DCEU: Killer Clowns from Gotham City

[Inkdaub]

14 hours 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???

I keep getting surprised by this news as well.  I will have forgotten Pattinson is Batman by tomorrow.  That said I'll give him a chance.  He's never bugged me like he does some others.  I've never even seen Twilight.  Who knows maybe it'll be....

Also the bolded in your post is complete lunacy.

[karaddin]

Jace I'm not saying that violence against innocent white men is fine while anything else is terrible, my entire conversation in this thread has been regarding reactions and I was lazy in the language used. Not that I ever said "correct" but as much as my I was lazy with my language, what I'm meaning is whether the depicted violence is viewed as problematically reinforcing societal power structures. Or more succinctly if I can bother a comedy term - if it's punching up or punching down. 

As for you being flabbergasted at seeing things discussed like that, you should try being a non American minority and reading how coldly callous some of you can be about other people's lives in the politics thread when who needs to be thrown under the bus for political expediency comes up.

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Jace I'm not saying that violence against innocent white men is fine while anything else is terrible, my entire conversation in this thread has been regarding reactions and I was lazy in the language used. Not that I ever said "correct" but as much as my I was lazy with my language, what I'm meaning is whether the depicted violence is viewed as problematically reinforcing societal power structures. Or more succinctly if I can bother a comedy term - if it's punching up or punching down.

My usage of a single apostrophe 'correct' was meant to indicate a non-exact interpretation of your comments, apologies if it seemed I was deliberately misquoting you. 

As to the "problematically reinforcing societal power structures." I absolutely understand this language. I get it. As a liberal person you prefer stories with a liberal message. And I want to reinforce that I am responding not just to you but to others who have posted here and I'm doing a bit of extrapolation. But it feels to me like there is a non-negligible amount of people who dislike the film on principal because it doesn't comport to their worldview. And again, I get that. That's fine. You don't have to like a movie, and you can have whatever reason for not liking it you choose. But people are suggesting this film is a public hazard. There are think pieces about how Warner Brothers made a movie for Nazis and deranged fools to rally around. There are people in this thread at least implying that this film shouldn't have been made without taking steps to ensure psychos and rejects wouldn't have too strong a response to it.

Like, I understand that I'm standing perilously close to arguing that "the libs are trying to PC the superior Snyder-Cut to death!" or whatever. And believe me, it's not someplace I find myself lightly. But as an unattached observer, the responses to this film are fucking crazy to me. All of the controversy seems entirely contrived by a clickbait news world that was hoping for another Aurora, CO shooting and took low-hanging fruit sight unseen to generate traffic.

By all accounts, even the people who seem to detest the picture like Jehordhi's brother, it's an unremarkable tale featuring a few disturbing sequences and a good performance by Pheonix. Can't that be all it is? Can't it just be a mediocre film? I don't mean to tell anybody what they're allowed to care about, but I just cannot wrap my mind around the level of concern over a picture directed by the guy who made the fucking Hangover movies. I clicked on this thread last week hoping to get a laugh out of people sandbagging the film, but this social dissection just confuses me. I can't help but keep thinking "it's not that kind of movie" as I stare at paragraphs of meticulous and educated arguments about the ideological inadequacies the picture may or may not contain.

Somebody had an idea to have Joaquin Pheonix be the Joker after Jared Leto took a shit on a camera lens and declared it art. Then a bunch of mediocre writers vomited out a script and a bad 'comedy' director was hired to shoot the thing. Reading societal tea leaves out of this slapdick process just strikes me as indulgent snootiness by people who are taking themselves waaaaay too seriously. Again, it's just a movie.

In this day and age of cookie-cutter blockbusters I can't understand the desire to bury a picture that at least went for a distinctive feel and presentation. It raises my hackles because I don't want more Ant Man and the Wasp or Game Night or Tag or Aquaman or Justice League in my theaters. I want actual movies. And movies have things to tell you about how the prime contributors see the world. Whether it's Oliver Stone's blind hero worship and freaky resentment of women, Michael Bay's (early efforts) ten foot erection for America and his conception of freedom, or Dennis Villeneuve's self-aware uncomfortable appreciation for justifiably extreme reaction to crisis, an actual movie is revealing about the people who made it. And I like that. It's why I watch movies. And for all that I never had a single desire to go see Joker in theaters, I appreciated that when the trailers released it looked like a movie. I see inherent value worth defending for that reason alone. 

This may not apply directly to you, but there are people using arguments similar to yours to strongly suggest that films like Joker are somehow morally unacceptable. And I just can't understand that point of view.

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

 

As for you being flabbergasted at seeing things discussed like that, you should try being a non American minority and reading how coldly callous some of you can be about other people's lives in the politics thread when who needs to be thrown under the bus for political expediency comes up.

That's a fair return, but I will contend that politics (at least in the U.S.) have become a zero-sum game in which the fate of the world arguably hangs in the balance (it's kind of literally on fire). Tough political calculi must be made and the gravity of the situation makes emotional considerations secondary.

[karaddin]

I think the best I can say to help understand the concern is this: disaffected young white men are 'routinely' (or at least far too fucking often) going out and shooting a bunch of people to cover over how much they detest themselves and their lives (category 1). Disaffected young white men in much larger numbers than the above join online communities built around hatred of the Other that tends to start with edgelord humour and nihilism and get on the express track to "acting like a nazi for the lulz" which is really just cover for being a Nazi. (Category 2)

People see this happening and it, understandably, freaks them the fuck out. They don't understand how it's happening, and an awful lot of the actual media have virtually zero online literacy so they can't even follow the broad sweeps. The Joker's schtick "feels" an awful lot like the aforementioned edgelord nihilism, so people worry an origin story for him will resonate and encourage more of the men from category 2 to move on across to category 1.

I do think art is potentially quite powerful - if it weren't then dictators wouldn't censor art - and I think that what I described as their fear is possible, but from the reactions to this movie this isn't it. The most damning criticism I've seen of it as a piece of art is that its not saying anything at all. 

I'd also say that I think there's more potential harm from an actually harmful artwork in moving people into category 2/leaving them susceptible to bad actor recruitment techniques. The shit that pushes them from category 2 to 1 is, for several of the recent ones, outright terrorism planning from inside the group and in-group dynamics whipping them on. I'd really love for more media to take the need for reporting by those actually versed in these online spaces seriously but that would require more employees and none of them want that.

ETA @Jace, Basilissa Meant to tag you in the response

[JGP]

Oh, it wasn't just JeHordhi's brother. I saw it yesterday and agree.

Doesn't add anything meaningful or compassionate to mental illness or awareness in general. It had far, far less to say about class struggles than, say, American Psycho, but at least that film was honest and didn't try to window dress it's psychopath in pitiable pathology. 

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

Oh, it wasn't just JeHordhi's brother. I saw it yesterday and agree.

Doesn't add anything meaningful or compassionate to mental illness or awareness in general. It had far, far less to say about class struggles than, say, American Psycho, but at least that film was honest and didn't try to window dress it's psychopath in pitiable pathology. 

So did you like it? Did you like it as a movie about a comic book character?

[JGP]

I'm still processing what's behind my feelings [complicated by societal concern and being a bit of a comic purist] but can definitely say I didn't like it.   

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I'm still processing what's behind my feelings [complicated by societal concern and being a bit of a comic purist] but can definitely say I didn't like it.   

Societal concern?

[JGP]

In general? No. In specific cases, ie: troubled individuals, absolutely. Scroll through the joker hashtags if you're on twitter. Plenty of people identifying with Arthur's plight. This in itself isn't particularly concerning, but it's not an underdog story, and when it extends to a kind of go boy violent ideation, in how he chooses to deal with it, yeah, I find it problematic. 

 

[Conflicting Thought]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Societal concern?

You wouldnt get it

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

In general? No. In specific cases, ie: troubled individuals, absolutely. Scroll through the joker hashtags if you're on twitter. Plenty of people identifying with Arthur's plight. This in itself isn't particularly concerning, but it's not an underdog story, and when it extends to a kind of go boy violent ideation, in how he chooses to deal with it, yeah, I find it problematic. 

 

Did you mean to post that tweet from some guy from Oman? Kind of spoils that narrative of the incel white kid a bit.

Anyway I’m still not seeing what is problematic about the movie and what effect you are assuming it is having on people or what could happen? You seem to be very careful with what you are not saying.

[JGP]

It had the clip I wanted, Ice. Either way though, it doesn't spoil the narrative. 

Arthur: "What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? I'll tell you what you get. You get what you fucking deserve." [Arthur then kills Murray, /scene]

--- 

Why does it bother you that some people share concern about this?

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

It had the clip I wanted, Ice. Either way though, it doesn't spoil the narrative. 

Arthur: "What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? I'll tell you what you get. You get what you fucking deserve." [Arthur then kills Murray, /scene]

--- 

Why does it bother you that some people share concern about this?

Well it’s a clip from a movie posted without context by someone living in the Middle East. Im not sure what you are trying to prove here. The same poster also posted other clips from the movie.. maybe he just thinks it’s cool? 

Well you haven’t actually said what you are concerned with, you just use words like ‘problematic’ to hide behind instead:

[JGP]

Without context? And what context might that be?

[Conflicting Thought]

11 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

It had the clip I wanted, Ice. Either way though, it doesn't spoil the narrative. 

Arthur: "What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? I'll tell you what you get. You get what you fucking deserve." [Arthur then kills Murray, /scene]

--- 

Why does it bother you that some people share concern about this?

This. 

What is the problem with some honest criticism of a an artistic creation. An extremely popular one at that. 

We can argue the merits of the critiques, but it sounds like some people just dont think it warrants any kind of criticism beyond the superficial. And, like, why? 

[Heartofice]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Without context? And what context might that be?

As in, he simply posted a clip from the movie, and didn’t say why. That same guy has posted hundreds of tweets about the joker, it appears he just really likes the movie, yet you decided to pull out one you find PROBLEMATIC  ( the guy might not even be a real person but a bot promoting the movie, worth considering)

 

 

[Heartofice]

Just now, Conflicting Thought said:

This. 

What is the problem with some honest criticism of a an artistic creatiom. An extremely popular at that. 

We can argue the merits of the critiques, but it sounds like some people just dont think it warrants any criticism beyond the superficial. And, like, why? 

Is it honest criticism? What is the critique? He’s not saying:

[Raja]

7 hours ago, Liffguard said:

He's a moody-looking white dude with a strong chin. What else is there to playing Batman?

I think Pattinson is an excellent choice for the role - I don't think too many people have paid attention to the movies he's been in, but since Twilight, he's been in a bunch of really decent films that have showed off his acting chops ( Good Time, Lost City of Z & High Life)

I have high hopes for The Batman because of Matt Reeves & the excellent cast ( even though I'm really not much of a super-hero movies guy)

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

As in, he simply posted a clip from the movie, and didn’t say why. That same guy has posted hundreds of tweets about the joker, it appears he just really likes the movie, yet you decided to pull out one you find PROBLEMATIC  ( the guy might not even be a real person but a bot promoting the movie, worth considering)

I'm not getting the sense you're arguing in good faith here, yo. It's either that, or the point flew so far over your head your position is scraping around the foundations of Moria.

re: 'not saying,' I've said it plenty in this thread and am not fond of repeating myself more than once. You've even responded to some of it, so now we're full circle to good vs. bad faith argumentation.

---

Again, what's your issue here? 

 

 

 

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I'm not getting the sense you're arguing in good faith here, yo. It's either that, or the point flew so far over your head your position is scraping around the foundations of Moria.

re: 'not saying,' I've said it plenty in this thread and am not fond of repeating myself more than once. You've even responded to some of it, so now we're full circle to good vs. bad faith argumentation.

---

Again, what's your issue here? 

 

 

 

Well maybe the point did fly over my head because I can’t see what you are getting at by linking to that tweet, it seems to directly contradict your implication that it’s indicative of some white loner who’s going to do something bad.

Youve now at least seen the movie, and are still hinting at its problematic elements , but haven’t said exactly what bits of the movie you think are problematic.