Joker (2019)

[Something Spanish]

thank you for not forgetting the poet laureate.

[WorldForgot]

[Drenk]

That was extremely repetitive.

[Alethia]

Has there been a more dreadfully boring, absolutely no-there-there, film centering on an arguably great lead performance in recent memory?

[Drenk]

Some scenes existed only for the performance, but when Phoenix is doing the same thing for the fifth time it hurts the performance. Some nice shots here and there but it's full of holes—ultimately, it treats its characters as props, even Joker whose victimization is too much, and his madness is too restrained, I don't see how they'll manage to do a Joker 2 with a false Joker.

[trytotell]

The performance is pretty much what I expected/feared. Lesser Freddie with no PSH to play off of. The big interview showdown with De Niro was terrible. Dialogue and even acting. This was basically the nadir of the shtick he's been doing too much lately, so of course he's probably winning the Oscar for it.

[Drenk]

Oh? You've edited? I noticed the drag queen Joker, too. And I sincerely don't know if it's good acting or not—he's very uncomfortable and that might have been a way for Phoenix to show how Joker is trying to be confident, powering through the moment. But that was a strange choice. eward probably knows if Phoenix tried something else or did the all thing like that.

Anyway, the script is SO BAD during that scene, which is a shame because it's supposed to be the climax. And the word "society" is said twice. Cut 20 minutes before and do a whole sequence there with a strong script...

[Alethia]

There was a lot of variation between takes, from what I recall. A lot of seemingly arbitrary chucking of various ingredients at the wall and seeing what stuck. Of course, Joaquin had the added frustration of waiting for De Niro to learn his damn lines, which were being fed to him via ear wig. Todd would just sit in video village and mumble directions into a microphone, befogged in a cloud of vapor. They used I think five or six cameras, maybe even more, at all times, plus an old broadcast camera shooting the actual talk show footage. Perhaps that's why the end result feels so cobbled together; it was.

[polkablues]

Todd would just sit in video village and mumble directions into a microphone, befogged in a cloud of vapor.

Even before you said that, I definitely pictured Todd Phillips as the kind of guy who vapes in non-smoking areas and gets into very indignant arguments about the fundamental differences between smoke and vapor when someone asks him to stop.

[Something Spanish]

TP is all about that vape life. It feels weird to be a film geek who actually likes this movie and LOVES Joaquin's performance. Read all the criticisms, respectfully disagree. Yes, it had mucho problemas when external elements rear in, but as a character piece, when focusing on Joaquin's inner life and not the silly movement he catalyzes, it's aces. Sure, it's a bit one note, so are many movies, particularly morbid ones, like most of Mike Leigh movies, but if the subject is interesting, like, really interesting, then you can loop that note hip-hop sample style. The movie falls apart for me when he goes on the Murray show (when Joker starts calling him Mu-RRAY, the performance saunters into horrible land), I understand this is the final turn turning him into the maniacal comical villain we know from pop culture, still feels incongruent to the depiction until that point. After that the movie picks up the pieces nicely, and I'm comfortable awarding it a solid 3 stars. 3 1/2 had they omitted that stairway dance.

[trytotell]

Oh? You've edited? I noticed the drag queen Joker, too. And I sincerely don't know if it's good acting or not—he's very uncomfortable and that might have been a way for Phoenix to show how Joker is trying to be confident, powering through the moment. But that was a strange choice. eward probably knows if Phoenix tried something else or did the all thing like that.

Anyway, the script is SO BAD during that scene, which is a shame because it's supposed to be the climax. And the word "society" is said twice. Cut 20 minutes before and do a whole sequence there with a strong script...

Yeah, lacked a better phrasing and didn't want to offend. Glad I wasn't the only one to notice it, though.

He mentioned in an interview that he thought he had a much better take but it didn't "work for the scene". He apparently didn't like the take that was officially used but said it worked best. Who knows what he meant by that.

[Shughes]

I really liked this. I agree with some of the criticisms - it is a bit one note. But moment to moment, while watching, I was thrilled and excited by the choices made. I think this is a very good movie wrapped around an incredible performance.

I think a lot of the detractors are in agreement that the central performance is solid but lay into Phillips about the film's flaws. I feel like people are underestimating the director's contribution to any actors performance, or the fact that it is often through the director's choice/take selection that the performance is shaped. Same with people who compliment the art direction, costume and cinematography and still slate TP as a poor director - I imagine he is across all of those areas along with his HOD's (or he should be).

I read/heard that they shot the talk show stuff early due to De Niro's availability. Maybe that contributed to this being some of the weakest material? I imagine it would be frustrating for Phoenix still searching for the character and having to shoot the climax first. There's also the make-up continuity - I feel like they found a beautiful balance in the scenes before the talk show - with the blue from one of the eyes running down the face - but maybe hadn't settled on that at the time of the talk show shoot.

I also read De Niro and Phoenix didn't get on - both passing it off as professionalism and just getting the job done, but it feels like something more maybe...

[Drenk]

Basically, all this:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/todd-phillips-joker-rewatching-taxi-driver

I'm just stunned by the lack of imagination of Joker. Regarding Joaquin performance: Philipps definitely didn't know how to tame his actor, too many scenes of laughing/crying (...waiting for the YouTube compilation). Seriously, I like the first ten minutes of the movie, but it manages to repeat the bits over and over again, and then the big climax is just weird; I don't want Philipps to do a Magnolia, but he had good actors, a good set, the Joker, and did the minimum. All the cool effects don't form a cohesive whole.

That said: this movie is selling tickets. People are seeing it. My brothers, my sister, they don't even watch Marvel movies but saw Joker. It created a lot of interest.

[trytotell]

Basically, all this:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/todd-phillips-joker-rewatching-taxi-driver

I'm just stunned by the lack of imagination of Joker. Regarding Joaquin performance: Philipps definitely didn't know how to tame his actor, too many scenes of laughing/crying (...waiting for the YouTube compilation). Seriously, I like the first ten minutes of the movie, but it manages to repeat the bits over and over again, and then the big climax is just weird; I don't want Philipps to do a Magnolia, but he had good actors, a good set, the Joker, and did the minimum. All the cool effects don't form a cohesive whole.

That said: this movie is selling tickets. People are seeing it. My brothers, my sister, they don't even watch Marvel movies but saw Joker. It created a lot of interest.

Agreed. Weird (and kind of annoying..) that this is the film that Joaquin is apparently willing to play ball on in terms of awards (of course, the box office helps). But Phillips just completely (over)indulged him. Which is why I'm guessing he's big on this experience.

[jenkins]

Basically, all this:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/todd-phillips-joker-rewatching-taxi-driver

that's the good fight right there

But what mostly struck me both times was how rotely, how condescendingly, the movie animates the tortured soul at its center. This is not a genuine exploration of a very real, present social condition, despite a morose seriousness in the movie's tone that would seem to imply taking the subject seriously. This is a movie that knows how far it can get by appearing to be serious and wears this as a badge of distinction. Yet it takes what's wrong with Arthur Fleck for granted, telling us, for example, that Arthur takes seven medications while obscuring which medications or what they're for, because the number of pills, paired with a convenient discovery of childhood trauma, is meant to speak for itself. Arthur's illness is reduced to context, when, by all accounts, it's the movie's prime subject.

although certain topical similarities between King of Comedy and Taxi Driver are mentioned, the crux here comes from Taxi Driver alone. for all the reasons the writer mentions when describing Taxi Driver:

What stood out upon rewatching Taxi Driver, in particular, was how thoroughly conceived Travis Bickle is.

And all of this is wielded to bind us to the terrifying spell of Travis's demented state. It's practically hypnotism; we're seduced into seeing the world through Travis's tired, increasingly manic eyes.

King of Comedy is not a movie in which the viewer becomes so absorbed by a foul character that the character could be seen as a hero. it has superficial similarities to Taxi Driver but lacks its guts