That is fair enough. my point is what might grate with one person may appeal to another. It is one of the reasons I loved the film personally.
Arthur probably doesn't know what is real and what isn't which I like.
That's a fair point and I think it's true that Arthur is away with the fairies a lot of the time but I think it would have helped us to get more of a handle on his character if we'd known when that was or, as someone suggested somewhere earlier, the whole film could be his delusional fancy and I'm fairly sure that's not true,
That is fair enough. my point is what might grate with one person may appeal to another. It is one of the reasons I loved the film personally.
Arthur probably doesn't know what is real and what isn't which I like.
That's a fair point and I think it's true that Arthur is away with the fairies a lot of the time but I think it would have helped us to get more of a handle on his character if we'd known when that was or, as someone suggested somewhere earlier, the whole film could be his delusional fancy and I'm fairly sure that's not true,
I think this can be partially explained by his meds being stopped, things seemed to take a turn for the worst at that point.
Went to see it tonight. I had avoided reading too much about it beforehand, but had picked up on the general vibe around the film.
I thought it was absolutely brilliant. The photography was stunning, the sense of time and place were superb, and of course JP's performance was incredible. I honestly think it's one of the best films I've seen, especially the first three quarters of it.
Stunningly produced shot acted written, may not be to everyone’s taste and may not be a movie everyone wants or needs to see.
very relevant to today of course, for me addressed the sometimes ignored paradox of the batman universe, extreme wealth / poverty, Victorian approach to insanity, and link to violent crime which the Wayne foundation never manages to fix instead it mainly funds BW using tech to beat the crap out of them, but the message is there below the surface.
Saw it last night. If there's a better performance than Joaquin Phoenix this year, I'd like to see it. Still thinking about the film now. I thought it was incredible. And yes, I got all the De Niro/Scorsese references - King of Comedy, Taxi Driver - which is why De Niro was in it, to make the references obvious. Although no one, to my knowledge, has made a reference to this yet:
Saw it on Thursday. Wouldn't say it's in the top rank of films overall, but Joaquin Phoenix's performance is incredible, amazing, brilliant. Probably the greatest I have ever seen. Nailed on for best actor Oscar.
Quite a few yearsf ago, I used to have a job finding jobs for people with disabilities. I would build relationships with good employers which were productive. On one occasion, I took one of my clients to an interview at a local Sainsburys. He had been referred to me by a mental health charity. All seemed to be going well until he asked the personnel manager during his interview whether she would whip him and them whether she would call the police.
I was mortified. As well as this bloke blowing his chances, i was worried I might lose a productive partner. I spoke to the charity afterwards, mystified as to why he would do such a thing when he seemed so well earlier. The bloke from the charity said to me, "well he is mad".
He didn't use the politically correct language on purpose to make the obvious point to me. I learned a lot from that. I was expecting him not to act like somebody who is mentally ill. Ok, many others would act to my expectations, but I shouldn't be surprised when somebody didn't. I have mentioned this, because I feel it backs up why we absolutely don't have to understand Arthur and the fact that we try to may be one of the points the film is making.
Quite a few yearsf ago, I used to have a job finding jobs for people with disabilities. I would build relationships with good employers which were productive. On one occasion, I took one of my clients to an interview at a local Sainsburys. He had been referred to me by a mental health charity. All seemed to be going well until he asked the personnel manager during his interview whether she would whip him and them whether she would call the police.
I was mortified. As well as this bloke blowing his chances, i was worried I might lose a productive partner. I spoke to the charity afterwards, mystified as to why he would do such a thing when he seemed so well earlier. The bloke from the charity said to me, "well he is mad".
He didn't use the politically correct language on purpose to make the obvious point to me. I learned a lot from that. I was expecting him not to act like somebody who is mentally ill. Ok, many others would act to my expectations, but I shouldn't be surprised when somebody didn't. I have mentioned this, because I feel it backs up why we absolutely don't have to understand Arthur and the fact that we try to may be one of the points the film is making.
That's an interesting point.
I take it you probably won't ever forget that particular experience...mostly due to the suprising nature of it and for probably quite a few reasons.
Was it quite confusingly difficult to witness?
Sounds a bit heartbreaking really, in a strange way.
We all need jobs and have to start somewhere. Also sounds like a good reasonable decent way to begin. He was given a chance.
He was obviously willing enough...up to a certain point at least. He turned up to the interview but shot himself in the foot at what was possibly the last hurdle.
Whether he fully intended to or not, I guess is the question you might have asked yourself.
You are right. Sometimes it is just hard to understand other people...and we also don't necessarily have to understand them.
'Joker' is a waste of an excellent performance by Phoenix. It was slow, not that I am averse to slow films, per se, because a film can be 'slow' yet still possess rhythm which this did not; it limped and goose stepped from one scene to another. I also found it clunky and derivative, nothing more so than the 'The King of Comedy' leitmotif, the denouement of which was wholly unbelievable, in which De Niro's lazy and unconvincing performance was very conspicuous. A shame, because I fully invested in Phoenix's character - my favourite scene being his session with the psychiatrist - with his 'inappropriate' laughing and contorted/fluid physicality a moving indicator of his fragile mental state that one couldn't help but feel sympathy for. I don't imagine for one minute there won't be a 'Batman v Joker' follow-up; the DC film factory will continue to churn out its multi-million dollar grossing films for as long as its audience has an appetite for them, and it's an appetite that would appear to be of the morbidly obese and Type 2 diabetes variety.
'Joker' is a waste of an excellent performance by Phoenix. It was slow, not that I am averse to slow films, per se, because a film can be 'slow' yet still possess rhythm which this did not; it limped and goose stepped from one scene to another. I also found it clunky and derivative, nothing more so than the 'The King of Comedy' leitmotif, the denouement of which was wholly unbelievable, in which De Niro's lazy and unconvincing performance was very conspicuous. A shame, because I fully invested in Phoenix's character - my favourite scene being his session with the psychiatrist - with his 'inappropriate' laughing and contorted/fluid physicality a moving indicator of his fragile mental state that one couldn't help but feel sympathy for. I don't imagine for one minute there won't be a 'Batman v Joker' follow-up; the DC film factory will continue to churn out its multi-million dollar grossing films for as long as its audience has an appetite for them, and it's an appetite that would appear to be of the morbidly obese and Type 2 diabetes variety.
That is genuinely an interesting view
It's pretty spot on to be fair.
It was a very good film though in my opinion, overall.
'Joker' is a waste of an excellent performance by Phoenix. It was slow, not that I am averse to slow films, per se, because a film can be 'slow' yet still possess rhythm which this did not; it limped and goose stepped from one scene to another. I also found it clunky and derivative, nothing more so than the 'The King of Comedy' leitmotif, the denouement of which was wholly unbelievable, in which De Niro's lazy and unconvincing performance was very conspicuous. A shame, because I fully invested in Phoenix's character - my favourite scene being his session with the psychiatrist - with his 'inappropriate' laughing and contorted/fluid physicality a moving indicator of his fragile mental state that one couldn't help but feel sympathy for. I don't imagine for one minute there won't be a 'Batman v Joker' follow-up; the DC film factory will continue to churn out its multi-million dollar grossing films for as long as its audience has an appetite for them, and it's an appetite that would appear to be of the morbidly obese and Type 2 diabetes variety.
That is genuinely an interesting view
It's pretty spot on to be fair.
It was a very good film though in my opinion, overall.
Fair dos. Ultimately - Phoenix aside - I just didn't 'like' it, which is, of course, a wholly subjective standpoint.
I don't think there will be a Batman v Joker film. I think Batman is too precious a brand to develop the story in the way the Joker movie did. Of course it would make money, lots of it, but most of the audience may be rooting for the Joker. If done well it could be interesting though.
I don't think there will be a Batman v Joker film. I think Batman is too precious a brand to develop the story in the way the Joker movie did. Of course it would make money, lots of it, but most of the audience may be rooting for the Joker. If done well it could be interesting though.
Interesting isn't it....when shows take the perspective of the villan.
If Breaking Bad was 100% looking at things through the eyes of Hank...and Walt/Jesse were not the main characters. It was mostly just the cops and robbers. Walt would just feature from time to time.
Then the audience would probably absolutely hate Walt. He would be seen as this extra creepy beyond evil vicious caniving character...that we would love to see behind bars.
He receives sympathy because we know how his bad side was more of a gradual build up...and why it happened.
I guess the main moral of the story is...try putting yourself in someone else's shoes...before judging them.
Unless your name is Roland. Or anything else sub human.
I don't think there will be a Batman v Joker film. I think Batman is too precious a brand to develop the story in the way the Joker movie did. Of course it would make money, lots of it, but most of the audience may be rooting for the Joker. If done well it could be interesting though.
Interesting isn't it....when shows take the perspective of the villan.
If Breaking Bad was 100% looking at things through the eyes of Hank...and Walt/Jesse were not the main characters. It was mostly just the cops and robbers. Walt would just feature from time to time.
Then the audience would probably absolutely hate Walt. He would be seen as this extra creepy beyond evil vicious caniving character...that we would love to see behind bars.
He receives sympathy because we know how his bad side was more of a gradual build up...and why it happened.
I guess the main moral of the story is...try putting yourself in someone else's shoes...before judging them.
Unless your name is Roland. Or anything else sub human.
The rise of the anti hero... started by Tony Soprano...
I don't think there will be a Batman v Joker film. I think Batman is too precious a brand to develop the story in the way the Joker movie did. Of course it would make money, lots of it, but most of the audience may be rooting for the Joker. If done well it could be interesting though.
Interesting isn't it....when shows take the perspective of the villan.
If Breaking Bad was 100% looking at things through the eyes of Hank...and Walt/Jesse were not the main characters. It was mostly just the cops and robbers. Walt would just feature from time to time.
Then the audience would probably absolutely hate Walt. He would be seen as this extra creepy beyond evil vicious caniving character...that we would love to see behind bars.
He receives sympathy because we know how his bad side was more of a gradual build up...and why it happened.
I guess the main moral of the story is...try putting yourself in someone else's shoes...before judging them.
Unless your name is Roland. Or anything else sub human.
The rise of the anti hero... started by Tony Soprano...
Plenty more long before Tony Soprano .
Travis Bickle and Hannibal Lecter are two that spring to mind .
I watched it a few days ago and liked it very much. Joaquin Phoenix should definitely win an Oscar. His former brother-in-law Casey Affleck won the award for his performance in Manchester by the Sea two years ago. I'm a big fan of Casey Affleck but honestly speaking Phoenix did a much much more phenominal job than Affleck. The last 15 or so minutes remind me of what has been happening in HK.... I'm sure some people there absolutely adore this film....
Finally saw it today. I’m just thankful that it wasn’t out earlier this year when I visited the chiropractor. As whilst he was manipulating my bones back into place I laughed all the way through, like a hyena. A very unusual response he said. Joaquin was magnificent. The Glitter track was inspired. Feck the royalties, we all know what he is & that’s why it was used. Brilliant.
I don't think there will be a Batman v Joker film. I think Batman is too precious a brand to develop the story in the way the Joker movie did. Of course it would make money, lots of it, but most of the audience may be rooting for the Joker. If done well it could be interesting though.
Interesting isn't it....when shows take the perspective of the villan.
If Breaking Bad was 100% looking at things through the eyes of Hank...and Walt/Jesse were not the main characters. It was mostly just the cops and robbers. Walt would just feature from time to time.
Then the audience would probably absolutely hate Walt. He would be seen as this extra creepy beyond evil vicious caniving character...that we would love to see behind bars.
He receives sympathy because we know how his bad side was more of a gradual build up...and why it happened.
I guess the main moral of the story is...try putting yourself in someone else's shoes...before judging them.
Unless your name is Roland. Or anything else sub human.
The rise of the anti hero... started by Tony Soprano...
Plenty more long before Tony Soprano .
Travis Bickle and Hannibal Lecter are two that spring to mind .
I don't think there will be a Batman v Joker film. I think Batman is too precious a brand to develop the story in the way the Joker movie did. Of course it would make money, lots of it, but most of the audience may be rooting for the Joker. If done well it could be interesting though.
Interesting isn't it....when shows take the perspective of the villan.
If Breaking Bad was 100% looking at things through the eyes of Hank...and Walt/Jesse were not the main characters. It was mostly just the cops and robbers. Walt would just feature from time to time.
Then the audience would probably absolutely hate Walt. He would be seen as this extra creepy beyond evil vicious caniving character...that we would love to see behind bars.
He receives sympathy because we know how his bad side was more of a gradual build up...and why it happened.
I guess the main moral of the story is...try putting yourself in someone else's shoes...before judging them.
Unless your name is Roland. Or anything else sub human.
The rise of the anti hero... started by Tony Soprano...
Plenty more long before Tony Soprano .
Travis Bickle and Hannibal Lecter are two that spring to mind .
Fair enough... both good examples... I think Tony would be the first anti hero fleshed out over the 60 hour story ...
Lecter isn’t an anti-hero! He’s a bona fide villain that we’re supposed to fear, not someone we root for (unless you wanted those security guards to get their faces ripped off).
Michael Corleone, Tony Montana, Randle McMurphy...
Also, I started to really dislike Walter White around season 3, I’m surprised so many people were rooting for him to the end!
Lecter isn’t an anti-hero! He’s a bona fide villain that we’re supposed to fear, not someone we root for (unless you wanted those security guards to get their faces ripped off).
Michael Corleone, Tony Montana, Randle McMurphy...
Also, I started to really dislike Walter White around season 3, I’m surprised so many people were rooting for him to the end!
Totally agree re Hannibal Lecter. I was slightly surprised Beds mentioned this character. He's pure evil and one of the most disgusting characters I've ever seen in fictions. Absolutely different from Arthur in this film.
Lecter isn’t an anti-hero! He’s a bona fide villain that we’re supposed to fear, not someone we root for (unless you wanted those security guards to get their faces ripped off).
Michael Corleone, Tony Montana, Randle McMurphy...
Also, I started to really dislike Walter White around season 3, I’m surprised so many people were rooting for him to the end!
I disagree . The only reason Starling was in contact with Lecter was to catch another serial killer of which he helped in his own manipulative way .
This guy has a good take on the question of Lecter as an Anti Hero
Comments
I thought it was absolutely brilliant. The photography was stunning, the sense of time and place were superb, and of course JP's performance was incredible. I honestly think it's one of the best films I've seen, especially the first three quarters of it.
9.5/10 from me.
very relevant to today of course, for me addressed the sometimes ignored paradox of the batman universe, extreme wealth / poverty, Victorian approach to insanity, and link to violent crime which the Wayne foundation never manages to fix instead it mainly funds BW using tech to beat the crap out of them, but the message is there below the surface.
I was mortified. As well as this bloke blowing his chances, i was worried I might lose a productive partner. I spoke to the charity afterwards, mystified as to why he would do such a thing when he seemed so well earlier. The bloke from the charity said to me, "well he is mad".
He didn't use the politically correct language on purpose to make the obvious point to me. I learned a lot from that. I was expecting him not to act like somebody who is mentally ill. Ok, many others would act to my expectations, but I shouldn't be surprised when somebody didn't. I have mentioned this, because I feel it backs up why we absolutely don't have to understand Arthur and the fact that we try to may be one of the points the film is making.
That's an interesting point.
I take it you probably won't ever forget that particular experience...mostly due to the suprising nature of it and for probably quite a few reasons.
Was it quite confusingly difficult to witness?
Sounds a bit heartbreaking really, in a strange way.
We all need jobs and have to start somewhere. Also sounds like a good reasonable decent way to begin. He was given a chance.
He was obviously willing enough...up to a certain point at least. He turned up to the interview but shot himself in the foot at what was possibly the last hurdle.
Whether he fully intended to or not, I guess is the question you might have asked yourself.
You are right. Sometimes it is just hard to understand other people...and we also don't necessarily have to understand them.
They are there own person.
People do not own other people.
I also found it clunky and derivative, nothing more so than the 'The King of Comedy' leitmotif, the denouement of which was wholly unbelievable, in which De Niro's lazy and unconvincing performance was very conspicuous.
A shame, because I fully invested in Phoenix's character - my favourite scene being his session with the psychiatrist - with his 'inappropriate' laughing and contorted/fluid physicality a moving indicator of his fragile mental state that one couldn't help but feel sympathy for.
I don't imagine for one minute there won't be a 'Batman v Joker' follow-up; the DC film factory will continue to churn out its multi-million dollar grossing films for as long as its audience has an appetite for them, and it's an appetite that would appear to be of the morbidly obese and Type 2 diabetes variety.
That is genuinely an interesting view
It's pretty spot on to be fair.
It was a very good film though in my opinion, overall.
Interesting isn't it....when shows take the perspective of the villan.
If Breaking Bad was 100% looking at things through the eyes of Hank...and Walt/Jesse were not the main characters. It was mostly just the cops and robbers.
Walt would just feature from time to time.
Then the audience would probably absolutely hate Walt. He would be seen as this extra creepy beyond evil vicious caniving character...that we would love to see behind bars.
He receives sympathy because we know how his bad side was more of a gradual build up...and why it happened.
I guess the main moral of the story is...try putting yourself in someone else's shoes...before judging them.
Unless your name is Roland. Or anything else sub human.
Travis Bickle and Hannibal Lecter are two that spring to mind .
I’m just thankful that it wasn’t out earlier this year when I visited the chiropractor.
As whilst he was manipulating my bones back into place I laughed all the way through, like a hyena. A very unusual response he said.
Joaquin was magnificent.
The Glitter track was inspired.
Feck the royalties, we all know what he is & that’s why it was used.
Brilliant.
Also, I started to really dislike Walter White around season 3, I’m surprised so many people were rooting for him to the end!
https://www.atmostfear-entertainment.com/medias/motions/hannibal-lecter-number-one-villain-time/