JOKER: THE MOVIE produced by Martin Scorsese (TBD) 1 1

[Bosco685]

THE DAILY NEWS: Joaquin Phoenix storms off after ‘Joker’ interview question gets under his skin

Quote

The Telegraph interviewer asked Phoenix if he feared that the movie “might perversely end up inspiring exactly the kind of people it’s about with potentially tragic results?”

 

“Why would you . . . ? No . . . no,” muttered the 44-year-old actor before exiting.

 

About an hour later, Phoenix completed the interview after some apparent backstage “peace-brokering” with Warner Bros.' publicity team, according to Digital Spy.

 

DIGITAL SPY: Joker star Joaquin Phoenix walks out of interview over controversial question

Quote

The question caused Phoenix to mutter "why would you…? No… no," to the interviewer before walking out – only to return an hour later after the journalist did some 'peace-brokering with a Warner Bros PR'.

 

Explaining his response, Phoenix said that the question hadn't crossed his mind before and then asked what an intelligent answer would have sounded like.

Phoenix could have responded by telling the guy no, which like Callaway notes would end up with the message 'JOAQUIN PHOENIX DOESN'T CARE HIS PERFORMANCE INSPIRES MURDER'. Instead, he walked out in disgust as it is a nasty message being built a film like this inspires audience members to kill.

Even the reporter knew he went too far in implying this would happen, as he had to negotiate with WB PR to continue the interview.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

Quote

ComicBook's Jim Viscardi caught up with Joaquin Phoenix ahead of the premiere of Joker and asked if there were future plans for the character, and the actor could only be coy in his response.

 

"I don't know," Phoenix said with a sly smile, "We'll just have to wait and see."

 

There have been questions about the future of the character, and while director Todd Phillips makes it seem like this is a self-contained story, he's also revealed that he has ideas for future stories with the character.

 

“Well, I don’t think we’re gonna make a second one. That’s just not in our plans,” Phillips said in an interview with Jake Hamilton. “But for fun, have me and Joaquin bounced around ideas? We were doing it when we were shooting, because that’s what you do sometimes.”

 

[@therealsilvermane]

8 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

No, it actually is. Take those MCU glasses off. Asking an actor if they think their performance is going to lead to murders immediately conveys:

1) An unprofessional interviewer

2) Someone with an agenda that could get worse with each question

3) An ignorant person as no studies have clearly shown games, TV shows or films have led to murderers (Psychology Today (August 2015): Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Murder?)

So just like the jerk that right at the onset was building up to hit Robert Downey Jr. with a zinger (Downey even says to him 'Your leg is bouncing up and down - ask your question'), this was meant to convey a negative message. No matter the interview result.

I read the Telegraph interview article. It’s totally not the same scenario as RDJ’s.

The interviewer asked the question in a thoughtful professional  way, and it is a legitimate question. Another Scorsese film, Taxi Driver, which inspired Joker, did happen to inspire a lunatic 40 years ago to shoot Pres. Ronald Reagan for the sake of Jodie Foster. The Telegraph article wasn’t a sensation piece. Phoenix panicked at the question so he walked out. 

The interviewer in the RDJ interview was known for his sensationalist pieces and had done that before. 

I’m afraid that other news articles are now sensationalizing the Telegraph interview, where people are now demonizing either Phoenix or the journalist without having read the Telegraph article. If you actually read the article, it’s not so bad as it’s being made out to be.

[Callaway29]

37 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I read the Telegraph interview article. It’s totally not the same scenario as RDJ’s.

The interviewer asked the question in a thoughtful professional  way, and it is a legitimate question. Another Scorsese film, Taxi Driver, which inspired Joker, did happen to inspire a lunatic 40 years ago to shoot Pres. Ronald Reagan for the sake of Jodie Foster. The Telegraph article wasn’t a sensation piece. Phoenix panicked at the question so he walked out. 

The interviewer in the RDJ interview was known for his sensationalist pieces and had done that before. 

I’m afraid that other news articles are now sensationalizing the Telegraph interview, where people are now demonizing either Phoenix or the journalist without having read the Telegraph article. If you actually read the article, it’s not so bad as it’s being made out to be.

Perhaps...but can we all agree that by not talking about it...we are doing the opposite of what media wants us to do...and we shouldn’t be pawns in their machine...so we should move on?

[Bosco685]

11 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I read the Telegraph interview article. It’s totally not the same scenario as RDJ’s.

The interviewer asked the question in a thoughtful professional  way, and it is a legitimate question. Another Scorsese film, Taxi Driver, which inspired Joker, did happen to inspire a lunatic 40 years ago to shoot Pres. Ronald Reagan for the sake of Jodie Foster. The Telegraph article wasn’t a sensation piece. Phoenix panicked at the question so he walked out. 

The interviewer in the RDJ interview was known for his sensationalist pieces and had done that before. 

I’m afraid that other news articles are now sensationalizing the Telegraph interview, where people are now demonizing either Phoenix or the journalist without having read the Telegraph article. If you actually read the article, it’s not so bad as it’s being made out to be.

You are seriously confused if you think trying to carry on the narrative Joker is going to encourage movie-goers to become killers is a 'thoughtful, professional way' to conduct oneself when given a chance to discuss A FILM. Matter of fact, I think you are going out of your way to make such a flawed statement.

And the Channel 4 News reporter that pulled that same approach with Robert Downey Jr. started off with professional, on-point questions concerning Age of Ultron which seemed reasonable. And then he slipped in the sensation question to get a reaction. Which he did!

Just in the case of Joaquin Phoenix, he came back to finish the interview. Robert Downey Jr. didn't. Oh - and then Channel 4 News published this video with the same type of headline to sensationalize it had asked a question that drove Robert Downey Jr. to walk out. Seeing the pattern yet?

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

10 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

Perhaps...but can we all agree that by not talking about it...we are doing the opposite of what media wants us to do...and we shouldn’t be pawns in their machine...so we should move on?

You mean well, but are missing a key point. He has played this game before in his quest to show his loyalty to the MCU by playing down a DC production. Including seeing flaws in films (e.g. a Asian actor in Shazam strikes himself with nunchucks because the director purposely wanted to stereotype Asian people - that crazy a statement) to detract from such productions.

It's a crazy outlook to have on life, versus just accepting there is more than one company making entertaining comic book films. Just realize that, and watch what you want to watch.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

 

[Mr Sneeze]

An old interview yet still relevant I think...

 

Kubrick on A Clockwork Orange

An interview with Michel Ciment

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.aco.html

In particular...

How do you explain the kind of fascination that Alex exercises on the audience?

I think that it's probably because we can identify with Alex on the unconscious level. The psychiatrists tell us the unconscious has no conscience -- and perhaps in our unconscious we are all potential Alexes. It may be that only as a result of morality, the law and sometimes our own innate character that we do not become like him. Perhaps this makes some people feel uncomfortable and partly explains some of the controversy which has arisen over the film. Perhaps they are unable to accept this view of human nature. But I think you find much the same psychological phenomena at work in Shakespeare's Richard III. You should feel nothing but dislike towards Richard, and yet when the role is well played, with a bit of humour and charm, you find yourself gradually making a similar kind of identification with him. Not because you sympathize with Richard's ambition or his actions, or that you like him or think people should behave like him but, as you watch the play, because he gradually works himself into your unconscious, and recognition occurs in the recesses of the mind. At the same time, I don't believe anyone leaves the theatre thinking Richard III or Alex are the sort of people one admires and would wish to be like.

Some people have criticized the possible dangers of such an admiration.

But it's not an admiration one feels, and I think that anyone who says so is completely wrong. I think this view tends to come from people who, however well-meaning and intelligent, hold committed positions in favour of broader and stricter censorship. No one is corrupted watching A Clockwork Orange any more than they are by watching Richard III. A Clockwork Orange has received world-wide acclaim as an important work of art. It was chosen by the New York Film Critics as the Best Film of the year, and I received the Best Director award. It won the Italian David Donatello award. The Belgian film critics gave it their award. It won the German Spotlight award. It received four USA Oscar nominations and seven British Academy Award nominations. It won the Hugo award for the Best Science-Fiction movie.

It was highly praised by Fellini, Bunuel and Kurosawa. It has also received favourable comment from educational, scientific, political, religious and even law-enforcement groups. I could go on. But the point I want to make is that the film has been accepted as a work of art, and no work of art has ever done social harm, though a great deal of social harm has been done by those who have sought to protect society against works of art which they regarded as dangerous.

What was your attitude towards violence and eroticism in your film?

The erotic decor in the film suggests a slightly futuristic period for the story. The assumption being that erotic art will eventually become popular art, and just as you now buy African wildlife paintings in Woolworth's, you may one day buy erotica. The violence in the story has to be given sufficient dramatic weight so that the moral dilemma it poses can be seen in the right context. It is absolutely essential that Alex is seen to be guilty of a terrible violence against society, so that when he is eventually transformed by the State into a harmless zombie you can reach a meaningful conclusion about the relative rights and wrongs. If we did not see Alex first as a brutal and merciless thug it would be too easy to agree that the State is involved in a worse evil in depriving him of his freedom to choose between good and evil. It must be clear that it is wrong to turn even unforgivably vicious criminals into vegetables, otherwise the story would fall into the same logical trap as did the old, anti-lynching Hollywood westerns which always nullified their theme by lynching an innocent person. Of course no one will disagree that you shouldn't lynch an innocent person -- but will they agree that it's just as bad to lynch a guilty person, perhaps even someone guilty of a horrible crime? And so it is with conditioning Alex.

What is your opinion about the increasing presence of violence on the screen in recent years?

There has always been violence in art. There is violence in the Bible, violence in Homer, violence in Shakespeare, and many psychiatrists believe that it serves as a catharsis rather than a model. I think the question of whether there has been an increase in screen violence and, if so, what effect this has had, is to a very great extent a media-defined issue. I know there are well-intentioned people who sincerely believe that films and TV contribute to violence, but almost all of the official studies of this question have concluded that there is no evidence to support this view. At the same time, I think the media tend to exploit the issue because it allows them to display and discuss the so-called harmful things from a lofty position of moral superiority. But the people who commit violent crime are not ordinary people who are transformed into vicious thugs by the wrong diet of films or TV. Rather, it is a fact that violent crime is invariably committed by people with a long record of anti-social behaviour, or by the unexpected blossoming of a psychopath who is described afterward as having been '...such a nice, quiet boy,' but whose entire life, it is later realized, has been leading him inexorably to the terrible moment, and who would have found the final ostensible reason for his action if not in one thing then in another. In both instances immensely complicated social, economic and psychological forces are involved in the individual's criminal behaviour. The simplistic notion that films and TV can transform an otherwise innocent and good person into a criminal has strong overtones of the Salem witch trials. This notion is further encouraged by the criminals and their lawyers who hope for mitigation through this excuse. I am also surprised at the extremely illogical distinction that is so often drawn between harmful violence and the so-called harmless violence of, say, "Tom and Jerry" cartoons or James Bond movies, where often sadistic violence is presented as unadulterated fun. I hasten to say, I don't think that they contribute to violence either. Films and TV are also convenient whipping boys for politicians because they allow them to look away from the social and economic causes of crime, about which they are either unwilling or unable to do anything.

[@therealsilvermane]

18 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

You mean well, but are missing a key point. He has played this game before in his quest to show his loyalty to the MCU by playing down a DC production. Including seeing flaws in films (e.g. a Asian actor in Shazam strikes himself with nunchucks because the director purposely wanted to stereotype Asian people - that crazy a statement) to detract from such productions.

It's a crazy outlook to have on life, versus just accepting there is more than one company making entertaining comic book films. Just realize that, and watch what you want to watch.

Baloney. If a film is flawed, it's flawed, and I'll point it out whether it's MCU or DC garbage. It's not my fault the DCEU movies have been way more flawed than Marvel Studios movies. And debating over possibly dangerous influences of media on certain susceptable individuals in our society isn't a game. It's a serious debate we can all have. You yourself brought it up in this forum by posting stories about it. But I guess with your DC colored glasses you can't see it any other way other than an attempt to play down a DC movie.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Baloney. If a film is flawed, it's flawed, and I'll point it out whether it's MCU or DC garbage. It's not my fault the DCEU movies have been way more flawed than Marvel Studios movies. And debating over possibly dangerous influences of media on certain susceptable individuals in our society isn't a game. It's a serious debate we can all have. You yourself brought it up in this forum by posting stories about it. But I guess with your DC colored glasses you can't see it any other way other than an attempt to play down a DC movie.

Hey, if you have to eat that MCU Bologna, then chow down.

And what I brought up is how the woke squawk box is pushing how this is going to influence movie-goers to become killers. Which is total BS. Kind of like assuming the Colonist messaging in the Black Panther film to have a certain portion of society to rush off and kill those deemed 'Colonist'. Your selective societal concerns are very telling there, sport. Polish your Woke MCU Glasses (not to be confused with those that can see things evenly and okay with studios to coexist).

Stop being ignorant with these competition posts. It's nutty.

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

It's actually politicians and the right wing lately who have been pushing the influence of media on violence as they try to deflect blaming mass shootings on the proliferation of assault-style weapons in America and instead blame video games and Hollywood.

But the influence of certain movies on isolated instances of violent behaviour is a legitimate debate with actual examples of it in history.

https://www.looper.com/44470/movies-led-real-life-violence/

And the first movie referenced is The Dark Knight. Which it came out during the James Holmes court filings his reason for being there was just to use a midnight showing so as not to execute children. His other option was an airport.

On 9/11/2019 at 11:22 AM, Bosco685 said:

Even the assumption James Holmes did what he did because of the Joker leads to concerns facts are being ignored due to one statement: 'I'm the Joker!'

James Holmes Picked Midnight Movie To Avoid Shooting Children, Psychiatrist Says

it had nothing to do with Batman, Joker or even Robin. It is a sad situation which from the details was boiling to the top, and ended up in a film theater. Unless airports have something to do with those characters.

So your article has that going for it.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bosco685

[paperheart]

seems as if some are concerned

‘Joker’ Will Not Play At Aurora Theater Where 2012 ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Shooting Occurred; Victims’ Families Call On Warner Bros To Back Gun Reform

https://deadline.com/2019/09/joker-will-not-play-at-aurora-theater-where-2012-dark-knight-rises-shooting-occurred-victims-families-call-on-warner-bros-to-back-gun-reform-1202743340/

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, paperheart said:

seems as if some are concerned

‘Joker’ Will Not Play At Aurora Theater Where 2012 ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Shooting Occurred; Victims’ Families Call On Warner Bros To Back Gun Reform

https://deadline.com/2019/09/joker-will-not-play-at-aurora-theater-where-2012-dark-knight-rises-shooting-occurred-victims-families-call-on-warner-bros-to-back-gun-reform-1202743340/

Unfortunately, the ending of the article doesn't get the big, bold attention it deserves. As this action ignores the reality of a tragic situation.

Quote

Following the Dark Knight Rises mass shooting, Warner Bros, took immediate actions and donated $2M which went directly to the victims and their survivors.

 

The letter this morning was signed by Sandy and Lonnie Phillips who lost their daughter Jessica Ghawi on July 20, 2012; Theresa Hoover who lost her 18-year-old son Alexander J. Boik; Heather Dearman, whose cousin Ashley Moser, lost an unborn child and a 6-year-old daughter in the attack; and Tiina Coon, whose son witnessed the shootings. It is Deadline’s understanding that many of the Aurora families and victims chose not to sign the letter when asked.

 

Although reports surfaced soon after the shooting in the media that the Dark Knight Rises gunman was inspired by the Joker character, that was proven false in evidence presented in court by the shooter’s own words to his psychiatrist.

 

[Bosco685]

 

Quote

“I really think there have been a lot of think pieces written by people who proudly state they haven't even seen the movie and they don't need to,” Phillips said. “I would just argue that you might want to watch the movie, you might want to watch it with an open mind.”

Phillips went on to clarify what the Joker movie is ultimately saying and why fears over the movie are, from his point of view, unfounded. “The movie makes statements about a lack of love, childhood trauma, lack of compassion in the world. I think people can handle that message,” Phillips said.

He also expressed criticism of those making judgments on behalf of others. “It's so, to me, bizarre when people say, ‘Oh, well I could handle it. But imagine if you can't.’ It's making judgments for other people and I don't even want to bring up the movies in the past that they've said this about because it's shocking and embarrassing when you go, oh my God, Do the Right Thing, they said that about [that movie, too].”

For Phillips, the concerns go to the heart of what he views as the complexities of art that takes on challenging subjects. “To me, art can be complicated and oftentimes art is meant to be complicated,” he said. “If you want uncomplicated art, you might want to take up calligraphy, but filmmaking will always be a complicated art.

 

Joaquin Phoenix had a similar perspective as Phillips’: “Well, I think that, for most of us, you're able to tell the difference between right and wrong. And those that aren't are capable of interpreting anything in the way that they may want to. People misinterpret lyrics from songs. They misinterpret passages from books. So I don't think it's the responsibility of a filmmaker to teach the audience morality or the difference between right or wrong. I mean, to me, I think that that's obvious.”

Phoenix then expanded on the idea of what could “fuel” someone towards an act of violence. “I think if you have somebody that has that level of emotional disturbance, they can find fuel anywhere. I just don't think that you can function that way,” he said.

[Larryw7]

At this point, I think the constant media frenzy to say this movie is dangerous is more dangerous than probably anything in the movie. A mentally ill person can be given ideas by all of these sensationalist headlines.

 

 

[Bosco685]

WB has officially responded to the film concerns.

[Jaydogrules]

Similar things were said about Hannibal Rising when that came out, and it went on to flop badly (even though it was actually not all that bad). And just like Hannibal Rising, many people were wondering what the point of a "Joker origin movie" is exactly when it was first announced.  You get into a dicey situation trying to "humanize" an outright villain.  Not an anti-hero, mind you.  A villain.  By making him the central character in your movie, with no opposing good force to balance things out, you are in fact humanizing him to some extent whether you are attempting to or not. Many of the reviews of this movie have stated as much.  From several of the plot points described, it isn't very hard to draw parallels between events in this movie and events in real life.  And evidently it is a little too "on the nose" for a lot of people.   

I still think this movie is a crass cash grab with a stupid message, and I'll be skipping it.  It looks like exactly the kind of thing weak minded lunatics would latch onto to lash out.  As already evidenced by some of these individuals that are already raging against this film's less than perfect rotten tomatoes scores, extreme defensiveness over even the slightest bit of criticism leveled against this film's tone and subject matter, and comments like "send in the clowns" during online disagreements, I'm at least seeing the seeds of some of this movie's critics being proven right.  

-J.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Similar things were said about Hannibal Rising when that came out, and it went on to flop badly (even though it was actually not all that bad). And just like Hannibal Rising, many people were wondering what the point of a "Joker origin movie" is exactly when it was first announced.  You get into a dicey situation trying to "humanize" an outright villain.  Not an anti-hero, mind you.  A villain.  By making him the central character in your movie, with no opposing good force to balance things out, you are in fact humanizing him to some extent whether you are attempting to or not. Many of the reviews of this movie have stated as much.  From several of the plot points described, it isn't very hard to draw parallels between events in this movie and events in real life.  And evidently it is a little too "on the nose" for a lot of people.   

I still think this movie is a crass cash grab with a stupid message, and I'll be skipping it.  It looks like exactly the kind of thing weak minded lunatics would latch onto to lash out.  As already evidenced by some of these individuals that are already raging against this film's less than perfect rotten tomatoes scores, extreme defensiveness over even the slightest bit of criticism leveled against this film's tone and subject matter, and comments like "send in the clowns" during online disagreements, I'm at least seeing the seeds of some of this movie's critics being proven right.  

-J.

Although some of your points are selective in nature (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes score, which seemed to inflame people with Captain Marvel when some group carpet-bombed the audience score), I agree a film where the villain is the central focus can be a tough topic. Though again, other films and TV shows have done this and either had positive critic and/or audience scores.

Meanwhile, a portion of critics quoting actual false details concerning the 2012 Aurora shooting (the shooter dressed as Joker, or even that he was inspired by the Dark Knight's Joker) if you are backing that there are bigger issues than just disliking a film.

Now some would say Venom was a clear example of a villain cash grab. And I like that film, and have rewatched it more than once. But with little story thought it led to a massive success and a pending sequel. But yet many call it a silly and pointless story. Does that opinion matter?

[Bosco685]