BruceSmith78 wrote:Have any of you seen Joker? It feels like they read this thread (just the Batman stuff) when creating their version of Gotham. I think Castor and DA would appreciate it though, because of how anti-capitalistic it is.
I was going to skip the movie until I listened to a rave review from the Chapo Trap House podcast based on its having anti-capitalist politics. And sure enough, it did indeed have a version of those politics. The Wayne family in particular does not come off very well. I thought it interesting that the movie mentions the existence of "super-rats" evolving from the garbage environment of Gotham, and the only time the movie actually shows us the super rats is in the background as Bruce stands over the bodies of his slain parents.
Good movie, not great. Very unpleasant to watch, so I'll probably never see it again. Phoenix is as good as everyone says, but in the end the Joker in this movie is not really the Joker of the comic books or movies. He's too damaged and not smart enough to ever be a criminal mastermind.
Yeah, the Waynes are depicted as the rich, disdainful scum you'd expect them to be in the real world, and I had heard before even seeing the movie that this wasn't really “The Joker." It's not connected to the rest of the DCEU, and I don't think they're going to make a sequel so it's up to the audience to decide how closely this Joker is related to the comic book version. I mean Joaquin looks to be about 50 and Bruce Wayne is like 10 in this movie, so that alone tells you something.
Just saw it. It was fine. It was neither bad nor good. I neither liked it nor disliked it. It was perfectly medium. I didn't feel anything at all during it and I didn't feel anything at all when it ended. I feel like I'll probably forget it in a day.
I'm not sure what to say about its anti-capitalism. Sure, the rich are portrayed as a bunch of assholes, which is good, but the poor aren't portrayed very well, either. The face of the uprising/riots was chosen to be a murdering clown who is mentally unstable. I'm not sure the audience will feel much sympathy or identification with the poor in this movie, nor do I think we're intended to. I think this movie's political messages, if it actually has any, are vague and broad enough that anyone can interpret it however they want, and I think that was done purposefully.
I was surprised, though, by how much class conflict was such a heavy and omnipresent theme in it. You wouldn't get that impression at all from the media-manufactured non-controversy about "incels" or copycat shooters or whatever before it was released. Part of me wonders if that whole hype was a purposeful distraction of some sort.
Yeah, I said to my wife after we we left, “There were no likable characters in that movie." She pointed out that the little man who Arthur/Joker spared wasn't terrible, and sure, I guess, but he was barely in the movie. I then said the same applies to the kids in this film. But I thought that would appeal to you, DA. There are no heroes, and everybody sucks and life sucks. That's kind of your mantra. This movie captured that sentiment and threw it up on the screen.
I also don't get why anybody thought this was celebrating incels or violence or that it was somehow condoning mass shootings. Maybe the people spreading those ideas had only watched the trailers and didn't actually watch the movie?
Well, I wasn't really complaining about it. I don't mind art portraying the poor as a bunch of assholes, because they are. I'm just saying that it's not a particularly strong or effective anti-capitalist message. But it wasn't really trying to be one.
If you're going to go to bat for the working class by making an ideologically anti-capitalist piece of art, portraying the working class as a bunch of assholes seems kind of counterproductive to me. Sure, you can do it if you want, but I don't see how it would help you with your ostensible goal. But Joker isn't anti-capitalist, so I think the point is moot.
The incel thing started months ago before the movie came out, so yeah it was made by people who never saw it. The actual reviewers didn't really seem concerned by it much. It was mostly journalists and pundits. They all learned the word "incel" like a year ago and have just been repeating it non-stop ever since, applying it to unrelated things, like four-year-olds.
I think it still sends an anti-capitalist message, because it's heavily implied and sometimes outright stated that the working class are resentful, violent assholes because they're fed up with the rich's bullshit. They're not really sympathetic, but the movie is telling us that if things continue on their current path and the straining point becomes the breaking point, we're going to have violence and chaos, and the status quo won't be spared. The Arthur Fleck character was quick to point out he has no political ideology or affiliation, but I don't know how you can watch that movie and leave thinking, “Capitalism seemed to work out really well for Gotham."
