• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Joker Origin Story Announced

My problem with the film is that I can’t buy Arthur Fleck as the Joker. I can buy that he killed some people while wearing clown makeup, but I can’t buy him become a supervillain. He just doesn’t have the skills. Other than banging his head into things, name one thing this guy is actually good at.

He's not meant to be "The" Joker, Philips and Phoenix have made it clear that if they could've gotten away with not calling him Joker and making this a wholly separate movie with no ties to Batman or comics at all that's what they would've done. But they needed those ties to get funding.
 
I totally buy Fleck as the precursor to Ledger's Joker, and Phoenix's performance is by far the better one.

He will, at best, be a bridesmaid at the Oscars. The Academy will not reward this kind of characterization right now.

All I have are SPOILERS...

I'd say the first ten minutes or so are annoying and uninvolving, as the manipulations of the writer are too transparent - the dice are really loaded against Fleck from the beginning.

Then Phoenix's brilliance, and the care and stylishness of the production, really kick in.

I found the movie gripping and horrific and generally very well made. Great moments, entirely Phoenix's, one or two other good performances, and nice (if obvious) imagery.

In the end, though, after some reflection I have to agree with critics who have said that it's a hollow story. The movie is quite an impressive exercise in making a movie, but none of it means anything. Phoenix has to find an inner life for a character that the writer provides nothing for. Conceptually, Fleck is a meat robot.

Unraveling the thing, in shorthand: what is the precipitating incident that pushes Fleck over the edge?

The answer is, to paraphrase Fleck himself: "All I have are precipitating incidents." Which is saying, everything that happens to the character are endless repetitions of the same thing, which is that he never has had a good day or a happy moment or a true thing in his entire life, and there's no reason that he should respond to the awful thing that happens today any differently than he ever has before. He was brain-damaged as a child, he takes a cocktail of medications to keep himself together, he stops taking the medications, he goes off. That's what changes.

I dunno, there may be another way of analyzing this that gives the viewer a little something - Fleck's strange relationship and illusions about his mother, maybe - but that angle is pretty shopworn and is treated superficially here.

And...oddly enough, I really liked the movie and will catch it again when it's on TV.

Oh - the Waynes are just as awful as they would be, and I think Phillips and Phoenix have finally pushed me all the way over into my previously half-aware contempt for Teh Batman.
 
My problem with the film is that I can’t buy Arthur Fleck as the Joker. I can buy that he killed some people while wearing clown makeup, but I can’t buy him become a supervillain. He just doesn’t have the skills. Other than banging his head into things, name one thing this guy is actually good at.

He doesn't have to have the skills. He just has to be the guy that inspires the people with the skills. The guy that leads the people with the skills.
 
He doesn't have to have the skills. He just has to be the guy that inspires the people with the skills. The guy that leads the people with the skills.
Quite right. A good leader doesn't have to do all the great things. They just have to inspire people to do the great things.
 
I thought Cullen reminded me of Alec Baldwin, and now I read that Baldwin was first cast as Thomas Wayne.

The rich will save us. Yeah.

How does Fleck become a gang leader? That would be another movie, and one that I don't know if we'll get.

Then again, three quarters of a billion dollars return against a 55 million dollar budget....I don't think Phillips would walk away. But it's about Phoenix.
 
I thought the performance was brilliant, seeing the character develop into Joker was great, the setting and music were fantastic, but the story itself was a bit thin.

Still a fantastic movie.

I've read a few times about Thomas Wayne being an asshole, but we usually get the perspective of Bruce on Thomas Wayne, who idolises him especially since he was killed and essentially became a martyr in some stories. But there are iterations where Thomas Wayne is flat out a bad person, like the TELLTALE game. in Joker? He really didn't come across as that bad a lot of the time.
 
I thought the performance was brilliant, seeing the character develop into Joker was great, the setting and music were fantastic, but the story itself was a bit thin.

Still a fantastic movie.

I've read a few times about Thomas Wayne being an asshole, but we usually get the perspective of Bruce on Thomas Wayne, who idolises him especially since he was killed and essentially became a martyr in some stories. But there are iterations where Thomas Wayne is flat out a bad person, like the TELLTALE game. in Joker? He really didn't come across as that bad a lot of the time.

He didn't come across quite as badly as I'd expected given what I'd heard. A bit of a blowhard with a skewed view of why the poor were poor. A lot of it comes down to
Arthur's paternity at the end of the day. Thomas' arsehole quotient goes up a lot if Arthur really is his son.
 
Cullen says that based upon his conversations with Phillips he played Wayne as if he were Fleck's father and denying it.
 
Even if that happened (which is questionable), he just kind of blundered into that situation. He’s not a manipulator of minds.

I think it happened--because if it didn't, then Gotham isn't such a terrible place, and if it's not such a terrible place, then why the fuck does Gotham need Batman? Or does Batman himself just need a reason to go punch people because he didn't want to do therapy?

So he blundered into it, so what? A lot of leaders blundered into those situations. And it would fit the chaotic word view the Joker has. He's taking advantage of the situation.

To be an inspiration doesn't mean you have to be a manipulator of minds (Was Obama a manipulator of minds?). You are tapping into something that is already there. You taking advantage--consciously or not--of emotions and feelings that exist. Fleck triggered something for people, because he did what he did, he gave permission for others to do release their frustrations.

I suppose you could make the argument that all people who are inspirations are manipulators.... But, I don't think that's true either.
 
Even if that happened (which is questionable), he just kind of blundered into that situation. He’s not a manipulator of minds.
I agree, this Joker isn't functional enough to be any kind of criminal mastermind. He's a symbol that rose at the right time in the right place.

Nothing wrong with that. It's far more plausible than a clown prince of crime, IMHO.
 
Now I'd rather see Phillips do Batman than Reave. The version of Bats that would fit into Fleck's world would probably be heavily derivative of Miller and Moore and others, but more interesting. Who would play him?
 
Even if that happened (which is questionable), he just kind of blundered into that situation. He’s not a manipulator of minds.
So what? I have no doubt that Joker could learn to become that master manipulator, capitalizing upon his own experiences in failure and emotional turmoil. Leaders can come not just from being a master of something, but also by stumbling in to a situation that allows their skill set to shine.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top