Joker- Full Spoiler Talk (SPOILERS)

[InvisibleWoman]

Still can't understand some of the flack I've been seeing for Deniro. I thought he was good, particularly in that scene, where he had to be. And the fact that it's him that gets shot, on some level, makes that scene even more visceral & powerful.

Yeah, I thought he was great in the movie and the back and forth he had with Joaquin in that scene was just brilliant.

 

[Iceman]

Yeah, great scene that.

 

[InvisibleWoman]

The sympathy we feel (to some degree) for Arthur Fleck in the beginning of the movie starts diminishing as he starts killing people, and after he kills his mother, he has lost whatever "goodness" (for the lack of better word) he had within him, that was the moment I realized his transformation was complete. I don't think viewers will see him as some icon as some reviewers were suggesting. Some of the other characters in the movie were not exactly innocent either, Thomas Wayne is particularly shown as a bad person who is masquerading as a good person ("I'm Gotham's only hope")

I thought it was somewhat ironic that he killed his mother and that's when I lost sympathy for him. At the end of the day, she too suffered from mental illness and it meant she wasn't able to protect her son (as awful as it was what happened to him, she was also a victim) Yet Arthur thought she deserved to die for a system that failed her as much as it failed him. He was unable to empathise and relate in that moment to someone who was suffering in the most similar way to himself (right down to the delusions) and I think that's the moment where he truly became a "bad guy".

Just my thoughts of course, I'm not saying I'm right. It was just how I felt about it.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Still can't understand some of the flack I've been seeing for Deniro. I thought he was good, particularly in that scene, where he had to be. And the fact that it's him that gets shot, on some level, makes that scene even more visceral & powerful.

DeNiro is getting flack? It’s the most engaged I’ve seen him in a long time.

 

[Schlosser85]

There's no reason for De Niro to be getting flack for this.

 

[Schlosser85]

Speaking of, what exactly do we think of Murray as a person? I know he was making fun of Arthur, and probably invited him on for his audience's continued amusement at his expense for the ratings, but at the end when he's going off on Arthur over his self-pity and especially when he says "not everyone is awful", I feel like he's genuinely appalled and is being sincere there.

 

[Boom]

Have we already talked about this?

 

[Kane52630]

I've always said this was a made up story Joker told in Arkham in that very last scene and that's some damming evidence of an unreliable narrator.

 

[Schlosser85]

I've always said this was a made up story Joker told in Arkham in that very last scene and that's some damming evidence of an unreliable narrator.

The last scene is The Joker (not Arthur, The Joker) looking back on this whole story he just made up and laughing about it?

 

[Micromind]

Have we already talked about this?

Phillips was coy as he stated: It’s a coincidence. … No, I mean, I don’t know. I think it’s a coincidence. That’s two times. Is there another time? … No, no that’s just interesting

Joaquin Phoenix isn’t really buying it. When we put the question to him, he hit us with a subtle Beatles reference, saying:
Paul is dead. Paul is Dead. [inaudible] The Beatles. [laughs] What I'm saying is, I do know that there are some of those things that we put in, whatever the **** you call them… yeah. I mean, I think some of them you might read into. That's the ‘Paul is Dead’ joke that I’m making. But no, 11:11 didn't mean anything to me person
ally.

Joaquin Phoenix And Todd Phillips Shoot Down A Crazy Joker Theory About Clocks

 

[Iceman]

Speaking of, what exactly do we think of Murray as a person? I know he was making fun of Arthur, and probably invited him on for his audience's continued amusement at his expense for the ratings, but at the end when he's going off on Arthur over his self-pity and especially when he says "not everyone is awful", I feel like he's genuinely appalled and is being sincere there.

Same here. He had poor motives for bringing him on the show in the first place, but his engagement seemed genuine at that point.

 

[Iceman]

DeNiro is getting flack? It’s the most engaged I’ve seen him in a long time.

What criticisms of DeNiro did you hear? I wasn't expecting that.

 

[Brother Jack]

DeNiro looked like he actually gave a **** about what he was doing, which is a rare thing these days.

 

[Kane52630]

Joaquin Phoenix And Todd Phillips Shoot Down A Crazy Joker Theory About Clocks

 

[Jekecy]

Joaquin Phoenix And Todd Phillips Shoot Down A Crazy Joker Theory About Clocks

I think it's them not trying to confirm it and "ruin" everyone else's theories. There's no way a specific time (out of several thousand possible permutations) shows up on three separate occasions without intention.

Set design is incredibly meticulous, not to mention time-extensive. Someone put it there on purpose.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Coincidence, my ass. I'd probably believe it if it was the same prop they used. But when the time is shown is on various clocks, it certainly reinforces the idea that Joker made up that story in the asylum. Maybe he's even feeding it to Harleen to gain her affection.

 

[Doc Samson]

DeNiro is getting flack? It’s the most engaged I’ve seen him in a long time.

There's no reason for De Niro to be getting flack for this.

I sometimes make the mistake of reading reviews after seeing something. Without question he's getting the "miscast, going through the motions" critique he's been getting lately. And while that might be true recently, this, along with The Irishman should put that to bed.

Speaking of, what exactly do we think of Murray as a person? I know he was making fun of Arthur, and probably invited him on for his audience's continued amusement at his expense for the ratings, but at the end when he's going off on Arthur over his self-pity and especially when he says "not everyone is awful", I feel like he's genuinely appalled and is being sincere there.

This is why I thought he was great. When someone shouts to "get him off" Murray looks that way quickly, but continues to engage. At first he seems concerned, and in true entertainment fashion he's also probably thinking of ratings.

But when it starts to turn, and he gets increasingly agitated with Arthur, who in turn is getting agitated with him, it's what makes the scene as tense as it is. Two of the best living actors we have taking part in a movie about the Joker, it was awesome IMO....

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Speaking of, what exactly do we think of Murray as a person? I know he was making fun of Arthur, and probably invited him on for his audience's continued amusement at his expense for the ratings, but at the end when he's going off on Arthur over his self-pity and especially when he says "not everyone is awful", I feel like he's genuinely appalled and is being sincere there.

Tagged for length:

Spoiler

This is something I think gets lost in the way the film really does want you to in some way identify with Fleck. First off, without a doubt there are millions of people in this world dealing with a life not too dissimilar to what Arthur endures. Perhaps, true, victims of circumstance combined with deep flaws in themselves that put them on paths towards terrible and potential stunting self pity, or for whom the weight of the pressures, failures and injustices of life grind them down, often until the grave, with no one ever seeing them really, empathizing with their plight or reaching out in a way that is worth a damn.


Which while true, in the film this belies the central problem with Arthur's life story, or with Arthur. (Note: this is not a negative criticism of the film per se. I'm just breaking down an astronomically sized flaw Arthur, his character and his world view has by the end of the film.) It's true that there are cases of people who have lives that mirror to one degree or another the slings and arrows that Arthur endures, and there are many who are living with mental health issues on top of all that. And yet... Not all, not even a majority of those self same people end up being dangerous to themselves or others. Nowhere near a majority do these people turn their resentments and frustrations outward, eventually turning to violence and murder to even the score against life and all the people they think should be held responsible for their personal misery.


Stray observation... Murray I think is of course a show biz broadcaster. Personally I got less a Johnny Carson/Dave Letterman/Jay Leno vibe and more that he's Gotham City's Joe Franklin. What we saw of the show didn't really seem like a big time network talk show. This seemed like a local legend deal. A fairly staid and conservative show that, well, your mom, older aunts, uncles and grandmothers watched.

For those not in the know or too young to understand the reference:

Joe Franklin - Wikipedia


Why is that is important to my view? Because for me I didn't get a smarmy vibe from Deniro in the part. The callous show biz guy aspect was in my mind represented in the person of Murray's producer played by Marc Maron, who was practically dripping with disdain for Arthur the second he showed up in the story. When you see the backstage meeting with Murray, yes, he's doing this as the host of the show, and because he thinks it might be entertaining to interview this person he gave some random local fame to. But I don't recall him being egregiously dismissive or cruel to Fleck. Probably because Murray thinks that someone should have a, well, sense of humor about themselves, ironic when speaking of the Joker. True, the deck is stacked against Arthur at every turn, and his experiences, degrading mental state and lack of any kind of safety net or support from family or friends inform him as a character and his decisions... But explanations are not the same thing as exculpatory excuses.

One might, MIGHT excuse Arthur's first two killings on the subway with an old saw about self defense. It's when he decided to go after the third guy and pursue hum that he crossed a major line. He hunted that guy down and summarily executed him. Maybe one could say that ******* (or even all three) brought it on themselves. For me though, even for as bad as the situation was, Arthur didn't deserve to act as judge, jury and executioner, yes, even for that beat down he took. His co-worker at the clown agency didn't deserve to die for his misdeeds. His mother was dealing with her own visible and obvious to all, except Arthur, mental instability, and she didn't deserve to die for her actions influenced by her own disorders, no matter how hurtful they ended up being to Arthur. And for sure, Murray didn't "have it coming" simply because he made that video of Arthur bombing onstage public and made some tepid jokes about it.


I'm not sure the various messages a cross section of the audience might intuit from the film after seeing it, but for sure the movie rides a fine line with exactly how much empathizing or projection onto Arthur as the "hero" of the story we should have. But the homicides Arthur commits, and them indeed eventually inspires, ultimately in my mind have no justification. Think about this... From what we see of Gotham and the rioters in the streets at the end, what is all that vast chaos and destruction come down to, really? Okay, the city is in a rough patch, there's a garbage strike, a recession, cutting of city services and, oh yeah, a rich guy made an offhand comment about citizens supporting a killer as being "clowns". This justifies... A riot that must have claimed more lives than the just the Wayne's that night. The crowd in the end mirrors Arthur. This wasn't a protest for some, excuse the wording that might "trigger" some, social injustice, some obvious corruption with a well defined villain or villains at the center of it. This was inchoate rage expressing itself and finding in the Joker an avatar to serve as it's symbol. An Anti-Vietnam protest, racially charged riot over police brutality or the current situation in Hong Kong this surely was not.

Arthur, no matter how much **** he is dealing with, and not all of it just heaped on him from the outside, he lacks any wisdom or self reflection about himself I would strongly argue regardless of his mental state. He thinks his way to infamy, literally speaking, is at first to blow off his own head on live TV. But he makes the CHOICE to instead visit violence on others because he's come to his own conclusions about the nature of life as he's experienced it. People now deserve to die, because Arthur's ego is bruised, because he's resentful of the world, what it's done to him and how SOME people have treated him. And the actions of the few now become rationale to embrace and embody nihilism to the Nth degree, cynically so in my mind. Because he just wants to lash out. He just wants to hurt as he's been hurt because life has been so very unfair, and he feels that justifies whatever he does next. I don't think I should have to spell out the implications but, maybe I do. Arthur has NO justification to kill as he is shown doing in the film and as we know his destiny, as he will in the future. One's own pain and suffering is not a sanction to go out and visit misery and violence on the innocent, whatever pseudo-deep sophomoric philosophical bull**** Arthur (Or most incarnations of the Joker across media...) pronounce publicly. Same with the obviously desperate people of Gotham that end up taking part in a huge violent riot and then cheering for him at the end. (And... A somewhat interesting statement that is. The public does seem to have a culpability in creating it's own monsters not just by some ironic chain of events or unthinking cruelty or brutishness. No, sometimes we turn those that are so obviously themselves without pity or mercy, or with deranged senses of self into a champion of sorts... But that might be a better saved for a more politically focused discussion.) Whatever slights the man that shot the Wayne's at the end might have felt he didn't have any reason, in the eyes of the laws of God and man, or whatever rubric of what constitutes justice and moral action within a civil society, to murder them in cold blood, just as Arthur's killing of Murray had zero reasons, again, beyond Arthur's hurt feelings.

I think that there is a valid interpretation that the Joker in this film emerges from a place of justified pain from suffering on a human level... What he chooses to do with that pain is inexcusable.

I guess my answer to Arthur's On Air description of the emotional and philosophical justifications for why he is the way he is and does what he does is the same as the Caped Crusader's:

Spoiler

 

[jolldan]

 

[Schlosser85]

Tagged for length:

Spoiler

This is something I think gets lost in the way the film really does want you to in some way identify with Fleck. First off, without a doubt there are millions of people in this world dealing with a life not too dissimilar to what Arthur endures. Perhaps, true, victims of circumstance combined with deep flaws in themselves that put them on paths towards terrible and potential stunting self pity, or for whom the weight of the pressures, failures and injustices of life grind them down, often until the grave, with no one ever seeing them really, empathizing with their plight or reaching out in a way that is worth a damn.


Which while true, in the film this belies the central problem with Arthur's life story, or with Arthur. (Note: this is not a negative criticism of the film per se. I'm just breaking down an astronomically sized flaw Arthur, his character and his world view has by the end of the film.) It's true that there are cases of people who have lives that mirror to one degree or another the slings and arrows that Arthur endures, and there are many who are living with mental health issues on top of all that. And yet... Not all, not even a majority of those self same people end up being dangerous to themselves or others. Nowhere near a majority do these people turn their resentments and frustrations outward, eventually turning to violence and murder to even the score against life and all the people they think should be held responsible for their personal misery.


Stray observation... Murray I think is of course a show biz broadcaster. Personally I got less a Johnny Carson/Dave Letterman/Jay Leno vibe and more that he's Gotham City's Joe Franklin. What we saw of the show didn't really seem like a big time network talk show. This seemed like a local legend deal. A fairly staid and conservative show that, well, your mom, older aunts, uncles and grandmothers watched.

For those not in the know or too young to understand the reference:

Joe Franklin - Wikipedia


Why is that is important to my view? Because for me I didn't get a smarmy vibe from Deniro in the part. The callous show biz guy aspect was in my mind represented in the person of Murray's producer played by Marc Maron, who was practically dripping with disdain for Arthur the second he showed up in the story. When you see the backstage meeting with Murray, yes, he's doing this as the host of the show, and because he thinks it might be entertaining to interview this person he gave some random local fame to. But I don't recall him being egregiously dismissive or cruel to Fleck. Probably because Murray thinks that someone should have a, well, sense of humor about themselves, ironic when speaking of the Joker. True, the deck is stacked against Arthur at every turn, and his experiences, degrading mental state and lack of any kind of safety net or support from family or friends inform him as a character and his decisions... But explanations are not the same thing as exculpatory excuses.

One might, MIGHT excuse Arthur's first two killings on the subway with an old saw about self defense. It's when he decided to go after the third guy and pursue hum that he crossed a major line. He hunted that guy down and summarily executed him. Maybe one could say that ******* (or even all three) brought it on themselves. For me though, even for as bad as the situation was, Arthur didn't deserve to act as judge, jury and executioner, yes, even for that beat down he took. His co-worker at the clown agency didn't deserve to die for his misdeeds. His mother was dealing with her own visible and obvious to all, except Arthur, mental instability, and she didn't deserve to die for her actions influenced by her own disorders, no matter how hurtful they ended up being to Arthur. And for sure, Murray didn't "have it coming" simply because he made that video of Arthur bombing onstage public and made some tepid jokes about it.


I'm not sure the various messages a cross section of the audience might intuit from the film after seeing it, but for sure the movie rides a fine line with exactly how much empathizing or projection onto Arthur as the "hero" of the story we should have. But the homicides Arthur commits, and them indeed eventually inspires, ultimately in my mind have no justification. Think about this... From what we see of Gotham and the rioters in the streets at the end, what is all that vast chaos and destruction come down to, really? Okay, the city is in a rough patch, there's a garbage strike, a recession, cutting of city services and, oh yeah, a rich guy made an offhand comment about citizens supporting a killer as being "clowns". This justifies... A riot that must have claimed more lives than the just the Wayne's that night. The crowd in the end mirrors Arthur. This wasn't a protest for some, excuse the wording that might "trigger" some, social injustice, some obvious corruption with a well defined villain or villains at the center of it. This was inchoate rage expressing itself and finding in the Joker an avatar to serve as it's symbol. An Anti-Vietnam protest, racially charged riot over police brutality or the current situation in Hong Kong this surely was not.

Arthur, no matter how much **** he is dealing with, and not all of it just heaped on him from the outside, he lacks any wisdom or self reflection about himself I would strongly argue regardless of his mental state. He thinks his way to infamy, literally speaking, is at first to blow off his own head on live TV. But he makes the CHOICE to instead visit violence on others because he's come to his own conclusions about the nature of life as he's experienced it. People now deserve to die, because Arthur's ego is bruised, because he's resentful of the world, what it's done to him and how SOME people have treated him. And the actions of the few now become rationale to embrace and embody nihilism to the Nth degree, cynically so in my mind. Because he just wants to lash out. He just wants to hurt as he's been hurt because life has been so very unfair, and he feels that justifies whatever he does next. I don't think I should have to spell out the implications but, maybe I do. Arthur has NO justification to kill as he is shown doing in the film and as we know his destiny, as he will in the future. One's own pain and suffering is not a sanction to go out and visit misery and violence on the innocent, whatever pseudo-deep sophomoric philosophical bull**** Arthur (Or most incarnations of the Joker across media...) pronounce publicly. Same with the obviously desperate people of Gotham that end up taking part in a huge violent riot and then cheering for him at the end. (And... A somewhat interesting statement that is. The public does seem to have a culpability in creating it's own monsters not just by some ironic chain of events or unthinking cruelty or brutishness. No, sometimes we turn those that are so obviously themselves without pity or mercy, or with deranged senses of self into a champion of sorts... But that might be a better saved for a more politically focused discussion.) Whatever slights the man that shot the Wayne's at the end might have felt he didn't have any reason, in the eyes of the laws of God and man, or whatever rubric of what constitutes justice and moral action within a civil society, to murder them in cold blood, just as Arthur's killing of Murray had zero reasons, again, beyond Arthur's hurt feelings.

I think that there is a valid interpretation that the Joker in this film emerges from a place of justified pain from suffering on a human level... What he chooses to do with that pain is inexcusable.

I guess my answer to Arthur's On Air description of the emotional and philosophical justifications for why he is the way he is and does what he does is the same as the Caped Crusader's:

Spoiler

Like I said before, if this Joker ever fought Batman, I’d like a bit similar to The Killing Joke where Batman calls him out and basically says “maybe it was just you”, which is also very similar to the bit in The Dark Knight after he can’t get the ferry passengers to blow each other up, when Batman says “what were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone’s as ugly as you?”.

 

[Deck Rickard]

A little while ago, someone brought up the split personality angle, and noted that in his journal, Arthur refers to "him" a lot, perhaps signifying that he has this other personality he's trying to keep from coming out. I think that theory is really good and the end of the movie might be a clue to this, because I think it drew some influences from the book, Fight Club (not the movie).

For those who haven't read it (SPOILERS AHEAD), in the book, the narrator shoots himself like in the movie. But instead of being relatively okay and leaving with Marla and the Project Mayhem guys, we're initially led to believe that he died and goes to heaven. The more the narration goes on though, it becomes clear that he's in a mental institution and "God" is actually a psychiatrist who he's talking to. The setup is very similar to the end of Joker, where Arkham almost appears as a heaven-like environment and very different from the Arkham we see earlier in the film. Maybe I'm just reading too much into things but I wonder if that was a subtle nod to that book and the split personality stuff.

 

[jolldan]

Not sure if anyone has seen this, really cool art

 

[Schlosser85]

Not sure if anyone has seen this, really cool art

Really cool. They didn't use Ledger's best laugh though, IMO (for me that's at the end of the video torturing the fake Batman).

 

[Doc Samson]

(SPOILERS AHEAD), in the book, the narrator shoots himself like in the movie. But instead of being relatively okay and leaving with Marla and the Project Mayhem guys, we're initially led to believe that he died and goes to heaven. The more the narration goes on though, it becomes clear that he's in a mental institution and "God" is actually a psychiatrist who he's talking to. The setup is very similar to the end of Joker, where Arkham almost appears as a heaven-like environment and very different from the Arkham we see earlier in the film. Maybe I'm just reading too much into things but I wonder if that was a subtle nod to that book and the split personality stuff.

Agreed 100%

I thought it was pretty obvious that the scene was shot in a way to invoke heaven. I believe Arthur died during the car crash and the end is some sort of personal purgatory/spiritual hell, in which he may never be able to escape through the doors and into "the light" without some kind of repentance. I thought him "killing" the psychiatrist and being chased endlessly is the loop he'll be stuck in because he's too far gone for any remorse.

OR he's just telling stories to the psychiatrist in an attempt to make himself the hero of his own tale. Since we're seeing everything from his perspective, the split personality thing is an interesting take I didn't consider...

 

[Deck Rickard]

Agreed 100%

I thought it was pretty obvious that the scene was shot in a way to invoke heaven. I believe Arthur died during the car crash and the end is some sort of personal purgatory/spiritual hell, in which he may never be able to escape through the doors and into "the light" without some kind of repentance. I thought him "killing" the psychiatrist and being chased endlessly is the loop he'll be stuck in because he's too far gone for any remorse.

OR he's just telling stories to the psychiatrist in an attempt to make himself the hero of his own tale. Since we're seeing everything from his perspective, the split personality thing is an interesting take I didn't consider...

Yeah, those things are definitely possible. I also wonder if it's possible that the final scene actually takes place in the present day (given how different Arkham looks from how it's previously presented) and if the Joker figured out who Batman is by inserting himself in the narrative (hence why we see that quick flash of Bruce standing over his parents). Maybe I'm just thinking WAY too much about it and I want to see this version of the Joker face off with Pattinson's Batman somewhere down the line but that would be a way to kinda make it work.