Can we talk about how incredibly tasteless the discourse around that Joker movie is?

[PsychedelicDiamond]

So, al Joker movie is gonna come out pretty soon. It's not exactly something I've asked for but I was actually cautiously looking forward to seeing Joaquin Phoenix in that role. Unfortunately though, even for the low, low standards for movie marketing the whole the marketing campaign around it is, in my opinion in incredibly bad taste. Now, I won't go too much into the director, Todd Philipps, deflecting criticisms of the movie by blaming a nebulous group on the "far left" for it, though it does frustrate me very much, seeing how after Nolan DCs movie tried to present a somewhat more progressive alternative to Marvel's unapologetically conservative leaning franchise, but that's not even the main issue. What I would like to talk about is the medias weird fixation on potential violence or, god forbid, mass shootings around the movie.

Now, I'm very well aware that mass shootings are about a bi-monthly ritual in the United States to the point they've more or less just become an accepted part of life there but maybe it's my european sensiblities that make me find these reports quite offputting. I won't dignify any of these by linking to them, because that's not the type of film journalism I want to promote,but it seems to be based around mostly two facts:

There was a mass shooting at the premiere of Dark Knight Rises, which I find very little reason to bring up as evidence that there's an especially big risk for another one at a Joker screening. Joker is neither the first Batman movie after these attacks (that would be Batman v Superman) nor the first movie featuring the Joker after these attacks (that would be Suicide Squad) which is why that focus on a potential shooting at one of its screenings strikes me as very arbitrary.

The movie portraying a violent super criminal with a sympathetic backstory (and who even thought the Joker, of all characters needed one in the first place) would inspire copycat violence, which again, is extremely arbitrary considering how many movies about criminals, assassins or otherwise violent and murderous characters there are.

So I find it very reasonable to assume that this has got to be some extremely tasteless marketing campaign to make the movie look more risky and provocative than it is. Now, it's hardly the first movie to have that sort of discourse around it, there were, for example, a number of reports about Kubrick's Clockwork Orange promoting teenage violence but these weren't written well before the movie even came out. For a movie that has, so far, tried to present itself as a serious drama more than typical comic book shlock relying on threats of real world violence to create pre release buzz seems not only reckless but frankly quite pathetic to me. So what I'm wondering is, is this was blockbuster marketing has become? "A movie so edgy, people might get shot over it"?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think this movie is a pawn in the culture wars. People are using the Aurora shooting as an excuse to bash the film when in fact they're bashing it because they are opposed to the Joker's story getting portrayed on a platform as big as this, on a political basis so they make up fake virtue signaling concern about shootings in order to get carte blanche to attack a movie they already found unpalatable all along.

They're basically beating people with the corpses that they bemoan the death of. Nobody's worrying about the copycat. People just don't want people like the Joker to ever be seen as sympathetic.

 

[BrawlMan]

I do not know much about the marketing, but if they are doing that, it's disgusting. I'll still see the movie, but that is sick and wrong on so many levels. As for the movie being called "dangerous". That is nothing more than the news media (left or right) stirring shit to get attention or cause fear. They did the same thing with Taxi Driver, and man others Which leads to people getting distracted from actual issues going on in life. Double Toasted just talked about it earlier this week: <link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXL0xjbeEN8>WHY JOKER (2019) MOVIE DOESN'T INCITE VIOLENCE.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

The fact that the movie hasn't even hit the theaters, ramps up the tastelessness to 200% IMHO.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Huh, I thought this would be about the Aurora Group condemning the film (for...reasons), didn't think anyone would say it was a marketing ploy. I mean, yeah, people have done that sort of thing before (and, flat out don't do that), but thought this time it was genuine. That is, people worried about one of the US's mass shootings in a movie theatre are saying there's a link between it and another film based on the same comic books. And, flat out don't do that.

Sure, shootings are terrible and something needs to be done now/20 years ago. But while condemning some new movie about the Joker counts as a "something", it's obviously not going to help.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I think this movie is a pawn in the culture wars. People are using the Aurora shooting as an excuse to bash the film when in fact they're bashing it because they are opposed to the Joker's story getting portrayed on a platform as big as this, on a political basis so they make up fake virtue signaling concern about shootings in order to get carte blanche to attack a movie they already found unpalatable all along.

They're basically beating people with the corpses that they bemoan the death of. Nobody's worrying about the copycat. People just don't want people like the Joker to ever be seen as sympathetic.

I'm just not seeing it. I mean, I haven't seen the movie but it seems like a story that's been told before in countless movies in countless different varieties. Taxi Driver, Fight Club, Falling Down, God Bless America, Super... all those movies about frustrated everymen violently lashing out at society. If anything Joker seems like a less relatable version of that story because it's set in a world where people give themselves names like "Batman" and "Two Face" and "Mister Freeze" and either fight or commit elaborate crimes based on these personas.

 

[BrawlMan]

Oh, and the Aurora killer never called himself the Joker. That was something media spun. So fuck them once again, you heartless bastards.

The James Holmes ?Joker? rumor

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

I think I read something about the very dangerous incel threat. Or the incel apocalypse, or some dumb shit like that. I'm very worried this movie will could cause a series of violent attacks all around the world. They need to get this movie banned asap.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think this movie is a pawn in the culture wars. People are using the Aurora shooting as an excuse to bash the film when in fact they're bashing it because they are opposed to the Joker's story getting portrayed on a platform as big as this, on a political basis so they make up fake virtue signaling concern about shootings in order to get carte blanche to attack a movie they already found unpalatable all along.

They're basically beating people with the corpses that they bemoan the death of. Nobody's worrying about the copycat. People just don't want people like the Joker to ever be seen as sympathetic.

I'm just not seeing it. I mean, I haven't seen the movie but it seems like a story that's been told before in countless movies in countless different varieties. Taxi Driver, Fight Club, Falling Down, God Bless America, Super... all those movies about frustrated everymen violently lashing out at society. If anything Joker seems like a less relatable version of that story because it's set in a world where people give themselves names like "Batman" and "Two Face" and "Mister Freeze" and either fight or commit elaborate crimes based on these personas.

It's cause it's "current year" really. Lots of movies from that time (even the Dark Knight) would get a bunch of criticism from these people now.

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, we criticise Jack Thompson for thinking that video games lead to violent tendencies when that only partially true. He was worried about effecting children, not adults, and if we didn't believe that this was true, we'd get rid of the ESRB ratings. We demonised him for what we thought he said, not what he actually stood for.

We are currently criticising loot box systems for their predatory nature. While trying to change the laws so they fit the gambling paradigm. So, not only are we pretending that video games have a negative effect, we are changing our understanding of gambling legislatively, to suit our agenda.

So... we are changing laws on a political basis so we can make up fake virtue signalling concerns about politicians and gambling in order to get carte blanche to attack politicians and video game companies they already found unpalatable all along.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't care. Haven't read any reviews, don't care about the media frenzy. I'm watching the movie tomorrow and that's that.

 

[Squilookle]

I don't care. Haven't read any reviews, don't care about the media frenzy. I'm watching the movie tomorrow and that's that.

I might have given a crap if OP provided links, but since he doesn't want to dignify the discussion he wants to start by doing so, why should I care either?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Yeah I'm pretty sure all that talk about incel violence around the Joker movie is legitimate journalist whinging rather than any guerrilla marketing ploy from WB. It has all those nice buzzwords that make for clickable news stories in the current zeitgeist.

As for the movie itself, it might be compelling, but the legit complaint that it's just a rehash of a story we've seen done before and better might make me wait to see it on TV somewhere instead of theaters.

 

[Terminal Blue]

There were specific credible threats with incel groups discussing online about attacking movie screenings. Of course, while incels talk about carrying out violent acts far more often than they actually do, it was enough to persuade the US military to issue guidance to its personnel planning to attend to the movie to prepare them in the event of a mass shooting. We can debate whether that was warranted, but it was not arbitrary.

This is generally separate from discussion of the film's politics, although honestly, from what I've seen that discussion has been quite nuanced with good arguments on both sides. Honestly, if anyone seems to be doing a disservice to the conversation they started, it's the creators of the film itself who seem genuinely baffled that people would want to actually discuss the politics of their intentionally provocative film.

I'm just not seeing it. I mean, I haven't seen the movie but it seems like a story that's been told before in countless movies in countless different varieties. Taxi Driver, Fight Club, Falling Down, God Bless America, Super... all those movies about frustrated everymen violently lashing out at society.

I think that's absolutely true. There have been films about angry white men taking violent revenge on society for a while, because angry white men love them.

For some reason, despite being by all concrete measures the least discriminated group in society, white men are very angry, and they like movies which concoct elaborate fantasies in which their anger is recast as justified or heroic, rather than just antisocial. I think in the past people didn't notice this, because they were less politically aware and because only white men had any meaningful voice in film criticism. Nowadays, we notice.

Incidentally, Taxi Driver did produce at least one instance of copycat crime. John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, cited the film as his inspiration. Hinckley seems to have consciously modelled his life and worldview on that of Travis in the film. He also became obsessed with Jodie Foster and had been stalking her before carrying out the shooting, which he claimed was an attempt to impress her. Fight club lead to a recognised phenomenon of angry white men starting fight clubs. There is no shortage of angry white men who will self-consciously model their lives on angry film characters.

But selling angry white men the fantasy of solving their problems with violence, particularly when those "problems" include things like sexual rejection, is always going to be controversial in a world where people who aren't angry white men are part of the audience. To be honest, it's just not a fantasy which is healthy to let angry people indulge.

I mean, we criticise Jack Thompson for thinking that video games lead to violent tendencies when that only partially true. He was worried about effecting children, not adults, and if we didn't believe that this was true, we'd get rid of the ESRB ratings. We demonised him for what we thought he said, not what he actually stood for.

But he said mean things about video games..

WORSE THAN 50 HITLERS!

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Who would have guessed a movie about a failed, bitter man in clown makeup and terrible fake hair with an intense sense of self-importance and narcissistic entitlement to everyone's attention who eventually leads a populace uprising of the poor and downtrodden, who view him as their voice and hero, but is instead just a bitter man looking to get revenge from previous slights on more successful people would cause a controversy in this day and age

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I mean, we criticise Jack Thompson for thinking that video games lead to violent tendencies when that only partially true. He was worried about effecting children, not adults, and if we didn't believe that this was true, we'd get rid of the ESRB ratings. We demonised him for what we thought he said, not what he actually stood for.

We are currently criticising loot box systems for their predatory nature. While trying to change the laws so they fit the gambling paradigm. So, not only are we pretending that video games have a negative effect, we are changing our understanding of gambling legislatively, to suit our agenda.

So... we are changing laws on a political basis so we can make up fake virtue signalling concerns about politicians and gambling in order to get carte blanche to attack politicians and video game companies they already found unpalatable all along.

Well remember the ESRB is a self-imposed restriction in the vein of the CCA and MPAA ratings. They all get applied when people make a 'think of the children' argument.

 

[Erttheking]

It's cause it's "current year" really. Lots of movies from that time (even the Dark Knight) would get a bunch of criticism from these people now.

And your basis for this claim is what, may I ask?

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I mean, we criticise Jack Thompson for thinking that video games lead to violent tendencies when that only partially true. He was worried about effecting children, not adults, and if we didn't believe that this was true, we'd get rid of the ESRB ratings. We demonised him for what we thought he said, not what he actually stood for.

IIRC the crux of criticism fell on Thompson being a career lawyer, trying to exploit videogame panic, similar to the DnD/Heavy Metal/Slasher Movie panics of yesteryear.

We are currently criticising loot box systems for their predatory nature. While trying to change the laws so they fit the gambling paradigm. So, not only are we pretending that video games have a negative effect, we are changing our understanding of gambling legislatively, to suit our agenda.

These... aren't really that equal. One argument is about video games not being enablers of real life violence(atleast, not in any significant manner, that puts them above any other form of entertainment), the other about problem of sewing gambling mechanics into them. People can hold both of these views, and NOT contradict themselves.
Plus, the former, is about inadvert effect of depicted violence(true or not), while the latter, about deliberate addiction mechanism designed to siphon money out of people.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can we accept this is all just media sites trading buzzwords for clicks and move on? Movie isn't even out.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

So, do you think the movie-makers are trying to pull out a Hatred and bait controversy from the press? Nah. The controversy is too organic, and the movie has its legit defenders who praised it for its merits during Vienna's Film Festival (and not because they are fans of the genre or just to own the "SJWs"). Maybe we're just too used to superhero movies keeping themselves as spoiler free as possible (which is a cynic marketing strategy to build up hype).