious or so poorly drawn out as to not be worth discussing. It’s not a work of art, but it’s an above average comic book movie and should be treated as such.

That there seems to be a section of the media that wants to portray this movie as catnip for incels, says more about that section of the media than it does about the movie. In the same way that the counter argument that this movie is anti SJW or against cancel culture is just as wildly inaccurate. It’s none of those things.

Its worth watching the Joker if only to really gain perspective on the level of bull being touted around about it. It is often quite unpleasant to watch and you might not even enjoy it, but it is a bit odd to see those coming and trying to discuss the social implications of a movie they refuse to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I know I can be... inflammatory. But unless you're an Incel freak or just totally out of bounds on an issue, I don't try to troll folks. So with that said, understand that the following comment/question is posed as genuinely as I am capable. 

Following the last few pages of posts on this thread I have been struck by, but refrained from commenting on, a specific concern of some posters. This being upon whom the violent acts in the film are inflicted upon. Again, I'm not trying to fuck with anybody right now. But this completely baffles me.

Full disclosure: I'm an egalitarian. And a democrat. That's a small 'd'. I feel that one human is entitled to one share of implicit human rights unless said rights are rescinded after fair review for great offenses against the collective. Radical shit, I know.

That being stated as clearly as I humanly possibly can do so. I cannot grasp how one makes statements about violence being perpetrated against one person being permissible as opposed to others based solely on their sex/race/age/relationship-to-perpetrator. My brain cannot handle these statements, particularly when made by individuals I had thought to be of a liberal alignment.

When I read Karradin musing about whether violence is inflicted upon the 'correct' individuals, white wealthy men it seems, as opposed to the 'wrong' individuals, I am flabbergasted. Violence and murder are BAD. They're BAD because they deprive others of their implicit human rights I alluded to earlier. Committing such acts against anyone is BAD. That's why we react to such occurrences very strongly when portrayed in media. Either a horrible act has been committed and we are appalled on a fundamental human level, or a horrible act has been committed that we feel other-than-appalled by depending upon the commonly understood justification for said act... due to the story. 

Without having seen the film, I know that the Joker is BAD. I know this because he's a commonly understood character and does shit like murder people without story-justified motive in his titular film. Who he murders or injures should not bother someone that values human life equally. Now I understand that there was concern, irrelevant in my opinion but we have already covered this facet, about this film empowering little Nazis. But it seems clear from witness testimony that the killer clown in question is an equal opportunity murderer, so I cannot understand the continued fixation on the physical appearance of his victims as some test of 'problematic vs palatable' depiction of violence.

The movie ain't about a white 'lone wolf' fuckwit going on a Nazi empowerment murder spree against minorities. It just ain't what has been described by anyone who has seen the film. So why is there this need to break down the race and sex of the characters who endure violence? It speaks to deficiencies in the commenter to me, just like someone thinking of a fictional clown 'getting back at them elites' as a rallying figure would be cause for concern in the commenter, not the inciting product.

It's a fucking movie. And it ain't no Birth of a Nation, neither.

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2019 at 10:29 PM, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

Or are people and life maybe complicated things and pointing to a boogeyman you don't like as the cause of society's ills is a tad asinine?

ONE of many "boogeymen". What's actually asinine to to completely discount the possibility of these adverse effects because you spend half your waking time playing video games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...