Comic Book Films & TV

[LittleDaniel]

It's worse than we thought...

 

Review: ‘Joker’ is a Dangerous Film That Will Incite Lonely White Men to Try Stand-Up Comedy

[Josh]

On 02/09/2019 at 09:14, DFF said:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/02/incel-violence-joker-rightwing-film-joaquin-phoenix?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

The idea of refusing to take sides being a smart and brave thing to do - rather than just easy and cowardly - baffles me.

Here’s another review from Time.

[Colly]

Really think this reviewing of reviews about a film none of us have seen is a tad silly.

[Josh]

Again, see previous comments for why it isn’t strictly necessary in 100% of cases to see the thing first.

[Colly]

I have, and it still means nothing. You're picking reviews and saying "this is a good one" because it's one that agrees with the decision you've made already. Other people are posting ones that say the opposite. Making a decision on art without seeing it and citing reviews that agree with you as the reason why just feels incredibly short sighted.

[Lint]

The iO9 review makes a point that you're seeing things from Jokers viewpoint and

We frequently see things happening that aren’t actually happening. Information is given that isn’t quite accurate. Arthur’s point of view is mostly unreliable.  And so the film swings you between sympathy and pity or humor and awkwardness, sometimes in a single shot. Not knowing what to believe and how to feel is one of the film’s most interesting and strongest assets.

Again, Joker is an unreliable narrator (If I must have a history, I prefer its multiple choice).  So a movie thats his point of view, you can't take what you're being shown at 100%

[=BK=]

The Killing Joke pretty much completely explains Joker.

 

[Lint]

10 minutes ago, =BK= said:

The Killing Joke pretty much completely explains Joker.

 

Yea, don't even get me started on how the entire Batman world falls apart if you really think about it.  

[Josh]

12 hours ago, Colly said:

I have, and it still means nothing. You're picking reviews and saying "this is a good one" because it's one that agrees with the decision you've made already. Other people are posting ones that say the opposite. Making a decision on art without seeing it and citing reviews that agree with you as the reason why just feels incredibly short sighted.

It does indeed have meaning in my previous point. And yes, I do share those reviews because they share a perspective similar to mine. One I had before them. Pointing out that there are some people professionally paid to go see it who then did and after made those points. And for all the discussion of intent (unreliable narrator, etc.), we’re forgetting that - as in anything - intent does not equal impact. And impact is all that counts. And when we’re talking about an impact with moral implications, that matters a great deal. So I know I’m building (if I haven’t already built) a reputation as Mr. No Fun Sees Politics in Everything and Makes Mountains Out of Molehills, but so be it. It’s an important conversation and this is the kind of thing I’ll refer to now and in the future. I get it. You don’t agree. Cool fun Joker movie is cool fun Joker movie and that’s good enough for lots of people. But I’m still disturbed by its implications and impact.

[=BK=]

You're coming off like the people screaming that video games cause violence, you know that right?

[Colly]

2 hours ago, Josh Marenghi said:

It does indeed have meaning in my previous point. And yes, I do share those reviews because they share a perspective similar to mine. One I had before them. Pointing out that there are some people professionally paid to go see it who then did and after made those points. And for all the discussion of intent (unreliable narrator, etc.), we’re forgetting that - as in anything - intent does not equal impact. And impact is all that counts. And when we’re talking about an impact with moral implications, that matters a great deal. So I know I’m building (if I haven’t already built) a reputation as Mr. No Fun Sees Politics in Everything and Makes Mountains Out of Molehills, but so be it. It’s an important conversation and this is the kind of thing I’ll refer to now and in the future. I get it. You don’t agree. Cool fun Joker movie is cool fun Joker movie and that’s good enough for lots of people. But I’m still disturbed by its implications and impact.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It's going to be anything but a cool fun Joker movie and pretty much every review says that. But reviews are also mixed on the idea that it's going to be some kind of incel handbook, my point is that you cherry picking reviews that agree with your preconceived view on it as "good reviews" and writing off any to the contrary (plus a snarky response to the 8 minute applause) before you've seen it isn't a good way of doing anything.

[Josh]

I’ll take back cool fun Joker movie. Insert your own description. But you can easily see what I’m describing it as, that clearly differs from your own description, as it very much seems yours doesn’t include “highly problematic.”

And I’m not writing off other reviews. It’s objective fact that a shit ton of reviewers are super sold on it and more will line up behind them. Of course they have, of course they are, of course they will. I’m just troubled that they don’t see the problem here and/or just don’t agree that it’s a problem.

And, yes, that was my response to the applause. Industry folks often heap praise upon films that distort narratives or are in some way noticeably problematic. See Hacksaw Ridge, La La Land, or Green Book. I am genuinely not surprised that Joker’s getting the same response.

And yeah, of course I see the dissenting reviews as “good” in some sense. They’re addressing inherent problems that can’t help but be there when the protagonist/point of view is a terrorist AND that same character is already oddly fetishized as being super cool by a lot of fans. The filmmakers aren’t releasing this into a vacuum. Cultural context matters. I don’t think it will inspire violence, but it does severely dampen any prevailing notion that incel and other sorts of ideology are dangerous. So yeah. I’m happy to see that addressed.

And I’m especially motivated to share that here when the general thought being expressed here is that the movie looks like it’s going to be cool, intriguing, or various other things in that range of descriptors. I believe strongly that it’s something that should be addressed and when I see it largely not being noticed, I’m gonna go on about it.

[tristy]

Next up: We should stop making Punisher movies/shows because cops use the logo, fetishize the character and they also kill people, which is... a problem.

Instead of confronting the actual problem, let's go after the media and pop culture shit that these types of people surround themselves with, and demonize it. Because that's easier to do. It's not like people haven't been cheering for villains in movies/TV/etc well before the rise of incel terrorism. You might think it should be one way, but the fact is that it's always been this way and it's nothing new.

If it's not this movie that will embolden incels, or whoever, then it'll be something else. It could be the Friday the 13th video game, it could be some metal album, maybe it's a TV show. Those types of people will find something in anything to justify their feelings, and the correct response isn't to go after that particular medium (in this case a fuckin' Joker movie).

[Colly]

8 hours ago, Josh Marenghi said:

I’ll take back cool fun Joker movie. Insert your own description. But you can easily see what I’m describing it as, that clearly differs from your own description, as it very much seems yours doesn’t include “highly problematic.”

And I’m not writing off other reviews. It’s objective fact that a shit ton of reviewers are super sold on it and more will line up behind them. Of course they have, of course they are, of course they will. I’m just troubled that they don’t see the problem here and/or just don’t agree that it’s a problem.

And, yes, that was my response to the applause. Industry folks often heap praise upon films that distort narratives or are in some way noticeably problematic. See Hacksaw Ridge, La La Land, or Green Book. I am genuinely not surprised that Joker’s getting the same response.

And yeah, of course I see the dissenting reviews as “good” in some sense. They’re addressing inherent problems that can’t help but be there when the protagonist/point of view is a terrorist AND that same character is already oddly fetishized as being super cool by a lot of fans. The filmmakers aren’t releasing this into a vacuum. Cultural context matters. I don’t think it will inspire violence, but it does severely dampen any prevailing notion that incel and other sorts of ideology are dangerous. So yeah. I’m happy to see that addressed.

And I’m especially motivated to share that here when the general thought being expressed here is that the movie looks like it’s going to be cool, intriguing, or various other things in that range of descriptors. I believe strongly that it’s something that should be addressed and when I see it largely not being noticed, I’m gonna go on about it.

I don't have my own description because I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. You're moralising on a film you haven't seen. How is this different to when say the church were organising boycotts of Life of Brian having also not seen it?

[MDK]

8 hours ago, Josh Marenghi said:

And, yes, that was my response to the applause. Industry folks often heap praise upon films that distort narratives or are in some way noticeably problematic. See Hacksaw Ridge, La La Land, or Green Book. I am genuinely not surprised that Joker’s getting the same response.

I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge or La La Land, what was wrong with them?

I've seen Green Book though, I know that wasn't entirely faithful to what really happened. 

[Lint]

1 hour ago, MDK said:

I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge or La La Land, what was wrong with them?

I've seen Green Book though, I know that wasn't entirely faithful to what really happened. 

Best I can tell, La La Land was praised less because of how good it was, and more because it was a massive wankfest over how great Hollywood is

[DFF]

11 minutes ago, Lint said:

Best I can tell, La La Land was praised less because of how good it was, and more because it was a massive wankfest over how great Hollywood is

I loved La La Land tbh, but it certainly wasn't for everyone - divided my friends massively and both ends of the scale. 

[GhostMachine]

15 hours ago, Lint said:

Best I can tell, La La Land was praised less because of how good it was, and more because it was a massive wankfest over how great Hollywood is

That's exactly it. Two other problems, though: 1. It is a musical, and Ryan Gosling couldn't sing worth crap. 2. There's a song called "City of Stars" that they keep playing at various points in the movie (and I mean way too many times!), and the song is absolute trash. You'll be screaming "PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!!!"  before you're even at the halfway mark of the film. 

Basically, its a movie you should either avoid, or watch with the captions on and the sound off when Emma Stone isn't singing.

 

[Josh]

20 hours ago, Colly said:

I don't have my own description because I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. You're moralising on a film you haven't seen. How is this different to when say the church were organising boycotts of Life of Brian having also not seen it?

I addressed that. Clearly not to your personal satisfaction, but I’ve said my piece. Moving on.

As for La La Land, it was essentially the implication of a white man teaching a black man jazz.

[Benjamin]

La La Land was bloody fantastic. Loved every bit of it.