The Joker

[soon]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

She was poised for big things, Carol White. She went to Hollywood and made some semi-big films including a film with Dean Martin as I recall, however booze and drugs destroyed her career.

Thats a shame, I watched just a bit of it last night and shes great. Real magnetism.

Ive enjoyed the film so far (if only the 15 minutes I could watch). Its interesting to me that its made for tv since it strikes me as being quite artsy(?) and I dont associate that with made for tv movies. I think more Hallmark Christmas romances for tv movies. I do love the class representation.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Not the worst thing in the world.

Again, not the worst thing a filmmaker could do.  I mean everyone finds at least some portion of it questionable, the key I suppose in such things is balance.

I don't know another filmmaker than champions its people more though.  Britains that is.

Again, not necessarily bad things.

As you know I'm not a big one for politics, I do think the people deserve a voice though and it is the job of artists, or at least some of them, to try to be that voice.  There is the theory though that 'social realism' in cinema is a very middle class concern.  They hate themselves when they watch it and hate themselves even more when they don't watch it.  I'm not sure if I can afford to be quite that cynical though. 

Corbynista. 

[soon]

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

There is the theory though that 'social realism' in cinema is a very middle class concern.  They hate themselves when they watch it and hate themselves even more when they don't watch it.  I'm not sure if I can afford to be quite that cynical though. 

This sounds interesting. Whats that all about?

[Len Cnut]

51 minutes ago, soon said:

This sounds interesting. Whats that all about?

Well I suppose the idea is that 'social realism' and stuff like that, do your working classes really watch those sorts of films?  Your average shit shoveller like, say, McLeod for instance   He's into his Commandos and Predators and that.  So who watches these films really?  Middle class Guardian reading poofters, as Dies' might call em   It's a guilt thing y'know, like not watching them is somehow ignoring the plight of the poor put upon working class.  But then when they do watch em they still feel guilty because they are presented with the reality of the people beneath them in the social hierachy and class system of our society, of which they are in a better position and, by virtue of that, sort of to blame.  The rich get richer because the poor get poorer is the idea. 

[soon]

52 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Well I suppose the idea is that 'social realism' and stuff like that, do your working classes really watch those sorts of films?  Your average shit shoveller like, say, McLeod for instance   He's into his Commandos and Predators and that.  So who watches these films really?  Middle class Guardian reading poofters, as Dies' might call em   It's a guilt thing y'know, like not watching them is somehow ignoring the plight of the poor put upon working class.  But then when they do watch em they still feel guilty because they are presented with the reality of the people beneath them in the social hierachy and class system of our society, of which they are in a better position and, by virtue of that, sort of to blame.  The rich get richer because the poor get poorer is the idea. 

Oh, I gotcha, thanks. The vivid character based object lessons are helpful 

You know, I usually tend to think of the rigid class system of Britain as a negative thing. But it also results in class consciences for the workers too though, doesnt it? The only Brit films I can bring to mind that Ive seen are Pride and This Is England - both exploring the lower classes. Thinking out loud now, but White Riot is a different way of acknowledging and exploring/celebrating the idea of unity across differences (in that they were inspired by the black communities uprising and called for white poor do do the same).

I really appreciated the class depictions in Loachs film and felt like I got a good sense of the working class culture. Its fascinating about middle class people being aware of their role in the poor's plight. That does not exist much here. And many low class/working class characters here are simply presented as nation builders, very much the opposite of the notion that they are oppressed (Anne of Green Gables, a mistreated orphan adopted to do farm work, is seen more as a vivacious, precocious, poet, country gal - something romanticized by, and relatable too, all classes). I suppose a nation that pre-exists capitalism has a better lens than a nation built for capitalism.

I wish we were more like England even though what you are pointing out isnt necessarily the ideal either.

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by soon

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Ive enjoyed the film so far (if only the 15 minutes I could watch). Its interesting to me that its made for tv since it strikes me as being quite artsy(?) and I dont associate that with made for tv movies. I think more Hallmark Christmas romances for tv movies. I do love the class representation.

England has some fucking class made for TV stuff.  Cathy Come Home was put on by the BBC, the big evil BBC that some people on this forum would have you believe was a fucking freemasonic fuckin' conspiracy of pedophiles or whatever.  Cathy Come Home, to me, is a symbol of the fantastic possibilities of cinema.  In its day it was such a powerful piece, in its wake charities were formed and campaigns conducted to help the homeless. 

But yeah, some great powerful artistically substantial stuff has been put on TV in England.  A lot of the early sitcoms that I am so fond of prattling on about I am so fond of precisely because of their social realist aspects, there is a lot that is political and sociological to them.  The Debussy Film by Ken Russell (starring my mate Oliver Reed) was made for TV.  As was the movie Scum.  It was about like youth offenders prisons, Borstals they are (or were) called.  That whole eventual thing got shutdown soon after, some say in part due to the movie Scum and the resultant effect it had on highlighting just what grim awful fuckin' hellholes these places were.  Starred Ray Winstone that.  You should check it out, I warn you though its a bit grim in parts, you'll have to endure watching a young boy get bummed: 

Or Meantime starring a very young pre-fame Tim Roth and Gary Oldman

 

[soon]

43 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

England has some fucking class made for TV stuff.  Cathy Come Home was put on by the BBC, the big evil BBC that some people on this forum would have you believe was a fucking freemasonic fuckin' conspiracy of pedophiles or whatever.  Cathy Come Home, to me, is a symbol of the fantastic possibilities of cinema.  In its day it was such a powerful piece, in its wake charities were formed and campaigns conducted to help the homeless. 

But yeah, some great powerful artistically substantial stuff has been put on TV in England.  A lot of the early sitcoms that I am so fond of prattling on about I am so fond of precisely because of their social realist aspects, there is a lot that is political and sociological to them.  The Debussy Film by Ken Russell (starring my mate Oliver Reed) was made for TV.  As was the movie Scum.  It was about like youth offenders prisons, Borstals they are (or were) called.  That whole eventual thing got shutdown soon after, some say in part due to the movie Scum and the resultant effect it had on highlighting just what grim awful fuckin' hellholes these places were.  Starred Ray Winstone that.  You should check it out, I warn you though its a bit grim in parts, you'll have to endure watching a young boy get bummed: 

Or Meantime starring a very young pre-fame Tim Roth and Gary Oldman

 

Thanks for this insight and recommendations! Im set for a little Brit film fest now, along with Dies' and Lukes suggestions 

I also have to seek out canadian cinema social realism. Thats amazing, the impact Cathy Come Home had. Thats the ideal of cinema and public broadcasting, isnt it.

Edit: oh and thanks for the bummed warning!

Edited November 14, 2019 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

10 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Well I suppose the idea is that 'social realism' and stuff like that, do your working classes really watch those sorts of films?  Your average shit shoveller like, say, McLeod for instance   He's into his Commandos and Predators and that.  So who watches these films really?  Middle class Guardian reading poofters, as Dies' might call em   It's a guilt thing y'know, like not watching them is somehow ignoring the plight of the poor put upon working class.  But then when they do watch em they still feel guilty because they are presented with the reality of the people beneath them in the social hierachy and class system of our society, of which they are in a better position and, by virtue of that, sort of to blame.  The rich get richer because the poor get poorer is the idea. 

For social realism, Bicycle Thieves (1948) is where it all began really, in Italy and the dawn of Italian Neorealism, although you may cite Kenji Mizoguchi's films, Japan, who was active in the 1920s and '30s although he had his heyday after the war. Cannot imagine Dazey sitting down to Ladri di biciclette or Sanshō Dayū too much! I suppose its true beginnings lay in Soviet Montage of the 1920s, although these tended to be more political, covering seismic events of the Russian Revolution.

One other national addition is the German Trümmerfilme (rubble films) which deal with immediate post-war concerns such as poverty, bombed-out cities, the black market, occupation, returning war veterans, post-war Nazism. Die Mörder sind unter uns, (1946) instigated this genre and is certainly worth watching. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

You know, I usually tend to think of the rigid class system of Britain as a negative thing. But it also results in class consciences for the workers too though, doesnt it?

I honestly think that shit is way overstated in regards to England.  I mean its here and its here hard but isn't it everywhere?  India and them have their version, I'm sure the Japs and Chinese have their version, I can't speak for so much of the world cuz I only know a little about some parts, Arabs certainly have it, there are no classless societies in the world.  America likes to think of itself as a classless society but its probably one of the most segregated across the social status divide than any country in the western world.

And my knowledge of the punk rock movement in Canada and a teensy bit of socio-political surroundings of the time lead me to believe than Canada has something resembling that shit too. 

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

For social realism, Bicycle Thieves (1948)

I got obssessed with Italian neo realism for a fuckin' whole year after studying it in film studies.  I think you can learn everything you need to know about making valuable cinema by watching that shit and German Expressionism. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I honestly think that shit is way overstated in regards to England.  I mean its here and its here hard but isn't it everywhere?  India and them have their version, I'm sure the Japs and Chinese have their version, I can't speak for so much of the world cuz I only know a little about some parts, Arabs certainly have it, there are no classless societies in the world.  America likes to think of itself as a classless society but its probably one of the most segregated across the social status divide than any country in the western world.

And my knowledge of the punk rock movement in Canada and a teensy bit of socio-political surroundings of the time lead me to believe than Canada has something resembling that shit too. 

I got obssessed with Italian neo realism for a fuckin' whole year after studying it in film studies.  I think you can learn everything you need to know about making valuable cinema by watching that shit and German Expressionism. 

Two rather different brands of cinema you'd say. Rather antithetical really in that Expressionism relies on artifice and the supernatural.  I recently watched a brilliant Expressionist film which strangely passed me by,

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I honestly think that shit is way overstated in regards to England.  I mean its here and its here hard but isn't it everywhere?  India and them have their version, I'm sure the Japs and Chinese have their version, I can't speak for so much of the world cuz I only know a little about some parts, Arabs certainly have it, there are no classless societies in the world.  America likes to think of itself as a classless society but its probably one of the most segregated across the social status divide than any country in the western world.

And my knowledge of the punk rock movement in Canada and a teensy bit of socio-political surroundings of the time lead me to believe than Canada has something resembling that shit too. 

You could actually argue that England/United Kingdom has been ahead of most countries in breaking down class division. Medieval serfdom was abolished here far earlier than the rest of Europe, as was feudalism. The 16th century saw the rise of a gentry ''governing'' class. Industrial revolution further saw the rise of a (upper) middle class which eventually gained enfranchisement then political control. The historical difference is that elements of the ancien régime survived here, class broken down (but never entirely eradicated) through a series of earlier (Parliamentary) compromises. Class boundaries were broken down in a more recent and sudden, seismic, manner in Europe (e.g. the French Revolution, Revolutions 1830/1848, Russian Revolution). 

I think the difference regarding class between the British and the rest of the world is that the British have turned class into an entire culture of nuanced bigotry (accenting been at the forefront, but also etiquette). To a degree we have divorced ''class'' from its economic basis. In the pages of Dickens he discusses a certain type of character he called ''shabby genteel'', i.e., ''gentlemen'' who were essentially broke, but determined to carry on with their gentlemen-like lifestyle. This is an example of this. I have an auntie (no blood relation) whose background is quintessentially northern working class: she actually lived in one of those houses as a child, the coal hole, the outside toilet. Yet now, because she married upwardly, she effects a comically middle class facade. ''New wealth'', ''new money'', were especially scorned by the aristocracy and gentry when the middle classes rose during the 18th and 19th centuries. I believe that prejudice still exists. Nobody likes a wanker with new money here, premiership footballers, etc. In the states they applaud this economic aggrandisement. 

In the United States class is more a question of economic tiers, which one can ascend with little stigma from their previous lower ranking.

The British have turned simple economic class into this weird cultural game basically haha. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Two rather different brands of cinema you'd say. Rather antithetical really in that Expressionism relies on artifice and the supernatural.  I recently watched a brilliant Expressionist film which strangely passed me by,

 

The look of German Expressionism and the heart of Social Realism...between that you've got it.  Thats kinda what I was getting at.  Though I suppose heart isn't really part of the mechanics of cinema, in a nuts and bolts sense.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

To a degree we have divorced ''class'' from its economic basis. In the pages of Dickens he discusses a certain type of character he called ''shabby genteel'', i.e., ''gentlemen'' who were essentially broke, but determined to carry on with their gentlemen-like lifestyle.

Working class people generally aspire to a better life and therefore go for like, the trappings of the other half.  The 'shabby genteel' though is like...look, aristorcracy and breeding isn't necessarily synonymous with wealth, you can lose money, you can't lose your blood/breeding etc.  More than a few toffs are quite thin on the ground wealthwise but they still have that thing of dressing a particular way or speaking in RP.  Losing money doesn't turn you into a barrow boy. 

[DieselDaisy]

27 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Working class people generally aspire to a better life and therefore go for like, the trappings of the other half.  The 'shabby genteel' though is like...look, aristorcracy and breeding isn't necessarily synonymous with wealth, you can lose money, you can't lose your blood/breeding etc.  More than a few toffs are quite thin on the ground wealthwise but they still have that thing of dressing a particular way or speaking in RP.  Losing money doesn't turn you into a barrow boy. 

Exactly but I do not think that is quite how it operates in the United States where economic ascendancy is applauded and carries with it little taint of your prior economic bracket. If somebody rises in the United States they say, ''hey, well done, American dream in action maan''. If somebody does similar in England it is: ''who do they think they are?'' ''Still as common as muck with an accent like that and lowing the tone of the neighbourhood'' and similar comments.   

 

[DieselDaisy]

I have to say, as much as I love Fellini's sophisticate-baroque films, it is his earlier neorealist films I love most: La Strada, Cabiria and Il bidone - he also worked on Rome: Open City. 

[soon]

12 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I honestly think that shit is way overstated in regards to England.  I mean its here and its here hard but isn't it everywhere?  India and them have their version, I'm sure the Japs and Chinese have their version, I can't speak for so much of the world cuz I only know a little about some parts, Arabs certainly have it, there are no classless societies in the world.  America likes to think of itself as a classless society but its probably one of the most segregated across the social status divide than any country in the western world.

And my knowledge of the punk rock movement in Canada and a teensy bit of socio-political surroundings of the time lead me to believe than Canada has something resembling that shit too. 

Certainly class systems exist in Canada, but it seems to be different from what I observe over there. Having a Monarchy probably goes a ways in establishing socially acceptable hierarchy.

I think a lot of what @DieselDaisy has said about the US is very similar to what I would say. But theres a huge issue in NA regarding any sort of Social Realism - both nations deny that they are colonial. The bottom class is the occupied/dispossessed and they are made invisible here. Our Metis "father of Alberta" is white washed - he lead an armed rebellion against both the capitalists and white state. We dont learn that in school. Social Realism in Canada doesnt exist in the real world so its highly unlikely to exist in cinema.

And to the point of 'the american dream' there is a lot of that sense here too, but like i said earlier its polished with a sheen of 'nation building' where hard work and elbow grease are a virtue. And in the vein of nation building, there are all the Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Catholic Womens Guilds. A great many small towns would be with out parks, social centres and leisure activities without these Clubs. They are often mostly populated by the affluent and exist mostly to serve the people (in their own fucked up way). 

So while classist attitudes prevail here, there isnt a clear cut way that it is discussed or identified by the average person. By comparison with the British middle class who has a guilt complex about watching social realist films, y'all seem like sociologists compared to our national conversations on class. And its sad given that it was a militant and widespread labour movement that precipitated our Universal Health Care.

Now, novels by Inuit, First Nations, Metis and East Coasters are social realism. Very under-read too. And when one turns into a tv franchise, like Anne of Green Gables, its not experienced as a difficult class based tale, but a romantic drama about our nations history and development, YA fair. (although the newest incarnation on Netflix is a lot grittier and true to the novels in the sense that there is darkness, perhaps rendering my points void, but I still think its not consumed in the way you describe your country folk do) 

Edited November 15, 2019 by soon

[Len Cnut]

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Exactly but I do not think that is quite how it operates in the United States where economic ascendancy is applauded and carries with it little taint of your prior economic bracket. If somebody rises in the United States they say, ''hey, well done, American dream in action maan''. If somebody does similar in England it is: ''who do they think they are?'' ''Still as common as muck with an accent like that and lowing the tone of the neighbourhood'' and similar comments.   

 

You think all the wealthy rappers get love from like, the fathered in American economic elite?  I doubt it.

[double talkin jive mfkr]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:41 AM, downzy said:

Didn't expect much for this film, until I saw the trailer:

Now cautiously optimistic.  

hated it

On 11/15/2019 at 5:58 AM, DieselDaisy said:

I have to say, as much as I love Fellini's sophisticate-baroque films, it is his earlier neorealist films I love most: La Strada, Cabiria and Il bidone - he also worked on Rome: Open City. 

 rome open city is one of the best cinematic accomplishments ever - simply the cinematography alone makes it the best, along with the mounting climax, hhow about The Conformist though? thats toe to toe the best film ever as well 

Edited November 25, 2019 by double talkin jive mfkr

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

On 11/15/2019 at 8:19 AM, Len Cnut said:

You think all the wealthy rappers get love from like, the fathered in American economic elite?  I doubt it.

Who in the fathered economic elite are like, anti Jay-Z? lol, here are the top 10 wealthiest

Jeff Bezos

Bill Gates

Warren Buffet

Mark Zuckerberg

Larry Ellison

Larry Page

Sergrey Brin

Michael Bloomberg

Steve Ballmer

Jim Walton

[appetite4illusions]

As one of the most successful movies of last year, it seems all but a foregone conclusion that this will get a sequel, which brings me to my question "are they actually going to give us Joker?"

I for one, was aggravated at how easily and seamlessly people accepted this iteration as being "The Joker." I saw this as a film that was clearly about Arthur - an individual - and not someone who has the presence of the devil himself. Which is the essence of Joker.

So, how do you take a sad-sack character, a loser, essentially, and elevate him to the level of idolatry. How do you take Arthur and make him the Joker? "Well, he shot Robert DeNiro and he wore facepaint! He must be the Joker!"

I think the "sequel" if it comes to be, will have a mighty difficult road in terms of concept and execution. This guy is no longer the frustrated white man that so many people can identify with - but is he the legendary Clown Prince of Crime? How will they make that nexus - that connection? 

Can you believe that someone who is so hilariously bad at crime can graduate to the level of being the "prince" of it? Maybe in comic-book land...but this isn't that (though it wants to exist in both: the real, and the pseudo realities).

I think that they will have a helluva time trying to decide if this character is the lonely, flawed, sad white guy who people can identify with out of frustration, or, the larger than life, supernatural essence of chaos. Quite a lot of room between those two extremes and I have a hard time believing that a character could be both.

[The Holographic Universe]

On 1/8/2020 at 4:51 PM, appetite4illusions said:

As one of the most successful movies of last year, it seems all but a foregone conclusion that this will get a sequel, which brings me to my question "are they actually going to give us Joker?"

I for one, was aggravated at how easily and seamlessly people accepted this iteration as being "The Joker." I saw this as a film that was clearly about Arthur - an individual - and not someone who has the presence of the devil himself. Which is the essence of Joker.

So, how do you take a sad-sack character, a loser, essentially, and elevate him to the level of idolatry. How do you take Arthur and make him the Joker? "Well, he shot Robert DeNiro and he wore facepaint! He must be the Joker!"

I think the "sequel" if it comes to be, will have a mighty difficult road in terms of concept and execution. This guy is no longer the frustrated white man that so many people can identify with - but is he the legendary Clown Prince of Crime? How will they make that nexus - that connection? 

Can you believe that someone who is so hilariously bad at crime can graduate to the level of being the "prince" of it? Maybe in comic-book land...but this isn't that (though it wants to exist in both: the real, and the pseudo realities).

I think that they will have a helluva time trying to decide if this character is the lonely, flawed, sad white guy who people can identify with out of frustration, or, the larger than life, supernatural essence of chaos. Quite a lot of room between those two extremes and I have a hard time believing that a character could be both.

Maybe a Sequel would have someone take that role of “Joker”, while Arthur remains in Arkham. Because as you said, Arthur cannot be Joker for the reasons you listed. Perhaps, Alfred could be the adversary to this Joker since Arthur is indirectly responsible for Wayne’s death. A sequel seems unlikely.

[moreblack]

I worry they will try to shoehorn Batman too much into a sequel. This movie works precisely because of his absence.

[F*ck Fear]

I honestly think this film is better as a stand alone. I doubt they will be able to recapture the magic.

[megaguns1982]

I really enjoyed this movie but I felt that they Could have left out the Bruce scenes. It felt kind of forced.

[DieselDaisy]

The Bruce scenes, more especially the murder of his parents, did seem that they were planted in order to establish a new franchise.