Diogenes was the first zoomer

ok, boomer

Horace: OK, BOOMER

@@ThatOneGuy7550 Greek temple official: Please bring an offering to the gods Diogenes: OK Boomer

can't rly agree with the thesis. What joker first and foremost is, is a brilliant diagnosis of what is wrong about contemporary society. It doesnt want to be apolitical, but it also is not a romanticization of contemporary political violence. Most of the outrage critics did only engage with the material on a surface level. Plato btw. was in high support of tyrants to create his perfect society without art. I mean look at propaganda art from the first world war and what has happened with avantgarde art afterwards. What is important here is the nietzschean difference between apollonian beauty and dionysian art. The former is a gateway into being deceived and soldout by dogmatisms (of the state, the market, churches or fancy philosopher dictators like Plato). The latter offers an escape: Art is also a way to fight the political, which in itself also a form of art since everything is ideological. Art is an window through which we can glimpse the truth about our society. Joker exposes neoliberalism as the main cause for the rise of the alt right as well as the exploitative relationship between mental health issues and individualized politics. This is what makes it a great movie.

I really hate how well this works with the actual quote

It's try not to laugh *challenge*

@@nelisezpasce oh oof

it really be like that

Waka waka

@ZDProletariat I don't believe that's the purpose of the quote. I'm pretty sure what it's saying is that to be apolitical is to be political running along the lines of the society it's in. So an apolitical piece in a liberal capitalist country is to be uncritically liberal capitalist. So the desire for art to be apolitical is the desire to have art with politics that reaffirm the norm.

@@thorharter8658 Huh, never thought of it like that. Neat.

Exactly. I always laugh at people who say that art is only about escapism and artists should "stick to what they know" (translation: "Just shut up and be performing monkeys!"). That claim in and of itself is making a statement about art's relationship to politics, even if people think there shouldn't be any connection between the two.

@@thorharter8658 So... a landscape painting reaffirms the "political norm"? That's a stupid argument.

@@thorharter8658 by that logic peppa pig would also be political

Over a millennia even. And as long as humans exist, it'll never end. Round and round we go. It becomes quite fun from an outside perspective when you start looking at things from that macro view. It's hilarious how we repeat ourselves centuries and centuries on word for word without even realizing it.

@@TheGeorgeD13 and people in the next generation make a fun of you guys that we can't really do anything about it

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of philosophy. Where it's normal for debates to last for centuries.

most arguments are centuries old

@@janiedoie yes nothing new. Humanity never change ,it's never gonna change

👏👏👏 #Deep

Was gonna comment this but the joke has been over done lol

That One Guy “over done” is an understatement

@@ThatOneGuy7550 it wouldn't be so great if it weren't overdone

@@ThatOneGuy7550 It has been overdone because it's the joke's punchline, society is the actual joke.

So he was basically using it to not get judged for the messages he wanted to send?

But he didn't seem to claim that, particularly when he explained what "the love that dare not speak its name" meant

@@PauLtus_B sounds more like he just didn't want to get persecuted for expressing himself.

@@MALICEM12 That's what I was trying to say, yes.

Ben Ghan But, sometimes someone just wants to make something too.

And boy DID it make money!!

Usually, making money is a sign you're doing something right because a lot of people like it, whereas if you just make something for art's sake, you risk making something that only appeals to you and is actually really bad.

@@ShinbrigTV Art for Art's sake. Money for God's sake.

It also wasn't made just for art's sake and for money's sake, but also clearly for some social commentary's sake. I don't know why the presumption here is that the movie has nothing to say. It clearly has a lot to say about, dare I say it, society. Which isn't bad, but I don't know why we're starting from this assumption that it doesn't have social commentary just because some of its presumptive defenders and critics on the internet argued such.

Has it made 800 million yet?

Fairy stories are allegories or perhaps it's better to see they provide strategies children can follow.

@@alanpennie8013 *IF YOUR PARENTS CAN'T AFFORD FOOD SO THEY LEAVE YOU TO DIE IN THE FOREST THAT AIN'T AN ALLEGORY KIDS SHOULD LEARN JUST GIVE THEM THE NUMBER TO CHILD SERVICE PROTECTION!*

Children are better at it than adults.

Oh dear he was speaking in what is logical, it was not his problem that some adults are idiots and cannot think logically...no to mention that back in the day most people were intelligent not like today when we are in an intellectual decline that if it continuous we will no differ from animals in how we use our mind...

I mean, the majority of the bible feels like it ought to be read allegorically and yet here we are

I also liked how they showed that rioters didn't care about who Arthur/Joker really is, they just needed an excuse to do violent things that usually are restricted. Notice how [SPOILERS] in the scene where they pull him out of the smashed cop car and place him on the bonnet they didn't even check if he's alive and give him no first aid. He doesn't matter to them as a person, only as a symbol (very Christ-like too with his body in a sort of crucifixion pose).

Elijah Ah-Sha Excellent comment. I’ve struggled with mental illness for a number of years and have been thinking about Arthur’s point of view since watching the film. I thought the film was very accurate in how someone could dive off the deep end if not given enough support and is a mirror for how we treat those with mental illness. I think your take is a balanced, compassionate one and I agree with you.

I'm not a fan of the way it plays off existing stigma against mental illness. Right now, the main argument in favor of good mental health care is "better treat these people before they kill people." That's more or less the movie's thesis, too. But in reality, there is absolutely no correlation between mental illness in violence- the two only coincide 2% of the time, while in reality one in five adults struggle with mental illness. There's a higher correlation of Whiteness with violence. All the movies say mental illness makes people killers, but it's simply not true. Conversely, the mentally ill are statistically MORE likely to be VICTIMS if violence than other people. Partially because of the default assumption that mental illness causes violence. Funny, isn't it? "Joker" has one good insight: the worst thing about having a mental illness is that everyone wants you to act like you don't. That's a poignant thought that fosters empathy for Arthur's situation. If the movie had actually expanded that into a central theme, then it might have gone somewhere interesting. But sadly, because the movie is called "Joker," the violent ending was inevitable. A better approach to mental illness would be, "people are struggling, they need help." Take violence out of the equation. Show better ways to cope.

@@ericsheldahl5158 I didn't think that was the thesis of the movie at all. I thought it was really showing the extremes that people will go to when they're pushed. Obviously, not everyone who is bullied or abused will go on to kill people on TV for fun. Most will continue to be bullied/abused, or may go on to become the bully. I suffer from depression. I was bullied as a kid. I haven't gone on to kill anybody, but that's not to say I haven't thought about it before. I think his thought process over the course of the first act (until the end of the subway scene) is what most people go through but they don't go as far as he did I'm rambling now, I like your comment a lot but I don't know if I agree with your first point. The rest I do.

Very well out together comments. I also felt a strong connection to the way institutions and people treat those with quirk. There are real world examples all over the place of people looking for some kind of Joker. A good intentioned criticism of the system that excuses immoral action. And it seems to be automatic. What I'm referring to is, of course, the protests that are happening all over the world. There seems to always be those who will turn to violence when it is completely unnecessary and inadvertently go against the original cause. I personally found Joker to be one of the best pieces of art I've ever seen, be it in the craft of the film or the narrative. I went to watch it 3 times in the cinema and I can see myself going again. The amount of insight and commentary on various topics in this film is just so thought provoking. I would really like to see why Just Write finds this to be only an OK film.

Don't worry. A lot of us loved it

It's the highest grossing R rated film ever...so yes, other people loved it. It's a cinematic experience not to be missed. Haunting, disturbing, jolting, beautiful, suspenseful..just brilliant.

Kit Kat The folks you mentioned are in the minority. It appears a large majority of people love this film. I said film and not “movie.” I personally think it was amazing and plenty of people agree with us. I haven’t seen a ton of people straight up hating it. Either love or people saying they didn’t like or thought it was just ok, but praising Phoenix’s performance.

This movie is literally a rip off of better movies, I'm not sure why it's getting the praise. It's depiction of the working class seems super centrist and so surface level, a sophomore in highschool could've told you the arguments made in the movie. Sure, it looks good, and the acting is good, but really isn't special

Kit Kat, the score, cinematography, screenplay, direction, combined with the acting masterclass from Joaquin Phoenix, are what made this film so special that it's already made over a billion dollars. So many people are relating to the character of Arthur Fleck. It's extraordinary not only because of how sonically powerful and visually stunning it is, but because Joaquin managed to allow us to empathize with a stranger with an unusual and painful disorder. It's a tense ride from the first to last frame, and multiple viewings allow the viewer to notice different details in the film's layers. This will be a classic.

True, and that's one of the reasons why art is so significant in every era

Political art is cringe. If you want politics, read the New York Times.

Grubby bum All art is political.

@@AndysTake it's not. And you don't know what that word means.

Grubby bum It is, and you don’t know what that word means.

What upset me was how much people were trying to boycott the movie without having seen it’s contents. I personally thought the movie was amazing and I understand where the criticisms of inciting violence come from. I guess most critics are well off white guys scared of the downtrodden revolting anyways so I shouldn’t be surprised.

@@Vegetablefather People don't like freedom of speech when they're wrong because the truth always wins. When all the facts and interpretations are out it's trivial, even to the most simple-minded, what the correct answer is. When the truth is not in your best interest, neither is freedom of expression. The guys who are well off may be well off due to some lie that they don't want revealed.

Joni Leppänen pelkkää faktaa

Joni Leppänen Maybe I’m more of a cynic than you but I don’t think just because the truth is out that it then becomes inevitable or easy. Look at the entire trump administration for example. Most people don’t even know what the truth is because every time he talks he lies. What boggles my mind is how many people want to keep trump. The truth is out there but it’s not winning it’s stagnating.

@@Vegetablefather Lmao if you think Trump is your problem you are dumb. Not a single one of your presidents was good for anyone but America from at least Clinton, and even then none of them were even that good for you. Obama and Bush take the cake with how much they fucked the Arab\Muslim world. The difference is that Trump just likes to talk about all that shit while the others were far less upfront with how evil they are.

Will Whitehurst that’s a very healthy diet you have

Most movie-related KZfaq videos are empty calories, and many are actually very unhealthy. But Just Write is definitely part of a balanced breakfast.

And not watching the movies they talk about

Same

This comment made me laugh

Totally. That's what happens with Star Wars and Wonder Woman (just saying some famous movies).

Well I think movies can teach morality but the most memorable movies are those where you decide for yourself. Like Joker for example.

@@mrfister825 sure, movies absolutely can, but that's not what the video is about. Not if they can, but if they should.

everyone has a bias as to what is morally correct. only hypocrites would deny that.

I think movies can teach morality and that's fine, a ton of amazing films do

Very thanks.

@@JustWrite Your wrong man, this movie was very good

@@fredy2041 I don't think Just Write claims the movie is bad. At the beginning of the video, he states his personal opinion that it was "fine". From then on, there is minimal subjectivity in the course of his exploration of the purposes and consequences of art.

Without even having seen the movie I can see why some people might be queasy about it. There's the implication that mental illness makes people violent, and another that those who hate the rich are mentally ill (or have chosen an insane person as a guru.)

@q3yq3regp'adjfgqi [0irgphioqefvbnwr Exactly. The only people who liked the movie (typically those on the right) liked it because of it’s political undertones, and because of the “eat the rich” narrative. Remove the Joker element and no one would’ve watched this.

American journos and critics are retarded

Jaqen H'ghar pretty weird that Marxists were ruining the art industry with their high pitched screeching then and now lol

Yup. Same goes for Latin America, Europe, etc. The only countries that have an issue with it are the Anglo ones

@@aR0ttenBANANA for real

Joker has a good message, writing, acting, cinematography, and realistic feel. Disappointing that it still got put down by some critics. Nonetheless audiences still went to go see it. Critics are going to put themselves out of a job if they criticize wrongly and in a biased manner without giving credit where it’s due

Almost all movies are political. The Star Wars fandom is going nuts about Star Wars apparently becoming political when it's like "You do know who George Lucas is, right?!" I think "Stop making my movies political" is shorthand for either "Stop making it so obvious" or "Stop making it about a political view I don't personally agree with" in which the latter lacks the ability to say "Oh, that's your point of view, even I don't agree with it." People care too much about what other people like or dislike, honestly.

@@umjackd How are the old Star Wars movies political? Honestly asking.

The Ewoks are literally based on the viet cong, and having them be the good guys beating up technologically superior evil empire was certainly quite political at the time.

@@joelbolkert4273 Also, the antagonists are basically Nazis, the original empire as well as the first order in the new films, so that's also clearly political. I mean, how can a movie that features soldiers called "storm troopers" be possibly read as apolitical?

@@umjackd I think it also comes down to what people define as "political". It seems many people think that the status quo is somehow inherently apolitical and everything that challenges the status quo is political, even though confirming the status quo is just as political as challenging it. So casting a woman in a role that would traditionally be played by a man is political, just like casting a person of colour or LGBTQ+ person in anything other than a supporting role as the token minority character or as the villain who is defeated by the straight, white protagonist. But casting a straight white cisgender man in any role is apolitical, because men like that have always been able to play any role. TL;DR: There is white and there is political, there is straight and there is political, etc.

And then there are the pretentious hipsters who thhink "controversy" for any reason equals "quality"

@@whade62000 if you’re implying the people that rate the movie high do it because of the controversy it sparked, you’re wrong

I don't quite agree with that statement. While much of art can be political, it doesn't necessarily have to be, nor does it have to reflect a "social reality." I can write any kind of story I want to, and I don't need to channel the idiosyncrasies of society or anything else for that matter.

@@basedesidisi1108 I think you would find writing a totally "random" story harder than you imagine, insofar much of what you tell and how you tell it reflect upon your beliefs and the society you live in. I can think of no great book that isn't "political" in that sense in fact. Whether it's fantasy (Lord of the Rings) or Sci-fi (the Robots), theatre (all of Molière or Shakespeare), magical realism (100 years of solitude) - politics are omnipresent

@@basedesidisi1108 You can't really make a culturally relevant piece of art without borrowing from some societal baggage, all formed by politics. Even the idea art of itself, a form of sensory conveyance to another human being set up for them to receive it or for themselves to receive it, is a core political interaction.

and he barely talked about the movie lol

@@MrCosmik1 I agree that I *would* be hard pressed to write a story that doesn't borrow from socio-political memory, but that still doesn't mean I can't.

His use of "objectively" is sadly the most common use which is fundamentally epistemologically wrong. The universe can't have a perspective and absolute consensus is impossible because it has to include beings who lack a rational faculty. The definition of the word is crucial in order use it well in the context of that video of his. Sadly it wasn't defined.

@@SiMeGamer He still got closer to being correct than all the knuckleheads who actually think they're capable of judging art objectively. You ought to go explain the word to them, they're the ones who really need it.

@@Dorian_sapiens I think art can only be judged objectively but that is simply because I use the Objectivist definition of the term "objective". Without having a definition to the word you can't be "closer" than anyone because you might be just as far away because you are fundamentally wrong. Maybe he is closer. I don't know. I find that particular video of his very lacking. Define the words then proceed to use them. It's not a conversation. It's an educational video. One can spare a few moments for those kinds of things.

@@SiMeGamer You don't mean Randian objectivism, do you?

@@Dorian_sapiens I do. I think it has an amazing semantic emphasis. There entire lexicons written and debated on the meaning of every word and I see the word "objective" having the most useful and logically consistent meaning in that philosophy. If you have a different definition for the word I'd more than happy to hear it and perhaps even use it myself if it has any merit. I just find Just Write and the general public's use of the word completely worthless because it ignores basic epistemological and even metaphysical principles.

Eh, as long as you have a great cinematography, art department, costume department, and the like, you can make anything look good for $50 million. And because they had $50 million, they could easily pay the money to have the best cinematographer, art department, costume department, in the world. It's not really that impressive. It's a given.

What George said. 50 million is a lot of money for this type of film, it's not like there's a lot of VFX work, it's pretty grounded.

It's really not impressive. There have been movies and even TV show episodes (like Game Of Thrones in season 5 episode 8 for example) that delivered absolute high quality visuals, vfx etc. with a muuuch smaller budget. 50 million really isn't little

Brayan, I agree 100%.

Ayato budget isn’t just for making the movie, because it’s a theatrical release they pay to advertise...but then again this movie had like 2 trailers

Oh he definitely did. There are quite a few parallels as well as responses between the two.

@@TheGeorgeD13 Nice!

@@torbjornlekberg7756 Yeah, like I don't know for sure, but the parallels are bit too much to not be a coincidence.

@@TheGeorgeD13 So, maby he was and maby it was the psychological version of convergent evolution.

Meaning the youtuber can't even summarize the movie correctly and said it was just fine. I've seen other critics do that before.

well, he probably didn't have many positive feelings about them even before he killed them.

to say those deaths are irrelevant to the uprising in the city is ignoring the whole plot of this movie

@@MsSoapify Does the murder of his mother or former coworker have an effect on the riots or the state of the city? Certainly his on-air execution of Murray tips things over the breaking point but most of the other murders he commits himself don't have much of an effect to anyone but the parties involved.

Maybe they enjoy the process and not intentionally conveying "a point" maybe people just like creating pleasing things. Does everything have to be "deep" to have value?

Okelydokley. I'm not about to criticize any of your points here, but I do kinda want to break down some answers. Art as communication: this is more of a stylistic thing than anything else because--I'd argue--pretty much every person writing in today's society is told from day one that if you're creating "art" then you must also being trying to convey things. However, the art that is seen as trying to covey a message today is usually born out of a direct desire to say something: your Kansas Writers Workshop folks, the people who win the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes, people who make commercials, etc etc. And this is merely a trend, to be clear. A hundred years ago, it was the weird avant-garde stuff that people though was "true art" (think, "Ms. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf or "As I Lay Dying" by William Faulkner) and not stuff like "The Jungle" that had an explicit point it was trying to make. You had to dig into those kinds of novels in order to really get at any thematic depth, because often the point of the avant-garde was to be as alien from the "normal" as possible, to push the medium into interesting places and see what you could do. It was often as technical or it was stylistic (the early twentieth century can be argued to be the time of style over substance, but that's an argument for another day). Like, you can certainly read a message from "Finnegan's Wake," for instance, but really it's way more about pushing language to its absolute limits than anything else. My point then is that "art as communication" is merely a trend. All artists publishing today are inundated by hot takes and opinions and criticism from all over the damn place because Internet. Whether or not you're really thinking about a message or intended to have a message, your art will be perceived as having a message. Which is also why most people don't pay attention to mysteries, romance, and fantasy novels, because they've been seen for years as escapism and the point of escapism is to turn your brain off. There are exceptions, certainly--"Gone Girl," "Game of Thrones," and "50 Shades of Grey" come to mind as genre works that sparked huge conversations--but generally speaking, people don't put a lot of analysis into those genres. Not because James Patterson or Brandon Sanderson or Nora Roberts don't have themes on their minds, but because their genres are generally seen as not having messages to begin with. TL;DR: "Art as communication" is really more of a cultural/critical trend than an actual "reason" for doing art. If you are perceived as making art (regardless of whether you're alive or dead) you will be perceived as having a message. (Also by "communication," I'm interpreting that as meaning "message" or "theme" just to be clear.) Sorry for this long response. Just inspired to write a response to it and because I'm bored at work.

@@aldenraymond771 Really appreciate this answer! I don't necessarily mean that Art as communication means the intent to provide a theme or "message" it can also be the intent to convey a feeling or mood such as pleasure. To intend for people to get pleasure out of your Art is a desire to communicate something; a feeling. I guess the term "art for arts sake" to me sounds like it's coming from a desire to put something in the world that does not convey anything. I also don't think "Art is communication" is the only lends through which you can look at Art, I just find that for me personally as a viewer it's the lense that makes the most sense for me personally. When I heard that, a lot of my worldview on art just seemed to click neatly into place. It makes a lot of sense to me though that the idea of art conveying a message or being socially responsible is one that rises as society becomes self aware of the impact art can have and more self aware of the issues that face different spheres of society which I personally think is a net positive worth striving towards.

@@treborkroy5280 Things that convey pleasure rather than another meaning or being "deep" still have value. I think the problem arises when someone's media diet is exclusively work that produces pleasure (or they only read all work as such).

@@jamesscrambles "Art is service of the gods" Or is this too theological for our time? I do think Art for Art's sake is a kind of personalization of this idea though.

Why?

@@Ptaku93 Because challenging your values makes you grow, either by confirming that your values can withstand that criticism or by acknowledging that your values were not entirely correct

The greeks had a very weak notion of malice. Nietzsche solved this issue much later on...

Especially since plays about Socrates contributed to his eventual execution.

Kaarn S. How was art more important back then, then now?

​@@Cheaze56789There was "less" art, so the plays that were shown had more impact (I suppose)

He liked art, when it agreed with him. Plato (like aristotle and many other philosophers) was a rich and privileged men. He thought that philosophers were the people who lived the right life. That rich old men were the smartest and should therefore be in charge of everything. Education was only for the rich and privileged young men, these he could influence (because his worldview suited them as well) The poor, women and unfree however did not read his scriptures and were not allowed to hear his talks and lectures, so he could not influence them. The only form of some thought provoking (educational) content for these people was art, especially plays. So if the lower class (which were the majority) would get the 'wrong' ideas or get influenced by art, he could not 'control' them.

I totally agree

Well isn't a filmmaker supposed to tell a story?

Andrew Kulubi yes, did i said the opposite ? I just said he is probably judging the script not counting other magnificent things

@@SB-kr2xk well a script is still a very important factor in making a film. While the presentation may have been fantastic, even if a little derivative, a lackluster script can bring down the overall experience to just "okay".

A channel called “Just Write” analyzes the writing of a film. What a strange thing to do.

He's not analyzing the movie. He's going over historical interpretations on artists' responsibilities towards society.

They are. But Platos point was that young people (meaning uneducated and naive) would not understand it. He thought philosophy and thinking in general should be reserved to white, rich, old men because only they would be intellectually capable. He wrote his books for exactly these people, so they would understand the allegories or the creative freedom in his dialogues, because they wouls understand his message

But, if we are to go off of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, Plato’s understanding of language-which underlies traditional Western metaphysics-is wrong. So we should rethink his hierarchy between reason and art.

Plato’s provides further clarification of this argument in the Phaedrus.

It is highly political, wheter you deem it interesting/useful as that or not. Though I am not quite sure, what you mean by "useful" as a political story?

Except the actual comic book joker, who loves being chaotic and villainous.

@@TheWickedMessenger3 You mean the Jack Nicholson version of the Joker? I think it's pretty close.

@@poweroffriendship2.0 The original Joker. What a masterpiece that Tim Burton created!

"I am an Agent of Chaos" ~ The Joker

ethangorham17 Repeating what I said in a different thread: Actually, when it was still screening in festivals, the big name magazines were giving the movie raving reviews: twitter.com/shallow_ss/status/1167889098243104775 But when the movie actually came out to a wider release, the general bulk of critics were mostly disappointed by how despite the great acting from Joaquin Phoenix and the pretty cinematography, the script was dull and any statements the movie made were obvious (rich people are bad, poor people are abused, and the mentally ill need help) and the movie didn’t go hard enough despite saying so many things. Much like Just Write, they thought the movie was only okay. Not bad, not good, just okay. The people who were reacting like the movie could cause harm are the regular American people, and I specify American because in my country nobody expected that Joker would cause a mass shooting over here because we don’t have the weird love affair that Americans have with guns. So I think it says something about American society that they experienced so much mass shootings from white men in particular that a movie like the Joker had caused them a lot of concern.

Fits the movie if you ask me.

Advent, why do say that? The film was actually interesting if you tried to watch it as an allegory/metaphor instead of a straight up comic book movie (because as a straight up comic book movie, it was meh)

@@ElijahAhSha I say that because it had potential to be really interesting but I found it kind of shallow. Honestly if it wasn't called Joker I don't think it would be anywhere near as popular as it is.

@The Ponderer the important thing is you proved yourself superior to both sides without adding anything to "the discourse" other than your own enlightened centrist platitudes. Much like the movie the Joker, well done, very postmodern, very meta. /clap

@@Advent3546 fair enough. I think it would be a cult classic for lack of a better term. Similar to Taxi Driver. I commented elsewhere on the video but I think if you watch the whole movie again through the eyes of how it discussed mental health, then it's much more interesting and has more meaning. Just my two cents though, obviously you're allowed to feel what you want to feel about it!

@saganist that would make it a bit too obvious though, huh? :p

One of the movie's biggest themes is the question of impulse versus agency. Arthur is severely mentally ill, and he suffers from a lot of negative impulses he doesn't have any way to understand or handle. As he starts to lose control and slips off the medicine, he begins to feel free, though its mostly just that he is acting on impulses that he was repressing before. So he doesn't precisely express agency, but he does, in some way, decide to make the choice himself.

Geek Variety I had the same reaction. It’s very hard to say that he “decides” any of his action, the movie very derivatively frames everything he does as a result of his surroundings pushing him.

There's always a choice to commit violence. Western/American society justifies violence in scenarios like self-defense, defense of others, or war. But fundamentally, it's always a decision. Even spontaneous decisions are decisions nonetheless. Acknowledging a spiraling context of circumstances is still just an acknowledgement--it doesn't mean someone doesn't have a choice. Rather than act as if he didn't decide, ask if you think his decisions were correct or understandable.

avocadotart I think the point is that the movie’s framing leans towards his lack of control over what happens to him. Not necessarily translatable to the real world.

We don't know that yet. ;)

People wants different things of movies

My big issue with Joker is that it's saying a whole lot of things... Sort of... ...and quite often the exact opposite moral could be gained from it as well.

@@PauLtus_B Joker is an unreliable narrator, so of course it's message is confused. It's made clear at the end of the film that half the things he has told us about were fantasies in his own head. That's why the film is so unnerving. You know some it is false, but you can't tell what parts of his story to believe and what not to believe. There's a long tradition of unreliable narrators in fiction. Joker is simple the most modern take. Think about the character as he's portrayed in the Dark Knight. He has multiple different versions of the story of how he got his scars, and he tells different one every time. Everyone who knows this character knows you can't take him at his word. This film is the first time we've had an entire film told from his point-of-view. But if you know the character at all, you go into this film knowing his version of events isn't trustworthy.

@@gailcbull Sure, but that's only an explanation, it doens't make the movie any better. Putting at the end of the movie is also a bit like "none of this actually matters". It's a bit like ending your movie on "but it was all just a dream". Believe me, Inception is one my absolute favourite movies and I think ambiguity can be done very purposefully. Joker's ambiguous background works in the Dark Knight because it makes him feel more "inevitable" in a sense. But in that movie he's the antagonist. In "Joker" we have a character study through which we don't really learn anything. I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm asking what the point?

@@PauLtus_B So what you're saying is you don't like character study stories. Fair enough. They aren't for everyone. But did you really expect a film told from the perspective of a character who you knew was manipulative and deceptive to teach you something? If you know the Joker as a character at all then there's no other way you could have done a story told from his perspective and remained faithful to the character. I think the reason so many people feel unnerved by this film is because it leaves the audience feeling the same way that Batman feels everytime he tries to understand the Joker. Think of the confused and pained look on Bruce Wayne's face in The Dark Knight when he's talking to Alfred about the Joker's motives, and Alfred answers him with the now famous line, "some men just want to watch the world burn." Joker (the film) actually succeeded in making the audience feel exactly what it would be like to be confronted with the actions of a real-life man who just wants to watch the world burn. Artistically speaking, that's a stunning achievement.

@@gailcbull "So what you're saying is you don't like character study stories." I like them when I actually feel like I learned something about a character. The whole "but he's insane" feels like an excuse for the film not actually saying anything. Even a lack of understanding can be done with a point and purpose but "Joker" just happened. "Joker (the film) actually succeeded in making the audience feel exactly what it would be like to be confronted with the actions of a real-life man who just wants to watch the world burn. Artistically speaking, that's a stunning achievement." ...that's not how I felt at all. That's what the Dark Knight did, also by making the Joker not the main character but very much the antagonist. You can empathize with the frustrations of the characters confronted with the Joker. When it comes to Joker you just don't understand.

Jokers whole gimmick is to make people see that anyone can become him after one bad day This movie just expanded on his own bad day

It's as good as you're gonna get from Hollywood.

I think 13 Reasons Why really was socially irresponsible in a much more serious way than The Joker.

Look, they went overboard, ok? It isn't that hard to see why. A mass murder was committed at a screening for The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, and the copycat nature of such phenomena made it a possibility at the very least that that sort of thing could happen again. It didn't. Or another act of violence similarly inspired. None did. But this most superficial of focuses detracts from the main problem, here: Joker just isn't a good film. If I left it at that, you would probably demand an explanation. So I will also say that I am more than happy to tell you exactly why in great detail... but only if you wish 😊

Which parasite? Japanese? Korean? Or maybe US has one too.

@@dustone8542 a new korean movie by director Bong Joon Ho.

Like art, though (and anything, really), criticism should be called out when it's being silly. There's plenty of valid criticism to be had about the SUBSTANCE of some of the criticism leveled at Joker that doesn't stem from diverging views about the responsibilities of art. I feel like that would have been worth mentioning. Not every criticism of criticism is based on an "art for art's sake" argument.

Look, there's more criticism being applied to what critics said about the film than about the film instead. Who do you think is missing the point in this situation?

Gastón Zumbo Exactly what critics are you referring to because early screenings from the big magazine critics actually rated Joker highly: twitter.com/shallow_ss/status/1167889098243104775 And then when the movie actually came out, other critics’ general opinion was much like Just Write’s “it’s okay - not good, not bad, but okay” citing that while Joaquin Pheonix was brilliant, and the movie was beautiful, the dialogue got clunky, the script was weak, and the movie was predictable. Perhaps you mean the criticism of the regular people, who have lived in a country that constantly experiences mass shootings almost every month, that a movie about a villain made them concerned. You might think “those people are so silly”, but isn’t that saying something about the society you live in that it’s a concern for them? I say this as someone who doesn’t live in America and don’t have the same gun culture as Americans do - people where I live had no fears that the movie would cause others to be violent and go on gunning sprees if they watch it.

@@gastonzumbo9860 I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (so I'll try to answer to what I guess you might be implying). What point do you think is being missed? How do you quantify criticism? Because I'd argue if one critic publishes his opinion in, e.g., the NYT, and 1000 people criticize them on twitter, what has more impact is still the person's opinion who has a huge amplifying platform and thus will reach a much larger audience. Furthermore, let's roll with the assumption for a moment that there is "more criticism" to what critics said than about the film instead, for argument's sake: What do you then deduce from that inequality? Is a 50/50 ratio the ideal ratio somehow? We have to consider the possibility of a critique (or a film, an argument, whatever) getting a disproportionate amount of criticism itself simply because it's very flawed.

The ones you keep to yourself

@@israsaleh deepthoughts

@@michealvega1373 I thought I was being a killjoy but I suppose so

Gentrifying stairs*

Tfw when a class uprising film gets painted as incel film

I'm what people would classify as a "snowflake", but I liked this movie.

It is more than a film. It's an experience. A haunting roller-coaster. Joaquin always melts into his characters, but in Joker he outdid himself.

val macclinchy which I need to see it.

@@tturnquest1 I'm seeing it again in the theater, at least once more..

It should indeed. Good call. That's where epics are supposed to begin.

This demonstrates how little Just Write actually knows about what he talks about. Also, Horace coined the term but didn't invent it, as it had been used for thousands of years before him.

Good for a quicc mental fucc

Why tho?

@@tiarezavaleta8850 Why what? why did I find it was irresponsible?

@@matthieurheaume I'm curious as to why you find it irresponsible. Not trying to bash you, just interested in the perspective.

@@jimihendrix23456 it was mostly due to social context and timing. Arthur is portrayed as mostly justified in his anger towards society and, at the time, there had been a huge spike in angry white men choosing mass shootings as means of expressing their discontent. In the end, the film is thankfully, not good enough to create a cult following (thank god) but it was a bit of a dangerous choice. I think we need to pretty much stop portraying the lone justified psycho and find healthier ways of representing angry young dudes (cuz god knows they need it). It's also like, been done a ton, so repetition re enforces patterns. I think that it is more likely that Joker slightly re enforced the pattern of the lone gunman more than it challenged it. It probsbly didn't have a big impact, but i don't think it had a positive one. Those are some of my thoughts. Again, not asking for censorship though.

@@matthieurheaume I can see why you would think that, especially because tons of people are wired to root for the main character implicitly, and Joker definitely frames Arthur's anger as justified. I personally liked the movie quite a bit because it showed how disconnected from everyone he was. Being a dude with anger problems and identity issues, I empathized with Arthur's genuine desire to make people happy. I did theatre and performed music because I had that desire too. Seeing people only entertained by him when it's at his expense hurt me because I know that feeling too well. But for him, that desire and his attachment to Murray are all that he really has. So when he started killing, it was uncomfortable to watch because I understood why he would feel justified. I agree with you that angry young men need more stories showing them coming to a positive resolution, but not once did I think the story actively wanted me to emulate him. People he desired to be close with (Murray, the other clowns, his neighbor) were disgusted or frightened by who he was and what he did constantly throughout the movie. It doesn't punish him karmically at the end for his actions, but the influence he has on the mob is exactly what makes him a horrifying villain. If someone didn't see the negatives of the discomfort he inflicts on people and the mob that eventually lionizes him, I guess they could view him as a hero in the movie's framework. But I don't think enough people are truly so unstable that allowing him to be empathetic (and even victorious in a fucked-up way) would translate to a sizable increase in copycat crime. I think the media portrayal of actual killers and mass shooters, with their names in bold, and news circuits broadcasting their deeds to the world while minimizing the discussion of their victims, does more to drive the angry dudes like me into committing high-profile killings than a villain origin story which clearly shows how people react negatively to him. This was way longer than I expected, but you made a lot of points that made me think, and I appreciate your indulging my curiosity.