Sorry, I wasn’t being sarcastic when I ended post #77 with a question mark. Just confused. It’s a new word for me, and I don’t see how it has become so central to this thread.
~Max
The conclusion of that scene is ambiguous but Todd Phillips has mentioned a deleted scene supporting your assumption. My assumption on the first viewing was the opposite.
The only contradiction is in your rephrasing of what I said into something entirely different.
Even a pedophile, I can sympathize with the pain of being rejected by society for their mental disease. That does not mean that I validate their desires, not in the slightest.
We’ve had some long conversations on this topic on this board, and it’s much more than someone who just cannot get laid. Though, that is often the location of the trailhead for them the start down.
No, but a person who blames society for their loneliness almost certainly is.
And then there is the distinction of someone who violently lashes out at the world when those needs are not met.
That’s not normal, that’s not healthy.
There are two differences:
1 - It’s not just loneliness, it’s hate/anger/negativity directed at him
2 - He is accurately placing the blame, the negativity is arriving from external sources and frequently incorrectly (e.g. on bus)
I said “validate their sense of rejection”, not “validate their desires”. I was operating under the (apparently) mistaken impression that “incel feelings” included a sense of rejection.
At no point does the movie validate any murderous feelings, certainly not the murder of the Joker’s love interest, who wasn’t even murdered.
~Max
Absolutely agree, joker is extreme and acts out based on his feelings.
What a totally absurd statement. Apparently the sheeple have no ability to form their own thoughts and opinions. You realize that the readership for the websites that certain people have taken issue with in this thread is really really small, right?
I’ve been to dozens of retirement homes, rehab clinics and assisted living facilities for my work. That description applies to many of the residents. None of them are incels. If they lashed out and somehow managed to kill a staff member, they would still not be incels.
You were right. Incels do have a sense of rejection. Specifically, they blame women for their involuntary celibacy.
No one said he was an incel or incel-like. The fact that the Joker represents a revenge fantasy…something incels often are attracted to…does not equal a incel-based character. No one is accusing Phillips of intentionally making a pro-incel movie.
Seriously, stop with this stupid strawman.
But someone watching Joker won’t sympathize with Arthur’s sense of sexual rejection. Because that isn’t part of the movie. There’s no sense of sexual rejection to sympathize with, because until midway through the movie, we thought he actually had a loving girlfriend. That wasn’t the girl betraying him, it was his own mind. So, we’re not sympathizing with incel feelings. Right?
Maybe I ought to just give up. I’m so confused.
~Max
The discussion has been bastardized so far from the original point, you have every right to be confused. Why this has become a Joker character study is beyond me.
The question asked is about a) US politics and the use of the term “woke”, and b) a bunch of pro-Joker websites rolling their eyes at the critiques of the film from the left. He inferred that the criticism implied the movie was an attack on left-wing politics based on his limited context, which it clearly is not.
And here we are with a bunch of pro-Joker posters trashing left-wing media and handwaving away any issues with the imagery in the movie, essentially echoing the YouTube content that confused the OP in the first place. Super fucking helpful.
You are right.
Okay, that makes sense. Yes, outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times panned the film. Some people refer to these publications as “woke”. As far as I can tell, however, those poor reviews have nothing whatsoever to do with the “woke” nature of their publications.
~Max
Prove it.
The OP was already answered in post 16 by Asuka.
I somehow managed to watch one video by a Paul Joseph Watson. The gist of it is that the movie blames the media and society in general for Arthur’s woes, specifically for making fun of his mental disorder on the talk show. That, Paul argues, is why mainstream (“woke”) media hates the movie.
I think Paul is wrong. If you actually go and read the major reviews (the ones that are critical), much of the criticism is well founded. The whole viral video thing is quite anachronistic. The point of the story is… less than clear. It is a tragedy in the sense that things just get worse, but Arthur isn’t a tragic hero, and there’s no catharsis by the end of the picture. Joaquin Phoenix played his part very well though.
~Max
I’ve heard that Joker has marked similarities to Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Are those two movies similarly unclear point-wise, or are there differences that set Joker apart in that regard?
I wouldn’t say that at all. He talked about the pre-release narrative in loaded terms. Some of it’s true, but it covers a very narrow section of the discussion. Then he proceeds to use that skewed narrative to totally invalidate every shred or subsequent discussion on the topic as some giant CYA. Nevermind the fact that the absence of an attack doesn’t render any discussions of the risks as alarmist or dishonest, which is what is implied. If that were the case, we could have a really long conversation about the anti-terror rhetoric that the right bathes itself in.
The discussion about the revenge-porn aspects of the film, much like the same discussion that was had about Falling Down before it, are not invalid or unwarranted. But painting it with a pejorative “woke” label is just a tactic to dismiss it. We know that Joker iconography has become heavily appropriated by incels and QAnon asshats, so denying this reality via whataboutism is intentionally misleading.