Joker- Full Spoiler Talk (SPOILERS)

[TheGuy]

 

[jolldan]

 

[Micromind]

Saw the movie, it was intense movie, some scenes can be tough to watch, brilliant performance by Joaquin Phoenix. I also like De Niro's performance.

While it was a character study of DC comics villain (else-worlds origin) it does highlight the struggles of people suffering with mental illness and the need for their treatment and the need to spread some awareness about it.

I disagree with the criticisms that this movie equates mental illness with violence, here it must be understood that Arthur Fleck had certain darkness within him, which is not the case with most of the other people who suffer from this illness. His "condition" was also due to abuse he suffered when he was a child. So a lot of things contributed to his eventual descent into madness and villainy.

The other thing I noticed that Gotham City was already on the brink of civil unrest, if not Arthur Fleck then some other person, some other incident would have pushed the City into chaos and lawlessness. So, the City itself is also a villain in the story.

 

[Micromind]

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")

 

[Micromind]

I think they edited out some scenes they filmed. Was this shown ?

Or the scene where Thomas Wayne makes a speech at Town Hall (campaigning for Mayor)?

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

I think they made the right choice in changing the bathroom scene.

 

[Moncton]

I am probably wrong about this, but I thought the movie was giving hints throughout that this is either a made up story by Joker or completely exaggerated. For example, the last scene at the talk show, when he confesses to the murders, a normal reaction would be to immediately cut the show and call the cops, not let him continue talking for minutes explaining why he did it

 

[FunkMiller]

Haven’t went through entire draft yet, just glossed over the big parts. What were the overt references that got dropped?

In any case, the coda remains true to the original context of the flashback and “joke” reference. Todd just decided to show it instead of say it. Certainly at the very least it seems like a fair reading of intent.
.

You literally posted about an overt reference to Batman in the earlier draft.

And you’re reaching about the scene as it stands in the movie. Yes, the line about a joke she wouldn’t understand is juxtaposed with Bruce in Crime Alley, but that does not mean he’s talking about a joke only Batman would get.

He could be saying his entire story is a joke she wouldn’t get. Or that the idea of Batman is a joke she wouldn’t get. The context and meaning are not the same.

 

[Micromind]

I am probably wrong about this, but I thought the movie was giving hints throughout that this is either a made up story by Joker or completely exaggerated. For example, the last scene at the talk show, when he confesses to the murders, a normal reaction would be to immediately cut the show and call the cops, not let him continue talking for minutes explaining why he did it

The incident may or may not have happened. If it did happen, then in Joker's mind he is imagining how he wanted it to play out and adding to it.

 

[Jekecy]

You literally posted about an overt reference to Batman in the earlier draft.

It's not dropped. He substituted saying "it's between me and him" with a shot of Bruce and his dead parents. To any layman, that's an obvious reference to Batman. It's impossible to look at that scene and not have the character pop into your head. Todd knew exactly what he would be evoking with that imagery. He's not playing to the esoteric.

And you’re reaching about the scene as it stands in the movie. Yes, the line about a joke she wouldn’t understand is juxtaposed with Bruce in Crime Alley, but that does not mean he’s talking about a joke only Batman would get.

He could be saying his entire story is a joke she wouldn’t get. Or that the idea of Batman is a joke she wouldn’t get. The context and meaning are not the same.

I just showed proof of what that moment explicitly means in the script. Written by Todd himself. The entire sequence is laid out in exact detail to what shows up in the film. Down to including the similar shot composition in comparison to the earlier therapy sessions and the outro song that plays into the credits.

It's the final punchline of the movie and the last thing you'll leave your audiences with. You're saying it's more likely Todd completely altered the meaning of the film's finish which he has stuck to 95% of the way (and written to meticulous detail), rather than the very simple read he swapped out the "tell" of a reference, to a "show"?

Bro I think you're finding all the ways you can to convince the world Batman can't/doesn't exist here, despite the writer/director's own words both on page and video.

 

[FunkMiller]

Bro I think you're finding all the ways you can to convince the world Batman can't/doesn't exist here, despite the writer/director's own words both on page and video.

See, I think you’re doing the exact opposite... trying to convince that there’s no ambiguity about whether Batman could exist or not, when it’s a movie that stays deliberately ambiguous for a reason.

Tell you what, just agree to disagree?

 

[Hollis Mason]

See, I think you’re doing the exact opposite... trying to convince that there’s no ambiguity about whether Batman could exist or not, when it’s a movie that stays deliberately ambiguous for a reason.

Tell you what, just agree to disagree?

He gave proof. You have given nothing but your opinion of what the movie is or how do you want it to be.

 

[BatLobster]

To me, if the point Phillips wanted to drive home was that this was a dark, bizarro world where Batman never exists, the best way to have done that would've been to kill Bruce along with Thomas and Martha. That would've been a really screwed up exclamation point on the whole thing.

Instead the film leaned on the classic imagery of the Waynes' murders and suggested that Joker knows it has more significance. I don't think it's too ambiguous, I think Phillips wanted to lean on the audience's familiarity with the Batman story and make a connection between Joker and Batman in his film's final moments.

 

[Kane52630]

I suppose this was cut as well.

 

[The Guard]

Watching this movie again, when Joker is at the top of the car in the ending, for a moment he seems like he's going to cry. Almost like a small part of Arthur is still inside him. But when he paints the smile on his face, all is gone. Phoenix acting was incredible there.

It's almost all him crying. He doesn't express it the way others do. The movie takes great pains to set that up. That's partially why there's a "tear" painted on Joker's makeup. The crying clown is a classic image, and the movie makes good use of it.

He's not ever actually laughing. He's basically weeping for the world the entire film while he becomes an agent chaos because of it. In his mind, at least.

 

[Jekecy]

See, I think you’re doing the exact opposite... trying to convince that there’s no ambiguity about whether Batman could exist or not, when it’s a movie that stays deliberately ambiguous for a reason.

Tell you what, just agree to disagree?

Hey man, disagreeing is the heart of message boards! No hard feelings.

I was just a little perplexed why you’re adamant on shooting down the idea, because there is some hard evidence to support it from Todd himself. How it speaks to the “actual” meaning of the film for an individual is still unique to the person. Death of the author and all that. I wasn’t ever trying to convince you your interpretation was invalid.

To me, if the point Phillips wanted to drive home was that this was a dark, bizarro world where Batman never exists, the best way to have done that would've been to kill Bruce along with Thomas and Martha. That would've been a really screwed up exclamation point on the whole thing.

Instead the film leaned on the classic imagery of the Waynes' murders and suggested that Joker knows it has more significance. I don't think it's too ambiguous, I think Phillips wanted to lean on the audience's familiarity with the Batman story and make a connection between Joker and Batman in his film's final moments.

I don’t remember if it was a false spoiler or not, but I read here a while ago that Bruce indeed was going to be killed. So the whole time I was on the edge of my seat wondering if that was coming into play. Imagine my surprise when it’s still the classic murder, and that damn iconic shot to boot. Chills.

 

[Broseph44]

I knew the spoilers going in and saw leaked clips beforehand, because I’m just a spoilers kinda guy. But just got back from the film now and wow that was incredible. What a film.

So many themes and messages. Amazing performance by Phoenix. Excellent soundtrack and score and wonderful cinematography. One of the best films of the year.

 

[Broseph44]

Also their version and take on things of the Joker/Batman universe and mythos is excellent and executed very well.

 

[Broseph44]

I personally think Arthur Fleck is not the real Joker that Bruce will be up against, but just an inspiration to the real deal, who I think was the one who shoots the parents in the end.

Yeahhh, no.

 

[Frodo]

In alot of ways, I wonder if this version of Arthur Fleck/Joker would end up going up against a grown up Batman. I wonder what this Joker's purpose would be going forward.

It's hard for me to see this Joker making the leap to becoming a chaos agent, the Clown Prince of Crime, or being the type to poison the water supply or reign terror on the entire city.

I pretty much feel like the end of this Joker's story is the end we saw, and that he'd basically stay in Arkham or wherever he is, for the rest of his life. I really don't see him having a future as a master criminal who Batman fights time and time again.

Now its fiction of course, and Phillips could take the story anywhere he wants , but after seeing the film, his assertion that this is a one shot makes alot of sense to me.

 

[The Infernal]

I don't see this Joker sitting around in Arkham. The last we see of him is him running loose in Arkham having just killed someone. I could see him out terrorising Gotham now that he's found his purpose.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

 

[The Guard]

What if the clown that shot the Waynes at the end was...Alfred?

 

[Frodo]

I don't see this Joker sitting around in Arkham. The last we see of him is him running loose in Arkham having just killed someone. I could see him out terrorising Gotham now that he's found his purpose.

I don't see him leaving Arkham, meaning he's not gonna be able to escape. He killed someone at the end, but he was being chased, so I don't see him getting away. It's up to interpretation of course, so there isn't a right or wrong way to see it.

For me as a viewer, Its hard to see what would come next for his version that would be consistent with his version. What would his future goal be beyond what he's done. He's the only Joker i've seen in which its hard for me to imagine the path he would go on.

 

[Invader Joker]

I don't see him leaving Arkham, meaning he's not gonna be able to escape. He killed someone at the end, but he was being chased, so I don't see him getting away. It's up to interpretation of course, so there isn't a right or wrong way to see it.

For me as a viewer, Its hard to see what would come next for his version that would be consistent with his version. What would his future goal be beyond what he's done. He's the only Joker i've seen in which its hard for me to imagine the path he would go on.

I think he'd just spend the next 20 years learning to be a master criminal just like he wanted to learn to be a comedian. Then when Batman shows up he'd finally have a reason to live and use his knowledge to terrorize the city.

20 years is a long time to learn all the things he needs to learn to be comic booky Batman villain Joker.