MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > Why did Arthur savagely kill... (obvious...

Why did Arthur savagely kill... (obvious SPOILER)


...his former co-worker who came to his apartment with the little person to offer condolences?

He told the little guy that he wasn't going to harm him because he was always nice to him, but I can't remember anything the burly guy did to warrant such a savage execution. In fact, he's the one who gave Arthur a gift gun after his beating by the thug kids.

reply

Didn't he give him a gun and then go to the boss and say "Hey, Arthur has a gun" though?

reply

Yep he ratted out Arthur for having the gun and it cost him his job...

reply

Thanks, Captain.

reply

Why is he fired for having a gun? isn't Gotham the most dangerous city? and don't Americans love guns?

reply

Well considering he dropped the gun during a performance at a hospital in front of a bunch of kids I'd say that's grounds.

reply

He also lied about it, telling his boss that Arthur "came to him trying to purchase a .38"

He basically sold him out to save his own ass.

reply

Why is he fired for having a gun? isn't Gotham the most dangerous city? and don't Americans love guns?

reply

Well considering he dropped the gun during a performance at a hospital in front of a bunch of kids I'd say that's grounds.

reply

Why is he fired for having a gun?

reply

The gun came out at the children's hospital. "No guns" meant no guns on the job.

reply

Stop asking the same question over and over, you idiot. You've got your answer.

reply

Asking different posters, you idiot. Got an answer before or after multiple posters were asked?

reply

Well considering he dropped the gun during a performance at a hospital in front of a bunch of kids I'd say that's grounds.

reply

[deleted]

Because... Arthur is fucking crazy?

If we're playing devil's advocate, it's a combination of things, really.

Aside from what has been mentioned in the comments thus far (Randall telling Hoyt that Arthur had tried purchasing a gun from Randall the week prior), I believe that it's worth noting that, while writing in his journal, after accidentally firing the gun that Randall gave him, Arthur refers to Randall as his friend and wonders why Randall did not tell him that said gun was loaded, adding that he could have accidentally killed someone or himself.

Furthermore, when Arthur returns to Ha-Ha's Talent Booking to clean out his work locker after being fired, Randall is friendly with Arthur, calling him "buddy" and telling him that Hoyt did Arthur wrong and it was unfair, even though Randall allegedly fabricated a story about Arthur wanting to buy a gun from Randall behind Arthur's back. Arthur reacts to this by staring at Randall for a while and then slowly nodding.

Couple that with Hoyt also telling Arthur near the beginning of the film that a lot of his coworkers think that Arthur is a "freak" and it's safe to assume that Arthur eventually felt like Randall was part of said coworkers. This is supported by Randall saying, "I think all his stupid laughing must have scrambled his brain or something" to coworkers and then laughing with them after Arthur said that the "prop gun" was Randall's idea. Finally, it wouldn't be a stretch to also assume that Arthur may have even convinced himself that Randall was trying to get him fired all along.

Perhaps if Randall would have been honest rather than a hypocrite with Arthur, explaining to him that the reason why Randall said that to Hoyt was because Randall was worried about getting caught and losing his job, Arthur would have spared him.

I can't help but wonder if that stare and slow nod by Arthur is the moment when he no longer views Randall as a friend and/or that ultimately seals Randall's fate

reply

I'm thinking Arthur didn't give him the gun at all. Who gives a gun away? Arthur probably did try to buy it from him.

reply

I'm thinking Arthur didn't give him the gun at all.


Do you mean Randall didn't give Arthur the gun?

In the scene when Randall hands the gun to Arthur, Randall insists that Arthur take it to protect himself, mentioning that he "has a few" and adding that Arthur could pay him for the gun when Arthur has the money.

Having said that, I believe the Randall character is supposed to represent the only person that Arthur considers a friend and thus I subscribe to the idea of Randall giving Arthur a gun with the intention of looking out for Arthur, conveying said representation to the viewers.

Randall telling Hoyt that Randall had nothing to do with Arthur having a gun was just Randall not wanting to get in hot water. This is reinforced by the scene when Randall has a discussion with Arthur outside of Hah-Ha's Talent Booking regarding how Randall doesn't want the gun that he gave Arthur to be traced back to Randall, even asking whether Arthur got rid of it, since the cops are looking for the person dressed as a clown who committed the subway killings. Clearly, Randall is not one who would admit to selling, let alone giving anyone a gun and that explains why Randall lies about it to Hoyt.

Finally, Todd Phillips mentioned in an interview that Arthur only kills those who wrong him; if Randall telling Hoyt that Arthur tried to buy a gun from Randall was the truth, then, in Arthur's eyes, Randall wouldn't have wronged Arthur and, in turn, Arthur wouldn't have a reason to kill Randall.

Essentially, Arthur no longer considering Randall his friend is what gets Randall killed and Randall lying about Arthur trying to buy a gun from him is the only thing that Randall does in the film that merits Arthur ending their friendship.

reply

I believe based on his mental state, you must give consideration to the fact that the entire scene where the gun was handed to Arthur was completely imagined. It didn't happen in reality....only in Arthur's mind. Thus, we must assume that Arthur obtained the gun elsewhere and for sure was asking around for a gun in the locker room. Where he got the gun is never disclosed, but following this train of thought it most certainly was not from Randall.

reply

By that logic, every scene in the film could be one of Arthur's delusions and its entirety a fabrication of Arthur's psychosis.

However, from a film-making/storytelling/continuity point of you, viewing Arthur and Randall's interactions as such does not contribute to the film, whereas when viewed as the opposite, contribute in giving Arthur motive to kill Randall, like all of his other victims and, in turn, stay true to Arthur's character arc. Hence why, immediately after killing Randall, Arthur spares Gary, who is called a "midget" by Randall moments before. Arthur sees Gary not only as someone who did not wrong him, but the subject of ridicule at Ha-Ha's Talent Booking, like himself.

Furthermore, in that same scene, Randall and Gary are at Arthur's apartment to pay their respects and take Arthur out for a drink, but Randall immediately brings up the cops questioning the employees of Ha-Ha's Talent Booking about the subway murders and wants to know what Arthur told the police so that Arthur and Randall's stories "line up" since the cops are now looking for Randall. Gary acknowledges this interaction by interjecting, "They (the cops) didn't talk to me." This is to underline that the conservation between Arthur and Randall is not among Arthur's delusions and Randall is shady and worried about the gun he gave Arthur being traced back to him.

Not to mention, the montage at the end of the film clearly shows which parts of its scenes are imagined by Arthur; none of which are scenes involving Randall.

It's no coincidence that we only see Arthur accidentally fire, drop, write in his journal and talk about the gun only after Randall hands it to him.

Given all of the aforementioned, not only am I inclined to believe that the scene when Randall gives Arthur a gun and all of the scenes between these two characters are not in Arthur's head, but serve as plot devices.

Not everything is like Fight Club.

reply

I don't need to convince you but my belief is that NO ONE has ever gifted a gun to someone in that way so openly in a room full of people where others could easily see and then for it to not be discussed. Surely that must have seemed odd to you, no? That would have gotten Randall fired on the spot. Also, guns aren't cheap and the entire crew working in that piss hole locker room, working their piss hole jobs, didn't look like they could afford Chinese take out let alone just part with a $300 gun on a whim....especially presented the way it was in the film.

Think back to the opening scene where Arthur is in the audience and gets air time on the talk show standing at his chair with the spotlight on him. Go back and watch how the lighting is used and you will notice it is very odd. It's pretty obvious to me that Arthur imagined that scene as well. Thus, your belief that only the interactions with the girl down the hall were the only part of the movie Arthur imagined (because the movie beat you over the head with it in a montage) is very simply false.

In actuality, a great deal of this film is presented to the viewer as Arthur's psychosis and it is sometimes difficult to separate them.

So when Arthur catches wind that Randall told everyone that he was looking to buy a gun that was all his demented mind needed to kill him.

reply

NO ONE has ever gifted a gun to someone in that way

Again, Randall did not "gift" the gun to Arthur; Randall tells Arthur that he could give him the money later.

Regardless, you choosing not to subscribe to the notion that a person would "gift" another person a gun doesn't mean that it has not happened and/or cannot happen, let alone concrete evidence that the scene is a delusion. If anything, it's a moot point.

so openly in a room full of people where others could easily see and then for it to not be discussed.

There are only three people in the room and they are sitting at a table in the corner with their backs to Arthur and Randall and Arthur and Randall have their backs to them. The three colleagues are conversing and too distracted to pay Arthur and Randall any attention, anyway.

Moreover, Randall handed the gun to Arthur in a closed paper bag; there was no way that the coworkers could tell that Randall was giving Arthur a gun.

Perhaps you are the one who should re-watch some scenes.

Also, guns aren't cheap and the entire crew working in that piss hole locker room, working their piss hole jobs, didn't look like could afford Chinese take out let alone just part with a $300 gun on a whim

But it wasn't "on a whim."

It was on the heels of Arthur being jumped and robbed in a Gotham that was getting more and more dangerous every day.

Randall knew that his colleagues made a lousy pay, hence why he told Arthur that he could pay him back some other time.

Think back to the opening scene where Arthur is in the audience and gets air time on the talk show standing at his chair with the spotlight on him. Go back and watch how the lighting is used and you will notice it is very odd.

Just because I didn't include the scene when Arthur is in the studio audience of Live With Murray Franklin among Arthur's obvious delusions doesn't mean that I believe it to be part of the film's reality.

I saw that scene as Arthur daydreaming about wanting to be on Live With Murray Franklin since the imagining happens while Arthur is watching the show on television and, like you said, has an apparent dreamlike atmosphere about it, as opposed to to his delusions which are shot as to mimic reality.

reply

Thus, your belief that only the interactions with the girl down the hall were the only part of the movie Arthur imagined (because the movie beat you over the head with it in a montage) is very simply false.

And the montage beating you over the head with Arthur being delusional has you believing that pivotal scenes that have no reason to be delusions nor show any indication of being so are, in fact, delusions to the point where you have managed to convince yourself that Randall openly hands a gun to Arthur in a room full of people.

Clearly, what is false is your recollection of that scene and, in turn, interpretation of it and my comment regarding the montage. The irony is, montage aside, not you nor I know for certain which scenes in the film are delusions, so you saying that my interpretation is false could be false!

The montage showcases the obvious delusions that Arthur had. As for the rest, as I said, if we go by your logic, the entirety of the film could be a fabrication of Arthur's mind. If Arthur imagined Randall doing him wrong, then he imagined all of his victims doing him wrong. Not much character development there.

Ergo I find it more beneficial to analyze Joker mainly from a film-study perspective, rather than having it take a backseat to a theoretical standpoint.

So when Arthur catches wind that Randall told everyone that he was looking to buy a gun that was all his demented mind needed to kill him.

I disagree.

As I initially said in this thread, I believe that it was an accumulation of what Randall did and said that lead to his demise. Arthur's demeanor in the moments leading up to him killing Randall is a physical manifestation of just how fed up Arthur is of Randall.

We have come full circle; let's agree to disagree.

reply

Mother of god... You are right. Nobody gives their colleague a gun, especially in their financial state. Who knows how he got the gun.

reply

You're right. It was a gift. But when Arthur's boss was firing him over the phone, he told him Randal said Arthur bought the gun off of him. A straight-up lie that cost him his life.

reply

Thanks (to you and the other posters). I figured I must've missed some detail like that.

reply

He ratted him out and bullied the little guy.

reply