Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

 

This film is already dead in the water as far as box office is concerned. What is not yet dead are the criticisms of the movie. People have had the long knives out for this film and are taking delight in killing it with negative opinions. Well here is a surprise for all of you, I actually quite enjoyed the film and don't find it a failure at all.

"Joker" 2019 was a divisive film as well, but it had enough enthusiasm to generate big box office and awards. Joaquin Phoenix gave a great performance and he has followed up with another solid take on Arthur Fleck, AKA Joker. I'm sure I'm not the first to notice it but it is "Joker" not The Joker. The lack of the definite article is not a mistake. The character is being distinguished by the absence of the article, in spite of all the trappings that put the film in the Batman Universe. Harvey Dent may be the prosecutor in this case, but he is not "Two Face" and the Thomas Wayne Character in the first film does not resemble the saintly benefactor of Gotham City that fathered Bruce.  I have seen some online chat that Todd Phillips has betrayed his creation with this film, mostly because of it's denouncement. I think if you look closely, you will see that there is a line of thought that would transition this into a more recognizable pattern, but it will never be explored because of the failure of this film.

The musical elements are fine, I thought the mix of fantasy and reality allowed the songs to work in creating a mood or environment for the characters. Lady Gaga's Lee Quinzel is a hint of Harley Quinn, but again, distant enough that the fans of the DC Comics may be able to distinguish the characters. Her story line is a little less clear than it needs to be, and in the climax of the film her whiplashed loyalties seem confusing. Still, she sings well and looks good on screen. It was enough to keep me interested for a couple of hours.

I don't want to over praise the film, it is not something I was passionate about. (as evidenced by this nearly two week old look at the film). I merely wanted to assure those who had an interest in seeing it that it is not the disaster that so many are claiming. There are many parts to it, particularly in the Arkham sequences, that are dramatically compelling. The trial sequence is a bit of a failure, but it does have some bright spots. 

"Joker: Folie à Deux" had enough in it to entertain me, but not enough to make me think about it for long (which the original did). It is an inventive swing and a long fly ball that results in the end of the game. There, you get a baseball metaphor to satisfy your sports craving World Series fans.  

Napoleon

 

This is a late post, I left for an extended trip right after this and I am only now circling back to write about the film. Ridley Scott has usually been a reliable indicator for me that I should be seeing a film, but there have been some that just did not interest me to begin with (Exodus Gods and Kings and The Counselor come to mind as films I deliberately skipped). I am a bit of a history buff so the subject was strong enough to pull me in alone but with Scott navigating and Phoenix starring, I was relatively confident I'd be OK. 

As a longtime movie goer, I know not to get my history from a Hollywood production. Nevertheless, I suspect that a biopic is likely to have some major points about the subjects life correct and I have to admit that my knowledge of Napoleon extended only so far as his reign as Emperor and his final downfall and exile. The sketch of his rise to power in the revolutionary era was interesting, and I assume it was not too fictionalized, since it did not seem to effect any of the personal story plotlines we did get.

The relationship with Josephine was certainly dramatized, but the key events of their life together, the circumstances in which she was living, his position at the time, their wedding and the reasons for the end of that union were all presented in a matter of fact manner. Where I can certainly see the divergence for dramatic purpose is in the sexual encounters between them and the status and power games they played with one another. Whether she was his one true love is a issue of drama rather tahn history, so I was willing to enjoy the story as it was set out.

The order of the battle sequences and the politics involved seem to be accurate, although the battles themselves have almost certainly been enhanced for cinematic purposes. The clever strategy used in taking the fort at Toulon is depicted as a well shot cinematic battle, not necessarily the way things really took place. The Battle at Austerlitz is similarly enhanced I'm sure to make it a visual spectacle for the big screen. The tumultuous retreat and the artillery use to break the ice under the feet of the withdrawing forces, is beautifully and horrifyingly rendered for the film.

Napoleon was certainly a lot more complex than the military leader presented in this film. Joaquin Phoenix seems physically right for the role, but his understated voice and occasional mumbling do not seem to engender those qualities that made Napoleon a favorite of the French citizenry.  Vanessa Kirby is an alluring Josephine, and a good match for Phoenix, although the portrayal of her as a wanton woman, unsatisfied with her physical relationship with the Emperor seems a little overdone. I have heard criticism of the film from some sources but I found it a reasonable presentation of an important historical figure. It may not have the fidelity to the truth that some other biopics have, but I found it very watchable. Some people might be bored, but I thought the film brought the characters to life enough for me to relate to them a bit.       

Joker

No my friends, I did not fall off the face of the Earth, although there have been some days when I wish I had. In the month since I last posted, my world has been one of great ups and horrible downs, and I'm not going to go into that in detail. Just suffice to say that my perspective on this film might be influenced at times by my own emotional jumping jacks, so this will be a first pass at a written review. I will probably come back and re-evaluate the movie when my head is clearer and it is awards time. I am pretty certain this film will be up for a number of end of year accolades. the question is, should it be?

The first teaser trailer for this movie doesn't really tell any of the story or give you much context, all it really does is tell you that this movie will be different, and brother is it. This is a grueling examination of a man's mental collapse and the consequences to the rest of us when such obvious problems go unaddressed. It is also easy to sympathize with the main character up to a point. He is down trodden but still game, he lives a fantasy with his mother that all is well, and some moments he appears to be warm and tender. That however is the point of the movie, appearances are deceiving but pain will not be fooled, it will win out in the end and woe to those in the way when it happens.  I have seen some political chatter on this film, suggesting it is an apology for one group of fanatics while at the same time inciting another group of fanatics. I don't see either of those as credible evaluations of what the film presents. Only in the tortured machinations of some deconstructivist social thinker can those points make much sense.  The social failures in Arthur Fleck's life are too numerous and diverse to lay blame on a political foundation. By the time the story is finished, you will be horrified by what happens, not inspired to act out, or, you will be frustrated by storytelling that takes advantage of the Batman/Joker trope that the Joker always lies.

The performance of Joaquin Phoenix in the lead will be one of the safest points to make comment on. His acting is effectively tortured and creepy in the right spots, but he also manages to beguile us on occasion as a misunderstood outsider who has simply run into a number of difficulties that have warped him. Physically, as other actors before him have done, he transforms his body into an emaciated skeleton with angles and crevices that are disturbing to think about. His vocal performance is calm, despite the condition he has that results in uncontrollable laughter at inappropriate times. His interviews with the social worker are all controlled rage while seemingly subdued on the outside, Once his full transformation is achieved, the part is much more standard. Of course standard Joker would mean over the top behavior and Phoenix manages that as well.

Assuming one half of the story we are given is true, and that is a big assumption, it seems improbable at best. Maybe Gotham City is a powder-keg waiting for a spark to ignite it, but we never see any of that. The resentment of the rich is a media transference from the status of the first people who feel  the evolution of Arthur. The earlier beat down he suffered had little to do with economic necessity or social inequity, rather it is just a typical moment of horror that we have seen on the news regularly for years. A random pedestrian cold cocks a man on the side of the head, and that man dies. On lookers participate. These days the participation might be recording the incident instead of intervening. It is still reprehensible. When Arthur is attacked the second time, we can root for him like Paul Kersey, it is an act of self defense. However, we see Arthur lose control, he is no vigilante at that point, he is a monster. The creation of a rich versus poor dichotomy in this vision of Gotham is the invention of media types, willing to exploit an opportunity.

The movie is brave in a way most commercial films are not. Todd Phillips and Scott Silver are not afraid to let us see the emptiness that Arthur faces on a regular basis. The world is concentrated gloom delivered in a visual style that is dark when it comes to the colors but lively when there are dramatic moments to play out. Phoenix dominates the scene most of the time but the peripheral characters are important as well. To me the most troubling aspect from the view of someone who might be a comic book aficionado is the portrayal of Thomas Wayne ans an indifferent corporate overlord. We get a completely unnecessary retelling of the events that propel young Bruce to his future, and I get the feeling it was only included to remind us of the universe this story is supposed to take place in. This is actually a second DC Comic based movie for actor Brett Cullen who plays Thomas Wayne. He was also the Congressman who gets taken for a ride by Catwoman in "The Dark Knight Rises".  The political aspects of the film are minor details to the main story which is the de-evolution of the protagonist.

I like most horror films, so I have a high tolerance for bad things happening to people. I don't care for torture material however and the length of this movie and the absence of any other perspective does make it seem a bit torturous to watch. If you find any humor in this experience, at best it will be of the morbid variety, and there will not be laughter but head shaking. Really, I feel as if I've seen a movie that is important, but I have a hard time explaining why. I think the film is compelling but it is repugnant at the same time. I wanted to praise it more than I can but I also want to damn it more than needed. Forget all the political/social justice baloney that people will try to cram down your throat, this is a film that can provoke a good discussion without mentioning ant party, issue, figure or cause. Maybe that is the best justification I can give you for seeing this, you want to know what you are talking about.

The Sisters Brothers

A sure fire top ten on my list at the end of the year.

You Were Never Really Here

This is a thriller in the broadest sense of the word. It has many of the tropes of an urban thriller; a lone hero, a deep conspiracy of the powerful, an innocent who needs to be saved, and a variety of criminal elements. If you were to group this in with an action film or another Liam Neeson film, you would be so off the mark as to be at risk of hitting your own innocent bystander. One of the reviews quoted in the trailer refers to "Taxi Driver" as its' counter-part. That is about as close as it gets to any other movie you may have see. The Scorsese film from the seventies has some of the same points, and another isolated hero. Unlike Travis Bickel, "Joe"  lives in a more average surrounding, but his psychosis is probably deeper, darker and more paranoid than anything you have encountered before.

 Director/Screenwriter Lynne Ramsay, has visualized the story as a series of images and nightmares. The narrative is mixed with the nightmares and the result is something disturbingly hypnotic. In some moments, Joe is a fierce enforcer of the task he has been set. His grim facade and deliberate pace make him feel very much like a robot set on a program that cannot be moved from it's goal. Just when he seems to be a mechanical drone of a killing machine, he shows flashes of humanity, vulnerability and confusion. He seems to care for his mother but she frustrates him. There are frequent flashbacks to their early life, and the violent nature he possesses seem to have been both bred into him and taught to him. His dark visions of childhood conjure up a dream of death that he sometimes acts out. This is not auto erotic asphyxiation,  Joe is both suicidal and indestructible. He is testing the limits of both feelings on a regular basis.

It also appears that this PTSD is not limited to experiences from his childhood. Joe seems to have served in one of the Middle Eastern Theaters and seen some things that have left scars. Ramsay does not dwell on these events, they come up as brief flashes and we never see a full picture of what has befallen the man he was. Whatever it was it seems it was pretty ugly. An easy chair psychologist might look at the victims he encountered overseas and put that together with his current crusade, but such psychoanalysis seems simplistic for the complicated figure that Joe is. Joaquin Phoenix seems the perfect choice for this role. His reserved style of speech and his quiet face represent the coiled danger that Joe carries around with him. He seems to still have a tender heart at times as he responds to his Mother's voice singing an old song from their past and he needs to join in. His willingness to sit with her for a few moments as she goes to sleep also seems like a dutiful son, but his dark side does crop up with visions where their life together disappears in a moment of violence.

A Prop from the Film down at the Arclight Hollywood

Joe has contacts but not really friends. He is so paranoid that when there is a chance encounter with some one who knows him from his violent life, sees him in his home life, a partnership will come to an end. As it turns out, his paranoia is somewhat justified. His job leads him across the path of dangerous people. The plot is never clearly explained. This is one of the nice things that makes this movie unique. Not everything is spelled out for you but if you have imagination, you can figure out as much as Joe. Again, his dark visions tell us as much as the narrative does, and they usually substitute for too much detail. Another visual touch that director Ramsay adds is to let us see most of his rampage in one location, only through security camera footage without sound effects. There is still score but the silent acts of violence seem unreal, as brutal as they are, and morally as justified as they are.



When it is clear that a twist in the story has taken place, we go in several directions at once. In a seventies thriller, the plot would all be about how the twist must be dealt with and the enemy punished. That is the way this film seems to be heading, but there are more curves ahead and each one brings this film to a new point of view that continuously challenges you. Joe may be driven nearly insane with revenge, but sometimes his empathy manages to get the best of him. If you have disdain for the seventies song "I've Never Been to Me", by Charlene, prepare to reassess. In one of the boldest moments of the film, this song plays out through a moment of horror and tenderness. It is an honest gesture that feels so odd but also so right.

Speaking of music, this has a muscular synth score by Jonny Greewood who was recently an Oscar nominee for "Phantom Thread". Mixed with contemporary songs and also old classics, the music creates moods and images that match the energy or actions of the scenes in an eerie manner. It is almost good enough to make me go and listen to Radiohead, a band that he is a member of. Along with the sound design of the film, the music adds to the hypnotic atmosphere. This film is a slow burn but it is anything but tedious.

As Joe envisions what he might do, there are some amazing visual moments. The asphyxiation issue is combined with a counting mantra that both Joe and the young girl he is trying to help use. That they go in opposite directions and mix and then change is another great choice by the director. Late in the film there are some incongruous visual moments with Joe and Nina. The harrowing effects of PTSD are not going to end for either of them and we know it by getting a chance to see the darkness repeatedly. The resolution of the film is inevitable and sad and satisfying. It is somewhat ambiguous but that seems all the more appropriate since It would be hard to say how much of what we witnessed was real and how much was nightmare.

Gladiator (2000)

This month appears to be sword and sandal month at the AMC Classic scheduling center. Last week there was "The Ten Commandments", this week "Gladiator" and in the next couple of weeks we are going to get "Ben-Hur" and "Spartucus". Somewhere, Captain Oveur is smiling and thinking of Joey in ways that we cannot mention. This is an opportunity to write about a film I have loved since it came out, but have never posted on before. Given that it stars Russell Crowe, was directed by Ridley Scott and won the Academy Award for Best Picture, that seems a little strange to me.

"Gladiator" is only fourteen years old, yet it already feels like a classic because it launched a hundred imitators. Before 2000, it would have been a long time between historical epics featuring legions of ancient warriors conducting combat with swords and spears. After this picture succeeded, we got "Troy", "300", Kingdom of Heaven", "The Eagle", "Pompeii", remakes of Conan and cable series based on "Spartacus" plus a dozen others that don't pop into my mind at the moment. This film was hugely influential on the subject matter of films in the last decade and a half and also on their style.

Russell Crowe won the lone Oscar of his career in this centerpiece of a three picture Oscar nominated run. His turn in "A Beautiful Mind" might have been deserving, but his work in "Gladiator" is what made him the biggest star in the world for about five years. You would need to go back to 1959 to find a winning performance in an action film. This is a raw, bloodthirsty part that required physical agility, and intellectual engagement with the motivations of the character. Maybe if you count John Wayne in "True Grit", you'd get a film role that won because the character was a hero who used violence in an active way to achieve his character's purpose. Maximus starts the film as a warrior general. Not content to sit on the sidelines but charging into battle, swinging a sword and getting bloodied up close. His moment of despair at discovering the fate of his family, reaches our hearts and hardens them to the villain of the piece, who before this may have simply been a misunderstood wannabe. The challenge he issues to the crowd in the second of his five scenes in the arena, " Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?" is both an indictment and an incitement and Crowe has just the right take on it. Everyone who has seen the movie knows that the passage that won him the award was his self revelation to the Emperor at the conclusion of the first Coliseum fight. His controlled fury is the point at which the story has been tightened to it's greatest capacity, and we await the outcome because his voice told us it would be coming, in this world or the next.

As I listened to the music, there were several passages that sounded just like the themes from "Pirates of the Caribbean" and it is with good reason. Hans Zimmer recycled some of those heroic motifs from this film in the lighter pirate movie just a couple of years later. There are some great details in the production. The dusty red hued out post that is Proximo's home feels exotic and dangerous. The blue-grey tint to the battles in Germania were cold to contemplate and you could feel the dirt on your body. The golden shaded views of Rome and the gladiator contests themselves make the setting the center-point of all the proceedings.  Richard Harris leaves the film early but still makes an impression. Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus has a terrific scene with Harris, that makes us temporarily sympathetic. He manages to turn that into revulsion by delivering the provocative description of the fate of Maximus' family in a tone that makes the words even more horrible. His work contributed to Crowe's performance substantially in that section. Oliver Reed leaves this planet with what might have been his finest performance. This movie has dozens of great elements to it that make it so worthwhile.

It was just me and one other guy in the theater today. AMC needs to build this programming up a little more. I could not figure out why I was not seeing trailers for the other films coming up in this series, instead of the two art house releases that may never make it to these local theaters. The cashier in the Box Office, was surprised when I ordered my ticket, she did not even know the fim was playing. That is at least the third time I've had that reaction when I went up to the ticket window for these showings. AMC, you are doing a great thing with this program, but get the promotion up to speed and let's get a few more seats filled. There are others like me who would make the effort a couple extra steps were taken in letting people know what is happening.

Her

This was the last of this years Best Picture nominees that I needed to catch up with. I saw it yesterday at the AMC Best Picture Showcase along with four of the other nominees. It has an amazing original take on technology and humanity and the vision of the future is realistic enough to take seriously some of the concepts that are presented here. Joaquin Phoenix stars in a meditative and sad performance that was surprisingly un-nomiminated this year.There may have been some talk of Scarlett Johansen being included for her voice work, but that technological breakthrough will not be coming to the Academy Awards first. Someone else is going to need to push that part of the envelope.

In the not too distant future, humans become so dependent on technology to connect with each other that they begin to fray at the edges. Theodore is a writer of letters that are personal expressions of deep emotions, the only thing is they are not letters written for him but by him. He works for a company that is paid by others to express their ideas in more poetic and eloquent ways. He is a ghostwriter for the daily emotions that people wish to convey to one another. He himself is something of a ghost. His marriage has broken up and while he has friends, he is intensely lonely. He expresses others feelings in amazing letters, but appears to have a block on connecting with others at more than a superficial level. He is not a hermit but he does have trouble maintaining relationships.

A new operating system for his electronic life begins to take over his emotional core. "Samantha" is a great fictional character that is never visualized on screen, she is a voice in his earpiece that means more to him than the once precious marriage that he is in the process of dissolving. As an artificial intelligence, Samantha is not ominous in the way HAL turned out to be, but the impact on human life may be devastating in completely different ways. I was impressed with the story arc and development of the relationship between Theodore and Samantha. There were several odd moments where the issiue of sex comes up and if you are at all squeamish about those issues, let's be frank, it is not nudity that is discomforting it is the imagination.

I don't like to put anything into these posts that could spoil the movie for an audience. There are some things here that will be a bit surprising and some that are a little too precious. I thought the ease with which his dating relationship was accepted by his coworker was an interesting take on tolerance but also a potential condemnation of our unwillingness to judge others. The society of the future might sound silly to begin with but it does not seem that far fetched when you see how people currently interact with their phones. I also would have to imagine it is the far future when L.A. has become as elevated an compacted as NYC and as dependent on public transportation. It was nicely visualized and the CG modifications to Disney Concert hall and the city scape are pretty inventive. The beach scene is funny because the crowds and the way Theodore enjoys the sand in his street clothes. Taking a nap in the sun like that on the beach would result in a nasty sunburn, but that part of the technology is not really shown.

I would not be at all surprised if the next generation of phones work in a way very similar to those shown in this film. There are some nice practical advantages to the bi-fold design and the multiple lens access. The blue tooth earpiece is already ubiquitous so it is a short step to the interactive nature of the tech seen in this movie. Years ago I read a science fiction story called "Meathouse Man", about a guy who misunderstands the way in which human bodies are being used as sex partners. He falls in love with the unseen operator of the "sex equipment" and the revelation at the end of the story reminds me a little bit of what happens in this movie. In the end, we are our own best measure of what love really is.