MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > Joker did what "Logan" and Marvel didn't...

Joker did what "Logan" and Marvel didn't have the balls to do...

posted 4 years ago by prayformojo (101)
23 replies | jump to latest

Imagine if, at the end of Joker, we saw the Joker turn into a comic book villain and have a "superhero" fight with the Batman - the explosions, the action! That's what the idiot people want right! right?

Imagine how badly that would have ruined "Joker." That's how I felt at the end of "Logan," a film that started off on the same vein of humanizing these superhero world characters, but went to Disney committee-style filmmaking by the end. Don't rock the boat, give them what they want (bland crap).

So I just wanted to give credit for the filmmakers for allowing this to be made in the way it was. I felt the film pulled its punches and could have said more, but for 2019 it's a real accomplishment. And don't think it was an easy sell to the corporate types to not include the superhero stuff in this.

[–] Wuchak (8161) 4 years ago

There was zero need for that last 'big battle' sequence in "Logan." It marred what was a great movie up to that point.

And what about the conventional closing 'big battle' sequences of "Avengers: Endgame" and "Dark Phoenix"? Snnooooorrrree.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

I disagree. Logan's final battle was the necessary last scene of that film. The film was about Logan losing hope - in himself, for his friend Charles, for humanity, for the future - and then the question at the heart of the movie: will he recover his hope?

The final battle in Logan shows us that he has reclaimed his fighting spirit. He won't fade. He will try. Maybe he'll win, maybe not, but the point is that he is once again willing to fight for the hope of the future. Logan's final action scene isn't about "Ooh, look! Blood and martial arts!" it's about Wolverine accepting his mantles, finishing what he started, and finding (or re-finding) a purpose and meaning to his life. And if you think it was just a quick, dirty, splashy end to an action movie, then I think you aren't looking deeply enough at the film.

Joker had a perfect ending for Joker. Logan's ending was perfect for Logan. They are two of my favourite comic book movies of all time.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Joker isn't a comic book movie. It's not even a Joker movie.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

Why not? It's based off of a comic book character. It's clearly set in a vision of the Batman universe. I think this story has as much validity as a comic book story as - say - an Elseworlds comic.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

They pasted the name "Joker" on some story obviously written without Joker in mind and threw in some Wayne name dropping. It's like CGI'ing a mask on Clark Gable and calling Gone With the Wind a comic book movie after inserting some high profile comic book names.

In no way is this character remotely like the Joker. Otherwise, Goonies is an Elseworlds Power Pack.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

I guess I just see it that there are so many different versions of the Joker that ballpark is kinda close enough.

Ledger's Joker, Hamill's Joker, Romero's Joker, and Nicholson's Joker are nothing like each other, and none of them are quite like the comics' Joker(s), either. The Joker created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane doesn't read the same as the one written by Dick Sprang or Grant Morrison.

This one had enough hallmarks: plotting, anarchy, twisted comedy, crime spree, mentally deranged, and kinda unique, "inspiring" other maniacs... He didn't use poison/chemistry, that's about it for misses. And, of course, the origin story in and of itself, but Batman '89 and The Killing Joke both went there (in very different ways) already, so it's not like there's no precedent for that, either.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

You make a fair point. I guess I'm more stingy about where the line should be drawn. Most iterations of Joker have been acceptable to me (other than Jack, even though he was the only thing I liked in B89) so I can't claim some authority on what is and is not proper Joker. I just don't feel it from this newest one.
Similar to Nicholson, I really enjoyed Phoenix's performance even though I was not impressed with the film itself.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

I hope Phoenix is nominated for an Academy Award, if not wins one, because this performance is flat-out incredible.

Can you pinpoint the missing elements that make it un-Joker for you? I'm curious. Or, is it just that by nailing down a backstory it feels like it isn't Joker - too much removal of anarchy and chaos?

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Sure. Not so much "missing elements" as much as things that don't fit a Joker story IMO.

1. Portrayed as brain damaged instead of insane and thus ...
2. Portrayed as sympathetic.
3. A bit of a simpleton. A sad sack.
4. Mean people created him? Not saying "Hey, Mr. Are you OK?" is the sin that justifies the creation of a super villain? This demystifies the character in the most embarrassing and domestic way.

I feel like they looked the the completed story and realized that it didn't fly as a Joker story so they screwed in some "Wayne" plot points to steer it back toward something logical.

I think that, as you say, nailing down the origin is perhaps at the root of the problem.

I like the theory that the whole thing is his story being told in the asylum. There are some clues in the props that support this. It helps me appreciate the movie more as it excuses much of the flaws I perceive. It doesn't excuse the "look-she-wasn't-there" flashbacks and other bad parts but it helps.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

Thanks! I understand why those are sticking points for you.

I feel like number 2 is necessary for a standalone Joker flick. If he's in a Batman movie, he doesn't need to be sympathetic, but if we're going to understand a character for two hours, we need to feel some sympathy at some point.

For number 3, the sad sack went away by the end. I got the feeling that Fleck was fully Joker by the end of this film and would be embracing chaos, madness, and "fun" from then on.

100% on the simpleton aspect. I love this movie, brilliant performance and character, but I was waiting for the other oversized shoe to drop on Joker's canonical knowledge of chemistry. He's a toxins and poisons man, through-and-through, and Fleck was a little too "simple" for that. Still, I think - in my head, anyway - that he probably unleashed a lot of that post-movie. There was an implication that his meds were holding him back from his full, terrifying potential; without them, he might've become more astute, sharper, and proficient in the sciences.

While number 4 doesn't bother me, again, I know why it bothers you. Again, I understand your POV a bit now and I can see why these would bother somebody (though not me in particular).

100% on the flashbacks. That was one part of the movie I definitely didn't like. Don't hold my hand. I know he imagined the girlfriend being there. You don't have to tell me, Movie.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

re.#2

Neither Hannibal Lecter, Jason, nor Freddy needed to be sympathetic in their movies. They could have had a minor aspect of Joker be sympathetic and that would have been fine but this movie plays like an apology to Joker. Some movies are just about a bad person doing bad things.

I was hoping to see the Joker's decent into madness and delusional self justification of crimes. Emphasis on delusional. The director tried to actually justify him. That was where the film was thin to me.

I also didn't buy his talk show rant. It didn't come off as a transformation to me. It felt like a jarring departure from the previously very well played character. Phoenix did a fantastic job throughout this film except for that moment to me. I could feel the director tearing control of the portrayal from Phoenix in that scene. I could have been fine with the events as they transpired but did not feel like I was logically led to them.

In the end, I enjoyed it to a degree. I have issues with what I consider some poor directing and a pasted on theme.
As a Taxi Driver type movie: 6/10
As a Joker movie: 4.5/10

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

Hannibal wasn't sympathetic in Silence of the Lambs, but Clarice was the main character. I can't speak to the others - I'm not a huge horror buff, so I haven't seen them. But my understanding is that most of those characters are villains, not the protagonist. I'd argue that any protagonist, good or evil, needs to be charming or sympathetic.

Consider Richard III from Shakespeare's play. He's an utter bastard, but totally charming and, depending on the player, totally sympathetic (even as we hate his actions, we wish he would become a better man).

You make an excellent point on the self-delusional idea. This film makes his actions understandable up to a certain point, and we can sympathize or even say, "Hey, this guy's right; everybody else had it coming!" But the truest Joker would be a madman in and of himself, an agent of chaos for its sake, not because he was pushed there. I definitely hear what you're saying on this point. (I still like the movie; I just recognise the logic of this argument and how it would be more accurate and true to the comics).

I also here you on the rant. A bit, anyway. That moment felt really great to me, but I know what you mean. It wasn't quite perfect. I could see the writing at that point; this was a Speech, not what Fleck "would" say.

My ratings would be much higher. Ironically, I think I like it for its reinvention and postmodern deconstruction/commentary on the Batman mythos. So, I'd probably give it extra points as a Joker/comic book movie.

As a Taxi Driver movie: 7.5/10
As a Joker/"Elseworlds" movie: 8.5/10

Edit:
PS
I want to take a second to thank you for taking the time to clarify your positions. I think you've got some good critical insights into this movie.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Even with my complaints, I would like to see what a Batman in this universe would look like. Maybe portrayed as unsympathetic.

There is a short story by Niel Gaiman that flips the narrative on Snow White that I am reminded of. It's called "Snow, Glass, Apples" and is told from the Queen's pov. Give it a shot.

Civilized and pleasant. Our exchange has given me things to chew on.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

I feel like this universe's Batman would be a well-intentioned rich boy. He'd grow up, develop his skills, and start doing his vigilante/detective routine, but he'd be picking on people who didn't deserve it. He'd cripple people for knocking over a 7/11 out of starvation and desperation. He'd ignore the Wayne Foundation and just try to crack down. He'd be kind of a fascist. A lot closer to Rorschach than Batman (not quite that psychopathic).

I've read the Gaiman story, and it's fantastic! Long live Neil; what a writer!

These types of conversations are the reason I keep coming back to movie message boards. I love getting to grapple with other film fans about movies, debating the nuances, hearing the theories, the speculations...it's great stuff.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

If that was the version of Batman they had in mind, I'm glad they didn't get him in the movie. Audience will riot and the movie will flop.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 4 years ago

I have no idea what they might or might not have had in mind. But I'm just going on the political allusions throughout Joker.

In the lead-up to the film's release, there was a lot of preemptive anger towards the film for propping up an "incel" lead character in Fleck/Joker. The message boards became battle grounds for alt-right types and SJWs to yell at one another...

So in my viewing of the film, it was impossible to consider it without that pre-action (as opposed to reaction) coming into my mind.

As I watched the movie, I discovered that it was, to my thinking, politically complex.
The main character is a disenfranchised white male - classic incel stuff.
BUT! he has mental health issues.
The system fails him. This could be seen as a criticism of left wing institutions or right wing funding cuts.
He becomes a "people's hero" - an urban folk hero who symbolises anarchy vs. fascism, poor v. rich, and an antifa-like mob forms around him.
BUT! we're meant to sympathise with him - though not completely.
We're meant to dislike the violence, but also dislike this film's version of Thomas Wayne...

Either the film's creators were cynically playing both sides, or they had created a reflection of the complexity of political struggle in our present-day climate. Who do we support? Why? Pros-and-cons: anarchy, fascism, communism, right wing, left wing, rich, poor, social help, individualism...it's almost like these things aren't as easy to parse as some people on message boards pretend... (I refer to those spamming the boards prior to the film's release - not anybody in this conversation!)

So, I think that - if they did think about Batman in this universe - they likely thought of him from both sides. Is he a good person or a bad person? Well: he's both. He's a vigilante (anarchic) who serves justice (for who? the state? the people?). The imposition of a Batman-like presence is one of both anarchy and fascism, in some respects. Batman and Joker - symbols of "their" people...

[–] Burk48917 (11026) 4 years ago

There were several fight scenes in Logan, it seemed to fit just fine. His sacrifice was his redemption, so a battle was necessary.

[–] KD637 (488) 4 years ago

Apples and oranges. Logan is an established superhero and that movie was basically a sequel to his story. Joker is an alternative orgin story. Joker as a character is complex and interesting enough to make an entire movie that focuses on that instead of action. Wolverine is an action figure first and foremost so naturally his movies need action to be interesting.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Logan wasn't Disney's.

[–] prayformojo (101) 4 years ago

Look up who owns Marvel.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

It was Fox's Marvel, not Disney's Marvel.

[–] prayformojo (101) 4 years ago

I see, they made it before the acquisition. Let's just say a "corporate" approach to filmmaking was applied regardless.

[–] TheArgentinian (6463) 4 years ago

Why do you think it was accepted at film festivals?