NS: New trailer for 'The Penguin'
Mar. 23rd, 2024 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cyberghostface posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_daily
Oswald Cobblepot is getting his own show this fall. Thoughts? I'm a little conflicted. I thought Colin did a great job in The Batman but he still comes off as more of a Sopranos character than the Penguin. Robin Lord Taylor on Gotham had the proper balance in my opinion (although to be fair that show was much more willing to embrace the camp of the comics whereas Matt Reeves wants to make everything 'grounded').
no subject
Date: 2024-03-29 03:04 am (UTC)And you can't say Wikipedia isn't authoritative when you don't bring up the mistake. Because wikipedia is accurately recapping the movie. That is what happens in the movie. Thomas Wayne says that. Arthur goes to Arkham Asylum and confirms that. The movie gives us no reason to think he's wrong. There's nothing in the movie to suggest that it is baseless. There is no ambiguity. In fact, the movie makes a point to confirm that Thomas is right before Arthur kills his mother.
And on the psychiatrist, I find the argument that we're supposed to sympathise with her weak, given how the scene is actually framed. We aren't supposed to think that Arthur's in the wrong when he yells and screams at her. We aren't supposed to think that he's terrorising an innocent employee whose actually on his side. Arthur's rage and anger is treated as valid and justified. Arthur's anger is framed as him raging against the system, not terrorising his natural ally against the true bad guy. And if he's framed in the right, then what she actually represents (at least in the context of this scene, because this script forgets nearly everything the moment it cuts to a new scene) isn't an empathetic friend, but a cruel system that faked empathy even as it stabs you in the back. A system that says 'We're here to help' has it removes your benefits. The movie clearly wants us to think Arthur is righteous and correct to angrily rage and terrorise her about the injustice.
To put it another way, the movie is set up so that Arthur would be in the right to treat every single woman (except Zazie Beetz's imaginary character who doesn't exist) exactly as he treats the psychiatrist. So given that, it is hard to say that she's the one who the movie actually likes. Because like every other woman, she's a person that Arthur's violent rage can be righteously directly towards
And deleted scenes don't matter. They are literally deleted scenes. They don't impact the story. In fact, the scene could've been cut IN ORDER to create ambiguity (more likely, it is because there's no reason to follow Zazie Beetz's 'real' character given she's not actually meaningfully in the movie. Nor does the fact that Zazie Beetz being in the next movie matters, because my point isn't about what canonically happens to her. My point is that the sole positive female character was actually imaginary, and the actual context of the misogyny and the idea that Zazie Beetz's character was the object of his obsessions means there is only one emotionally honest direction it could go. But that doesn't mean that a movie as poorly constructed as Joker wouldn't go for the dishonest approach.
But the key point is that when the sole positive depiction of a woman is literally imaginary, while awful men like Thomas Wayne are given get out of jail free cards because the REAL PROBLEM in society are marginalised women like his mother, that's is a lot of unintended meaning being generated. THomas Wayne is an asshole, but he's not the actual problem. He is vindicated by the narrative. His mother is treated like a burden that infantalises Arthur, AND is the person ultimately responsible for everything that went wrong. Is it the intended theme? No. But that's the theme that ends up being generated.
It is the problem when a director spends his time trying to be a Mark Millar style edgelord who, like Mark Millar, doesn't understand the purpose of shock. When a director cares more about being shocking and edgy than actually telling a story or having something to say
There's a lot of space to discuss whether Todd Philip actually intended to make a misogynistic hate track. But lets actually bring things back to more definite grounds. Something I mentioned earlier, before we focused on the horrendous misogyny problem, and something I just remembered.
Why did the movie begin with Arthur committing a murder that in an intentional riff of a very famous 80s racist hate crime, but framed to make the shooter sympathetic? Why does the movie choose to create a vision of the 80s where the Bernhard Goetz, the man who had said "The only way we're going to clean up this street is to get rid of the [racist slurs I don't want to repeat]", was in the right for the subway shooting?
Why does the movie use, for the famous scene of Joker dancing down the stairs, use a song famously sung by a convicted pedophile? Why, out of all the music that could've been used, was that chosen?
Fundamentally, these are choices by someone who cares more about being a shitty edgelord than actually having anything meaningful to say. It is really easy to not attempt to redeem a famous hate crime. It is even easier not to use music of a famous pedophile. Joker doesn't have anything to say - that's why the script is so awful. Todd Philips just mistook Mark Millar style edgelord shock for provocative politics. Like I said, I don't believe he intended to make a misogynistic movie, but when you're going full Mark Millar, that's what often happens. When you're a movie that attempts to redeem a hate crime and celebrate a pedophile's music, is it a surprise that it consistently can't imagine women as anything other than a victim for Arthur's righteous rage, a cruel, nasty face who gives Arthur unreasonable hate or the literal author of all Arthur's pain?
The fact is, Joker came out in a year that included Parasite, Hustlers, Knives Out and Ready or Not. Those four movies represent that mini-genre that existed for a brief moment of 'Each the Rich' style movies that Joker pretends to be. But unlike Joker, none of those movies had the reveal that the main character was wrong for harassing the rich asshole, that the rich asshole was actually in the right or any other bullshit that Joker does with THomas Wayne. Those movies also very clearly put their sympathies really clearly behind the marginalised and don't do any of that edgelord shit that Joker does. Instead, they were all really good movies that actually knew what they were about and committed to their themes.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the critics said back then. The important thing is the actual movie itself. What's in the actual movie. Not what's in the sequel. Not what's in the deleted scenes. Not what may've happened in a theoretical version of the movie where Arkham files didn't agree with Thomas Wayne.
And unfortunately, what's in the movie is an edgelord director whitewashing racist mass shootings and screaming at every woman he can that they symbolise everything that's wrong with society while dancing down the stairs to Gary fucking Glitter. A movie where rich assholes like Thomas Wayne are vindicated by the narrative because they were ultimately the victim of the marginalised.
And it is unfortunate. There is no reason that a Joker movie couldn't work. Theoretically, a well done adult drama telling the origin of the Joker could tell a compelling story. Ripping off Scorsese isn't a bad thing, as Hustlers proved. I believe Big Two comic books could be used to create compelling adult dramas, done correctly. But this isn't it
I think Todd Philips was only trying to be provocative, and doesn't understand the difference between what Scorsese does in movies like Taxi Driver and being an edgelord. There was no ill intent. I'm not saying that he actually believes any of this. But the problem with being a provocative edgelord. When your act involves racism, misogyny and Gary Glitter etc to be edgy, then all you're doing is being an asshole
no subject
Date: 2024-03-29 03:45 am (UTC)And vice versa. You are making it sound like the film was universally panned.
“And you can't say Wikipedia isn't authoritative when you don't bring up the mistake. Because wikipedia is accurately recapping the movie. That is what happens in the movie. Thomas Wayne says that. Arthur goes to Arkham Asylum and confirms that. The movie gives us no reason to think he's wrong. There's nothing in the movie to suggest that it is baseless. There is no ambiguity. In fact, the movie makes a point to confirm that Thomas is right before Arthur kills his mother.”
There is. We see an old photograph soon after with a message from Thomas to Penny saying “I love your smile” which casts doubt on his denial. It’s clearly meant to leave some ambiguity with the audience as to who was telling the truth.
“ And on the psychiatrist, I find the argument that we're supposed to sympathise with her weak, given how the scene is actually framed. We aren't supposed to think that Arthur's in the wrong when he yells and screams at her”
The context of the scene is that the city is cutting funding. She is empathetic with Arthur and says “they don’t care about people like us.” She is not the one in the wrong nor is she depicted as someone uncaring or antagonistic. The problem is the larger system.
no subject
Date: 2024-03-29 04:42 am (UTC)"There is. We see an old photograph soon after with a message from Thomas to Penny saying “I love your smile” which casts doubt on his denial. It’s clearly meant to leave some ambiguity with the audience as to who was telling the truth."
I'll admit, I can't remember this scene, so I won't fight too hard on it. But it still doesn't change the fundamental argument that there's no sympathetic female figure. She's still the one who is blamed for abandoning him to her abusive boyfriend. She's still the one shown to embarrassingly infantalise him. We are still supposed to see Arthur killing her as the natural response. That he's been pushed to this. He's not 'wrong' to do it.
When she's killed, we aren't screaming at him that's he's making a mistake. We're supposed to understand what has driven him to this point - the whole point of the movie is that by this scene, we should be able to sit there and go, "Of course he became the Joker. There was no other choice left for him". Ultimately, she's still the problem.
"The context of the scene is that the city is cutting funding. She is empathetic with Arthur and says “they don’t care about people like us.” She is not the one in the wrong nor is she depicted as someone uncaring or antagonistic. The problem is the larger system."
That's exactly my point. The scene isn't about her. She just exists as a symbol to represent the larger system. She's a symbol of a system that pretends to care about people like Arthur but doesn't.
At the end of the say, Arthur isn't seen as wrong to yell and scream and abuse her. Like every real woman in the movie, yelling and screaming at raging towards her is correct. The sympathy the movie has to her disappears the moment that Arthur turns violent towards her
There's always an excuse why Arthur raging at a woman is right. There's always an excuse. It isn't her, it is the system. It isn't her, it is society being uncaring. But it is always a HER
The System is an excuse in this movie to justify abuse against women. The system always exists to justify that violence. But the movie is also more generous to Thomas Wayne, where, unlike the psychiatrist, the movie makes Arthur feel guilty for abusing him as Arthur goes off and cries in Arkham Asylum. Even when Thomas dies, we're supposed to go, "How sad for Bruce,", a level f empathy not given when Arthur abuses the psychiatrist because he's justified, it is the system's fault
Could I ask what you think the case for the movie is? Because it is hard to actually have this conversation if you aren't making a case, just trying to discuss critics again and do some minor nitpicks. Like, I brought up the way that the movie took a real life hate crime and attempted to redeem it. To me, that a serious problem with the movie. Yet you didn't mention it yourself. Do you agree with me? Do you think there's a good reason for the film to reimagine a famous hate crime using the logic that the shooter used to justify his racist actions? I bring up a big recurring pattern of female characters being the targets of white male rage, and you have some nitpicks, but there's no actual counter argument. I know I've written a lot, but it is hard to have an actual conversation if 90% of my argument is ignored to make slight factual nitpicks. I do think the redeeming a hate crime thing is actually a major flaw. And if we're going to let that point remain
So what's your case for the movie? What's your case that brings every sequence in the movie together into a coherent, functioning narrative? Why is Joker good? I would honestly be interested in hearing a proper argument
no subject
Date: 2024-03-29 01:30 pm (UTC)I never said it was universally loved but you said “ there was a reason that basically every critic I followed laughed at the movie the moment they got a chance to watch it” and “ then so many negative reviews as soon as it got to critics at large” as if the film was largely reviled when the reaction was more positive than not.
“ I bring up a big recurring pattern of female characters being the targets of white male rage, and you have some nitpicks, but there's no actual counter argument. I know I've written a lot, but it is hard to have an actual conversation”
No offense but you’re writing pages of material, I can’t read/respond to everything. Most of it is your subjective interpretation so there’s not much to say besides ‘I disagree’. I.e. you keep on saying that the film positions Joker as a heroic figure or justified or that woman are the real villains and there’s not much I can say besides I disagree. In my opinion I don’t think Joker murdering his mother was supposed to be an justifiable scene nor do I think the film was setting up Thomas as sympathetic at all. A lot of it is jumping to conclusions that imo weren’t intended or suggested. I.e. drawing inspiration from real life incidents does not mean the film is trying to redeem them especially when the context is different.
In my opinion, if the film wanted us to hate anyone it was De Niro who Arthur looks up to as a father figure and then he humiliates him on live television. That, I could see as 'justifiable' in the context of the narrative where the film sets him up as someone you want to see die. Tarantino even talks about that here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB3aZeijvZ0