Joker: Should Movies Teach Morality?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- Get 2 months of Skillshare for free at skl.sh/justwrite13
Support the channel on Patreon: / justwrite
Really had to resist calling this "what we talk about when we talk about Joker."
Subscribe: ow.ly/AUy430iyp46
More From Just Write: ow.ly/cVei30iyp6g
Join the community!
Website ▶ www.justwritemedia.com
Twitter ▶ / sagehyden
Facebook ▶ ow.ly/6u9Z30iyp8J
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Other Music:
“Electric Mantis - Daybreak | Majestic Color”
ow.ly/G7gg30iypqm - Krátké a kreslené filmy
![Fantastic Beasts: How [a TERF] Writes Mystery Revisited](/img/n.gif)
Plato was the first boomer
Diogenes was the first zoomer
ok, boomer
Horace: OK, BOOMER
@@ThatOneGuy7550
Greek temple official: Please bring an offering to the gods
Diogenes: OK Boomer
can't rly agree with the thesis. What joker first and foremost is, is a brilliant diagnosis of what is wrong about contemporary society. It doesnt want to be apolitical, but it also is not a romanticization of contemporary political violence. Most of the outrage critics did only engage with the material on a surface level. Plato btw. was in high support of tyrants to create his perfect society without art. I mean look at propaganda art from the first world war and what has happened with avantgarde art afterwards. What is important here is the nietzschean difference between apollonian beauty and dionysian art. The former is a gateway into being deceived and soldout by dogmatisms (of the state, the market, churches or fancy philosopher dictators like Plato). The latter offers an escape: Art is also a way to fight the political, which in itself also a form of art since everything is ideological. Art is an window through which we can glimpse the truth about our society. Joker exposes neoliberalism as the main cause for the rise of the alt right as well as the exploitative relationship between mental health issues and individualized politics. This is what makes it a great movie.
"I thought my life was a cringe compilation."
"But now I see, It's a try not to laugh challange."
I really hate how well this works with the actual quote
It's try not to laugh *challenge*
@@nelisezpasce oh oof
it really be like that
Waka waka
One other quote that I think deserves to be mentioned in this discussion:
"The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude." -George Orwell
@ZDProletariat I don't believe that's the purpose of the quote. I'm pretty sure what it's saying is that to be apolitical is to be political running along the lines of the society it's in. So an apolitical piece in a liberal capitalist country is to be uncritically liberal capitalist. So the desire for art to be apolitical is the desire to have art with politics that reaffirm the norm.
@@thorharter8658 Huh, never thought of it like that. Neat.
Exactly. I always laugh at people who say that art is only about escapism and artists should "stick to what they know" (translation: "Just shut up and be performing monkeys!"). That claim in and of itself is making a statement about art's relationship to politics, even if people think there shouldn't be any connection between the two.
@@thorharter8658 So... a landscape painting reaffirms the "political norm"? That's a stupid argument.
@@thorharter8658 by that logic peppa pig would also be political
Jesus Christ we’ve been having this argument for centuries
Over a millennia even. And as long as humans exist, it'll never end. Round and round we go. It becomes quite fun from an outside perspective when you start looking at things from that macro view. It's hilarious how we repeat ourselves centuries and centuries on word for word without even realizing it.
@@TheGeorgeD13 and people in the next generation make a fun of you guys that we can't really do anything about it
Welcome to the wild and wacky world of philosophy. Where it's normal for debates to last for centuries.
most arguments are centuries old
@@3vivk yes nothing new. Humanity never change ,it's never gonna change
We really do live in a society.
👏👏👏 #Deep
Was gonna comment this but the joke has been over done lol
That One Guy “over done” is an understatement
@@ThatOneGuy7550 it wouldn't be so great if it weren't overdone
@@ThatOneGuy7550 It has been overdone because it's the joke's punchline, society is the actual joke.
Hello! English scholar here (with some focus on modernism). I think it’s worth noting that in the case of Oscar Wilde, the “art for arts sake stop reading into it” was also neccesary for Wilde as a gay man, whose work has a lot of queerness in it, and was used against him in court cases, to which he basically argued “what? no, there is no subtext”
So he was basically using it to not get judged for the messages he wanted to send?
But he didn't seem to claim that, particularly when he explained what "the love that dare not speak its name" meant
@@PauLtus_B sounds more like he just didn't want to get persecuted for expressing himself.
@@MALICEM12
That's what I was trying to say, yes.
Ben Ghan
But, sometimes someone just wants to make something too.
*Plato was wrong about the children not understanding allegories, there's plenty of adults who can't do that too. WHY WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BOOMERS!!!*
Fairy stories are allegories or perhaps it's better to see they provide strategies children can follow.
@@alanpennie8013 *IF YOUR PARENTS CAN'T AFFORD FOOD SO THEY LEAVE YOU TO DIE IN THE FOREST THAT AIN'T AN ALLEGORY KIDS SHOULD LEARN JUST GIVE THEM THE NUMBER TO CHILD SERVICE PROTECTION!*
Children are better at it than adults.
Oh dear he was speaking in what is logical, it was not his problem that some adults are idiots and cannot think logically...no to mention that back in the day most people were intelligent not like today when we are in an intellectual decline that if it continuous we will no differ from animals in how we use our mind...
I mean, the majority of the bible feels like it ought to be read allegorically and yet here we are
It is also worth pointing out that Joker wasn't made just for arts sake, but also to make money. And that's applicable to a lot of art.
And boy DID it make money!!
Usually, making money is a sign you're doing something right because a lot of people like it, whereas if you just make something for art's sake, you risk making something that only appeals to you and is actually really bad.
@@ShinbrigTV
Art for Art's sake. Money for God's sake.
It also wasn't made just for art's sake and for money's sake, but also clearly for some social commentary's sake. I don't know why the presumption here is that the movie has nothing to say. It clearly has a lot to say about, dare I say it, society. Which isn't bad, but I don't know why we're starting from this assumption that it doesn't have social commentary just because some of its presumptive defenders and critics on the internet argued such.
Has it made 800 million yet?
I wrote this elsewhere but I think it's relevant enough to share here as well:
Joker left me thinking more about mental health and how it's treated and portrayed than it did thinking about the actual Joker, which I think is saying a lot. It's a great movie specifically because it is so polarizing. All the best movies are.
At the beginning of the movie, you're meant to sympathize with a pretty meek guy who works a pretty terrible job, is on a handful of different medications that don't work, is taking care of a homebound parent, is pursuing a second love that he'll never be good at, and struggling to find a way to cope and care.
Over time, he loses his job, his therapist, his mother, his dignity, and his relative innocence. He goes off the deep end, pursuing an extreme in human behavior that we as people don't really think about actively pursuing but we all have fantasies about from time to time. He never really means for anything to happen the way that it does, it just happens. Until the climax of the movie where his actions and emotions are broadcast to the world and he unintentionally but unequivocally kickstarts a revolution.
At the end of the movie, I think we're left with more questions than we have answers. Arthur Fleck/Joker is meant to be an unreliable narrator. The Joker always has been, it's part of his brand. Chaotic, unreliable, multiple choice.
You're not supposed to feel good about what he does. The movie builds up the tension in a way where you feel the same pain that Arthur does, but then as soon as the release comes, it does so in such a visceral, haunting way that you feel shocked and almost ashamed in the way that he's reacted. You know that there was a better way, a more suitable way to react, but you can't change what has happened. The lack of control is what sets off the entire film and it's brilliant.
Honestly, Joker was more of an indictment of how poor the care is for victims of abuse, depression, PTSD, and how a lack of a proper support system can drive someone to do things that can't be taken back.
I also liked how they showed that rioters didn't care about who Arthur/Joker really is, they just needed an excuse to do violent things that usually are restricted. Notice how [SPOILERS]
in the scene where they pull him out of the smashed cop car and place him on the bonnet they didn't even check if he's alive and give him no first aid. He doesn't matter to them as a person, only as a symbol (very Christ-like too with his body in a sort of crucifixion pose).
Elijah Ah-Sha Excellent comment.
I’ve struggled with mental illness for a number of years and have been thinking about Arthur’s point of view since watching the film. I thought the film was very accurate in how someone could dive off the deep end if not given enough support and is a mirror for how we treat those with mental illness.
I think your take is a balanced, compassionate one and I agree with you.
I'm not a fan of the way it plays off existing stigma against mental illness.
Right now, the main argument in favor of good mental health care is "better treat these people before they kill people." That's more or less the movie's thesis, too.
But in reality, there is absolutely no correlation between mental illness in violence- the two only coincide 2% of the time, while in reality one in five adults struggle with mental illness. There's a higher correlation of Whiteness with violence. All the movies say mental illness makes people killers, but it's simply not true.
Conversely, the mentally ill are statistically MORE likely to be VICTIMS if violence than other people. Partially because of the default assumption that mental illness causes violence. Funny, isn't it?
"Joker" has one good insight: the worst thing about having a mental illness is that everyone wants you to act like you don't. That's a poignant thought that fosters empathy for Arthur's situation. If the movie had actually expanded that into a central theme, then it might have gone somewhere interesting. But sadly, because the movie is called "Joker," the violent ending was inevitable.
A better approach to mental illness would be, "people are struggling, they need help." Take violence out of the equation. Show better ways to cope.
@@ericsheldahl5158 I didn't think that was the thesis of the movie at all. I thought it was really showing the extremes that people will go to when they're pushed. Obviously, not everyone who is bullied or abused will go on to kill people on TV for fun. Most will continue to be bullied/abused, or may go on to become the bully.
I suffer from depression. I was bullied as a kid. I haven't gone on to kill anybody, but that's not to say I haven't thought about it before. I think his thought process over the course of the first act (until the end of the subway scene) is what most people go through but they don't go as far as he did
I'm rambling now, I like your comment a lot but I don't know if I agree with your first point. The rest I do.
Very well out together comments. I also felt a strong connection to the way institutions and people treat those with quirk.
There are real world examples all over the place of people looking for some kind of Joker. A good intentioned criticism of the system that excuses immoral action. And it seems to be automatic.
What I'm referring to is, of course, the protests that are happening all over the world. There seems to always be those who will turn to violence when it is completely unnecessary and inadvertently go against the original cause.
I personally found Joker to be one of the best pieces of art I've ever seen, be it in the craft of the film or the narrative. I went to watch it 3 times in the cinema and I can see myself going again. The amount of insight and commentary on various topics in this film is just so thought provoking. I would really like to see why Just Write finds this to be only an OK film.
One of the greatest beauties of art is that it is meta-political, that it creates a space where the idea of politics itself can be critiqued.
True, and that's one of the reasons why art is so significant in every era
Political art is cringe. If you want politics, read the New York Times.
Grubby bum All art is political.
@@AndysTake it's not. And you don't know what that word means.
Grubby bum It is, and you don’t know what that word means.
everyone i know said the film is nothing great. am i the only one who loved it? i loved the portrayal of joker's psychology and the actor's performance was brilliant. i really loved it
Don't worry. A lot of us loved it
It's the highest grossing R rated film ever...so yes, other people loved it. It's a cinematic experience not to be missed. Haunting, disturbing, jolting, beautiful, suspenseful..just brilliant.
Kit Kat The folks you mentioned are in the minority. It appears a large majority of people love this film. I said film and not “movie.” I personally think it was amazing and plenty of people agree with us. I haven’t seen a ton of people straight up hating it. Either love or people saying they didn’t like or thought it was just ok, but praising Phoenix’s performance.
This movie is literally a rip off of better movies, I'm not sure why it's getting the praise. It's depiction of the working class seems super centrist and so surface level, a sophomore in highschool could've told you the arguments made in the movie. Sure, it looks good, and the acting is good, but really isn't special
Kit Kat, the score, cinematography, screenplay, direction, combined with the acting masterclass from Joaquin Phoenix, are what made this film so special that it's already made over a billion dollars. So many people are relating to the character of Arthur Fleck. It's extraordinary not only because of how sonically powerful and visually stunning it is, but because Joaquin managed to allow us to empathize with a stranger with an unusual and painful disorder. It's a tense ride from the first to last frame, and multiple viewings allow the viewer to notice different details in the film's layers. This will be a classic.
When adults need to be treated like children, you know society is treading downward.
Art is an expression. Art can convey anything, the message is imbued by the artist, who has the power to imbue whatever he/she pleases.
Art can be a film, drawing, music, comedy, dance, etc. Art is where someone can display their full creativity, though any medium, with any message, unbound.
Quantity vs Quality: Revenue is the best way to summarize our culture (the world idk), if art is compelling enough to draw a crowd, charging a fee to view said art can be very lucrative.
The problem here is financial success for art is exposure, exposure leads to more popularity, and therefore revenue. However if too many people are witnessing/hearing art, the question is raised if the influence from said art compromises the moral structure of our society, goes against our 'fundamental beliefs', and if so, should it be tolerated?
My answer? Of course. Expression and passion cant be gated with a 'PG13' label, for it's counterintuitive to art as a concept. When viewing art through any avenue, it's quite apparent which pieces have passion, integrity, vs the pieces that were clearly motived by money. With that in mind, why as adults are we unable to discern what's shit and what's not? Why are adults unable to form their own conclusions, always needing a helping hand from some popular enthusiast to develop their perspective??
The Joker is rated R. Have we forgotten what that means? This movie ISNT for children, it explores terrible but real realities of our fellow samaritans (with hyperbole of course). I truly can't fathom how many adults older than me (im 24) are unable to reconcile disturbing themes and artistic expression.
If you gatekeep art, don't expect anything with passion. If you rely on others to form your opinions, educate yourself. We are adults, we run this shithole, if a movie can 'collapse the fabric of society' then maybe it should be torn down, for that fabric must be WEAK AF!
My media diet consists exclusively of movie related CZcams videos.
Will Whitehurst that’s a very healthy diet you have
Most movie-related CZcams videos are empty calories, and many are actually very unhealthy. But Just Write is definitely part of a balanced breakfast.
And not watching the movies they talk about
Same
This comment made me laugh
As long as you don't ban the creation of movies like Joker, I'm fine with people criticising it. I don't like those criticisms, but they have the right to make them.
What upset me was how much people were trying to boycott the movie without having seen it’s contents. I personally thought the movie was amazing and I understand where the criticisms of inciting violence come from. I guess most critics are well off white guys scared of the downtrodden revolting anyways so I shouldn’t be surprised.
@@Vegetablefather People don't like freedom of speech when they're wrong because the truth always wins. When all the facts and interpretations are out it's trivial, even to the most simple-minded, what the correct answer is. When the truth is not in your best interest, neither is freedom of expression. The guys who are well off may be well off due to some lie that they don't want revealed.
Joni Leppänen pelkkää faktaa
Joni Leppänen Maybe I’m more of a cynic than you but I don’t think just because the truth is out that it then becomes inevitable or easy. Look at the entire trump administration for example. Most people don’t even know what the truth is because every time he talks he lies. What boggles my mind is how many people want to keep trump. The truth is out there but it’s not winning it’s stagnating.
@@Vegetablefather Lmao if you think Trump is your problem you are dumb. Not a single one of your presidents was good for anyone but America from at least Clinton, and even then none of them were even that good for you. Obama and Bush take the cake with how much they fucked the Arab\Muslim world. The difference is that Trump just likes to talk about all that shit while the others were far less upfront with how evil they are.
This is a good and unique angle. Much many. Many yes.
Very thanks.
@@JustWrite Your wrong man, this movie was very good
@@fredy2041 I don't think Just Write claims the movie is bad. At the beginning of the video, he states his personal opinion that it was "fine". From then on, there is minimal subjectivity in the course of his exploration of the purposes and consequences of art.
No. Movies shouldn't teach morality but show us the morality of the characters in a story so that we can decide for ourselves.
The reason for this is that whoever's spearheading a film will have a bias as to what is morally correct.
Totally. That's what happens with Star Wars and Wonder Woman (just saying some famous movies).
Well I think movies can teach morality but the most memorable movies are those where you decide for yourself. Like Joker for example.
@@mrfister825 sure, movies absolutely can, but that's not what the video is about. Not if they can, but if they should.
everyone has a bias as to what is morally correct. only hypocrites would deny that.
I think movies can teach morality and that's fine, a ton of amazing films do
The problem I, and I think most other people, have with the debate surrounding "Joker", is how the media has blown it out of proportion. I don't even think I've read a critic who actually thinks the movie will inspire violent acts. Also, isn't it proven that most people who kill to get attention(mild spoiler for the movie) get that attention from the media?
Without even having seen the movie I can see why some people might be queasy about it.
There's the implication that mental illness makes people violent,
and another that those who hate the rich are mentally ill (or have chosen an insane person as a guru.)
@q3yq3regp'adjfgqi [0irgphioqefvbnwr Exactly. The only people who liked the movie (typically those on the right) liked it because of it’s political undertones, and because of the “eat the rich” narrative. Remove the Joker element and no one would’ve watched this.
People only started complaining about the Joker when American audiences and critics saw it at VIFF. No one at Venice was complaining.
American journos and critics are retarded
Jaqen H'ghar pretty weird that Marxists were ruining the art industry with their high pitched screeching then and now lol
Yup. Same goes for Latin America, Europe, etc. The only countries that have an issue with it are the Anglo ones
@@aR0ttenBANANA for real
Joker has a good message, writing, acting, cinematography, and realistic feel. Disappointing that it still got put down by some critics. Nonetheless audiences still went to go see it. Critics are going to put themselves out of a job if they criticize wrongly and in a biased manner without giving credit where it’s due
When people are against "politicizing" a movie like Joker, I just think like, what movie did they watch? Joker IS a political movie. If someone watched and enjoyed that movie without seeing it as political, that would suggest they saw it as fun, and that concerns me. I personally really liked the movie, I would even go so far as to call it a masterpiece. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the implications of different aspects of the movie.
Almost all movies are political. The Star Wars fandom is going nuts about Star Wars apparently becoming political when it's like "You do know who George Lucas is, right?!"
I think "Stop making my movies political" is shorthand for either "Stop making it so obvious" or "Stop making it about a political view I don't personally agree with" in which the latter lacks the ability to say "Oh, that's your point of view, even I don't agree with it."
People care too much about what other people like or dislike, honestly.
@@umjackd How are the old Star Wars movies political? Honestly asking.
The Ewoks are literally based on the viet cong, and having them be the good guys beating up technologically superior evil empire was certainly quite political at the time.
@@joelbolkert4273 Also, the antagonists are basically Nazis, the original empire as well as the first order in the new films, so that's also clearly political. I mean, how can a movie that features soldiers called "storm troopers" be possibly read as apolitical?
@@umjackd I think it also comes down to what people define as "political". It seems many people think that the status quo is somehow inherently apolitical and everything that challenges the status quo is political, even though confirming the status quo is just as political as challenging it. So casting a woman in a role that would traditionally be played by a man is political, just like casting a person of colour or LGBTQ+ person in anything other than a supporting role as the token minority character or as the villain who is defeated by the straight, white protagonist. But casting a straight white cisgender man in any role is apolitical, because men like that have always been able to play any role.
TL;DR: There is white and there is political, there is straight and there is political, etc.
To put what affect this movie has on people into perspective - when I first watched it, some random guy watching in the same screen room as me in theatre, stood up and saluted the Joker during the last scene and walked off...the idiots who take films too seriously well and truly take the bait with this one.
Bojack horseman has been the best example of fun yet socially responsible art I’ve seen lately. The show directly notices that having a flawed main character can cause audience members to feel justified in their brokenness or even imitate bad characteristics. And it talks about the problem.
It's amazing how this movie gets wildly different opinions from everyone. Some people hail it as a masterpiece, others say it disturbed them profoundly and don't want to experience it again, others are like "meh, it's ok", others hate it for a variety of reasons. When I click on a review of it, I literally have no idea what people will say about it. This is the nature of art, we all get different reactions to a piece. None are right, none are wrong.
And then there are the pretentious hipsters who thhink "controversy" for any reason equals "quality"
@@whade62000 if you’re implying the people that rate the movie high do it because of the controversy it sparked, you’re wrong
This seems like a continuation of your "Can you judge art objectively?" essay and I'm living for it.
His use of "objectively" is sadly the most common use which is fundamentally epistemologically wrong. The universe can't have a perspective and absolute consensus is impossible because it has to include beings who lack a rational faculty. The definition of the word is crucial in order use it well in the context of that video of his. Sadly it wasn't defined.
@@SiMeGamer He still got closer to being correct than all the knuckleheads who actually think they're capable of judging art objectively. You ought to go explain the word to them, they're the ones who really need it.
@@Dorian_sapiens I think art can only be judged objectively but that is simply because I use the Objectivist definition of the term "objective". Without having a definition to the word you can't be "closer" than anyone because you might be just as far away because you are fundamentally wrong. Maybe he is closer. I don't know. I find that particular video of his very lacking. Define the words then proceed to use them. It's not a conversation. It's an educational video. One can spare a few moments for those kinds of things.
@@SiMeGamer You don't mean Randian objectivism, do you?
@@Dorian_sapiens I do. I think it has an amazing semantic emphasis. There entire lexicons written and debated on the meaning of every word and I see the word "objective" having the most useful and logically consistent meaning in that philosophy.
If you have a different definition for the word I'd more than happy to hear it and perhaps even use it myself if it has any merit. I just find Just Write and the general public's use of the word completely worthless because it ignores basic epistemological and even metaphysical principles.
"Joker tells the story of a mentally ill loner named Arthur Fleck who decides to murder everyone that he's angry with, which inadvertently causes a violent uprising against the rich."
The killings in the subway weren't some strike back against people he hated, it's clearly a self defense murder for 2/3 of those men who were complete strangers that Arthur didn't know or have any feelings about before he stepped on to that train.
Certainly he kills those he feels have wronged him in some way later in the film but those deaths are irrelevant to the uprising in the city.
Meaning the youtuber can't even summarize the movie correctly and said it was just fine. I've seen other critics do that before.
well, he probably didn't have many positive feelings about them even before he killed them.
to say those deaths are irrelevant to the uprising in the city is ignoring the whole plot of this movie
@@MsSoapify Does the murder of his mother or former coworker have an effect on the riots or the state of the city?
Certainly his on-air execution of Murray tips things over the breaking point but most of the other murders he commits himself don't have much of an effect to anyone but the parties involved.
The most impressive thing about this movies is the 50 million budget, holy shit this looked so good
Eh, as long as you have a great cinematography, art department, costume department, and the like, you can make anything look good for $50 million. And because they had $50 million, they could easily pay the money to have the best cinematographer, art department, costume department, in the world. It's not really that impressive. It's a given.
What George said. 50 million is a lot of money for this type of film, it's not like there's a lot of VFX work, it's pretty grounded.
It's really not impressive. There have been movies and even TV show episodes (like Game Of Thrones in season 5 episode 8 for example) that delivered absolute high quality visuals, vfx etc. with a muuuch smaller budget. 50 million really isn't little
Brayan, I agree 100%.
Ayato budget isn’t just for making the movie, because it’s a theatrical release they pay to advertise...but then again this movie had like 2 trailers
"Both poetry and a manual of how poetry is ment to be written."
I wonder if Snorre Sturlasson got his hands on a copy. His Edda is precisely that.
Oh he definitely did. There are quite a few parallels as well as responses between the two.
@@TheGeorgeD13 Nice!
@@torbjornlekberg7756 Yeah, like I don't know for sure, but the parallels are bit too much to not be a coincidence.
@@TheGeorgeD13 So, maby he was and maby it was the psychological version of convergent evolution.
Art is available to everyone but art isn’t intended to be understood by everyone.
I love your videos, always have, and love that you're making it so educational.
I have to say though, I feel a bit unsatisfied by this one. The question of art's political aspect is not exactly the one you've answered in this video. Art is, has always been and will always be political. Not necessarily because the artist is someone determined to push a certain ideology, but because it reflects a social reality. Whether it is the superb Renaissance painters who were sponsored by the Church and other powerful families, the fact that your work of art had to be celebrating God or the aristocracy one way or the other for so long is a clear proof that art is political.
It always bugs me out that people say to artists "stop taking a political stand" - usually towards pop singers. Music, especially since the 20th Century, has been driven by politics like almost no other medium. Whether it is the Blues (slaves songs), the Jazz, Rock'n'Roll, Punk, Metal, Rap and Hip-Hop, it makes no sense to ask artists not to be political.
I'm sorry my point is not very eloquently put, it is late and I am tired, I just wanted to share my opinion on that. Peace everyone
I don't quite agree with that statement. While much of art can be political, it doesn't necessarily have to be, nor does it have to reflect a "social reality." I can write any kind of story I want to, and I don't need to channel the idiosyncrasies of society or anything else for that matter.
@@basedesidisi1108 I think you would find writing a totally "random" story harder than you imagine, insofar much of what you tell and how you tell it reflect upon your beliefs and the society you live in.
I can think of no great book that isn't "political" in that sense in fact. Whether it's fantasy (Lord of the Rings) or Sci-fi (the Robots), theatre (all of Molière or Shakespeare), magical realism (100 years of solitude) - politics are omnipresent
@@basedesidisi1108 You can't really make a culturally relevant piece of art without borrowing from some societal baggage, all formed by politics. Even the idea art of itself, a form of sensory conveyance to another human being set up for them to receive it or for themselves to receive it, is a core political interaction.
and he barely talked about the movie lol
@@MrCosmik1 I agree that I *would* be hard pressed to write a story that doesn't borrow from socio-political memory, but that still doesn't mean I can't.
If art does have social value, it's an challenging a society's conventional wisdom, not reproducing it, as Plato would have it do.
Why?
@@Ptaku93 Because challenging your values makes you grow, either by confirming that your values can withstand that criticism or by acknowledging that your values were not entirely correct
The greeks had a very weak notion of malice. Nietzsche solved this issue much later on...
Great videos man I love your stuff. I have to disagree on the video, and it doesn't really feel like there is a cohesive point or perspective from you. You include a lot of information but the analysis of it doesn't really form an argument. Whenever controversial art is criticized because of what real-world actions they may inspire I always think about the fact that over 99% of people do not act out because of Art and we shouldn't sensor or look down upon art that may stimulate negative reactions in a tiny percentage of people. Those people usually have underlying issues all along. In fact I believe the Joker is a great spot light for our lack of attention to people that have mental health issues and the lack of resources available to them and we should really focus and take note of that instead of focusing on how uncomfortable it makes us feel. So many critics talk about how dangerous this movie is instead of realizing that in the real world we need to do more for people with mental health issues
This video was so fascinating! Thank you for educating me during lunch break~
I’ve learned so much from this! Thank you.
I want to let you know that I've enjoyed many of your videos; your channel is one of my favorites on CZcams, and I don't subscribe to very many. I sincerely think you could pitch your videos on media writing and critique as a podcast series on a network like Gimlet or Headgum. The tone and flow of your voice remind me of 99% Invisible. I find it both relaxing and thoughtful.
I encourage you to keep making videos, and even expand your platform. You have enough of a body of work, and a point of view, to carry a program on a more commercial outlet.
Either way, I will keep enjoying your videos and thank you for doing such an enjoyable work.
p.s. As someone who has written fanfic for years this question of social responsibility in art has been ricocheting across various fandoms the last couple years, causing immense drama in various fanfic communities, especially ones with a high presence on the tumblr/AO3 circuit. It's comforting to know that the debate is much older than the arguments I've had the last 3 years.
We have to be careful when talking about Plato's views on art, as art - the theatrical plays - really did have a much, much more important place back in ancient greece than it does today. It makes sense that Plato would have a much more severe stance on it. He actually encourages good plays and good art in general (music, etc) if it contributes to the healthy education of its citizens.
Especially since plays about Socrates contributed to his eventual execution.
Kaarn S. How was art more important back then, then now?
@@Cheaze56789There was "less" art, so the plays that were shown had more impact (I suppose)
He liked art, when it agreed with him. Plato (like aristotle and many other philosophers) was a rich and privileged men. He thought that philosophers were the people who lived the right life. That rich old men were the smartest and should therefore be in charge of everything.
Education was only for the rich and privileged young men, these he could influence (because his worldview suited them as well)
The poor, women and unfree however did not read his scriptures and were not allowed to hear his talks and lectures, so he could not influence them.
The only form of some thought provoking (educational) content for these people was art, especially plays.
So if the lower class (which were the majority) would get the 'wrong' ideas or get influenced by art, he could not 'control' them.
Great video ! Keep up the awesome work
Finally another one of these! Thanks!!
The most impactful thing anyone ever said to me about the nature of art was a Theory of Directing professor that said Art is communication.
It's hard for me to look at any Art through another lens now. As an aspiring Writer/Director, I can't fathom the notion of making Art for Arts sake.
If someone doesn't have an innate desire to communicate something, why are they making art?
Is there a fundamental difference between art and entertainment? Does art exist without the artist? What is art?
Any question surrounding the nature of art is immensely fascinating and I don't think there'll ever be a good answer to any of these question but I think there's a lot of value in people thinking more about what their media diet communicates to them. In order to better understand themselves and the world.
Maybe they enjoy the process and not intentionally conveying "a point" maybe people just like creating pleasing things. Does everything have to be "deep" to have value?
Okelydokley. I'm not about to criticize any of your points here, but I do kinda want to break down some answers.
Art as communication: this is more of a stylistic thing than anything else because--I'd argue--pretty much every person writing in today's society is told from day one that if you're creating "art" then you must also being trying to convey things. However, the art that is seen as trying to covey a message today is usually born out of a direct desire to say something: your Kansas Writers Workshop folks, the people who win the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes, people who make commercials, etc etc. And this is merely a trend, to be clear. A hundred years ago, it was the weird avant-garde stuff that people though was "true art" (think, "Ms. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf or "As I Lay Dying" by William Faulkner) and not stuff like "The Jungle" that had an explicit point it was trying to make. You had to dig into those kinds of novels in order to really get at any thematic depth, because often the point of the avant-garde was to be as alien from the "normal" as possible, to push the medium into interesting places and see what you could do. It was often as technical or it was stylistic (the early twentieth century can be argued to be the time of style over substance, but that's an argument for another day). Like, you can certainly read a message from "Finnegan's Wake," for instance, but really it's way more about pushing language to its absolute limits than anything else.
My point then is that "art as communication" is merely a trend. All artists publishing today are inundated by hot takes and opinions and criticism from all over the damn place because Internet. Whether or not you're really thinking about a message or intended to have a message, your art will be perceived as having a message. Which is also why most people don't pay attention to mysteries, romance, and fantasy novels, because they've been seen for years as escapism and the point of escapism is to turn your brain off. There are exceptions, certainly--"Gone Girl," "Game of Thrones," and "50 Shades of Grey" come to mind as genre works that sparked huge conversations--but generally speaking, people don't put a lot of analysis into those genres. Not because James Patterson or Brandon Sanderson or Nora Roberts don't have themes on their minds, but because their genres are generally seen as not having messages to begin with.
TL;DR: "Art as communication" is really more of a cultural/critical trend than an actual "reason" for doing art. If you are perceived as making art (regardless of whether you're alive or dead) you will be perceived as having a message. (Also by "communication," I'm interpreting that as meaning "message" or "theme" just to be clear.) Sorry for this long response. Just inspired to write a response to it and because I'm bored at work.
@@aldenraymond771
Really appreciate this answer!
I don't necessarily mean that Art as communication means the intent to provide a theme or "message" it can also be the intent to convey a feeling or mood such as pleasure.
To intend for people to get pleasure out of your Art is a desire to communicate something; a feeling.
I guess the term "art for arts sake" to me sounds like it's coming from a desire to put something in the world that does not convey anything.
I also don't think "Art is communication" is the only lends through which you can look at Art, I just find that for me personally as a viewer it's the lense that makes the most sense for me personally.
When I heard that, a lot of my worldview on art just seemed to click neatly into place.
It makes a lot of sense to me though that the idea of art conveying a message or being socially responsible is one that rises as society becomes self aware of the impact art can have and more self aware of the issues that face different spheres of society which I personally think is a net positive worth striving towards.
@@treborkroy5280 Things that convey pleasure rather than another meaning or being "deep" still have value.
I think the problem arises when someone's media diet is exclusively work that produces pleasure (or they only read all work as such).
@@jamesscrambles
"Art is service of the gods"
Or is this too theological for our time? I do think Art for Art's sake is a kind of personalization of this idea though.
Something I noticed while watching this a second time through.
The Edgar Allen poem you reference is...lying.
The poem claims to be a poem, a poem written for the poem's sake, and nothing more, and that this make supremely noble compared to other poems.
Except it isn't. This poem still teaches a philosophy; the "philosophy" of Art for Art's sake.
The poem serves the purpose of teaching this understanding of art to others, or atleast defending Poe's stance on it to critics.
Poe is lying here..
Just something I noticed. Love the channel!
I totally agree
great analysis of the history man, thanks for the insights and perspectives, I think this is an important question, and I've been pondering it for a while, cheers
Great video, Sage. This was much needed.
it's actually "In medias res" not "En medias res" (sorry but I used to be a Latin student, and couldn't help being a party pooper)
I thought Plato's books were fiction or partially fiction too.
Anyway, your points is great. I think I'd go further and say: if art creates an experience and we humans learn from experiences, every piece of art teaches us something. So then reflecting on how a piece of art affects us could develop into how do we / what knowledge do we need in order to turn this experience into a positive learning experience. At the end of the day, there is stuff to learn from anything, even if it's just why you should not do certain things, right?
So I'd say the problem is less that there are too many negative things but that there is too little knowledge on how to grow from them.
They are. But Platos point was that young people (meaning uneducated and naive) would not understand it.
He thought philosophy and thinking in general should be reserved to white, rich, old men because only they would be intellectually capable.
He wrote his books for exactly these people, so they would understand the allegories or the creative freedom in his dialogues, because they wouls understand his message
Great video, I appreciate the research that went into it!
Great video! This kind of video will be a really interesting series!
"Joker's themes weren't themetic enough. How ironic" - Bigideas circa 300BC
I think art should be made to better peoples lives. I dont care if it does that by just giving people a fun time (for example a fun movie without any deeper meaning) or by being something that teaches the audience.
You helped me with my paper for college which deals with the question if our new media is capable of replacing books and if books are the only reliable or geniune source regarding teaching morality and empathy. Your summary on this topic was a treasure chest for my thoughts. Thank you!
Once again you've put out an outstanding video. Thanks so much for doing this.
One virtue of art (maybe the greatest) is how it forces us to see the world through different perspectives - and in the case of writing, narratives force us to see what's it like to be different people. We enter the narrative because we're looking for entertainment, but as it progresses we we develop not just greater empathy, but also a better understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling. Our self-made bubble of beliefs about the world expands and becomes a little more accurate.
I think a lot of the controversy over the Joker movie comes from discomfort. There are quite a few people (many of them critics) who have no interest in seeing the world through Joker's eyes, not even for two hours.
Plato’s arguments against poetry relate directly to his metaphysics. The pure Idea of a table is at the top. Its aspects are manifest in a multiplicity of particular tables. Next is the table as an object of craftsman. The craftsman constructs a single table that can be viewed from various angles but which possesses object permanence, and thus is referred to by us as a single table. Art is below the object of craft because it can produce an illusion of the table that does not produce the multiplicity of aspects inherent in a single table. Admiration for the beautiful in art as mere appearance can also distract from contemplation of the beauty of intransigent objects, which causes those lucky enough to become philosophers to seek out the permanence of the forms. When Plato decries the effects of art on the populace, he is decrying that it is not connected to an understanding of the perfect ordering of things deontologically that comes from the philosopher’s contemplation of forms. It is more than an a moral and ethical claim.
But, if we are to go off of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, Plato’s understanding of language-which underlies traditional Western metaphysics-is wrong. So we should rethink his hierarchy between reason and art.
Plato’s provides further clarification of this argument in the Phaedrus.
_"Every villain is the hero of his own story..."_
*~ The Joker*
Except the actual comic book joker, who loves being chaotic and villainous.
@@TheWickedMessenger3 You mean the Jack Nicholson version of the Joker? I think it's pretty close.
@@poweroffriendship2.0 The original Joker. What a masterpiece that Tim Burton created!
"I am an Agent of Chaos"
~ The Joker
I recently wrote an essay regarding Edgar Allen Poe, and you were the first person I turned to for research. You have been a wonderful help, and I thank you very much for that!
Uau. Thank you for the hard work and research. Love from Brazil.
Almost clicked away from the video when he said it was "just okay".....Mcscuse me???
*update*
This video was super informative and broadened my perspective.
You should check out Peter Coffin's take on the film. He pretty much nails it.
Great analysis, loved this, fair and balanced!
saw this video. I absolutely loved it. earned my subscription. keep making good videos
Does he really "decide" to kill everyone, because in my mind that kind of decision is one made after great thought and turmoil, whereas it feels more like hes pushed into a situation in the subway where he does kill some people and then it just spirals from there. I never felt like this was something that was brewing within him, the kind of focused rage that would lead someone to kill. The film felt more like Walter Mitty and his quiet compliance/desperation with his own terrible fate, up until the point where his hand is forced into action, and at that point the change cannot be stopped, so much as a change that was decided upon.
One of the movie's biggest themes is the question of impulse versus agency. Arthur is severely mentally ill, and he suffers from a lot of negative impulses he doesn't have any way to understand or handle. As he starts to lose control and slips off the medicine, he begins to feel free, though its mostly just that he is acting on impulses that he was repressing before. So he doesn't precisely express agency, but he does, in some way, decide to make the choice himself.
Geek Variety
I had the same reaction. It’s very hard to say that he “decides” any of his action, the movie very derivatively frames everything he does as a result of his surroundings pushing him.
There's always a choice to commit violence. Western/American society justifies violence in scenarios like self-defense, defense of others, or war. But fundamentally, it's always a decision. Even spontaneous decisions are decisions nonetheless.
Acknowledging a spiraling context of circumstances is still just an acknowledgement--it doesn't mean someone doesn't have a choice. Rather than act as if he didn't decide, ask if you think his decisions were correct or understandable.
avocadotart
I think the point is that the movie’s framing leans towards his lack of control over what happens to him. Not necessarily translatable to the real world.
Have you watched Parasite? What are your views on it?
Which parasite? Japanese? Korean? Or maybe US has one too.
@@dustone8542 a new korean movie by director Bong Joon Ho.
I was grinning stupidly throughout this entire video. You articulated how I felt about Joker, the Aesthetic Movement, Death of the author and literally art itself perfectly!! Thank you for such a well-written video :)
Except the ending of the video I think you make amazing content, keep it up and you should greatly rise.
Video was the best way of saying “yeah but also no”
As always, I love your channel and, like all your other videos, this one still gets a 👍 from me! However, I feel like most of the criticism received by this movie is a direct result of not looking deep enough into who the protagonist, antagonist, and the antagonist's antagonist really is.... because, when you really think about it (and I have), the protagonist is _optional_ ; the protagonist is the viewer.
The movie is attempting to unfurl the cruel world Gotham really is (the antagonist's antagonist) and what enough social pressure can eventually create (the antagonist). The potential protagonist, AKA the viewer, is forced to reconcile this with their own world and, (hopefully) as a result, be kinder in their daily lives... because there are gradients of ugliness in this world that people will inevitably run into: The movie just confronts us with that ugliness, head-on, in its extreme forms. So I can see why a critic would repudiate this film even on an art-for-art's sake merit, claiming that there's no redeeming quality to this film: it's hard to watch (leaving aside the moral-panic question).
Meanwhile, Bulgakov, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn take turns turning in their graves.
...if you can't find beauty/merit in ugliness... if you can't find reasons to laugh when the logical response is to cry, what are we even doing here?
This moment when you're in between all those PoVs because while Art for Art's sake is a great concept, Art is born from the PoV of the artist and exists in a specific context
I love your videos and the music you use, can you tell me what the soundtrack around 08:30 is called?
The thing about Joker's pre-release controversy, if you could even use that word ("nontroversy" seems to fit better), was how irresponsibly a number of critics and subsequently mouthpieces in the media handled it (which while predominantly left-wing in this case, also included Fox News commentators, among others). Before its release, the movie was touted as a number of negative things, from incel calling card, to mass shooter bait, to right-wing conspiratorial non-sense, to any number of variations on moral panic, with corresponding calls to ban it (aside from Aurora, Colorado's), limit its release, etc.. *Before its release.* And when released, what happened? What did this next Mein Kampf or Turner Diaries lead to?
Just a movie. Some love it, some hate it, a number of people like me and Just Write here see it as nothing more than just a movie.
Sure, it features graphic violence and a number of disturbing scenes, but the moral panic came off as completely unjustified, an echo of fear mongering over movies like The Wild Bunch, A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, Natural Born Killers, Fight Club, and The Purge. It turned out a bunch of websites and publications got clicks and views and more ad revenue from a controversy that came off as empty, just like the dozen other or so controversies of this year like Us, Captain Marvel, Toy Story 4, and Ready Or Not, and people fell for it.
And in the month or so since its release, what's happened? Essentially a reveal that there was a lot of crying wolf, and little else. Further discussion has mostly centered on what it actually talks about (mental health, wealth disparity, social inequalities, how creepy clowns are, etc.), the protesters adopting Phoenix's Joker as a new Guy Fawkes, its box office, awards season potential, and the like. Actual news stories.
And those who tried portraying it as this infectious moral failing before its release? Their bandwagon broke down. It's telling how quiet a number of them are now that people can actually respond and rebut some of their criticisms, especially the ones that were crying wolf about the movie potentially inspiring mass shooters. Which, as should be noted, if they were actually criticisms made in good faith, we'd be talking about this movie (and those others I mentioned) under more tragic circumstances. All these people have now are passive aggressiveness and snide remarks. And that's a good thing. It means discussion has moved to a more mature stage about the movie's actual merits and shortcomings.
So I'll end with this: if Joker's pre-release controversy is a lesson in anything, it's to be wary of bandwagons, especially those started by dubious sources in the entertainment industry, the media, or corporate America, and most especially over things that haven't even happened yet.
ethangorham17 Repeating what I said in a different thread:
Actually, when it was still screening in festivals, the big name magazines were giving the movie raving reviews: twitter.com/shallow_ss/status/1167889098243104775
But when the movie actually came out to a wider release, the general bulk of critics were mostly disappointed by how despite the great acting from Joaquin Phoenix and the pretty cinematography, the script was dull and any statements the movie made were obvious (rich people are bad, poor people are abused, and the mentally ill need help) and the movie didn’t go hard enough despite saying so many things. Much like Just Write, they thought the movie was only okay. Not bad, not good, just okay.
The people who were reacting like the movie could cause harm are the regular American people, and I specify American because in my country nobody expected that Joker would cause a mass shooting over here because we don’t have the weird love affair that Americans have with guns. So I think it says something about American society that they experienced so much mass shootings from white men in particular that a movie like the Joker had caused them a lot of concern.
God you’re such a smart and informed person
Good for a quicc mental fucc
been waiting for u
Dude, great vídeo!
Well, i know it isn't the topic at hand, but how can one not love this movie!?
My favorite movie of the year so far!!
People wants different things of movies
hmmm. i think you re judging the film from a screenwriter point of view, not from a filmmaker POV, because the acting, the directing and the editing of this films are great
Well isn't a filmmaker supposed to tell a story?
Andrew Kulubi yes, did i said the opposite ? I just said he is probably judging the script not counting other magnificent things
@@SB-kr2xk well a script is still a very important factor in making a film. While the presentation may have been fantastic, even if a little derivative, a lackluster script can bring down the overall experience to just "okay".
A channel called “Just Write” analyzes the writing of a film. What a strange thing to do.
He's not analyzing the movie. He's going over historical interpretations on artists' responsibilities towards society.
The big thing I got out of the movie was that this movie is probably the best 'comic-book' movie expression of world building we've got. We get a real great sense of the feeling of the people of gotham and how its politics and media are affecting them.
but yeah, a lot of it just left me a bit hollow.
Wonderful video, admire you ability to create these. I disagree on threefold schematization of answers on the questions of art's social responsibility though - for two reasons:
1.) It's undercomplex as it ignores other positions. I'm thinking mainly of the first major critique of Plato's view on the arts, Aristotle. 2.) It oversimplifies even those three. "Art for arts sake" for instance in the 19th century was concieved as a social responsibility: to be better, more refinded, as opposed to the masses. This gets pretty explicit in Mallarme and Flaubert.
Still really enjoyed watching the video :)
Way to go, using a comic book movie to sneak a real discussion of art philosophy into the discussion
After all your praise for Rocky's character development, regardless of writting formulas, i thought you would ve been mor enthusiastic about this films take on the character.
This is a great topic to cover, as it truly is the argument of the ages, and you're never going to be able to scratch more than just the surface.
One thing that surprised me was that you distilled the film to "A mentally ill loner named Arthur Fleck, who decides to murder everyone he's angry with". Whether you like the film or not, that's rather a pat summation of what it's about. That's been one of the main issues I've had with a lot of the discourse about the film. (which I think is pretty good, but not nearly as great as many people would espouse)
It seems rather that a lot of people look at the surface level of what the film is about, and stop thinking. The Bob Chipman-like reductive "this is a movie for incels and the alt right something something" attitude, which does a disservice to the film and filmmakers as a whole.
Considering that much of the post-release discussion about the film has been in favour of it's messages condemning the reduction in public services and medical care for the lowest earners, and that social care and nurture of the mentally ill should be more prioritised, it's a shame that many seem to only take the "bad man does bad thing but it looks good" stance towards it.
thank you for this
I think that we should take a more Nietzschean view of art as a form of self expression. When we view different forms of art, such as film, paintings, and video games, we are able to view a persons understanding of the world, allowing us to see how they think and feel. When we are able to do so, we become more empathetic.
plato was a friggin hypocrate... he blames fiction for misleading people, yet to this day, plato still misleads people with his silly atlantis fable (spoiler: there is no sunken continent in the Atlantic)
We don't know that yet. ;)
what is the song that plays in the background at the beginning of the video
Such an amazing video
Snowflakes: “This film will inspire people to commit acts of violence”
The people: Start dancing on stairs
Gentrifying stairs*
Tfw when a class uprising film gets painted as incel film
I'm what people would classify as a "snowflake", but I liked this movie.
Since Horace was speakig and writing Latin, shouldn't it be 'in medias res'?
It should indeed. Good call. That's where epics are supposed to begin.
This demonstrates how little Just Write actually knows about what he talks about.
Also, Horace coined the term but didn't invent it, as it had been used for thousands of years before him.
Can someone tell me which song is playing during the Horace part? Awesome video btw!
I really liked this episode. A while back I had to write an essay on Plato’s views on democracy as desrcibed in the Republic and his views aren’t as set in stone as they seem. Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to similar content.
Plato is a playful writer.
*we live in a society exists*
Joker: It’s free real estate.
I haven't seen The Joker, but I think there's a historical parallel from literary history that is relevant to this discussion.
In late 1800s France, a novelist and his publisher were brought to trial on a charge of "offence to public decency". The novel was about a young woman who committed adultery, abandoned her child, and ran off with her lover. The prosecution claimed that such books would pollute the minds of young women, cause an epidemic of adulterous wives and bring the institution of marriage crashing down.
The author defended his work by arguing that the book was a cautionary tale. How can a story show the destructiveness of adultery without creating a character who commits adultery and faces the consequences of those actions? The author and his publisher were acquitted.
I would argue the same for the Joker film. This is a cautionary tale of what could happen if we as a society don't aid low-income people who can't afford the high price of the pharmaceuticals they need to remain contributing members of society. This film makes an excellent case for having a national pharmacare system. So how can we show the consequences of not caring for the most vulnerable people in our society without creating a character who becomes destructive and violent after being denied the medication he needs to stay emotionally stable?
Incidently, the French novel from the true-life trial was Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert.
My big issue with Joker is that it's saying a whole lot of things...
Sort of...
...and quite often the exact opposite moral could be gained from it as well.
@@PauLtus_B Joker is an unreliable narrator, so of course it's message is confused. It's made clear at the end of the film that half the things he has told us about were fantasies in his own head. That's why the film is so unnerving. You know some it is false, but you can't tell what parts of his story to believe and what not to believe.
There's a long tradition of unreliable narrators in fiction. Joker is simple the most modern take. Think about the character as he's portrayed in the Dark Knight. He has multiple different versions of the story of how he got his scars, and he tells different one every time. Everyone who knows this character knows you can't take him at his word. This film is the first time we've had an entire film told from his point-of-view. But if you know the character at all, you go into this film knowing his version of events isn't trustworthy.
@@gailcbull
Sure, but that's only an explanation, it doens't make the movie any better.
Putting at the end of the movie is also a bit like "none of this actually matters". It's a bit like ending your movie on "but it was all just a dream".
Believe me, Inception is one my absolute favourite movies and I think ambiguity can be done very purposefully. Joker's ambiguous background works in the Dark Knight because it makes him feel more "inevitable" in a sense. But in that movie he's the antagonist. In "Joker" we have a character study through which we don't really learn anything.
I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm asking what the point?
@@PauLtus_B So what you're saying is you don't like character study stories. Fair enough. They aren't for everyone.
But did you really expect a film told from the perspective of a character who you knew was manipulative and deceptive to teach you something? If you know the Joker as a character at all then there's no other way you could have done a story told from his perspective and remained faithful to the character.
I think the reason so many people feel unnerved by this film is because it leaves the audience feeling the same way that Batman feels everytime he tries to understand the Joker. Think of the confused and pained look on Bruce Wayne's face in The Dark Knight when he's talking to Alfred about the Joker's motives, and Alfred answers him with the now famous line, "some men just want to watch the world burn." Joker (the film) actually succeeded in making the audience feel exactly what it would be like to be confronted with the actions of a real-life man who just wants to watch the world burn. Artistically speaking, that's a stunning achievement.
@@gailcbull
"So what you're saying is you don't like character study stories."
I like them when I actually feel like I learned something about a character.
The whole "but he's insane" feels like an excuse for the film not actually saying anything.
Even a lack of understanding can be done with a point and purpose but "Joker" just happened.
"Joker (the film) actually succeeded in making the audience feel exactly what it would be like to be confronted with the actions of a real-life man who just wants to watch the world burn. Artistically speaking, that's a stunning achievement."
...that's not how I felt at all. That's what the Dark Knight did, also by making the Joker not the main character but very much the antagonist. You can empathize with the frustrations of the characters confronted with the Joker. When it comes to Joker you just don't understand.
Anyone know what the piano music being played over the Horace section is? Is it some royalty free music or is it some classical piece I’m unfamiliar with? It’s quite striking, id love to give a go at learning
Ah I see there’s some info on it in the description.
Fantastic video
The discourse around Joker has the POTENTIAL to be such a genuinely interesting and deep one, but was approached in the most shallow, banal way by both sides of the debate.
Fits the movie if you ask me.
Advent, why do say that? The film was actually interesting if you tried to watch it as an allegory/metaphor instead of a straight up comic book movie (because as a straight up comic book movie, it was meh)
@@ElijahAhSha I say that because it had potential to be really interesting but I found it kind of shallow. Honestly if it wasn't called Joker I don't think it would be anywhere near as popular as it is.
@The Ponderer the important thing is you proved yourself superior to both sides without adding anything to "the discourse" other than your own enlightened centrist platitudes.
Much like the movie the Joker, well done, very postmodern, very meta. /clap
@@Advent3546 fair enough. I think it would be a cult classic for lack of a better term. Similar to Taxi Driver. I commented elsewhere on the video but I think if you watch the whole movie again through the eyes of how it discussed mental health, then it's much more interesting and has more meaning.
Just my two cents though, obviously you're allowed to feel what you want to feel about it!
Théophile Gautier? *Sounds like somebody that I used to know.*
Plato watching joker: “I don’t speak English” 😂😂😂haha
Hello, Mr. Hayden,
Could you to an analysis of the Souther Korean film, Parasite? That film confused me a bit.
If anyone else here saw Parasite, you can reply and explain more about the plot. I understand separation of class but not everything else.
The movie is basically a study on narcissism and individualism. Both husbands and wives from both families are narcissistic and view the other family as the "suckers".
Only at the end (at the party) the father realizes how similar their families think and behave and how disconnected they are from one another.
It's really not that deep and I think it's grossly overrated, especially if you're used to Asian cinema (Japanese in particular).
I think this is the best, most reasonable response to the Joker controversy I've seen so far. Both art and criticism should be given free reign
Like art, though (and anything, really), criticism should be called out when it's being silly. There's plenty of valid criticism to be had about the SUBSTANCE of some of the criticism leveled at Joker that doesn't stem from diverging views about the responsibilities of art. I feel like that would have been worth mentioning. Not every criticism of criticism is based on an "art for art's sake" argument.
Look, there's more criticism being applied to what critics said about the film than about the film instead.
Who do you think is missing the point in this situation?
Gastón Zumbo Exactly what critics are you referring to because early screenings from the big magazine critics actually rated Joker highly: twitter.com/shallow_ss/status/1167889098243104775
And then when the movie actually came out, other critics’ general opinion was much like Just Write’s “it’s okay - not good, not bad, but okay” citing that while Joaquin Pheonix was brilliant, and the movie was beautiful, the dialogue got clunky, the script was weak, and the movie was predictable.
Perhaps you mean the criticism of the regular people, who have lived in a country that constantly experiences mass shootings almost every month, that a movie about a villain made them concerned. You might think “those people are so silly”, but isn’t that saying something about the society you live in that it’s a concern for them? I say this as someone who doesn’t live in America and don’t have the same gun culture as Americans do - people where I live had no fears that the movie would cause others to be violent and go on gunning sprees if they watch it.
@@gastonzumbo9860 I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (so I'll try to answer to what I guess you might be implying).
What point do you think is being missed? How do you quantify criticism? Because I'd argue if one critic publishes his opinion in, e.g., the NYT, and 1000 people criticize them on twitter, what has more impact is still the person's opinion who has a huge amplifying platform and thus will reach a much larger audience.
Furthermore, let's roll with the assumption for a moment that there is "more criticism" to what critics said than about the film instead, for argument's sake: What do you then deduce from that inequality? Is a 50/50 ratio the ideal ratio somehow? We have to consider the possibility of a critique (or a film, an argument, whatever) getting a disproportionate amount of criticism itself simply because it's very flawed.
Is there any art that does not affect society?
The ones you keep to yourself
@@israsaleh deepthoughts
@@michealvega1373 I thought I was being a killjoy but I suppose so
Great video.
This is something i’ve been thinking about for a pretty long time, the idea that when something isn’t painted black and white and lingers in an evil idea, it’ll be met with worry that people won’t take the right messages away.
@6:36 zomg SAM HYDE was that you?
Haven't seen one of these videos in a while.
I would defend Joker simply as art, or a video-game, and how it doesn't matter if it's violent.
But then my mind goes to 13 Reasons Why, and how a TV show can influence people on ending their lives.
But also the people talking against some things in 13 Reasons Why were professionals in the mental health area, and a big problem wasn't the whole series, but that suicide scene.
And then I watched a series with a suicide theme when I was deeply depressed, and it did raise thoughts of killing myself...
I think 13 Reasons Why really was socially irresponsible in a much more serious way than The Joker.
I don’t quite agree with your conclusion on the nature of art, I do agree with your conclusion in understanding both what is the value people can interpret from art and understanding how we decide it are more value complex than “murder bad=>never make any art with murder cause people will copycat”, and I liked this video because not getting to your productive plans on time is relatable
Fun video, first I've seen of your channel! I do have some thoughts on it, though. And I know you need to summarize and comprehend in these videos, but maybe there is someone who can do something with this regarding the theoretical framework.
In a discussion of an artwork, its role and its societal responsibility (and that of creators, critics and public), it does feel kind of strange to delve into different, and often a bit outdated, texts of the western canon, but leaving out things like marxist theory (I mean, you did mention it) and contemporary debates on the relation between the artwork, the creator, critics and the public - for example, the notorious 'death of the author' seems to me an interesting point wrt societal responsibility.