Joker - How to Make Evil Likable | Film Perfection
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 01. 2020
- 2019's Joker is a strange film in the sense that its one and only protagonist is the furthest thing from a traditional hero as can be -- he's a bad guy. Yet, despite all the evil acts Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur Fleck in this Todd Phillips movie commits, the audience never turns on him and instead keeps staying on his side. In today's award winning episode of everyone's favorite show Film Perfection, let's see how this is made possible. Not sure how it will work in Joker 2 though, if we get one.
Support: / filmento
Follow: / filmento
Thonosrat: teespring.com/stores/boutique...
#FilmPerfection #Joker
clean pg family friendly big expensive house expensive car
-
Joker (2019)
In an unsettling origin story, Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) exists on the fringes of society and is utterly ignored by others. His outcast existence begins to take a toll on his mental state, his narrative an unnerving study on the joker neighbor murray show scene watch joker full movie online free everything wrong with joker honest trailer video essay everything great in joker clown joker laugh scene joker clip 4k hd you get what you f deserve extent to which a person can unravel. Written and directed by Todd Phillips, co-starring Robert De Niro.
-
Venom (2018)
Director Ruben Fleischer’s superhero film revolves around the chaotic exploits of the Marvel Comics villain of the same name. Tom Hardy stars as Eddie Brock, a journalist who becomes the host of an alien symbiote - acquiring superhuman abilities and a malevolent alter-ego in the process - while investigating the true nature of the secretive experiments conducted by the unethical leader of the Life Foundation (Riz Ahmed) - Krátké a kreslené filmy
And no... what Todd Phillips "says" in interviews outside of the movie isn't something I consider to be part of the movie. That's not how movies work.
Good
To me it makes sense that he just didn't do it because he committed atrocities because he felt a feeling of retaliation on who did him wrong, but recognized those that never did him harm like the short guy that he let go even after he witnessed him killing his ex-colleague.
Filmento it’s been confirmed in multiple places and from the release of the script that he didn’t kill his neighbor.
Filmento
Filmento
He didn’t kill his neighbor, at least, there’s no reason to think so.
Example:
At the end of the film, when he does the final walk down the hall, his shoes are bloody. That’s a hint that he either killed the therapist lady, or at least left her bloodied.
There was no hint at all that he killed his neighbor. There is no reason to think so other than your own speculation. But your speculation is not based on any actual clues.
So it would be better for you to leave that part out of your analysis because it’s not backed by anything. Usually you’re good at making points that are backed by something substantial.
Yes, what director says in interviews is not part of the movie. But "Joker kills neighbor" also not part of the movie. So that part of your analysis just don't seems right. Him killing her does not made audience stop liking Arthur cuz we never seen him killing her. I guess it was more about how in this moment Joker craziness stopped being sad and become creepy.
He didn’t start a movement through his actions. He reacted to people attacking him on the subway. The MEDIA started the movement by misreporting what happened and why. He then embraced the label the media gave him.
Thank you, I was thinking the same thing.
Arthur never stated any political opinion, nor did he tell enyone else to do anything agains anyone else (as in, he never told the poor people to act out violently against the 1%ers). It was, as you said, the media that took one action, and twisted it to promote their own narrative.
This is also why I would argue that Filmento is wrong when he states that Arthur/Joker is resposible for the death of the Waynes (and the riot over all). Arthur never said anything in regards to how he wanted people to act. He never tried to inspire or start up any riot, or social movements, or anythibg of the sort. Arthur only wanted his own, personal, revenge on the bullies on the train, and on Murry, and since he was give the means to enact his revenge, (having a gun on his person, and being invited to the show), he whent thru with them. It was not his fault that others decided to put their own interpetation/menaing on his actions. Others were inspired by what he did, but he never ment to inspire anyone to copy him/his actions.
To say that Arthur is responsible for the murder of the Waynes, would inply that Arthur then should have the responsebility of the actions that someone else did on their own volition. The only one that should be held acountable for the murder of the Wayns, is the one guy that pulled the trigger on them, for he was the one that made the decission, and who commited tha act. No one, especially not Arthur, told the guy to do it.
Arthur did something that others were inspired by, but he never did anything to inspire others. The difference is huge, and should never be considered interchangeable.
yep, “I don’t believe in any of that, I don’t believe in anything”
“Do I look like the kind of clown that can start a movement?”
It just shows that Joker is pure nihilism. Nothing good ever comes out of that. I think someone should make a video about that tbh
Am I the only one, who saw a parallels between Arthur-Murray and Folk-Wane relations?
Ye, it's all fake news.
He still felt some pride from being the catalyst for the movement
Heath Ledger Joker: the mad dog who bites without provocation.
Joaquin Phoenix Joker: the kicked dog who finally bites back.
Well that’s not exactly true, Heath Ledgers joker is a lot like Arthur, he explains in the movie how society is broken and morality is nothing but a joke that people refuse to accept, and he creates chaos to force people to accept it
Look up the ex-military theory on The Dark Knight's Joker. Although only a theory, it does paint Ledger's character as more of a victim than a villian. A soldier who loses his closes friends and left permanently disfigured because he follow ORDER. A man who returns home to a crumbling city and a man dressed as a bat. A person that throughout the movie actually succeeds in fixing the city, although through CHAOS. Nolan rarely sets the dinner table for his guest. Rather he hands them a shotgun and tells them to hunt for it.
TH3 F4LC0N Jared Leto joker: the dog nobody wants
Two very different ideologies taken by each character. Ledger's Joker puts himself at risk for the ambition of showing that all of humanity is sick and twisted. If I recall, he personally only kills 2-3 people, his goal is to erode the delusion that "white knights" and morality/loyalty/honor exist. Arthur's Joker is only really concerned with those things directly impacting him personally,. He never considers the aftermath of his decisions until, arguably, the end of the film...albeit that you could argue he doesn't truly understand it then, either.
ledger = Chichuahua
"He kills seven people, which is a lot for a hero"
* laughs in Avengers *
Stephan Stefanus
*laughs in man of steel*
Laughs in Quentin Tarantino
Laughs in Star wars
**Laughs in every action movie that has ever existed**
*laughs in Postal*
i really liked the metaphor of the stairs : each day he went up trying to be sane but in the end he finally accepted who he was, went insane and came dancing down
Well said.
i agree but i look at it a little more symbolically. the stairs represent life in the sense of ease. it’s harder to go up the stairs. it’s harder to suppress your emotions so that you can still try to make yourself better. it’s harder to be nice than it is to be evil. it’s easier to go down those stairs and to spiral into madness, except to him and apparently to most of us watching, it’s justified
@@John-lu2ql well said. fantastic movie.
It's like "going to hell, with style"
Hmm, I didn't notice that before.
Thanks for pointin it out
Joker never acted. Only reacted. He didn’t cause chaos. He’s a product of chaos. All the things that happened around him made him who he was.
A reaction is an action, good lord
@@BygoneT yeah but the point that he was saying is that he didn't do all these villainous things at first because he took first action.
@@Gadget-Walkmen That's irrelevant. I'm one of those people who rejects the validity of the idea of instigation. You're fully in control of what you're doing every step of the way, from the first insult to the knife stab. There are a number of people who receive terrible treatment every day, but they do not kill. Perhaps it would be better if they did, at least the torturer can't do it to anyone else. But, whatever happens, you are in control and fully responsible, there is no excuse like "We live in a society where..." to justify a kill or torture, or rape, or whatever.
And I don't take this stance just because, the alternative is ridiculous. If you're not in control at the very least most of the time (Picking your words, how to write the next message, eating, where to punch who, etc.), then when are you? Does control evaporate? Do even have it? Is everyone an overly complicated android?
@@BygoneT I completely agree with you that everyone at the end of the day is responsible for their own actions but I was just trying to clear up on what the first comment was trying to say.
Yeah I your completely at the end of the day responsible for your actions but villains for the most part, if they have a tragic story of becoming a villain, just has to have understandable reasons for why they turned bad to begin with to the point where if they audience were in their shoes they would be like, " yeah I would probably go evil in that situation too if I was him too."
@Argumentative Piece of shit It depends on the mentally ill. Surely, someone with mild attention disorders has more control than someone with schizophrenia. Less than someone WITHOUT attention disorders, but more than someone who's a slave to their brainstorming.
Yeah, I agree. It's not good to torment people just because they're different, while I wouldn't torment someone for self righteousness, ego stroking or simple catharsis, I'd say it depends on how they're different. For example i can't accept a pedophile living near my house when I know there are at least 5 children (Not mine) in his vicinity.
I'm also one of those who prefers not to assign some sort of objective message to movies unless explicitly stated. You could just as well argue that in a Nietzsche-esque tone, showing how weakness is the root of all evil. He was not able to detach himself from the treatment he received, he lacked personal strength or didn't care enough to not be weak and give in to his destructive impulses, hence, the movie is showing weakness is the root of all evil. Weak people who turn to doing evil don't need to be strong to hurt, because everyone is equally fragile (You could literally die from being pushed to the ground too hard, since I was a kid I thought it was bullshit). Thus, turning this movie into a "Here's am example of what happens if..."
I don't know if you get what I mean.
It's a good discussion to have, but it's just not as simple as we did bad, they did bad because we were bad to them, and so on. Why are they marginalised in the first place? Is it because their lack of social skills disconnected them from the rest? Why so? Is it from all the way back in childhood? And can you even fix that if it's the cause?
The issue I found all too often is that in trying to "Protect yourself", you denigrate others. It's not a good strategy. For example, deaf people, and more rarely blind people, usually reject the ability to start using their missing senses because all their life they distances themselves from the very idea of hearing or seeing. That's not something that comes about spontaneously. It's the result of others in their lives not wanting to give the blind/deaf false hopes, and possibly experience deep delusion and grief. It's a tough issue. Sure as hell, these people are missing out on big things. *And they're not even able to consider another side of the argument.* That's how strong a life of " Wrong" influence can be.
EDIT: Take a shot every time you read someone
Joker is evil?! I didn’t know he was it wasn’t tattooed on his forehead or anything.
It is like those confusing Indiana Jones movies where the nazis have eagles on theire flags but they still are nazis.
Major flaw of the filmmakers. How can an audience deliniate? Lol
Yeah, they should have wrote *_Nazi_* on his head
Bro I was sooo lost as well. Thanks to filmento for telling us the Joker is a bad guy. I was waiting for "Damaged Tatoo" across the forehead, grill teeth and a hip hop aura 😂😂😂😂😂.
BROKEN
Who else is happy joker didn’t kill the midget
He probably did, Gary would’ve reported it to the police but they never came, so he probably killed Gary but imagined he didn’t
@@nykv9101 Ohh good point
The reason I think he survived was that throughout the movie Arthur only kills people who have hurt him in any way. And the midget hasn’t done anything to him (sorry I’m calling him midget I just don’t know his name)
Sam - Good point but Murray is a celebrity they would’ve at least sent a message to the security of the building, not only that but there are people in the audience that are in risk of danger. Another reason is that Arthur was already a suspect (the 2 detectives in the movie questioning him) so the police probably would’ve gotten Arthur so Gary probably would’ve reported it to the police.
@@gonzalezag Gary lol
Arthur really blew Murray's mind with that joke.
booo
He not only blew his mind but also his brain away :D
@@elsoldaditodelpomo3662 mind=brain
Gonna put some sand in your eye
Hahahahahahahahahahahahsaaaaaa
Long story short: The bullied quiet kid at the back of the class is more likable when you see his whole picture
There's depth to that bro!
Well is a person you know, just because is not same as you doesnt mean is to treat him like a an animal or object, if you do eventually will become it. That the whole picture of it, you cant trow people in society and expect survival when they dont see more that themselves as people
And sometimes the bully is a really sad person who never got attention.
Or u can be nice so u don’t get shot
@@starcrafter13terran Or a power hungry asshole.
Yes some bullies do bad things 'becs sednes', but the majority are just assholes who willingly do it for the sake of power, arrogance, etc...
He didnt kill the neighbor, he was just sad when he realized it was all fake
He was trying to seek comfort in his fake relationship. The fantasy broke down when she reminded him of the child, which probably didn't sit well with what he learned happened in his own childhood. I don't think he did either, would not fit his mentality so far. The sirens and police activity could be just usual Gotham or a neighbor who called and she wisely decided not to make anything out of it (hardly something would come out of it and given where she lives, I'm sure she knows that could probably just trigger him into actually doing something).
@@frealms its gotham. police siren is always sounding. there is literally nothing that says he killed her , but essayist just assumes she killed her and explained why it is weird thing??? like wtf
@@user-pf1bo6ff9h
I can kind of see it with the ominous fingers to the head and the police lights, but yeah. The case for it is really weak.
This guy didn’t understand the movie or just didn’t care just so he can make this video lol
This
The HUMANIZED someone we called a “villain” for so long. And I love it.
Lamar Scrotum Darkwater ? 1917 ? Parasite ? Apollo 11 ? You mean the only one breaking box office
Humanized for mass shooters and Nazis.
@@mr.dr0bot731 put this into a school environment and we get our school shootings.
Empathy is nice and all, but we all still know the action of murder is not morally correct
@@mr.dr0bot731 what we SHOULD take from seeing this movie is: "How can WE prevent THIS from ever occurring?"
What?
" *Every villain is a hero in his own story* "
Joker is the best example of this sentence.
coincidentally it was batman from Injustice 2 who said that (I think?)
Junior Grimes k
I'M A GOD DAMN HERO!
@@Juniorgrimes BRO WHAT?... DM ME ....@LEROY_1DON
I can totally relate to that
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"
We are all thinking “damn true” to ur comment and still we keep ignoring people more unhappy and more unlucky than us
Damn, that's one hell of a quote! What's it from?
@@serafinschaller1688 black panther is where its from
@@serafinschaller1688 it's an African proverb
found the guy who copy and pasted what another guy copy and pasted in another joker video
I see 2 types of vilains:
- Those who grow up thinking they have the right to hurt people
- Those who came to believe hurting back is the only thing right
@yt jt I totally agree
@Blaster Master Yes, maybe it is. Who knows.
Some tries to preserve the order even when it dies
And some exists to put the whole order at a test, to ultimately improve it.
History then judge. But in the present, no matter the character, there's only trying, fighting, going forward. Which completely blurs the distinction.
A third type could be those who get punished for doing the right thing, therefore, believing that good is wrong and evil is right.
@Blaster Master shut up you edge lord jokers a fucking baghead
@@benkeane365 I mean... I technically agree, but listen to yourself! That's one edgy comment if I've ever seen one
The "laughing condition" is a real medical condition: pseudo-bulbar affect. It's less laughing in the conventional sense, more *extremely painful muscle spasms* in response to anxiety.
I'm so glad you added that it's triggered by anxiety. It was so obvious in the film its driving me crazy how many reviews say the laughing is "completely random"
Similar to Tourettes?
@@MorganScorpion I wouldn't be surprised
Wait so, his anxiety was the one controlling his Laughter. Now That is Mental.
@@wozamigamez592 laughter is expression of relief, it's _always_ a response to anxiety - it's literally triggered by endorphins, the same chemicals that cause feelings of relief, the ones opium simulates. People laugh because they're nervous, surprised, embarrassed, relieved something bad didn't happen to them, or relieved something bad has ended.
When I saw the movie, I've never thought for a minute that he killed Domino.
The director said he didn't
Same. Arthur's reaction to me was him coming to terms with the reality that his relationship was a delusion. The flashing lights were showing the crime in the area due to rising tensions.
@@JohnDoe-zw8vx Yeah, a very nice ending to the second act of the movie, showing him at his worst
It could go either way and the evidence is flimsy at best. Given the neighborhood he lived in flashing cop lights is a weak argument. That said even if he just thought about killing her it would likely cause the same break down. She was his pretend romance/friend and having his delusions shattered hurt him.
Worse his likely first reaction after riding the high of killing his bullies was probably to kill her. Even if he didn't actually do it, the mere fact he thought about it would hurt him just as bad. This was imo the moment he realized he was going mad.
But because he's a villain I think he embraced the madness instead of fighting it.
@@Juniorgrimes touch grass
To be fair, if Arthur didn’t kill the last guy on that subway he would still have gotten a life sentence, even though he killed the other two in self defense. These guys were rich and Arthur... well you saw his apartment. There is no way in hell he would have been able to afford a good enough lawyer.
Even with a good attorney, the first would have been justifiable homicide, then second manslaugther (given the situation had deescalated after the first shot), and murder for the 3rd (if witnessed) as he continued to attempt to fire after the individual was dead. You could make the argument that there's no way he gets and impartial, or truly peer, jury...but a good defense attorney would work to stack the jury selection with lower income individuals. Any lawyer, good or bad, would have argued his mental faculty, but he isn't so mentally deranged that he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. Even if a jury could get around all of that, he's still looking at life in an asylum or 5-10 years for justifiable homicide. Would this be different if he were rich? Uh, Batman is considered a dangerous vigilantly by near every judicial official aside from Gordon. He just has the resources/training to evade capture.
Soruv Francis if he’d only killed the first guy then the woman could have been his witness of self defense.
But if I remember right she ran away once the second guy got shot
Jon Hagel it depends on the state too.
In any state with a castle law, or just about any self-defense laws, the first kill wasn’t illegal at all, as it was cut and dry self defense.
The second would be questionable but probably not ‘murder’ (I forget the term for when it’s an intentional kill but isn’t as severe).
And I think regardless the third would always be considered a cut and dry murder as he chased him down and emptied his gun into him.
@@Jessie_Helms the woman wasn't in the room when it happened, she moved over to the next car once joker started laughing didn't she?
Jazzcat00 I thought it was once the first guy got shot. Could be wrong though.
>Not even a single second into the video
"SOCIETY"
now this is someone who gets Joker
We do indeed live
Oh boy, isnt it
Or its just a meme that people refer Joker as the Society movie
"Coming soon to a dank river valley near you."
Bernardo Mazonave
In
He defended himself on the subway until it came to the third guy. That’s when it was no longer about defending himself.
Instead of killing himself He finished what he started.
The first two were arguably self-defense but the third one was second degree murder
"Destroy your enemies completely, or they will recover and seek revenge" - 48 laws of power
I agree that it was unlawful but it was hella deserved.
He was defending himself against having a live witness reporting the crime and throwing him in jail.
The saddest part is when he says “I’LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU GET!” he sounds like he’s about to cry
Probably because he’s so angry, i too do the same when i get angry, super frustrated etc
@@Juniorgrimes immediately jus stfu
@@747simmer4 *immediately NO* 😎
@@Juniorgrimes you are a sad lonely fuck.
That's just really good acting
I think everyone is on Arthur's side because they're conscious that they, the viewer, could've gone down the same path if they had the same life Arthur had.
Counter point, people have empathy, which is why we side with a guy who has mental problems and is being bullied because of it.
If you saw yourself going down the same path, you may need therapy.
@@sosea_exe yeah that's a good point. I'm not necessarily saying people are going down the same path, all I'm saying is, it's scary to think what would happen if we had those same circumstances in our lives. It'd break a LOT of people.
Nick yeah I think both of you guys are right tbh. People are usually empathic and some people have really thought about how dark and dangerous they will become if given a harsh path. The WWII nazis committing genocide is a good example of what you were trying to say.
@@sosea_exe
People have empathy
Woke Twitter doesn't (see the whole new guy meme situation)
@@sosea_exe if you had the same life as joker it's not too far off to say you'd do the same, joker was contemplating suicide, that was his first plan, which would've been many others plan, but he chose revenge instead of suicide, which is honestly a better option in my opinion
You missed a death. At the end he walks out of the office he's being interviewed in some sort of mental ward, he's treading blood down the corridor.
The thing is that , that happens at the very end of the movie, when its implied that he already become the joker.
@@pepomega You could also say that now he's killed people he has all the meds and psychiatrists he could possibly want but when he needed them at the start of the film they didn't really care and they were cutting the program.
As filmento said, it works for two reasons:
1) We didn't see him actually killing her.
2) She treated him badly. She didn't really care about him. Sure, she wasn't a bully, but she didn't help him in any way. She didn't really listen to him.
@@groot7844 but he refers to the last therapyst
That is part of the epilogue and in the video he stated he would be excluding the epilogue
Props to my man for not talking about society even once in a Joker video.
Master Skywalker what are you doing here?
@@punitshukla5550 looking for younglings
What’s wrong with talking about society. People in Gotham City are quiet strange.
We truly do live in a society
@@michaelnorman4 yes we do Bruce
What I understood was Sophie was the only person in his life who truly mattered to him, who treated him like an actual person and gave him happiness. Like a crutch in his life. The realization that it was all in his head meant he had nothing left. Nothing to tether him down to to sanity, to stop him from falling off the deep end
in his desperation for anything that's good in his shitty life, she became the "only good thing" in Arthur's life, and then the illusion shattered, and that came from a one time interaction in an elevator
he didnt kill sophie
@@Metado42069 Correct, and even the director/writer stated as much. I never even considered that he might've until this video so idk why this channel seems convinced that he did.
@@kyunikoi yea
@@kyunikoi Didn't he exactly tell you why he killed her in this video?
How to make a film contain one of the greatest performances of our time:
Cast Joaquin Phoenix as lead.
joaquin only gonna casting to your movie if the he sure the movie will turn out good so yeah, no.
Unless you also have John Travolta like Ladder 49
Can you cast a sword out of molten joaqin phoenix?
*1989:* Joker fell into the vats of chemicals that disfigured him and went insane.
*2019:* Joker got thrown into the society and he finally snapped.
Characterbackstorydevelopment is the new trend for superhero movies.
basically same...
The society became the vat...
Hearing this quote constantly is really tiring to be honest.
SOCIETY
Honestly, the Scene where he read the file about his mother and cried while laughing got me so hard..
You do you...
This comment needs better wording I think...
I have such a dirty mind...
@@redmonkey477 lol when I read it I thought it in a normal mind, but when you said it I fucking laughed.
Man, I know they say if you can think of it there's porn of it, but I haven't been able to find any porn for this. Well done.
I just watched the movie for rhe first time and I really don't see him having killed his neighbor.
To me this reads more like him coming into her apartment for comfort but then by the way she addresses him realizing he only imagined his relationship with her and then running back to his appartment to break down over this realization.
We never even see anything he might've used as a weapon, we don't see any blood on him or anything.
There's nothing really actively suggesting he did anything to her, so it's really just purely the viewer interpreting what admittably is very vague.
ye
Yeah this was my interpretation as well. I do t think he killed her. I just think realizing she didn’t see him the way he saw her was the last straw and he decided to spiral. But since she didn’t directly screw him over I doubt highly he would’ve killed her considering all his victims maliciously tried to hurt him or embarrass him.
@@d-fens5866 I think he was just mentally gone at that point.
This is exactly what I thought, Joker will evidently down the line become the cold blooded killer that we know, but during the course of this movie he acts under the banner of being the righteous one, punishing the "awful" ones, giving them "what they deserve", so under what assumption people have decided he killed the neighbor?
He didn't, I'm pretty sure the producers confirmed it
the director actually came out and said that, no "Arthur never killed his neighbor, she never did anything to harm Arthur"
not a correction just an observation
Either he killed her, or Todd Phillips is an idiot for including the scene. If it doesn't establish any type of redemption for Arthur, then it must be establishing further evil. If it doesn't do either of those two things, at that point in the film, then it's a completely useless and irrelevant scene. He either killed her, or Todd is a moron that wasted our time with irrelevant nonsense. There is no other option, at that point in the character development.
@@jeffreytackett3922 No, because that scene shows his suffering after realizing it was all a product of his mind. We would be left without a closure if, after learning that, it jumped to a different scene.
Can you imagine, after our shock of learning it was all an illusion, it cuts to him talking with his mom at the hospital as if nothing had happened?
Why is there no blood on him if he’ll killed them. The fact that the director confirmed it didn’t happen and yet some idiots still think it did shows how ignorant society is. Just like the Killing Joke where it is confirmed Joker didn’t die and yet people still think he did despite it being clear both Joker and Sophie are alive.
@@joshuaagee-bass4049 I agree but if you have to include interviews, and statements of directors in order to figure out something about a movie there was some problem with the movie. Still I liked Joker a lot.
Jeffrey Tackett or you are stupid. There is no blood and he only killed people who wronged him.
in the deleted scenes he didn't kill sophia there was a scene for her that she react to what he did on tv
Maybe it was deleted because they saw that it would be a better movie without saying if she died or not
They may have deleted it in order to kill her off.
That's interesting. I never thought he killed her either but if he didn't, she would have called the police right after that encounter and the detectives were already suspicious about him.
@@randomfools808 Well, we hear police sirens after he leaves her apartment.
@@mattattatherattatta2925 they deleted it because they wanted to keep the film in Joker's perspective. He wasn't there to see her watching him on TV so it was taken out.
"As kids, we love the heroes. But as an adult, we can understand the villain."
Shut the fuck up
Z EN in real life there is no heroes all of ud are villain
Me watching Tom and Jerry
Wd2 Fan no u
"All it takes is ONE BAD DAY"!
-The Joker
Well, in this case, it was several bad days.
@@WillOfMyD Make that several bad years.
@@ubeia4857 make it the entire life
He means one bad day to snap and go psycho
Stop begging for likes
13:00 - I did not in any way get the impression that he killed his neighbor. He had a delusion of a relationship, but didn't kill her once that bubble burst
exactly his breakdown was his realisation of insanity about the only sane thing he had.
I'm about 8 months late but this video is the first time I've ever heard of Arthur killing his neighbor. I always viewed his breakdown as realising it was all a hallucination, and how the only person who cared about him was a stranger to him in reality.
@@redmonkey477 it is. Even the crew pointed that out. Only our big boy here tell something differnt. With no proof. There is no clue for that. Bcs every kill joker did was at least hinted in some way.
@@redmonkey477 Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. I can see how some could infer that. Not every film event is clear-cut. Is Deckard a Replicant? Is Cobb still dreaming? However, I didn't see enough here to set up that kind of ambiguity.
Yea, the director himself said that, no he didn't kill the neighbour.
When add revenue in January is so bad you can straight up show executions on your videos because you weren't going to make any profit off them anyway.
So you prefer no content on January?
@@Vielt0 nice reading comprehension
@@manwe1532
My bad I finally understood.
@@Vielt0 Now i know how Jordan Peterson felt like.
Arrgus many people say the add revenue in January is bad. I don’t get it, what’s the reason?
Arthur is basically a kicked dog who becomes a wolf that defends himself until he kills another pup.
I saw this movie 6 times in the theater with different people. Neither me or them ever thought he had killed the neighbor.
It's a huge reach to something that's not really hinted at.
You even said so yourself, after killing Murray he doesn't keep shooting people that don't deserve it. Sophie wouldn't deserve it.
The director said Arthur didnt kill her
I agree but Jesus man 6 fucking times... this movie was great but it wasn't no Titanic.
@Toki Vickerness Different films speak to different people. I have watched this film a bunch of times too. I watched Titanic once and have no interest in watching it again.
@@tokivikerness8863 I didn't really plan it. Just family and friends that know I like Batman and invited me, just didn't say no 🤷♂️
@@ZeroZmm wouldnt say no either. Except if I had to pay myself. Wont pay 6 times for the same movie
Stating he was a 'bad guy', nooo, he became a bad guy.
He's still not a bad guy.
@@TheStraightestWhitest He murdered like.. 6 people? Yes he did become a bad guy
@@achilleasgeorgiou7853 Murder is only murder because a group of pencil necks said it was. Every single one of those deaths made the world a better place.
@@TheStraightestWhitest First of all, there is a reason people cannot be judge jury and executioner in real life. And no, someone getting you fired from your job does not deserve death. Someone mocking you on a tv show does not deserve death.
@@achilleasgeorgiou7853 Well I disagree. It's not about what they did, it's about why they did it. You're also seriously undermining what they did, no doubt to reinforce your argument.
Also, you say there's a reason, but you don't say what that reason is. Go on, tell me. I think the only one who should ever be allowed to play judge jury and executioner is the one that was wronged. The law doesn't work. It doesn't keep people from being raped, robbed or murdered, yet it keeps the rapist, robbers and murderers safe afterwards.
He didn’t kill Sofie. He returned to his apartment and we hear sirens and see lights-probably just city ambiance, not because he killed her. Here’s why:
The next time we see Arthur he’s by his mother’s side in the hospital where he smothers her. He returns to his apartment after that and sleeps the night.
Best case scenario: Sofie called the cops. Arthur left to go to the hospital before they arrived. They talk to Sofie and then knock on his door with no answer. The situation is not urgent enough (because no one died) to bash down his door or follow up at the hospital.
Worst case scenario: he killed Sofie and her screams were so blood curdling that normally apathetic fellow tenants called the cops. Arthur managed to leave for the hospital before they find her body.
If the second case is true, why didn’t they batter down his door? Why not immediately attempt to apprehend him at the hospital? How does he arrive back home after smothering Penny and not discover a crime scene and a horde of cops in his apartment? How is he able to spend the night preparing for the Murray show?
Most likely, the sirens are ambiance. Second most likely, Sofie called the police.
I don't know if he killed her but to me it seems weird how we are all trying to justify why he wouldn't. When evidence actually points to him doing it, the city of Gotham seems to be rampant with crime, so i assumed before batman came around; criminals could get away with murder willy-nilly. Hence why the poor were resentful towards the rich.
Also I could see why he might have killed her. He is crazy, dude will kill you if you do him dirty. I can definitely see her being a bit creeped out and rejecting him after he came to her apartment and him overreacting and killing her. His first regretful kill, as it's the only one where he is seen pain-laughing it away.
I think it's good to understand that Arthur is mentally ill, and his mind does not operate like that of a regular person. Especially during the course of the movie, he gains more confidence in himself and fully embraces his mental illness, subconsciously that is. Thats why he does that weird dance thing for the first in view of other people, right before coming out on the show.
Dude is batshit insane,. he deffo could of killed her.
Geahk Burchill maybe the neighbors didnt knows that he is the criminal, the police came and saw the body, nothing else
If they saw a body the apartment would have cops and detectives working on it, making sure other tenants don’t view the scene So there is no way he killed her unless nobody legit gave a shit about it even the cops.
I agree, but we are trying to rationlise this guys actions a lot. but truth is he is insane. Dude killed him dying mother... regardless the reasons, she was dying anyway and defenceless.
Geahk Burchill while I agree with your logic, I definitely got the implication from the movie that he killed her and it was cops/an ambulance.
But hey, every movie will have some hiccups.
Arthur legit scared me throughout the movie, so unpredictable
And is the Joker exactly
I definitely wouldn’t say I was on Arthur’s side by the end of the film. In my opinion, he’s a perfect representation of the tragic hero. I didn’t hate him by the end. I felt bad for him; but I also found him terrifying. That bloody smile he put on while standing on the cop car at the end was bone-chilling; and his demeanor in the final scene sold the idea that this was not a man you’d want to be in the same room with. They really did a great job transforming him from a pitiful, sad man to the villain we all know.
In the end, I couldn't possibly condone his actions (I don’t see how anyone can). I wouldn’t stand by him. I wouldn’t try to defend what he did, but I understand how he got to where he ended up, and I pity him for it.
It exactly shows on thing, How Joker Was created and how Batman was created because of him.
I am sure that after the Joker, big studios should think about creating solo films about villains and not do the typical struggle between good and evil.
Presenting everything in gray tones. Where there is no black and white, like the Witcher world for example.
I've only seen the show but isn't Nilfgaard evil ?
I agree but I can also see studios taking the wrong message from it and just give us solo villain movies that lack comic book elements. Joker works because it's a man beaten by society who eventually retaliates, it doesn't need comic book elements and neither does Joker (the character) to work. But a movie about Lex Luthor being a plain old corrupt businessman who lacks the presence of Superman doesn't work as well, because then it's JUST a movie about a corrupt businessman and that's not as interesting. That's my take at least.
And their movies will still be shit because they only ever care about copying external aspects without giving a second thought to substance.
@@tanmayjain5385 In the eyes of the Northern Kingdoms, they are invaders.
This is only the 1-st season so most likely in the future we will be presented with a kinder side of Nilfgaard.
I think A Song of Ice and Fire is a better example, maybe because I prefer it over most other stories. Despite what Joffrey, Ramsay, and Euron do, you can find some sort of justification for their shittiness, no matter how bad the justification is. Ned isn't perfect either. Nor Robb. Their actions get them killed, no matter how good or bad. As for The Witcher, I haven't read the books, but I played the 3rd game and watched the show, and from what I've heard about the books, Geralt is Gerry Stu.
Do these excuses hold up in court?
Asking for a friend.
Nooo if you can't stand up of how society it is you just will take apart of that society by jail
@Lime Green nobody cares about your opinion
I will say, when people laugh at you, there's only one thing you could do to irritate them and that is to genuinely laugh harder than they are everytime they laugh at you. Which is why it makes his condition is so perfect
This dug up a deep childhood memory
This one kid was taunting me during dodgeball. I was getting madder and madder and sloppier with my throes. Until he started just laughing.
The laughing broke my rage. I got so gotdamn angry I ran across the line and pegged him in the stomach point blank
Of course it was illegal. Of course I got in trouble. And of course it was really worth it
@@Werewolf.with.Internet.Access lmao
To be fair, most of the reason that the audience doesn't "turn against him", is because he is a character who has been developed for decades previously, and is known to be evil/insane from the outset. It's not like we are just meeting him, for the first time. Everyone knows, going in, that he's going to become the Joker of the previous movies, cartoons, and comic books. In essence, we are all against him already, but seeing how he becomes what he is, is satisfying. At least there's a reason for it, rather than just insanity. This is also the exact reason that I don't believe all of the "he imagined it all" theories. If everything was imagined, then why bother? It takes away from the depth of the character, and minimizes his struggle, entirely. If he's just insane, then nobody can identify with him. If he was pushed over the edge, we can all imagine it being possible. This would be like suddenly finding out that Superman was getting paid by the government, and wouldn't have helped if he didn't get his paycheck. It's a complete minimization of the character.
I can see where you're coming from, but all we've known of Joker before this movie was the insane clown prince of crime. But here, we see Arthur Fleck, not Joker (until the end at least). A lot of people like Joker because he's funny (another one of Filmentos videos on Tony Stark says something like you can be a likeable asshole as long as you're -funny-), despite the horrible things he's done, like rape Barbara Gordon or murdering one of the Robins. Or abusing Harley.
But here, again, we don't see Joker, we see Arthur Fleck. And many people feel sympathy for the character because of their own personal experiences with similar, but not to the same extreme, situations. Everyone at points has been kicked like a dog and wanted to lash out, so seeing Arthur do so finally is cartharsis. You know what he's doing is wrong, but at the same time, can't help but feel he's justified in some way by doing so.
Another example is the growth of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. We know in the OT what he's become and who he is. You feel angry at the wanton destruction of Alderaan, wondering how could he just kill an ENTIRE PLANET without remorse. But in the PT, we see Anakin as a child and grows up to be a Jedi and falling in love with Padme. You KNOW what he's going to become, but in some cases, you can sympathize with ANAKIN for what he's done by the end (much more so when you look at the child abduction the Jedi do). But because it's ANAKIN and not DARTH VADER, there's a degree of separation.
Same with this movie; we're not seeing Joker, we're seeing Arthur Fleck.
@@Dimumouto when did he rape barbera? Because if you are talking about the killing joke he just shot her and took off her clothes
@@Juniorgrimes you should get in touch with Chek House
@@tejotcoty8363 *idk who tf that is*
@@Juniorgrimes check house mall my balls are
Nice dark Knight reference
"I'm just a dog chasing cars"
6:43
Came here to say this
He didn’t actually kill his neighbor, they were gonna have a scene where joker was on the murray franklin show and his neighbor was watching it on tv, but they cut it out because they wanted the movie to be from aurthers pov, and showing her watching tv with her daughter would ruin that
That scene doesn't establish any redemption, and therefore has to be establishing further evil. Otherwise, there's no purpose to having it in the movie. He killed her.
@@jeffreytackett3922
It was confirmed in the script he didn't kill her, what are you talking about?
As I've said ... either he killed her, or Todd Phillips is a moron. The scene doesn't do anything, if he didn't kill her. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't change, advance, or establish anything. Either he killed her, or Todd Phillips wasted time on an irrelevant storyline and multiple scenes. If that's how he wants to play it, that's fine. I believe the writers created a scene in which she was killed off-camera.
@@jeffreytackett3922 1. The scene works even if he doesnt kill her (I actually never understood it as him killing her and nobody I know did). It establishes him in two ways: his fantasy turns out to be fake, his real neighbour is a lot different from his fake fantasy girlfriend. It takes away from him any way of escape, while it seemed for a bit he might stabilise, now we see he is totally on his own with nobody to turn to. Secondly, it shows again his terrible suicidal tendencies thus now we expect him to perform an extended murder suicide.
2. This problem is unresolvable from inside of the fictional world. There just isnt enough material provided by the narator to the reader about the ontological state of the world. We can interpret it two ways and neither can be disproven from inside of the work. So both interpretations are valid and that is why people go onto paratext: what is written in the script, what did Todd Phillips say, what scenes weren't included in the end and so forth.
@@TheoEvian
Well said!
joker was a masterpiece and i will never let anyone convince me otherwise
but it wasnt
@@kingbr33zzy86 How?
@@kingbr33zzy86 how??
@@kingbr33zzy86 How??!
it literally just wasn’t deep, it’s the fucking joker and they made it taxi driver 2.0
I don’t think we can blame Arthur for other people’s actions. There’s also the fact that Arthur is mentally ill and that this all happened after he was taken off his medication, which plays at least a part in his actions that makes us feel bad for him.
Sophie wasn’t killed Todd Phillips said himself.
Lol Filmento lives in a nice neighborhood, must not be used to hearing police sirens
Bold and Brash a light skin joker?
well, then showing the cops its a questionable decision after that scene, they should have not shown that so the idea was clear
Yes, we know. Filmento said he talked about it for the sake of argument.
Todd Phillips is a joke
"they couldn't carry a tune to save their lives"
@Lucius Fawkes but I know that won't let me down
Cause this fine old world, it keeps spinning around
What does it mean?
Napoleon Cornelius Scipio one of the guys in the subway was singing a tune.
@@napoleoncorneliusscipio5141 I said That’s Life (That’s Liiiiiiife)
13:48 that's just your interpretation of the scene, for me and as i can see for most viewers he's breaking down cause he realizes he finally lost it, there's no girlfriend, he's no hope and noone, police flashlights could be from her(neighbour) actually calling the police, after all her home was just invaded and she felt threatened in a way. The implication of him killing her is just what you personally chose to see and believe, neither actor or director intended the scene this way, so there's no problem for most viewers, who interpreted it as director intended, with still sympathizing with the 'hero'.
I really love that the writers of the movie incorporated galastic epilepsy (laughing seizures) effectively, and in a way where it establishes Arthur as different early on in the movie, and not just as a ‘fun little quirk’.
I can't say his killing of the first two men was an act of evil. That was justified self defense against people who were trying to kick him to death. Stalking out from the train car to shoot the third on the back was where he crossed the line form honest defense to genuine revenge. And that act of revenge and the self empowerment that came from it is the start of his slide. Part of what makes the movie dark and sympathetic is that you are watching a man finally take control of his life but doing all the wrong things and learning all the wrong lessons, none of which seem obvious to him due to his illness and the corrupt society he exists in.
I also don't think he killed his neighbor. Not only is it not shown the way the other killings are, his other killings all came with a scene of catharsis. After killing the bullies and his mother the following scene was one of sunlight, unusual with the dark grey that dominates the rest of the time. The killing of Murray is followed by the brightly lit city. The scene after his neighbor is him suffering in the dark as he usually does.
I don't necessarily agree with the self defense part. One, he's using a gun without a permit which is extremely illegal, even if no one died. Two, even if the gun was legal carry, he would have been tried in court for shooting the first guy directly in the face (maybe could have escaped it cuz a lot was going on and aiming in that circumstance would be hard). However, the 2nd guy he shoots twice in the stomach, which is far more force than necessary. Once in the stomach might have got him off (If legal carry and proved to be self defense), but two shots is huge. His life wasn't in danger, so I personally don't consider those two justified. If they pulled a gun in him or something then shiiiit all bets are off. The rest of what you said I agree with ^^
Your understanding of self-defense and law is minimal. Let me break it up for you:
1 - Laws between states are not the same. In some states you don't even need a permit, just a register. And it is not "extremely illegal" if you aren't caught doing other crimes like robbery.
2 - I know games make us feel like we are at war, but have you been at least in a real life and death situation? Even a fight with a friend for training martial arts? Because even there with a person we know don't want to kill us we can't hit exactly where we want to hit. Shoot precisely while under extreme stress is something even soldiers can't do(probably special force soldiers can or at least should in my view, but im civilian), so you can't just "don't shoot to kill" like "shoot on the leg" as some idiots want to say.
3 - No law anywhere in the world says how many shots you can give in self-defense. There is multiple videos of cops shooting people and they keep going after them, especially of suicide-by-cop videos. Cops are trained to shoot at the center of mass, by the way, which coincides with the stomach. 2 shots while they aren't lay on the ground? Its fine. The third, however, is murderer. Any half-decense lawyer could make a good case he was under stress and an emotional case about the past aggression and reduce his time on jail.
@@dresean3725 you're a fool. He was being assaulted by multiple attackers. Even if they weren't intending to kill, maim, or seriously injure him (and unless you got some psychic voodoo going on you don't know and therefore have every right to fear for your life and therefore have every right to use lethal force) one errant kick to the wrong place could do irrevocable damage or kill, so again he had every right to use lethal force to defend himself.
General Weebus Damn you guys need to chill. What I said wasn't absolute and I agree with Mike. Especially the part about states being different. However with you, there's a few problems I have with your logic (at least by California standards). Getting hit almost anywhere has the ability to cause irrevocable damage. A simple punch to the jaw can kill. There's a thing called "excessive force". If a guy in a bar starts a fist fight with me cuz he thinks I'm flirting with his girlfriend, it is not my legal right to pull out a gun and shoot him in the face. When I go to court for that, I am pretty much guaranteed to go to prison (maybe unless the guy had a gun in his pocket and there was evidence that he planned to use it on me). Now, I'm not a law guy and my position can be swayed. I will not except being called "a fool" by some random person simply cuz I may be ignorant on a subject I am not hugely educated in
@@dresean3725"Excessive force" is a term very open to imagination, but, again, you got it wrong. Understandable because even some lawyers and judges get it wrong and innocent people get fucked because of it.
The defender is not required to defend itself on "even" terms by any means. "Excessive force" means more force than necessary. Period. In your example, if the defender pull a gun and the assault dont stop, he has every right to shoot until it stops. However if the attacker stops when see the gun and its shot anyway, it is considered excessive force, breaks the exception of self-defense, and murder/manslaughter can be applied.
California has a very bad history of judging self-defense, so good luck if you need. In any case, I would prefer to trust a judge and a lawyer than someone that is trying to knock me out.
0:57
"I'm like a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what I'd do if I ever actually caught one."
“I just do things.”
@Sαitαmα Sensei Not in this movie
@Sαitαmα Sensei
All of that was the "chasing" part though?
The score of the movie was incredible and helped made scenes what they are. They picked the perfect people for the soundtrack.
Arthur never told anyone to kill Wayne. But even if he did, the audience was also turned against Wayne at this point.
“This movie is one that doesn’t have a plot” spends the entire vid explaining the plot
No, he spent the entire video talking about character development. Character development |= plot.
Doctor Logiq no he was talking about plot
@Austin Martín Hernández Yes. A movie does not need a plot. It's not a weakness if there isn't one. It's a weakness if there is *supposed* to be one and it's absent. But here there is no need for a plot as such - it's simply a character development. And that's hard to do without the crutch of a plot to hang the character development on. Phillips pulled it off superbly.
@@logix8969 You can say that this movie is a character driven movie
@@logix8969 the plot is arthur's character development
I just saw one thing tht dismisses him killing his neighbor, when he walks out the door closes but he wasn't the one closing it, look at the scene
Could've been like where you give the door a flick behind you as you leave it. Doesn't matter though the director confirmed he didn't kill her
true and as for the police sirens, I mean c'mon, it's New York lol
*Gotham
@@zadok23 Gotham is based on New York
@@SnowyJakub it's based on New York and Chicago...I know where I'm at the sirens and lights are a regular..... squad cars, fire truck, ambulances go off regularly
Arthur's 6th kill wasn't the neighbour, it was the social worker. Like you said, he had no reason to kill the neighbour, it was his own head that lead him on. The police lights are an implication that an unstable neighbour was just in her house during a breakdown and made her uncomfortable.
The movie was so well set up that even now we're still defending everything that is ever brought up about Arthur.
"A beaten dog may fear you, but the second you turn your back he's gonna strike." -Dmob, Def Jam Fight For NY
He didn't kill his neighbor. He's breaking down because he realizes that their relationship was all in his head & he's all alone
There's litterally no evidence that he killed his neighbor, and plenty of evidence to suggest that he wouldn't kill her (such as when he doesn't kill Gary because he's always been nice to him). Just saying "there's police outside" in a city like Gotham, isn't convincing.
I don’t think i ever loved a villain that much , his change breaks my heart even more cuz he was abused to the point he finally crossed the line
If the daughter of that neighbor ends up becoming Catwoman I´m gonna lose it
He didn't kill her. There's a deleted scene where she shows up again
@@johannesschmid3500 so now deleted scenes are considered canon?
He did kill her. Remember the sirens and that's when he had his worse laughing fit. That was the descent into madness was complete.
@@aramfingal5180 Depends on if it was completely deleted, or if it was just removed from the theatrical release.
Actually it was revealed that Arthur did NOT kill the neighbor. In a deleted scene its revealed that he didn't kill her and we see her watching the Murray's show. And the writer was asked this and he did say no he did not kill her.
11:25 did you listen to this part?
8:19 Joker even lampshades this when he says, "Have you seen what it's like out there, Murray? Do you ever actually leave the studio?"
Great example of:
“If you idolize him, you’re missing the point.”
This is also one of the most beautiful films I've seen, the cinematography is just outstanding.
My feelings exactly. I kept thinking that as I was watching the film. Almost every frame was art.
The set dressing was perfect
Lancea1ot
if you like this cinematography, you should watch Midsommar. That movie is absolutely beautiful.
Don’t care. In my mind, he didn’t kill his neighbor.
the biggest issue as i see it, the police would have been going door to door to ask neighbors if they saw or heard anything....not just some sirens outside in what is established as a shitty place. she aint dead
@Black Ninja
Because they firmly establish that the character doesn't kill people who are kind to him and the neighbor never treats him badly. She's even kind when she asks him to leave. The argument used about the sirens doesn't work either because you can also hear sirens drive by at the start of the film while he is writing jokes in the living room.
@@dalnim4294 Clearly the police were called because he was butchering those jokes.
The director confirmed in an interview months ago that she was alive, they just wanted to leave it somewhat unclear for the movie to let the audience feel that uncertainty.
@@dalnim4294 His psyche might as well interpret her not comforting him and not being there to him as her doing wrong to him. It's as if she forgot everything they had and is trying to distance herself from him, when he needs her. She just sued him it seems, she was around and now that he needs her msot she gives up on him, like evryone else. It makes perfect sense to kill her.
I also don't get why people are so ready to defend the joker.... He's the bad guy in case you haven't realized. He's Thanos but the movie is from his perspective, youa re given a reason why he's like that you are made to feel sympathy towards him but he's irredeemable. He's evil! Why are you defending him syaing he wouldn't kill her. If this is the Joker(which imo it's isn't but to each their own) he is an agent of chaos. He represent those people that can always justify doing wrong. Hence it makes perfect sesne for killing the neighbour, she didn't love him, she didn't want to be with him or simply he didn't realzie they weren't together and she betrayed him...in any case he's an evil motherfucker. He has more reason to kill her than the small clown too so that argument is useless. The other option that is not the joker(the character) it's just a character let's say inspired by him but just masquarading as him for us..as in to draw audiance for such movies as otherwise no one would've liked it, then I guess you can make a stronger case for him not killing her but again the movie gives us enough reason to see he can justify his illusions as reason someone has wronged him. It's more than plausible that he won't just leave...he'll consider her behaviour hurtful and well...do what he does to people he feels are unfair to him. In both cases he's the bad guy, a sympathetic one but bad none the less. Not to mention trying to reasonably defend and explain with logic the actions of mentally ill psychopath is not a good idea...he's 100% acting illogical.
How to make evil likable: Start with a good man
Read all the comments and realized that "we live in a society..."
That's too much man.
It’s confirmed by the director that he didn’t kill her
Byler Barton in the original script her story was merged with an imaginary cat he kept seeing. The director merge the two making him fantasying about her instead of the cat. So , the shots about them we saw it was supposed to be real to arthur.
Does it matter? The Joker is all about killing and mutilating every citizen of Gotham for the fun of it. We know he tries to kill her later on.
@@Theyungcity23 how do we?
@@Theyungcity23 No. We doesn't.
@@solid9981 because he is the Joker. And again why does it matter? We see that he kills the totally innocent psychiatrist at the end.
6:16
"when he shot those punks, our shock come from what takes it so long"
No filmento, the shock cone from how loud the gun sound is
I’ve always had a joker obsession, so this movie just kinda helped me to enjoy the joker as a character and a person. Making the best villain in the dcu even more deep
"He kills seven people, which is a lot for a hero"
* laughs of Deadpool*
Joaquin Phoenix is a phenomenal performer. Just genius, prodigy level acting for The Joker.
Always loved his makeup.
I agreed. Let's not forget that Todd Phillips is also the director of Hangover.
How would you rate this Joker compared to the Dark Knight?
@@colleenross8752 I rate him 5/10, It's a phenomenal acting but it doesn't fell like the Joker
Todd Phillips confirmed he did NOT kill his neighbor. Plus there’s more of her in the script that further proves this.
It would never appear to me that he would kill her. He would break into her apartment to try to be there and imagine that he is actually living a someway decent life with her...
@@ImperativeGames yeah, i think it's likely he got rejected by her.
I think that he went there to vent with her
Hint: That's not how movies work.
I believe even without the interview, that's also implied in the whole scene. I actually implied that when this showed on cinema aswell. He pretty much made up that whole relationship in his head, to keep him sane.
She also "conveniently" appeared out of thin air in other locations, just in time to be there to support him (hospital scene is an example), which just went more into "this relationship isn't real, it's just his imagination".
It's even further shown on that scene where they finally meet again in the elevator, and contrary to the other scenes, she treats him coldly like an stranger.
For Filmento, i'm actually surprised he missed out this point.
Its interesting that you think he killed his neighbor, I didnt view it that way when I watched the movie. I thought the point of the scene was to show that their relationship was a lie
This film is a true classic from the 2010's since great classics like this from 70's, 80's, 90's from Taxi Driver.
There's one more victim: The last therapist.
She get what she fucking deserve
We live in a society where we encourage clowns instead of helping them.
*cough* two-party system *cough*
M ray Unpopular Opinion: I think Heath Ledger would be a better example of how to make evil likable.
And should evil really be made likable in the first place??
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 Heath Ledger's Joker was never made likable. He was made respectable and fearable. Everything else is just plain Stockholm syndrome.
@@lonestarr1490 👏👏
How a character is made likable by their personality also how does one get Stockholm syndrome because of a character
The three great jokers
Heath Ledger's Joker
Pheonix's Joker
Mark Hamil's Joker
Don't forget Jack Nicholson
I think Nicholson as the intermediate between the Goofy Incarnate and the Psychopathic Incarnate ... from a clownish villain to the few reasons (Besides Pennywise) why we're scared of clowns
Cameron Monoghan is my favorite Joker
1: Arthur could just be reeling from the rejection of someone he thought to be much closer than reality would attest.
2: The police lights could just be her calling the cops on an intruder after the fact
I'd really struggle to call the Joker in that movie evil. He's a tortured victim who finally lashed out against the true evils of society.
Yeah but people won't allow their morals to be questioned. Too much school from too early an age. This film tried its best, and for some even succeeded, but 80% of the audience, Filmento included, still don't understand it or society.
@@TheStraightestWhitest Very true.
Definitely is evil. The alternative is that you just the need to be the victim of _whatever_ , and you have a free license to do what you want. It's unacceptable to simply forgive, or look the other way from people's crimes and mistakes, just because they're in distress.
@@TheStraightestWhitest The hell does even "Understand society" mean? Are you implying there is one objective society with a univocal slogan or meaning, or expectation?
@@BygoneT It really depends on the degree of victimization. To categorically dismiss it like you do is another kind of evil.
“He doesn’t kill her, definitively,” Phillips said. “As the filmmaker and the writer I am saying he doesn’t kill her.”
Todd phillips on whether arthur killed his neighbor
too ambiguous
edit: it needs to be tattooed on his forehead otherwise i cant tell
@@vashsunglasses That's because they want to use the narrative that everyone one who gets killed deserves it. Hence "You get what you fucking deserve".
I personally think he killed her.
@@Steve_G1 there's nothing in the movie suggesting he did. I did notice that they left it open what exactly happened between the two when the reality and fantasy collided, so it seems a plausible enough headcanon to think joker killed her, but it would go against his character and has nothing to support it. It's just wild speculation
@@vashsunglasses but he killed psychiatrist at the end out of camera. We don't see it, only hints like bloody footprints.
@@camiloj.obreque3597 Still, they did absolutely nothing to even hint that the neighbour was killed. People seem to be confused since the neighbour, rightfully, was scared for their life as a strange man was in their apartment, but we as the audience were told exactly why that happened and how it had nothing to do with Joker wanting to or trying to kill her.
tbh I don't think the neighbour ever actually existed. It could be a hallucination of him channeling his need to have a nice person in his live.
you forgot to mention how much weight the music choices carry the scenes like bathroom dance and the music choice when Joker kills murray..the soft banging of drums that climax with the gunshot..absolutely gorgeous
There is no way he kills the neighbor. Rewatch the scene.
When he exits, there are no body movements from Arthur indicating that he shut the door behind him.
If he didn't kill his little co-worker because he didn't wrong Arthur, then why would he kill the neighbor??
The idea of leaving it ambiguous may have just been a bad decision but I think it's meant for us to have that small ounce of faith in Arthur Fleck that he didn't kill her.
Pretty sure *he didn't kill the neighbor.* It's not consistent with everything else that he does in the film. The movie shows plenty of murders, it doesn't show this one because it didn't happen.
Just wanted to put it out there that I really appreciate and love this channel. The quality of your videos and organization is something other video essays can aspire to be. The ideas presented are very clear and informative. They help my own understanding and breakdown of movies. Keep up the great work.
6:30 When my wife saw him kill the defenseless guy she said "Good Job Arthur." In a real praising tone.
Notice how after Arthur kills Randall, he lets Gary go because he never did anything bad to him. Gary was the only person who actually cared about Arthur’s well being and because of that, he was spared. Always treat people with kindness and respect, because it may quite literally save your life in some situations
In the scene when he pulls out his gun, he murders one guy. The other two were self defense, he crossed the line when he shot the man retreating in the back, and chased him down and killed him on the street.
I love the way you articulate yourself and paint pictures using perfect analogies and metaphors as you do.
Last time I was this early, Filmento wasn't invited to events like a Marvelous Scene
Lol same.
You don’t have to make evil likeable or sympathetic.
Just compelling or engaging enough to make the audience care about what’s happening to them or what they’re going to do!
I didn't even know he killed his neighbour. I thought he went into his neighbour's room still thinking it was his gf then after seeing his neighbour terrified he comes to the realization that it was all a delusion and she was never his gf, so he left the room with the realization and hope his neighbour passes this behaviour off as him being drunk, an accidentally going into wrong room or stress from his mother getting a stroke.
The ending of the movie only reaffirmed my believes as the entire sequence of the movie never happened because the joker was in a mental asylum all this time.
The way you described it is EXACTLY how I saw it. I can't understand how some people believe Arthur had killed the woman.
@@MeatCatCheesyBlaster Yeah it fits. The psychiatrist lost her job in Joker's delusion. The city should be having a hard time recovering with gloomy atmosphere not thriving and Joker was surrounded by criminals, even if they deployed SWAT or National Guard, it seems unrealistic to assume Joker went down without a fight and never died in a firefight that broke out.
And Joker's dancing in the hallway, I'm pretty sure if someone killed 4 people in cold blood and 1 more on television and some more police in the fire ensuring firefight for his capture, he wouldn't be roaming in the hallway shackle free, dancing and singing Murray's songs.
@@bravomike4734 - I don't think all of this happened in Joker's head only. Or that he was in the asylum all the time. Just the thing with the neighbour being his girlfriend. As for his psychiatrist this SURE was real. Since he was cut off his pills - and THAT was one of the reasons he snapped.
@@saymyname2417 Well, my main point was that if all of that was real then that's a very generous justice system given that he's in a mental asylum instead of a max security prison given he killed 4 people in "cold blood" along with 1 anchor on live tv and probably a few more in the ensuring fight that would lead to his arrest.
@@bravomike4734 - Uhm... I can't remember him being in either an asylum nor in jail in THIS film. Maybe I don't remember correctly. But in the beginning he was free, living with his mom and working as a clown in the end he was running free.
From what I remember from other Joker films he was in the Gotham city asylum but I thought it was a high security asylum for mentally deranged criminals.
You are right, though. That asylum always looked like a place from the 19th century - as in Dracula - rather than a high-security prison like that for X Men mutants or, say Hannibal Lecter.
I never even thought about him killing the last person.