WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD! Aaliyah Harris: Let’s start by talking about ratings I give it a solid 10/10. What would you rate it?
Charlie Nicholas: I think it's a brilliant film. I'd give it a 9.5 out of 10. My nitpicks which sway me from giving it a full 10 includes a desire for the fimmakers and Joaquin Phoenix to portray Arthur Fleck's guilt about killing those three Wayne Enterprise bullies (though the first two killings were self defense) and then a progression from that guilt to catharsis as the Joker committed subsequent retaliatory crimes of assault. Those are my minor criticisms of not only a phenomenal film, but an essential one. Who knows? Upon subsequent viewings, I may bump my score to a 10. Aaliyah: Wow! I didn’t think about that but yes I agree, that's a good observation. My reasoning for giving it a 10/10 is that I liked Joaquin Phoenix's take on the character simply because of how realistic and eerie he acted. I felt as if he portrayed one of the comic book world's most complex villains beautifully. He allowed us to see Joker's vulnerable side and to see inside of his mind. My reasoning behind my rating also has to do with how Joaquin’s Joker was so innocent and naive when he was introduced to us, then one problem and revelation after the other came piling onto him. It was almost like he was forced into being the villain. I also think that the film is a 10/10 because it was different but different in a good way. The reasons as to why are the filmmakers' decision to shed light on extreme forms of mental illness and also societies hand in making or enabling individuals like Arthur fleck (Joker). I can also tell that Joaquin really did method acting and studied this role. Oh disclaimer! I'm not condoning terrorism of any sort when I note society's hand in Arthur's downfall. I'm just observing how the director and writers told the story if that makes sense. Charlie: That is a great analysis which I so happen to agree with! His acting was exceptional. I also totally understand your perspective on society's role, as well as not condoning violence (of course) and I also concur with it. Never before have I experienced a film where the creators and performer compelled the audience to empathize with a character who has been ostracized by society because of their mental illnesses, much more than sympathize, even while he was commiting atrocities yet amazingly not glorifying nor excusing the atrocities which the individual choose to commit. At the same time, the film doesn't support the common notion that mental illnesses directly lead to violence. Rather it represents how people with mental illnesses are beaten down by society due to either ignorance or hate for they who don't conform even for they whom have been outcast yet continue to love others. And like anyone who is incessantly beaten down, an individual will be more likely to lash out to survive. Arthur also yearned to be accepted; he desperately tried to ingratiate himself to others. When many of the proletarians, the economically oppressed people of society, began to champion the Joker as their hero, thus accepting him, he eventually embraced their praise. Furthermore, the greater society was just as responsible (even indirectly so) for the creation of Arthur's transformation into a mass murderer as he himself was; as well as for the innocents who got caught in the murderer's spree of assault and murder (such as the implied death of the therapist at the conclusion). I think that's where a lot of the pushback on this film arrives from. It's uncomfortable for many but it's supposed to be. It's meant to spur on change for the better. Aaliyah: Yes, I agree. Do you think the outbreak of super rats was symbolic in a way? Like symbolic of the society he lives in? Do you think that its a sense of reality for Arthur; as in the people he feels surrounded by? I don't know if you remember that scene but I caught it early on in the film. I thought that it was very interesting. Charlie: I did not catch that symbolism (though I noticed the announcement of them within the film) but I agree! Nice one Aaliyah! Apparently there were even super rats in the background of the scene where Bruce is standing over his murdered parents though I didn't notice them (I'll definitely look for them next time). If they were in that scene then that could mean Bruce is now confronted with the cruelty (subjectively senseless to him yet wholly evil nonetheless) that humanity can produce with your analysis in play. That is one way of depicting that Bruce and the Joker are two sides of the same coin in a way though Bruce doesn't experience Joker's same type of trauma (at least not yet...though he seemed haunted already at that young age which could hint at some type of parental abuse or neglect) though Bruce of course ultimately fights on the side of good. Aaliyah: Correct! The Bruce analyzation was spot on as well. Adding on to the topic of symbolism what do you think of the scene where Joker was doing like an interpretive dance in the bathroom and why do you think the filmmakers put that in there? Charlie: Thanks! I believe that Arthur's interpretive dance was his way of accepting his manifesting transformation into a stone cold killer (especially since he later confessed that he felt no disgust about the three Wall Street like guys' deaths). Yet I believe that he could have been brought fully back into the enfolds of empathy if he was shown love and acceptance. On a side note, wow! The music in that scene was ethereal. The music there and the scene where Joker rises to accept his acolytes' praise (alongside the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne) were my favorite pieces though the music was phenomenal throughout. Aaliyah: Yes, great scenes! The music in this whole movie was very good and I felt that it had a very classic Joker feel. I thought the dance had something to do with transformation or like a rebirth. Also, yes you're right, if he just had someone to not give up on him and show him true love then he wouldn't of turned out that way. By the way, what did you think of the supporting cast? I saw other people's reviews of the movie and they said the supporting cast were like plot pieces instead of actual well developed characters. I on the other hand felt as if Robert Dinero did a great job. Charlie: Absolutely! I also perused some reviews that expressed those sentiments. The supporting cast didn't have character arcs but I believed that including their developments would have distracted from Arthur's story. This movie was especially his story and everything was seen from his point of view. It was about as close to a first person point of view that one could get in the format of a film. I also think Dinero did a wonderful job. He could have been tempted to phone his performance in since it was minimal and without an arc but he conducted himself expertly (even including nuanced facial expressions when he's interviewing Arthur). Aaliyah: Yeah I thought the same since it's a stand-alone film and people probably would have still complained if they had bigger parts anyway. Charlie: I could totally see some of they who complained about the supporting cast still complaining if they had bigger roles, especially if they complained about the bankrupt moralizing of the film (I'm paraphrasing there). Aaliyah: Bankrupt moralizing? Really? Expound please but last but not least...I need to ask you which Joker do you prefer? Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Joaquin Phoenix or the "great" Jared Leto performance? Charlie: Bankrupt moralizing as in spreading immoral beliefs. I definitely don't agree that the film does though they who accuse the film for supporting such a message are viewing the themes selectively, out of context from the rest of the film. The film definitely does not broadcast an immoral message...it ultimately broadcasts a moral one, one for empathy and accountability. I actually didn't mind Leto's performance though his portrayal is my least favorite. Jack Nicholson performed entertainingly (I still love it) though I just saw Jack Nicholson acting as the Joker. Heath Ledger completely transformed, so transcendent was his acting that it was as if he became another person. However, I prefer Phoenix's Joker. Heath Ledger's characterization was one note by design and Phoenix portrayed all of Arthur's tics, emotive nuances, and slow progression into the Joker (despite having no qualms about his first murder), and thus an evolution into another person, with perfection. I also love his Joker's makeup the most (the design is disturbing yet alluring). How about you? Aaliyah: Hmmm, Jared Leto growled too much for me but if I had to choose...it probably would be Phoenix's version. He just made me feel uncomfortable. The unsettling emotions, the inner suffering he displayed and the built-up anger along with the conflict...I felt all of it and that's what that character is supposed to do. The costume and his outward appearance really helped sell it as well because I didn't feel like I was looking at an actor playing a role (like your example with Jack) while Phoenix actually became him. Heath Ledger will always have a special place in my heart though. ★★★ Aaliyah: I think that I want to talk about the deaths a little more. Which ones do you think that he went too far with and which ones do you believe were more justifiable? Charlie: I believe that his first two kills were more justifiable since they were enacted in self defense. However, they didn't deserve to die as despicable as their behavior was (including harassing the young lady on the subway). Ideally, he would have just wounded them but it's easy to say that objectively. He was being beaten and they could have murdered him; it didn't seem as if they were going to stop assaulting him until he died or was placed inches away from it. Ideally he would have a non-lethal weapon too as well (perhaps manufactures could mass produce guns with rubber bullets which could still inflict damage but not lethally). I also think that it was totally irresponsible for Randall to just hand Arthur the gun to use as well. Of course he didn't have to take it but he felt pressure to take it (in addition to the probable subconscious desire, on some level, to defend himself from the societal antagonism towards him though he still didn't want to lash out at that point, as evident by his defense of the kids who beat him up in the beginning of the film). Anyways, the gun could've gone off in the children's ward when Arthur accidentally dropped it (and the bullet could have hit a child). I've digressed though. I believe that every kill after the first two guys were completely unjustifiable since those kills weren't enacted in self-defense or in the defense of someone else (though one could still empathize with Arthur's agony). Aaliyah: Yes, I feel the same about the first two kills and he probably kept going after the third one because the feeling of power and control that killing gave him. I agree about Randall though as cruel and insane as it was he kind of brought his ending on to himself. One enables that decision by giving a gun to someone who clearly isn’t mentally stable then one furthers that enablement when one lies and throw that person under the bus. His mother's death was hard to watch because I feel like she’s just as much a victim of mental illness as he is. Murray’s death was a little too much simply for the fact of it being on live TV but I kind of accepted it because it reminded me of one scene in the the animated Batman movie “The Dark Knight Returns. Charlie: I agree with almost all that you said. Murray's death was dramatic though he shamed Arthur on live national television so the temptation to murder a person who he had formally idolized and felt betrayed by would tempt him exceptionally to murder Murray in front of his adorant fans in the studio and watching across the nation at home. To expound upon my perspective, I did expect him to kill Murray but it was somehow nonetheless shocking to me when it happened.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
December 2022
Categories
All
|