Joker

Joker will almost certainly get best production design, cinematography and of course actor IMO....obviously not a film for everyone....but I suspect like Bladerunner (Joker is an instant commercial success unlike Bladerunner) it will have a life long beyond the theatrical release...though I suspect less of a cult favorite and more of an Everyman expression of outrage (this of course does not apply to those who believe the world as we know it is just as it should be). But what's perhaps the most significant for me in both feedback on this forum and also in reviews, is the film I saw was about a man who's life had been a nightmare and then his descent into madness...certainly in no part belonging to the superhero genre....and dark or not, to my taste incredibly done....and of course as taste is so subjective, it's like I was watching a different film altogether....so again, kudos to Philips, Phoenix and of course Sher who with every frame of squaller created such beauty that I was visually completely blown away...
 
Well, it hasn't quite gotten to the billion yet. Officially, at $984M after the weekend.
 
A billion and change now.

Was reading a post by a recent Facebook friend from the old country (a surgery chief at a hospital, a very smart dude). He said, "You can give Phoenix an Oscar but the rest kind of sucks".
 
DLD said:
A billion and change now.

Was reading a post by a recent Facebook friend from the old country (a surgery chief at a hospital, a very smart dude). He said, "You can give Phoenix an Oscar but the rest kind of sucks".
Click to expand...

Certainly entitled to his opinion.

That being said, I don't agree.
 
Liam Hall said:
Agreed. He may be a very smart dude but his taste in movies sucks.
Click to expand...

And, in music too.

But his opinions were not entirely without "likes".

Side note - Joker's got nothing on Midway, where the critics score of 42% is 47 percentage points lower than the public's. But Midway is sinking fast in its second week. So to say.
 
DLD said:
Side note - Joker's got nothing on Midway, where the critics score of 42% is 47 percentage points lower than the public's. But Midway is sinking fast in its second week. So to say.
Click to expand...

I saw the trailer for Midway in the cinema last week. It looks like absolute pap. I have a feeling the critics have that one right.
 
Saw Midway with my kids (son is in a big WW2 history kick).

Yeah, it’s not digging into deep cinematic risks. Pretty standard historically themed fare, doesn’t even invent cockamamie love triangles or imply that Bull Halsey was a Russian secret agent or any of the standard Hwood shenanigans one might expect these days. It’s not a great film.

BUT.

Joker was beautiful. Heart wrenching. Nuanced. But, total dark fantasy. And utterly leaves one without hope.

Different mindsets.

Which is “better?” A semi-faithful yet flawed depiction of people that actually lived and actually strapped themselves into a clattering aluminum bathtub strapped to a 900hp motor with 500lbs of explosive under their butt to attack ships over shark-infested waters through a hail of lead and flak in the hopes of staving off a murderous nationalist domination of the Pacific, or a gloriously rendered fictional story about a mentally ill dude that kills a bunch of people because they teased or punched him?

I Honestly don’t know. The world is strange.
 
mcbob said:
Saw Midway with my kids (son is in a big WW2 history kick).


Which is “better?” A semi-faithful yet flawed depiction of people that actually lived and actually strapped themselves into a clattering aluminum bathtub strapped to a 900hp motor with 500lbs of explosive under their butt to attack ships over shark-infested waters through a hail of lead and flak.
Click to expand...

Flak (FlaK) is an abbreviation of the FliegerabwehrKanone, which largely registered in the 3rd Reich era as an "anti aircraft cannon" or, in general translation of military terms , as antiaircraft artillery. For the low flying objects, the Germans generally used Flak 30 20mm shells with 18 grams of high explosives. They also had the 37mm shell (fired off a 3.7cm Flak 37 and the improved Flak 43) with 185 gram of HE. There, a single hit would bring down a single engine fighter and would severely cripple a twin engine fighter or fighter-bomber. The British used a 40mm Bofors AA (they still do, although it's a totally different gun by now, aside of the caliber). The IJN used either a 13.2mm derivative of the French Hotchkiss (solid shot) or, more often, a Type 96 (25mm license copy of the same French company) with 10g of HE and ~ 220 RPM ROF that were generally used in multiple 2-3 gun mounts. According to the Japanese estimates, it took ~ 1,500 rounds to shoot down a single engine fighter. Accordign to the Finns, it took them 400 rounds of the Bofors 40mm to do likewise.

The best gun of WWII against the fast low-flying aircraft was the German 30mm MK103 (380 RPM, 85g of HE) but it was not built in large numbers. (on Hitler's orders) After the war, it served as the basis (with a revolver principle of MG213) for the British ADEN aircraft mounted cannon.
 
I’m late to this because I’ve only just watched Joker. I had a negative reaction to it, I didn’t care for it at all. I read Andrew Ellard’s tweetnotes on the film just afterwards and he sums up my own thoughts about it more eloquently than I can myself, so I’ll post a link here:

https://medium.com/@ellardent/tweetnotes-joker-41093e7935c9

I think his tweet “This is like a student film from someone who saw Taxi Driver but didn’t understand it. Sure, you can do a Joker origin in this style, but what does it say?” encapsulates what I feel about it.

There were lots of visually very interesting things about the film. So much of it was beautifully executed. I know Phillips is a film fundamentalist and always shoots on 35mm, so I was surprised to work out quite quickly that it was neither shot on s35 nor on film (having watched Uncut Gems shot by Darius Khondji which was shot on both a couple of hours before watching the Joker, it was very obvious indeed).

After a quick google, I see that Phillips wanted to shoot large format to create a specific relationship with Phoenix’s character and the camera in the many interior locations, but all the 65mm cameras were being used by the Bond production; hence the choice to shoot Alexa 65.

I understand that decision and so much of it was wonderfully executed but what bothered me was that the interiors were still lit as if it was to be exposed on film. Lots of hot windows, very bright practicals I found distracting in a way that wouldn’t be on film. There’s one scene where Phoenix is sitting at a table, lit by a practical hanging from the ceiling above his head. When I used to shoot commercials on 35mm, I loved doing the same thing, really playing around with contrast in the frame. There’s something about the way the highlights glitter and the way they graduate on film that digital can’t replicate on an emotional level.

This isn’t a "film is good digital is bad" post, by the way. I love digital film making and think every serious artist should be interested in exploring the different possibilities offered by the evolving technology. It’s merely to observe that they are different and treating them interchangeably, exposing digital as if it were film, can lead to some jarring effects. The strong highlights took me out of the story and I just kept wishing they’d knocked it back a touch.
 
Interesting thoughts, jvc. I feel confident in saying that the look of Joker was fully intentional and not a function of lighting for film and shooting digitally and not adjusting appropriately. If Larry Sher had wanted those highlights pulled back, he would have pulled them back. Certainly if you found it distracting that is a valid note. I appreciated it as a strong choice that reflected the tone of the film.

I myself have given up feeling confident in being able to positively ID films shot photochemically vs digitally at this point, having been wrong a number of times (starting with "Nebraska" in 2013, which I raved about the unmistakeable look of black and white film stock only to find out that half of it was shot digitally and treated to match the film sections).
 
Hi Charles, yes that’s a fair point. I had a strong impression that it wasn’t film and I guessed correctly but could easily have been wrong.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting for one moment that the look of the film was a technical mistake rather than an artistic choice. I’m saying that although it was certainly a deliberate attempt to recreate a film emulsion aesthetic, it didn’t work for me at those particular moments. As I said above, there was so much else that I enjoyed in the cinematography.
 
I, too, saw Joker as a rental at home (I have a two-year-old so going to the movie theater these days is tricky) so I'm chiming in late.

Well, I absolutely loved it. Yes, it's dark, depressing and leaves you feeling hopeless about humanity, but that's part of what I thought worked best.

I'm not familiar with the comic book character, only the movie versions of the Joker. I appreciated how, after the towering performance that Heath Ledger gave in The Dark Knight, Joaquin Phoenix somehow found a way to make it just as iconic in a completely different way. I also approve of them making this movie as a straight drama and not an action packed FX extravaganza.

I'm dying to see the sequel where they portray Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman but giving it the same treatment as this film.
 
One of the greatest performances on the screen. What a Movie Joker is. Probably the best movie of 2019 and best when it comes to previous joker movies. And so relatable as well.
 
Hated it the first time through. Thought I'd give it a second chance having spent time away from it. Still hated it.

I can certainly appreciate the technical craft behind it though.
 
For a long time movies have been getting better at looking like good movies without actually being good movies. Based on reviews both good and bad, it would appear ‘Joker’ was the king of looking like a real movie, without actually being so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top