#joaquin pheonix

[jeremyleerennerdotcom]

on this day in history

the immigrant premiere cannes 24th may 2013

[younghollywood4ever]

[screenhub]

'Napoleon' Fact or Fiction - ScreenHub Entertainment

Napoleon is finally out and…it’s okay. Part of the problem with Ridley Scott’s latest is how often it strays from the historical text. Scott has cited we weren’t there to analyze history firsthand, but many who were alive during the Napoleonic Wars did document their lives via journals or memoirs, including Napoleon himself. So I wanted to look at some, not all, of the deviations in the film and…

[cky3k]

U TURN (1997)

[fjmarchive]

06/28/2023 via instagram stories

[slur-sayer]

[who-is-she-anyway]

okay, but can we talk about Signs for the next seven hours???

[spaderholic81]

https://at.tumblr.com/thatbitchsimone/640542568468430848/oaopdbq7lwn5

[she-anemone]

[jeremyleerennerdotcom]

on this day in history

the immigrant premiere, cannes film festival 24th may 2013

[jakegyllenbaalz]

joker comic book covers

[artist-issues]

My curiosity keeps knocking, so I've gotta pull the thread. Why would you erase Joker from existence if you could?

I'll break it down:

1. The Joker has no point.

There is not one consistent message in The Joker. It's not trying to "say" anything at all, because it commits to nothing. Instead, it almost says several things. It almost comments on the haves versus the have-nots. It almost comments on mental illness. It almost comments on society's treatment of those with mental illnesses. It almost comments on the government's spending. It almost comments on violence and comedy. But everything it tries to comment on feels like a sentence that gets cut off at the halfway point; after telling you the bad news and promising good news, it fails to deliver.

I'll tell you how it does this. Arthur Fleck is introduced as mentally ill. (As in, there was a developmental problem with his brain chemistry that causes him to miss social cues and laugh nervously.) This means that when he is mistreated by background characters for "being different," the audience should start to feel sorry for him and consider how a mentally ill person should be treated. But wait. He's not actually mentally ill because of a diagnosable problem with his brain chemistry—he claims he feels clearer and better when he's off his meds. Add that to the revelation that he wasn't born with a brain-chemistry issue. He was abused by his mom's ex. So, maybe he's not actually "crazy." Maybe, he's seeing the world as it really is? After all, it's been dark and terrible for him since he was a child. Or no, because what about that laughing tick, that's not normal, right? And he's hallucinating a life with a girl he's attracted to, and believes it enough to walk into her apartment like that's normal. So is he crazy, or just the only one responding correctly to a world as dark as he is?

The movie won't tell you. It starts a sentence, then cuts off before any thought or truth statement can be completed.

The movie also sets itself up as if those who have should be taking responsibility for society's "have-nots." Or it starts to. Mr. Wayne is introduced as directly responsible for the hardship Mrs. Fleck has fallen into. He is Arthur's father, and should be caring for him. But instead, he beats up and ignores the guy most entitled to, and in need of, his help. Just like the way he ignores the poor people in his city, right? But wait. No. Maybe none of that is true. Maybe Mr. Wayne is entirely innocent of abandoning Arthur and his mother—this was all the delusion of a selfish drug-addicted woman, and the rumors she's spreading ultimately lead to the assassination, not only of Mr. Wayne's good character, but of his actual life. And his wife's. So is the character who has power and influence and badmouths the poor a portrayed in a negative light, or a positive light? Is this character a selfish rich person who cares nothing for those less fortunate than himself, or is he just one more guy who could've been good if others' cruelty (Mrs. Fleck's lies) hadn't pushed him "past the breaking point?" Does that justify his cruelty, if it's true?

Both. Neither. Nothing at all. The movie won't tell you.

So you can pick whatever ending you want. But. No you can't. You can't even do that. Because guess what? It's all in Arthur Fleck, inmate of Arkham Asylum's, crazy head. Maybe none of it was real.

2. The Joker is therefore only successful as a piece of entertainment.

Everyone could've guessed that as soon as they saw it was a movie about the Joker. Nobody needed this movie in any sense. We already know more than one origin story for the Joker, as a character. We've already done-to-death every interpretation of his craziness. Everybody knows who he is and what he's like. So obviously, this was just going to be entertaining.

That's bad enough. Stories are supposed to remind you of goodness, beauty, and truth. Why? I'm not going to dissect it because everyone can read the pinned post on my blog. But because: the world's dark enough already, and it's easy to lose your sense of goodness, beauty, and truth. A story, even if it's a tragedy, even if it has no "happy ending," can still take you out of your present state of mind, sit you down in a fresh state of mind, and remind you of truth. Being "entertaining" is just one of the tools that the story uses to take you there. Or it's supposed to be.

When you take the point, the truth, the message, the "theme," out of a story, then it's just the Romans distracting the populace with coliseum spectacle so they forget that they're losing money and wasting their lives. Woohoo. "Fun. Entertainment."

You can disagree with me about that if you want. You can believe, like many I know, "it's fine to just turn off your brain and be entertained! Not everything has to mean something! I bet you're fun at parties!" Okay, cool, so you like being entertained, and The Joker entertained you.

The problem is, what were you being entertained by?

Because:

3. The Joker increases an appetite for evil in the audience.

I don't care. I said it. It's painfully obvious.

First of all, you came here to what? Watch the bad guy lose and the good guy win? No. This movie's got no Batman. You came to glut yourself on two hours of the bad guy with no pesky good guy to share his spotlight.

Is that too harsh? Maybe you just came in expecting the Joker to be about how a good man goes bad. Okay. Uplifting. But sure, maybe a cautionary tale could be useful.

But that's not what you get with the Joker. We already established: there's no lesson, no point, to this movie besides entertainment.

And I don't just mean "aw booo, there was way too much icky blood and scary suspenseful music. Oh no, a movie about a villain had villainy in it!!"

Nope.

I mean, tell me why Arthur Fleck only has moments of peace and transcendence after he murders someone? Why's the sunlight warming him up, like a benevolent gift from the heavens, in the shot after he smothers his mother with a pillow? Why are those somber strings playing out a ditty he can "be himself" and dance to after he shoots three young men? Why is he only experiencing clarity after he kills?

Why are the most "interesting" parts of Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal the parts where the character is killing, stealing, or thinking about killing?

Why is so much effort put into telling the story as if Arthur Fleck is sympathetic, no matter which way you look at it? He only kills mean people. Except his mother. Oh but she was kind of mean, too. Never mind that whatever caused her to ignore, lie, and abuse her son was also played off, in the movie, like a mental illness. The very thing we're meant to feel sorry for Arthur about.

The movie won't tell you who's right or wrong. But it makes you see everything through Arthur's eyes, with nobody to stop him or correct him or offer a differing point of view—and that alone is dangerous. Your mirror neurons are going to make you sympathize with that main character, regardless of how heinous his actions are, when the storytellers are so careful to offer you all these reasons why his actions were "justified."

The Joker was invented to have a Batman. Introduce a villain—even a sympathetic villain—but you have to also introduce the opposite of that villain. It can be one line of dialogue; it doesn't have to be a hero. But you have to say something about the evil when it is represented. Instead of inviting everyone to feel for the villain...then leaving them feeling vaguely satisfied when he commits atrocities. They can't help it. It's the first time he's looked at peace, or in control of anything. That's how the movie is made.

So you're entertained by looking for a statement that isn't there—or by watching one man brutally slay five people, one of whom is his mother, because you were just so excited to see some blood, to see a man snap. Panem et circuses. At its finest. And you paid for it. Smart. Cultured, of you.

I'd wipe that movie out of existence and force the writers and directors to stare at a wall while sad violin music plays in the background for exactly how many days it took them to make that movie, if I could.

[foolcunting]

uhhhhhhhh yeah about that

[jokerislandgirl32]

How Us Arthur Lovers Look At Him:

Just like that….we look at him just like this lady in his daydream and we think exactly what’s in the thought bubble, 😂.

[dakichh]

☠️💀.

[slur-sayer]