Joker

[Run&Gun]

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.

That is an excellent observation and way of putting it. I haven’t seen Joker, yet, so I’m not specifically talking about it, but you hit the nail on the head with this one. To me, a lot of the Marvel movies fall under this. Production value second to none by some of the best in the business, but while watching I keep saying to myself, “When will this be over?”. As opposed to so many series and serials on “TV”, now, that I can binge 10, 20, 30 episodes of and I’m asking, “When will the next season be here?”.

 

[Liam Hall]

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.

Massive logic fail there; You could just as easily argue based on reviews both good and bad it appears like a bad movie but is actually a great one.

And when has the popularity, or not, of a movie had anything to do whether it is great or not? And who gets to decide that anyway? There are many films that divide opinion, great ones as well as complete turkeys (IMHO). Ultimately, it's all opinions. I find the best way to judge is to watch the movie form your own opinion.

 

[combatentropy]

I don't think complete relativism is a workable philosophy. Are you saying it's just a matter of this film tickled me just so, and that one tickled you, and there's no objective criteria by which to judge a work?

 

[Barry_Green]

Are you saying it's just a matter of this film tickled me just so, and that one tickled you, and there's no objective criteria by which to judge a work?

That's pretty much the central question explored by one of the highest-selling philosophy books of the last 50 years...

 

[Liam Hall]

I don't think complete relativism is a workable philosophy. Are you saying it's just a matter of this film tickled me just so, and that one tickled you, and there's no objective criteria by which to judge a work?

No, I'm partly saying; don't judge a movie by its popularity or by what people write about it on IMDB, and partly saying; ultimately, it's all subjective - though some of us have better subjectivity than others

That's pretty much the central question explored by one of the highest-selling philosophy books of the last 50 years...

I've been meaning to read that book for several decades!

 

[Guest]

Massive logic fail there; You could just as easily argue based on reviews both good and bad it appears like a bad movie but is actually a great one.

The movie was well received both commercially and critically. It isn’t possible to think it was bad and then secretly good.

And when has the popularity, or not, of a movie had anything to do whether it is great or not?

Good question. Who was saying popularity is an issue?

And who gets to decide that anyway? There are many films that divide opinion, great ones as well as complete turkeys (IMHO). Ultimately, it's all opinions. I find the best way to judge is to watch the movie form your own opinion.

Pretty big question. I don’t know if it possible to say any movie is entirely bad. The moment that happens, a sort of genius emerges. ‘The Room’ comes to mind.

Perhaps this Ikea commercial can serve us as an example of a movie seeming good, without actually being good. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc-7sa1UxHQ

 

[Liam Hall]

The movie was well received both commercially and critically. It isn’t possible to think it was bad and then secretly good.

That's not what I said, but never mind... I probably didn't explain myself properly - the core of what I'm saying is form your own opinion. I said on post one this movie will polarise viewers. I might be wrong, but you haven't seen the Joker, have you?

 

[Guest]

That's not what I said, but never mind... I probably didn't explain myself properly - the core of what I'm saying is form your own opinion. I said on post one this movie will polarise viewers. I might be wrong, but you haven't seen the Joker, have you?

Luke warm about it.

 

[Mitch Gross]

While Joker received lots of critical praise on release, it also received a great deal of derision. Taste is subjective, not objective. The reason that so many will like a given work is because we share many common cultural aspects. But there are also parts where we differ from one another. A work can objectively be a well-conceived, crafted and executed example of a series of cultural preferences and values, but it cannot be objectively "good" because there is no such thing. Likewise it can be a poor example of certain cultural aspects, or it could be an excellent example of some cultural choices that we do not all share. When that last one happens you get Joker, a movie that entralls some and infuriates others.

BTW, that IKEA Lamp commercial would fit better in this discussion if that lamp rose up after its rejection and burned down that house. Just sayin'.

 

[Guest]

BTW, that IKEA Lamp commercial would fit better in this discussion if that lamp rose up after its rejection and burned down that house. Just sayin'.

Didn’t need to, the lamp already won the audience.

 

[combatentropy]

it cannot be objectively "good" because there is no such thing

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--- Hamlet 1.5.167-8


Suppose you were a carpenter. Twenty years ago, you bought a hammer. Day after day, and year after year, you used that hammer, and it has never broken. Furthermore it is well balanced. The head is of a certain size and weight so that it strikes with strong momentum but not so big that it is awkward. You might one day stop and say to someone, "This is a good hammer." Now suppose you pick up another hammer whose handle is cracked. You can't tell as you carry it, but as soon as you strike a nail with it, the handle will break in two. When that happens, you might say, "This hammer is no good," or "This hammer is bad."

When people use good in this way, they mean "likely to transmit the will."

By will, we mean a desired future state. Suppose your golf ball is on a tee. That is its current state. Another state would be in the hole at the end of the fairway. In fact that is your desired future state. The journey from one state to another can be affected by a number of things. If it is sunny, then you can see clearly to the green, and walking is easy. Therefore the weather is good for golf. But if it is pouring down rain, then the discomfort will distract you. The weather is bad for golf. Likewise we could say the same things about your golf club as we did about the hammer. If it is straight and well-balanced and solid, then it is a good club. If it is crooked, a chunk is missing from the head, or the head is about to come off, then it is a bad club --- one that is unlikely to help you in reaching your goal.

We can use the words good and bad to also talk about not just objects but people. Suppose that you're out there playing golf, the weather is good, your clubs are good, but you have never played golf. So you lack good eye-hand coordination. You are a bad golfer. Your will is the same: to get the ball from the tee to the hole. But when your brain tells your body to swing towards that goal, your body does so poorly. With practice, you might get good.

Now you may be a bad golfer but a good computer programmer or a good plumber. It's necessary to establish a will before we can judge good or bad. If your will is to golf, then you are bad. But if your will is to plumb, then maybe you're good.

In my definition of good, I thought it important to say "likely": "likely to transmit the will." This is because things don't always turn out the same way. You might have good weather, good clubs, and lots of practice, and 9 times out of 10, you hit a good shot. But sometimes you hit a bad one, one that veers into the rough. Does that make you a bad golfer? No. Likewise you might be a bad golfer but every once in a while hit a good shot. Does that mean you are a good golfer? No. That was a "lucky" shot.

I used to imagine that if I played tennis against Agassi, it's theoretically possible that I might just happen to hit the ball with the racket at just the right angle to return his serve --- unlikely but possible. Still less likely, I might not only return it but return it in such a way that he can't reach it, and I score a point. Exponentially less likely, I might do this every single time and win the match. Now would this make me a good player? No, I would still be a bad player. People who knew me might say I was "lucky." In fact they would be looking for some explanation, some outside force that was interfering with the game.

A good hammer is one that helps fulfill my will to move a nail from one state to another. At first the nail is in a box. I mean to drive it through two boards. A hammer that helps me do that is a good hammer. A hammer that falls apart and leaves the nail in the same state is a bad hammer.

---

Now suppose someone takes that good hammer and uses it to break a window, so they can go inside another person's house and take some stuff. It is still a good hammer, and it did exactly what its user intended. But we feel it should be said that not all is good anymore. So far, however, we have not yet touched on any criteria to back up that claim.

First of all, we might point out that what was once a good window is now a bad one. A window has two purposes: (1) to let you see through it, and (2) to block out the weather. A broken window continues to be seen through but is no longer any good for blocking out the weather. Suppose I board up the window. Now it is good and bad in opposite ways. It is good at keeping out the weather but bad for seeing through. When I was a kid and sometimes accidentally blocked my older brother's view of the television, he would say, "You make a better door than a window." So again it is a matter of roles. If my role was to be a door, I would be good --- at least better than if my role was a window.

A work can objectively be a well-conceived, crafted and executed example of a series of cultural preferences and values

So far I have hovered along this same definition of "good." If we extend our talk of carpentry or golf to moviemaking, we can imagine a director who is good at achieving what he sets out to. Like all of us, he starts with a vision in his head. Like few of us, he achieves it. Maybe sometimes he doesn't, but that would be because of some external circumstance --- like a meddling studio. He remains a good director, even if sometimes he fails, because all things being equal, he is still likely to fulfill his own will.

Now what if a director imagined a scene a certain way and achieved that scene. It looks on the screen just as he imagined it. But when the audience sees it, their reaction is not what he planned. For example, instead of feeling sad, they laugh? The director has superficially achieved what he wanted on the screen but not what he intended in the audience. I think this happened with Across the Universe.

---

So far I have talked about good as meaning: to succeed in your purpose. But is it possible to have a bad purpose? Let us revisit our burglar breaking and entering with a good hammer. Most of us instinctively want to call his actions bad, but how can we?

Let us get ourselves another word. We talked about different states, like a golf ball on a tee is in one state, and in the hole is another. One is the current state, the other is the desired state. What do you call it when the current state is the desired state? Let us call that peace.

Let us suppose the burglar's aim was to get some money. His first goal was to break the window, he succeeded. His next goal was to find some jewels, he succeeds. His next goal is to sell them at a pawn shop, he does it. Finally he gets back home, with the money he meant to get. He succeeds. Does he feel at peace? Perhaps.

But what about the owners of the home when they return? They are certainly not at peace. It was not their goal to have a broken window nor to lose their jewelry. But that is their current state. This is a lopsided peace, where some are happy and others not --- in fact, the very reason one person is happy is the same reason another person is not.

There might be isolated peace, in one individual, but not throughout society.

---

Suppose there is a society where everyone always reaches their goals. You might say then that the entire society is in a state of peace. No society is in a state of perfect peace, but some societies, at different times, are enjoying more peace than others.

Therefore if we expand our meaning of the word "good" to mean something that is likely to bring about peace for a society, then I think you finally have arrived at what people mean when they speak of "moral good."

Now it may be that the people's instincts are wrong --- that what they think is good in that sense is in fact not, that some action that they think will improve society will in fact, if followed diligently, will only make matters worse. So they are mistaken. More often, they willfully are believing selfishly, and when they tell you that this or that is "good", they only mean that it will bring themselves personal peace, perhaps at great expense to you and many others.

This doesn't disprove that there objectively exist certain actions that are likely to bring the most peace to society as a whole. This usually entails certain virtues like "justice" and "fairness". It's not always convenient. You can agree that a certain action is inconvenient for you personally but nonetheless the right thing to do, because it leads to peace for the group. The thing that is convenient for you to do at a certain time --- that action would, if everyone followed it, lead to less peace. For example, suppose everyone were burglars.

---

I still have barely touched upon art, which is probably what you all were talking about. My explanation might make it easier to think through practical matters, like, "Is it good to apply thorough engineering skills to make an excellent drainage pipe that dumps toxic waste from a factory into a lake."

But we're not talking about practical matters, are we? We're talking about the Arts and Entertainment. So is it possible for a filmmaker to (1) achieve his vision, (2) even going so far as to have the effect on the audience that he wants (laughing, not crying, for instance), and yet (3) still make a bad film?

I would say yes, and it has to do with what I think the role of art is. I believe that the role of art is to provide insight into life. If a filmmaker succeeds in creating a movie that says something about life and human relationships or whatever that is not accurate or is not healthy for society, then I think it is a bad film.

A movie can be about sad things, tragic things, and still be good, if it helps us air the rotten emotions inside ourselves, to achieve some degree of better health, in sort of the same way that light can start to make mold disappear. If it encourages people to act on those emotions in an unhealthy way, then I would say such movie is still bad. I'm not saying The Joker is for sure a bad movie, because I haven't seen it. Someone will say, then how can you judge it? Well, neither have I tried stepping out in front of a moving bus. But I have enough evidence from science to believe that I would not enjoy it. Likewise I have heard enough about The Joker to make a guess about it that I feel pretty sure about, and unless enough counterevidence comes in, I'm not going to change my action (or rather, my inaction).

 

[Guest]

That is fantastic, Combat!

 

[Guest]

While Joker received lots of critical praise on release, it also received a great deal of derision.

I wasn't really aware of that till recently. Thought reviews were overall favourable.

Taste is subjective, not objective.

While this is true, something has to be objectively good before it is up to taste. People like all kinds of things that are objectively bad. McDonalds food can be objectively bad, yet plenty of people like it. Salt, fat, convenient, cheap. you can tell what I am saying by now.

For decades film makers have fought for the legitimacy of film making as an art. They introduced many repeatable and concrete ideas into the craft. I cannot accept that all of that effort was accidental.

The reason that so many will like a given work is because we share many common cultural aspects. But there are also parts where we differ from one another. A work can objectively be a well-conceived, crafted and executed example of a series of cultural preferences and values, but it cannot be objectively "good" because there is no such thing. Likewise it can be a poor example of certain cultural aspects, or it could be an excellent example of some cultural choices that we do not all share. When that last one happens you get Joker, a movie that entralls some and infuriates others.

Saying there is no such thing as "good" is perhaps playing with words. We recognize things as positive. We can even recognize how something can be both positive and negative.

McD's is designed to fit a certain type of taste. But most people that eat there can also understand that it is likely not healthy for them. Even if a Big Mac does not taste good to me, I understand that they have fulfilled all the basic requirements of being desirable. Where they lack, is on the health and nutrition front.

With movies, elements can be good, and yet as a whole, the film can be objectively just short of good. Not bad, not mediocre, but just short of good. Pheonix was a great actor in this film, but what does that matter if the supporting cast is weak and the writers didn't give his character credibility?

What happens if you take a character like Joker, and completely spin it on its head and make a different character? We can objectively say it is not a good Joker film, even if the film is good.

BTW, that IKEA Lamp commercial would fit better in this discussion if that lamp rose up after its rejection and burned down that house. Just sayin'.

I used the lamp example, because I feel like movies can draw us in and stir up feelings and connection, but when they end, leave us feeling stupid for going along with the illusion. It ends and you realized you just watched a lamp. 'Joker' looks like a wild ride that gets the feels all worked up, but would end with less legs than "Hangover'.

The main difference being, that the IKEA commercial had a point to the lamp. I get the feeling the 'Joker' was just film makers flexing.

A few things that might make me think 'Joker' was really good.
- If Robert Deniro was good in it. I am assuming there were other weak performances, but damn, Deniro? destroying a legend.
- If they didn't make a Joker film. The Joker is a pre established character with a fandom that comes with it, and to completely change the character is self serving.
- If the violence had any point to it. Even 'Fight Club' had more depth, and they weren't even trying to have depth.
- If it were a film made by a someone who came from poverty, and not rich successful people having fun with a character. ( am assuming a lot here though, and I should probably look into it, but honestly, I hadn't thought much about this film until reading this thread.)
- If the main character were not a white male. I think it would have had more relevant commentary had the lead not been white. Would viewers, especially in the US have accepted the behaviors quite the same way? I don't intend to discredit Pheonix's performance though.
- If the cinematography was so far beyond anything I had ever seen. The cinematography is good in this, but the bar is so high these days, it doesn't stand out to me. which is kind of amazing. Films look so good these days. But, when it comes to a "Hollywood" movie, I feel cinematography is no replacement for a good narrative, unless it is mind blowing.


Mitch, I am quoting you, sorry. reading your comments, I can see that you are in the middle on this topic. I am just quoting you to spring board some ideas.

 

[Mitch Gross]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--- Hamlet 1.5.167-8


Suppose you were a carpenter. Twenty years ago, you bought a hammer. Day after day, and year after year, you used that hammer, and it has never broken. Furthermore it is well balanced. The head is of a certain size and weight so that it strikes with strong momentum but not so big that it is awkward. You might one day stop and say to someone, "This is a good hammer." Now suppose you pick up another hammer whose handle is cracked. You can't tell as you carry it, but as soon as you strike a nail with it, the handle will break in two. When that happens, you might say, "This hammer is no good," or "This hammer is bad."

When people use good in this way, they mean "likely to transmit the will."

By will, we mean a desired future state. Suppose your golf ball is on a tee. That is its current state. Another state would be in the hole at the end of the fairway. In fact that is your desired future state. The journey from one state to another can be affected by a number of things. If it is sunny, then you can see clearly to the green, and walking is easy. Therefore the weather is good for golf. But if it is pouring down rain, then the discomfort will distract you. The weather is bad for golf. Likewise we could say the same things about your golf club as we did about the hammer. If it is straight and well-balanced and solid, then it is a good club. If it is crooked, a chunk is missing from the head, or the head is about to come off, then it is a bad club --- one that is unlikely to help you in reaching your goal.

We can use the words good and bad to also talk about not just objects but people. Suppose that you're out there playing golf, the weather is good, your clubs are good, but you have never played golf. So you lack good eye-hand coordination. You are a bad golfer. Your will is the same: to get the ball from the tee to the hole. But when your brain tells your body to swing towards that goal, your body does so poorly. With practice, you might get good.

Now you may be a bad golfer but a good computer programmer or a good plumber. It's necessary to establish a will before we can judge good or bad. If your will is to golf, then you are bad. But if your will is to plumb, then maybe you're good.

In my definition of good, I thought it important to say "likely": "likely to transmit the will." This is because things don't always turn out the same way. You might have good weather, good clubs, and lots of practice, and 9 times out of 10, you hit a good shot. But sometimes you hit a bad one, one that veers into the rough. Does that make you a bad golfer? No. Likewise you might be a bad golfer but every once in a while hit a good shot. Does that mean you are a good golfer? No. That was a "lucky" shot.

I used to imagine that if I played tennis against Agassi, it's theoretically possible that I might just happen to hit the ball with the racket at just the right angle to return his serve --- unlikely but possible. Still less likely, I might not only return it but return it in such a way that he can't reach it, and I score a point. Exponentially less likely, I might do this every single time and win the match. Now would this make me a good player? No, I would still be a bad player. People who knew me might say I was "lucky." In fact they would be looking for some explanation, some outside force that was interfering with the game.

A good hammer is one that helps fulfill my will to move a nail from one state to another. At first the nail is in a box. I mean to drive it through two boards. A hammer that helps me do that is a good hammer. A hammer that falls apart and leaves the nail in the same state is a bad hammer.

---

Now suppose someone takes that good hammer and uses it to break a window, so they can go inside another person's house and take some stuff. It is still a good hammer, and it did exactly what its user intended. But we feel it should be said that not all is good anymore. So far, however, we have not yet touched on any criteria to back up that claim.

First of all, we might point out that what was once a good window is now a bad one. A window has two purposes: (1) to let you see through it, and (2) to block out the weather. A broken window continues to be seen through but is no longer any good for blocking out the weather. Suppose I board up the window. Now it is good and bad in opposite ways. It is good at keeping out the weather but bad for seeing through. When I was a kid and sometimes accidentally blocked my older brother's view of the television, he would say, "You make a better door than a window." So again it is a matter of roles. If my role was to be a door, I would be good --- at least better than if my role was a window.



So far I have hovered along this same definition of "good." If we extend our talk of carpentry or golf to moviemaking, we can imagine a director who is good at achieving what he sets out to. Like all of us, he starts with a vision in his head. Like few of us, he achieves it. Maybe sometimes he doesn't, but that would be because of some external circumstance --- like a meddling studio. He remains a good director, even if sometimes he fails, because all things being equal, he is still likely to fulfill his own will.

Now what if a director imagined a scene a certain way and achieved that scene. It looks on the screen just as he imagined it. But when the audience sees it, their reaction is not what he planned. For example, instead of feeling sad, they laugh? The director has superficially achieved what he wanted on the screen but not what he intended in the audience. I think this happened with Across the Universe.

---

So far I have talked about good as meaning: to succeed in your purpose. But is it possible to have a bad purpose? Let us revisit our burglar breaking and entering with a good hammer. Most of us instinctively want to call his actions bad, but how can we?

Let us get ourselves another word. We talked about different states, like a golf ball on a tee is in one state, and in the hole is another. One is the current state, the other is the desired state. What do you call it when the current state is the desired state? Let us call that peace.

Let us suppose the burglar's aim was to get some money. His first goal was to break the window, he succeeded. His next goal was to find some jewels, he succeeds. His next goal is to sell them at a pawn shop, he does it. Finally he gets back home, with the money he meant to get. He succeeds. Does he feel at peace? Perhaps.

But what about the owners of the home when they return? They are certainly not at peace. It was not their goal to have a broken window nor to lose their jewelry. But that is their current state. This is a lopsided peace, where some are happy and others not --- in fact, the very reason one person is happy is the same reason another person is not.

There might be isolated peace, in one individual, but not throughout society.

---

Suppose there is a society where everyone always reaches their goals. You might say then that the entire society is in a state of peace. No society is in a state of perfect peace, but some societies, at different times, are enjoying more peace than others.

Therefore if we expand our meaning of the word "good" to mean something that is likely to bring about peace for a society, then I think you finally have arrived at what people mean when they speak of "moral good."

Now it may be that the people's instincts are wrong --- that what they think is good in that sense is in fact not, that some action that they think will improve society will in fact, if followed diligently, will only make matters worse. So they are mistaken. More often, they willfully are believing selfishly, and when they tell you that this or that is "good", they only mean that it will bring themselves personal peace, perhaps at great expense to you and many others.

This doesn't disprove that there objectively exist certain actions that are likely to bring the most peace to society as a whole. This usually entails certain virtues like "justice" and "fairness". It's not always convenient. You can agree that a certain action is inconvenient for you personally but nonetheless the right thing to do, because it leads to peace for the group. The thing that is convenient for you to do at a certain time --- that action would, if everyone followed it, lead to less peace. For example, suppose everyone were burglars.

---

I still have barely touched upon art, which is probably what you all were talking about. My explanation might make it easier to think through practical matters, like, "Is it good to apply thorough engineering skills to make an excellent drainage pipe that dumps toxic waste from a factory into a lake."

But we're not talking about practical matters, are we? We're talking about the Arts and Entertainment. So is it possible for a filmmaker to (1) achieve his vision, (2) even going so far as to have the effect on the audience that he wants (laughing, not crying, for instance), and yet (3) still make a bad film?

I would say yes, and it has to do with what I think the role of art is. I believe that the role of art is to provide insight into life. If a filmmaker succeeds in creating a movie that says something about life and human relationships or whatever that is not accurate or is not healthy for society, then I think it is a bad film.

A movie can be about sad things, tragic things, and still be good, if it helps us air the rotten emotions inside ourselves, to achieve some degree of better health, in sort of the same way that light can start to make mold disappear. If it encourages people to act on those emotions in an unhealthy way, then I would say such movie is still bad. I'm not saying The Joker is for sure a bad movie, because I haven't seen it. Someone will say, then how can you judge it? Well, neither have I tried stepping out in front of a moving bus. But I have enough evidence from science to believe that I would not enjoy it. Likewise I have heard enough about The Joker to make a guess about it that I feel pretty sure about, and unless enough counterevidence comes in, I'm not going to change my action (or rather, my inaction).

You are confusing (or perhaps conflating) the difference between quantitative and qualitative assessments. Your fundamental definition of good could be translated to effective. If that is the measure, then I guess porn is good.

I was not defining good in this way and I think I was clear in how I did. And in my book by that definition it is by interpretation of qualitative factors. A work can be effective just like a well-designed hammer, but it may not be particularly good. It may only be competent. Those are two very different statuses in my book.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I wasn't really aware of that till recently. Thought reviews were overall favourable.




While this is true, something has to be objectively good before it is up to taste. People like all kinds of things that are objectively bad. McDonalds food can be objectively bad, yet plenty of people like it. Salt, fat, convenient, cheap. you can tell what I am saying by now.

For decades film makers have fought for the legitimacy of film making as an art. They introduced many repeatable and concrete ideas into the craft. I cannot accept that all of that effort was accidental.




Saying there is no such thing as "good" is perhaps playing with words. We recognize things as positive. We can even recognize how something can be both positive and negative.

McD's is designed to fit a certain type of taste. But most people that eat there can also understand that it is likely not healthy for them. Even if a Big Mac does not taste good to me, I understand that they have fulfilled all the basic requirements of being desirable. Where they lack, is on the health and nutrition front.

With movies, elements can be good, and yet as a whole, the film can be objectively just short of good. Not bad, not mediocre, but just short of good. Pheonix was a great actor in this film, but what does that matter if the supporting cast is weak and the writers didn't give his character credibility?

What happens if you take a character like Joker, and completely spin it on its head and make a different character? We can objectively say it is not a good Joker film, even if the film is good.


I used the lamp example, because I feel like movies can draw us in and stir up feelings and connection, but when they end, leave us feeling stupid for going along with the illusion. It ends and you realized you just watched a lamp. 'Joker' looks like a wild ride that gets the feels all worked up, but would end with less legs than "Hangover'.

The main difference being, that the IKEA commercial had a point to the lamp. I get the feeling the 'Joker' was just film makers flexing.

A few things that might make me think 'Joker' was really good.
- If Robert Deniro was good in it. I am assuming there were other weak performances, but damn, Deniro? destroying a legend.
- If they didn't make a Joker film. The Joker is a pre established character with a fandom that comes with it, and to completely change the character is self serving.
- If the violence had any point to it. Even 'Fight Club' had more depth, and they weren't even trying to have depth.
- If it were a film made by a someone who came from poverty, and not rich successful people having fun with a character. ( am assuming a lot here though, and I should probably look into it, but honestly, I hadn't thought much about this film until reading this thread.)
- If the main character were not a white male. I think it would have had more relevant commentary had the lead not been white. Would viewers, especially in the US have accepted the behaviors quite the same way? I don't intend to discredit Pheonix's performance though.
- If the cinematography was so far beyond anything I had ever seen. The cinematography is good in this, but the bar is so high these days, it doesn't stand out to me. which is kind of amazing. Films look so good these days. But, when it comes to a "Hollywood" movie, I feel cinematography is no replacement for a good narrative, unless it is mind blowing.


Mitch, I am quoting you, sorry. reading your comments, I can see that you are in the middle on this topic. I am just quoting you to spring board some ideas.

You may quote me all you like without apologies, I enjoy the conversation and take your points.

A McD burger is basically competent, perhaps barely, and I doubt many would qualify it as good. Like a generic sitcom or Real Housewives, it is cheap filler. Even devotees do not confuse it with fine cuisine. Or even a quality burger.

A Michael Bay movie may make a ton of money. Adam Sandler comedies have a following. I guess there are fans who consider them good. I look at a transcendent work like Wings of Desire and I feel like it is a work of art that inspires my love of cinema, but I also recognize that for others it would be boring if not unwatchable. Good is a relative term.

 

[tired]

images of strong, violent alpha males and female genitalia.

that's pretty close to what we get at the movies now.

 

[Liam Hall]

A McD burger is basically competent, perhaps barely, and I doubt many would qualify it as good. Like a generic sitcom or Real Housewives, it is cheap filler. Even devotees do not confuse it with fine cuisine. Or even a quality burger.

I use this same analogy with my clients all the time.

 

[combatentropy]

Your fundamental definition of good could be translated to effective. If that is the measure, then I guess porn is good.

I began with that definition. In fact that very word came to my mind, effective.

In the second half I tried to develop it to show why something can be effective but still not good overall.

I admit that's one of my longest posts ever, and I thank anyone for reading it.

 

[KurtF]

Some people like horseradish, some don't. Some people like roller coasters, some people like theme rides. Each to their own.

 

[ahalpert]

And something can be good without you liking it.

I don't like horror movies because they scare me and then I lose a lot of sleep. But that's not because they're bad, it's because they're good (or effective, take your pick).

I think that as long as both parties agree on some basis of goodness (ie novel, successful, impactful, memorable, funny, moving...), there is some degree of objectivity in the analysis. I could say that such-and-such a movie was bad and derivative. But then you convince me that it was actually trying something new and I didn't appreciate its novelty because I failed to make such-and-such observation or connection.

In any case, arguing is fun.