MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > David Fincher rips on "Joker" as a betra...

David Fincher rips on "Joker" as a betrayal of the mentally ill

posted 3 years ago by BourbonKing (5612)
12 replies | jump to latest

Quite an interesting take by David Fincher about his thoughts on "Joker". While most critics took a political angle from this film he actually deconstructs it further.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/david-fincher-rips-into-joker-as-a-betrayal-of-the-mentally-ill-slams-studio-system-203621869.html

Many knocked the “Joker” for what they considered a sympathetic portrayal of a disaffected white man’s descent into domestic terrorism. Others believed its exploration of the infamous character as a troubled loner reinforced the perception that the mentally ill are somehow more prone to violence.

Fincher scorched the Todd Phillips-directed blockbuster as an uninspired mashup that stood on the shoulders of more audacious films, speaking in an interview with The Telegraph posted on Saturday.

[–] necramonium (219) 3 years ago

Its my main gripe with the film as well, the Joker character is a psychopath, not a "victim of society", we should not feel bad for him, because his main lead in the comics, cartoons and movies is, to get the shit beaten out of him by Batman for trying to kill (thousands of)people.

[–] davodikum (5970) 3 years ago

He is the main character of the movie. It would be bad writing/filmmaking if you didn't at least sympathize a little bit with him.

[–] Druff (1447) 2 years ago

>the Joker character is a psychopath, not a "victim of society", we should not feel bad for him

The film underlines that he seemed to be more or less OK with his medication and social program. He was fucked up, but coping. After it got cut, he went completely off the rails.

[–] sut6432 (2832) 3 years ago

David “Fight Club” Fincher has a problem with how a film treats the mentally ill and a mentally unstable character resorting to domestic terrorism? 🤔

I think Fincher is awesome, and I agree with what he said about studios only funding films that they hope will make a billion dollars, but the “betrayal of the mentally ill” comment strikes me as odd.

[–] davodikum (5970) 3 years ago

Very odd. Anyway, movies about sane people doing rational things, fucken boring.

[–] BourbonKing (5612) 3 years ago

That was kind of my thought exactly. If you look up Fincher's catalog of films and take inventory of a lot of his characters there are people with mentally ill problems who are portrayed in mocking fashion. Use Fight Club for example where he mocks the terminally ill and emotionally scarred, using them as props to propel the plotline.

[–] cyguration (3843) 3 years ago

It's worse than that, though. Fincher looks like a hypocritical scumbag for saying something that he's more guilty of than Philips.

Gone Girl was literally about a mentally unwell, sociopathic woman who kills and manipulates in order to force her estranged husband into acting the way she wants, even if he hates her for it. One could argue it's based on a book, but Fincher took zero liberties in even denouncing her behavior as "bad". In fact, she's rewarded for it at the end of the film.

He does the exact same thing in Fight Club, rewarding bad behavior with the (anti) "hero" getting the girl and sending a message.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was another case of a dis-associative, mentally troubled young woman who is taken advantage of, and then becomes the (anti) "hero" through manipulation and vice. Again, one could argue it's based on a movie trilogy based on a book series, but there's this trend of the people suffering, troubled, disturbed, etc., coming out on top as the "winner", so to speak.

Heck, even in Se7en the villain wins, getting what he wants out of the over-confident hero. The villain was rewarded with the fall of the hero; psychopathy's prophecy fulfilled through the inevitable sin of the supposed righteous.

I wouldn't necessarily say he portrays them in mocking fashion, but more-so seems to outline plot structures that celebrate their cerebral victories, no matter the costs.

At least Joker was honest enough to depict a mentally ill individual as the villain he is, and how society propped him up because he became an unwitting icon for class revolution. There's a lot of irony within Philips' fictionalized world of Gotham, but there's no betrayal there... just a lot of honesty about how a broken system can fail those in need.

[–] Ace_Spade (9348) 3 years ago

Excellent point.

When Joker was announced, the PC Police started readying the riot gear as the hand-wringing and tearful sobbing began. "It will glorify incels!" they moaned.

Then the movie came out and the Joker inspired a mob wanting to overthrow the rich. He was sympathetic, although psychopathic, he was as hateable as relatable. It was, for my money, a pretty nuanced observation of these powder kegs. The movie also had as much to say about mental illness and the health system abandoning and shortchanging them. Too much nuance. Not enough bad behaviour to condemn.

So what's a virtue signal operator to do?

Critics gave affected mixed reviews, all complementing Phoenix (his performance was that undeniable), usually saying it just wasn't that deep or was a cut-rate Scorsese film. They couldn't cry about it's irresponsible social message because it didn't champion evil, it just showed various layers of evil and "just bad circumstances".

It looks like Fincher just picked his "reason" for disliking the film. Why now, by the way? Why not when it came out or at least when the Academy Awards were up?

I saw the same thing with Dave Chappelle's Sticks and Stones special. People didn't want to say "It's offensive!" because they would be mocked and pilloried for missing the point of the show, it's very essence, so instead they said, "Uh...it's just not *that* funny..." while everybody who watched it with no agenda just thought it was funny as heck.

[–] TearofLys (2398) 3 years ago

in this case odd=hypocritical

[–] Jones70 (6195) 3 years ago

Damn sorry he feels that way.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

Well Mank was a betrayal of good cinema so he can fuck off.

[–] Satan2016 (23351) 3 years ago

I don't know what mental illness the Joker was supposed to have. He was delusional and also abusive. Sociopaths are more prone to violence, as are unmedicated bipolar and schizophrenia and serious personality disorders. It's a Big Lie by the left that there is no link to violence.