The Official Movie Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[challenge_everything]

Spoiler

Obviously, but how is that tourism? Probably shouldn't include a plot location nobody organically wanted to go to. That'd be like if I invited you and some of your friends to my house and then had a cult I belong to kill you all, is that tourism or did I invite you somewhere with fucked up intentions? I know I sound a bit autistic and nitpicky here.

Spoiler

Just because people were convinced to go under false pretences, doesn't mean they didn't want to go. The Josh character wanted to go for his PHD research and his interest in quaint cultures. Mark, and perhaps also Christian, wanted to go as kind of a hedonistic lads' trip. Unless you're the sort of person whose idea of tourism is limited to Kontiki tours and P&O cruises, I really struggle to see why you wouldn't consider that tourism. Cultural tourism is a big industry, from visiting hill tribes in South East Asia, staying with the Saami in northern Scandinavia, yoga retreats in India, ayahuasca purges in South America. You don't need to be paying a tour company to be a tourist doing those things. Plus if I get invited by a mate to visit him in another country, I'd still consider myself a tourist.

Spoiler

That gets into the bit I find completely unrelatable and frankly, unrealistic to the point of detriment. Yes distant and cold partners exist, but Dani is portrayed as basically a saint, plus her whole family dies right at the start, yet not only does he neglect her but all his friends treat her like someone farted in a windowless room. Any chance you're going to be invested in any of the characters or any of their relationships with each other is trashed from the get-go. At least that's how I felt. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if much of the impact of the film wasn't wrapped up in said relationships.

I didn't find that as unrealistic as you but I'm not really going to defend that part.

 

[CiG]

Spoiler

Just because people were convinced to go under false pretences, doesn't mean they didn't want to go. The Josh character wanted to go for his PHD research and his interest in quaint cultures. Mark, and perhaps also Christian, wanted to go as kind of a hedonistic lads' trip. Unless you're the sort of person whose idea of tourism is limited to Kontiki tours and P&O cruises, I really struggle to see why you wouldn't consider that tourism. Cultural tourism is a big industry, from visiting hill tribes in South East Asia, staying with the Saami in northern Scandinavia, yoga retreats in India, ayahuasca purges in South America. You don't need to be paying a tour company to be a tourist doing those things. Plus if I get invited by a mate to visit him in another country, I'd still consider myself a tourist.

Spoiler

I don't disagree with any of that, just seems like you're conveniently ignoring the whole Pelle subplot, and the goals of all the cult members who go abroad to strike up "friendships" with natives. But whatever it's a small disagreement heh.

 

[CiG]

Watching:



This is fun as hell, like a mid-90's script JCVD rejected that then got dusted off in 2017 lmao.

Spoiler

 

[Einherjar86]

Regarding tourism, a place doesn't have to be well-known for it to count as tourism. Plenty of tourists constantly seek off-the-map locations, rare sites, little-known pilgrimages, etc. That doesn't make them not-tourists simply because they've chosen an uncommon destination.

 

[rms]

That racism making you think it wasn't a good film? Jesus Christ.

Weren't you saying that you disliked Joker because it did the whole explain thing? Isn't that how Us ended? Lupita telling us what everything meant because God forbid film making do that

I thought Midsommar was hilarious on second viewing, and have come to think it's not a horror film at all but actually a black comedy about graduate study. Unlike horror films, which typically rely on tension and suspense, Midsommar featured sustained dramatic irony that distances the audience, mostly precluding any visceral experience of terror. It's a very strange technique for a "horror" film.

definitely got this vibe more than horror during the first viewing. Hostel but for really rich academic types?

 

[Einherjar86]

Weren't you saying that you disliked Joker because it did the whole explain thing? Isn't that how Us ended? Lupita telling us what everything meant because God forbid film making do that

The difference here is that Us was a funny, tongue-in-cheek horror. Like Get Out, I think Peele's brand of horror is delightfully humorous. The exposition wherein Red explains the purpose of the underground lab was so hackneyed as to be little more than voyeuristic indulgence. Peele's just catering to middlebrow audience desires, and those who realize that get the joke. It’s Peele’s throwaway explanation for a plot point that is, ultimately, irrelevant. I don't care that he included it because it was laughably inconsequential and derivative, and Peele's certainly aware of that.

By contrast, Joker was a deadly serious film with no sense of humor. And my comment about telling us everything was more in reference to the Joker as a figurative expression of anarchistic social angst. He's a more powerful character when we don't know where he comes from, and Phillips's film proved this. It couldn't decide what it wanted to say about Arthur Fleck. Was his violence provoked by socioeconomic inequities? If so, this is a splendid critique of the Batman narrative, since Bruce Wayne's superpower is basically that he's part of the 1%. But Joker muddies this reading by placing Arthur's mental illness front and center; so now, it's not poverty and wealth that are the problems, but mental health. It's just an unclear and imprecise story, when it clearly wants to be something insightful and meaningful. I'll take Nolan's/Ledger's Joker over Phoenix's any day.

And lastly, I'm just fed up with method acting. I think it's a dumb fucking technique, and I hate how Hollywood fetishizes it, heaping praise on all these actors who really "get into" their roles. It's just boring and awful. It speaks to this notion of being able to "relate" to characters, which I think is a bane on modern cinematic narrative.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

If so, this is a splendid critique of the Batman narrative, since Bruce Wayne's superpower is basically that he's part of the 1%. But Joker muddies this reading by placing Arthur's mental illness front and center; so now, it's not poverty and wealth that are the problems, but mental health.

"butbutbut it only haz to be abouts one thangg and not da other"

 

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't have to be, but the two readings undercut each other. I think it would have been a more powerful and poignant film if Arthur had simply been a socially awkward poor boy.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I think it would have been a more powerful and poignant film if Arthur had simply been a socially awkward poor boy.

... im sorry but you clearly are not familiar enough with the character to say something like this. And i also disagree with your statement on a whole, the fact that his problems are multifaceted is much deeper than a movie that's just about a poor dude who's mad at the world. The Joker is a fucking lunatic first and foremost ... and while Ledgers performance as the joker was top notch, Pheonix's is much closer to the source material(the books).

 

[rms]

The difference here is that Us was a funny, tongue-in-cheek horror. Like Get Out, I think Peele's brand of horror is delightfully humorous. The exposition wherein Red explains the purpose of the underground lab was so hackneyed as to be little more than voyeuristic indulgence. Peele's just catering to middlebrow audience desires, and those who realize that get the joke. It’s Peele’s throwaway explanation for a plot point that is, ultimately, irrelevant. I don't care that he included it because it was laughably inconsequential and derivative, and Peele's certainly aware of that.

Sorry to give an impression I was interested in the joker, haven't seen it and probably won't because it looks bad

But, what is your take on Us then? It's Peeles attempt to masquerade as an intelligent horror flick as tongue in cheek greatness?

 

[Einherjar86]

... im sorry but you clearly are not familiar enough with the character to say something like this. And i also disagree with your statement on a whole, the fact that his problems are multifaceted is much deeper than a movie that's just about a poor dude who's mad at the world.

It would make the character deeper, but it doesn't make the film any deeper--mainly because the film doesn't do enough work clarify how these elements stand in relation to one another. It just throws a bunch of shit at the wall. There's a lot going on in Joker, but it's not all presented in a thoughtful way.

Establishing his poverty as the central motivation behind his actions, combined with his hatred for the Waynes, would be a brilliant commentary on the understated privilege of Batman's heroism--i.e. that he's a superhero because he's rich. In that respect, Arthur would be a more conflicted antihero because he would have the capacity to weigh the moral/ethical consequences of his actions. His mental illness undercuts that possibility, and reinforces the idea that violence is the only option for the mentally ill (the social lesson of this cautionary tale being "take care of your mentally ill, or they might kill you"--which is a somewhat reductive treatment of mental illness).

But all this is aside from the fact that I do still think the Joker is a more effective character without the origin story. I haven't read The Killing Joke, but I'm inclined to think it wouldn't change my mind.

The Joker is a fucking lunatic first and foremost ... and while Ledgers performance as the joker was top notch, Pheonix's is much closer to the source material(the books).

I'm not familiar with the character's textual history, but I don't need to be in order to talk about the film. I can appreciate that you've read the graphic novel; but as an adaptation of the graphic novel, the film can't rely on its source material to excuse directorial choices that muddy its narrative. I think Joker had a lot to say, but didn't say any of it particularly well.

Sorry to give an impression I was interested in the joker, haven't seen it and probably won't because it looks bad

But, what is your take on Us then? It's Peeles attempt to masquerade as an intelligent horror flick as tongue in cheek greatness?

I think it's a satire of the American family, dressed up as gimmicky horror. I wrote a longer thing about it a while back: https://experimentalitymusings.blogspot.com/2019/08/family-matters-creepy-kids-inept-adults.html

Relevant portion here (has spoilers):

Us’s subversion of the modern family might be cliché, but it’s also surprisingly sharp. There is no comfort to be found in parents: Gabe is quickly indisposed, and Addie turns out to be not the person we think she is. The film’s point is less a politically charged critique of the patriarchy than it is a darkly funny attempt to dissolve the hierarchical relations that have organized family experience for centuries. It doesn’t deliver vengeance upon Gabe (although Josh may be said to get what’s coming to him), but merely insists upon his flattening. He’s no more capable than his children are of fending off the doubles from the underworld.

The film sticks its critical knife into the idea of the family early on, but the final twist of the knife arrives with the final turn of the narrative screw (and here’s the major spoiler): Addie is in fact not Addie, but her subterranean double who attacked her in the beginning of the film. All along, viewers have believed Us to be a vindication of the powerful mother at the expense of the impotent father—but Addie was always-already a replacement. She gave birth to Jason and Zora, but her motherhood is revealed to be somehow essence-less. If the tethered truly do lack a soul, then her motherhood isn’t innate to some fundamental core of human motherhood; it’s something she learned. At this point, viewers and critics are free to propose a number of ways to read Addie’s ersatz quality: that all motherhood (indeed, parenthood) is learned, not something that springs up from within us; that love toward our children can’t be truly understood until one has children; or, if one wants to get biologically deterministic, that the protective instinct is more ruthless in mothers than in fathers. The list can go on.

I see all the aforementioned readings as simplistic efforts to reconcile a narrative that wants to leave its audience far more uncomfortable. The final shot of Addie and Jason locking eyes, Jason glaring at her, isn’t one of familiarity and safety, but of ambiguity. If Addie’s motherhood is sincere—that is, if she has learned true fondness and affection for her family—this sincerity doesn’t seem to have conveyed itself to her son. His look isn’t that of a child secure in his mother’s care, but of a subject suspicious of his overseer. He doubts her motherhood, doubts its honesty. As viewers, I’m sure that most of us like to think that sincere parenthood is easily communicable; whether one gives birth to or adopts a child, the genuine concern for that child shines through a parent’s words and actions, leaving no room for uncertainty. But Jason is uncertain. He sees her not as a mother, but as a mother-thing, to invoke an early short story by Philip K. Dick. He sees her not as someone who has learned motherhood, but imitates motherhood.

This is, I want to suggest, the deep, sociological, and darkly comic horror of Jordan Peele’s Us: that our families might be faking it.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Im talking about your take on why the character study is flawed, not just the movie. And while i agree on some of your complaints on film, you indeed do have to be familiar enough with the character(i said books, a history that spans back 80 years not just one graphic novel) in order to criticize his characteristics. It makes zero sense for you to want him to be just a "socially awkward poor dude" and then knock on a movie which is based on the character in those books for not going in that direction. This was a movie about the Joker, not the Joker you want him to be.

 

[rms]

I think it's a satire of the American family, dressed up as gimmicky horror. I wrote a longer thing about it a while back: https://experimentalitymusings.blogspot.com/2019/08/family-matters-creepy-kids-inept-adults.html

this perspective is familiar now, would have to re-watch but I remember this take seemingly accepting a small portion of the film as what it was about, much like i'm hearing The Irishman was really about Anna Paquin and the impact etc etc

 

[Einherjar86]

this perspective is familiar now, would have to re-watch but I remember this take seemingly accepting a small portion of the film as what it was about, much like i'm hearing The Irishman was really about Anna Paquin and the impact etc etc

Well, critics do love subtext. But I actually think the family dynamics are pretty front and center throughout the film.

Im talking about your take on why the character study is flawed, not just the movie. And while i agree on some of your complaints on film, you indeed do have to be familiar enough with the character(i said books, a history that spans back 80 years not just one graphic novel) in order to criticize his characteristics. It makes zero sense for you to want him to be just a "socially awkward poor dude" and then knock on a movie which is based on the character in those books for not going in that direction. This was a movie about the Joker, not the Joker you want him to be.

Fair enough, I can't claim any knowledge on the character's creative origins. I stand by my comments on the narrative, but do I understand that, as you're saying, it simply wouldn't be a movie about the Joker.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... well i'll give you this ... being a poor isolated "loser" is definitely a part of his story/character, i was just saying they dont need to just concentrate on one part of his background in order to tell his story.

My main complaints with the character(some which kind of fall in line with what you're saying) is that they took the depression thing way too far, while he was indeed depressed due to his situation in life(being poor, unemployed, unsuccessful in life etc ... dont want to spoil too much), he was never some depressed wreck like they made him out to be in the film. And the whole origin story with his mom and the abuse etc is made out of thin air. I cant fucking stand it when these movie directors start fucking with the origin stories of some of these characters.

btw if you liked Ledgers Joker than you should definitely check out Brian Azzarello's Joker graphic novel.

The Killing Joke is also mandatory as far as his origin story goes and is a quick read, you'd probably blast through it in less than an hour.

 

[CiG]

Regarding tourism, a place doesn't have to be well-known for it to count as tourism. Plenty of tourists constantly seek off-the-map locations, rare sites, little-known pilgrimages, etc. That doesn't make them not-tourists simply because they've chosen an uncommon destination.

> "seek"
> "chosen"

the social lesson of this cautionary tale being "take care of your mentally ill, or they might kill you"--which is a somewhat reductive treatment of mental illness

Pretty fucking poignant message for America though.

 

[Einherjar86]

> "seek"
> "chosen"

Not sure I follow the distinction you're making, as I used both words colloquially. But I don't mean to make a big thing out of this--I do think you're right that the film largely forecloses any relatability with its characters (I just don't happen to see that as a bad thing).

Pretty fucking poignant message for America though.

It's true, and sometimes a kick in the teeth is what audiences need. I just wish Joker had done it more calculatedly.

... well i'll give you this ... being a poor isolated "loser" is definitely a part of his story/character, i was just saying they dont need to just concentrate on one part of his background in order to tell his story.

My main complaints with the character(some which kind of fall in line with what you're saying) is that they took the depression thing way too far, while he was indeed depressed due to his situation in life(being poor, unemployed, unsuccessful in life etc ... dont want to spoil too much), he was never some depressed wreck like they made him out to be in the film. And the whole origin story with his mom and the abuse etc is made out of thin air. I cant fucking stand it when these movie directors start fucking with the origin stories of some of these characters.

btw if you liked Ledgers Joker than you should definitely check out Brian Azzarello's Joker graphic novel.

The Killing Joke is also mandatory as far as his origin story goes and is a quick read, you'd probably blast through it in less than an hour.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'd like to read more of the graphic narratives someday.

I should say: one thing I think Joker did well was handle the racial dynamic between Arthur and other characters. I thought it was very purposeful that almost all the poor characters he interacted with were black. And it resisted the white savior narrative, instead portraying black characters who were, by and large, trying to save Arthur.

 

[CiG]

Not sure I follow the distinction you're making, as I used both words colloquially. But I don't mean to make a big thing out of this--I do think you're right that the film largely forecloses any relatability with its characters (I just don't happen to see that as a bad thing).

I really think you and Challenge are ignoring that Pelle manipulated them, they didn't choose or seek out that Swedish village, neither did the foreigners from London, they were more or less brought there and then fed drugs. Don't want to make a big thing out of this either but your comment about tourism implies I'm denying the theme because the place isn't a popular destination when that's obviously never anything I said nor implied.

 

[Einherjar86]

I guess I just don't see why Pelle's influence and the touristic attitude are mutually exclusive. There's a famous argument in free-will philosophy: an omniscient/omnipotent being knows that a person can choose between two options. If the person chooses option A, the being does nothing; but if the person chooses option B, the being intervenes so that option A is chosen. The conundrum here is: if the person chooses option A, are they still making a choice of their own free will? Even though they can't choose option B?

In the case of Midsommar, we have someone directing people toward a particular option, but it seems to me that everyone still chooses to go there.