What a great movie. One thing to keep in mind about the portrayal of the Waynes, or sympathy for Arthur..everything is being told from Joker's point of view.The ending may even indicate that he is making everything up and that is the joke
What a great movie. One thing to keep in mind about the portrayal of the Waynes, or sympathy for Arthur..everything is being told from Joker's point of view.The ending may even indicate that he is making everything up and that is the joke
There’s limits to that. The idea that the whole movie is fabricated is borderline offensive to the viewer. There’s nothing lamer than the whole “it was all a dream” trope. We have to assume that significant parts of it were real. Especially things we saw that seemed to directly affect and be acknowledged by other characters.
Given that his final joke began right when they cut to a shot of Bruce in the alley way, I was thinking that Joker was imagining a scenario where he himself created his greatest foe, and eventual downfall. Cyclical type thing. T. Wayne helped create Joker, Joker helps create Batman by getting T. Wayne killed, Batman becomes his arch nemesis whose goal is to clean up Gotham. Otherwise it seems weird to have him start to tell that joke right when they show that alley.
There’s limits to that. The idea that the whole movie is fabricated is borderline offensive to the viewer. There’s nothing lamer than the whole “it was all a dream” trope. We have to assume that significant parts of it were real. Especially things we saw that seemed to directly affect and be acknowledged by other characters.
Given that his final joke began right when they cut to a shot of Bruce in the alley way, I was thinking that Joker was imagining a scenario where he himself created his greatest foe, and eventual downfall. Cyclical type thing. T. Wayne helped create Joker, Joker helps create Batman by getting T. Wayne killed, Batman becomes his arch nemesis whose goal is to clean up Gotham. Otherwise it seems weird to have him start to tell that joke right when they show that alley.
I think it's open to interpretation. Every scene with Bruce looks like Joker's imagining it, Bruce has the same expressionless look and doesn't even really react to his parents death. And the whole Joker may be making up all or some of his story fits with the whole "I prefer my past to be multiple choice"
I agree, it is definitely open and I’m cool with that. Purely from a viewers perspective though, I hate the idea that I wasted two hours sitting in the theatre watching the Joker daydream for 30s and we didn’t get any of his “true” origin. It might make sense for the character but not for the $16 I paid to see it. I could imagine his origin at home, for free.
Yeah, the general viewer may feel cheated, but I don't think that viewer would think too hard about it. For me as a DC fan, it's perfect- it stays true to the character that you really have no certainty about him and you got a great story told even if it may not be real
Human interactions seemed the most skewed from the Joker's perspective, for example the love affair with the neighbor. So everything may have happened, but the details about how people interacted with the Joker could all be off.
For example, he may have still killed those wall street guys on the train, but the Joker may have been the aggressor. Similarly, Thomas Wayne may not have been as harsh and callous as the Joker perceived him.
While other things were likely outright fabrications. It's unlikely there was an escape from the police car followed by a crowd celebrating him and then a recapture.
The conversation with Murray at the talk show definitely did not occur as Joker remembers it, if it happened at all. The show would have been cut and the cops called right away when he confesses to the killing
The Following User Says Thank You to WCW Nitro For This Useful Post:
The conversation with Murray at the talk show definitely did not occur as Joker remembers it, if it happened at all. The show would have been cut and the cops called right away when he confesses to the killing
I agree. It was very similar to his previous fantasy he had about being on the show, where he says something strange and then people vindicate him for saying it. In the case he goes on TV, kills someone and people applaud him afterwards. What it did show was the Joker's outlook had changed. He was no longer looking for approval and a father figure; he was now looking for chaos and admiration.
See and I think that part was definitely real. It’s not like they talked for another 15 minutes. We’re talking 2-3 minutes tops. And Murray even told his producer not to cut away. I could see them calling the cops but for the amount of time the convo took it isn’t unreasonable that the cops weren’t there yet. Especially when you consider they were busy dealing with riots.
My personal theory is that Joker knows who Batman is and in his mind is fictionally linking himself to his origin- and the whole film is a made up story he told for his own amusement to the psychiatrist before he killed her- which is so Joker and imo far superior to the good guy with mental issues has a tough life and becomes bad
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WCW Nitro For This Useful Post:
It might just be me, but this doesn't feel like a very rewatchable movie. I'll likely watch it one more time when it's released to see if I missed anything but it's not going to be one I'll throw on like I do the Nolan or Burton movies.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KTrain For This Useful Post:
Fleck was unable to string together coherent sentences during the entire movie and then he delivers an eloquent speech during the talk show. That didn’t work so well for me.
Fleck was unable to string together coherent sentences during the entire movie and then he delivers an eloquent speech during the talk show. That didn’t work so well for me.
Is it because he finally embraced the Joker? He stopped trying to "act" like he think "society" wanted people to act, and just did what he felt was natural?
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashasx For This Useful Post:
While I hate to see a scumbag like that make money off of this, I like that song and had no idea he’s a pedo.
I had wondered why I never seemed to hear it at football games anymore. It was a common TD or 4th quarter rile up the crowd song for the Riders for years and years. Too bad, it’s a great sports theme.
Also, Michael Jackson? Roman Polanski? Woody Allen? The list goes on and this seems highly hypocritical of people to complain about this, especially from Hollywood. Nevertheless, seems like a poor decision to allow him to profit off of its use.
While I hate to see a scumbag like that make money off of this, I like that song and had no idea he’s a pedo.
I had wondered why I never seemed to hear it at football games anymore. It was a common TD or 4th quarter rile up the crowd song for the Riders for years and years. Too bad, it’s a great sports theme.
Also, Michael Jackson? Roman Polanski? Woody Allen? The list goes on and this seems highly hypocritical of people to complain about this, especially from Hollywood. Nevertheless, seems like a poor decision to allow him to profit off of its use.
What Glitter did was still much worse than arguably anyone but Jackson, who is now dead and cannot profit off anything. The extent of his abuse was quite extreme. After abusing many girls in the UK, he fled to Vietnam and abused girls as young as 10.
That being said, he's in jail now, and will likely die there. He won't be enjoying the profits from his royalties.
While I hate to see a scumbag like that make money off of this, I like that song and had no idea he’s a pedo.
I had wondered why I never seemed to hear it at football games anymore. It was a common TD or 4th quarter rile up the crowd song for the Riders for years and years. Too bad, it’s a great sports theme.
Also, Michael Jackson? Roman Polanski? Woody Allen? The list goes on and this seems highly hypocritical of people to complain about this, especially from Hollywood. Nevertheless, seems like a poor decision to allow him to profit off of its use.
maybe because he's a multiple convicted offender and is actually in jail right now (for the third time) for his latest crimes.
Polanski is of course guilty for his crime in the 70's and Hollywood is very hypocritical in their support for him.
I'm sure Jackson and woody allen are likely guilty, but for glitter it's beyond any argument or rumor that he's a filthy, vile human.
maybe because he's a multiple convicted offender and is actually in jail right now (for the third time) for his latest crimes.
Polanski is of course guilty for his crime in the 70's and Hollywood is very hypocritical in their support for him.
I'm sure Jackson and woody allen are likely guilty, but for glitter it's beyond any argument or rumor that he's a filthy, vile human.
Off topic, but the case against Woody Allen is pretty weak IMO. I've gotten into this in another thread, so won't get into it anymore.