This is the second article I’ve read making accusations against Todd Phillips (who I was no big fan of until this movie) that I believe are largely misplaced. The first is the accusation that he’s whitewashing the infamous Bernard Goetz subway shooting, racializing it and essentially defending Goetz. Really? Is that what Phillips was intending to do? How do we know that? I find the accusation dubious at best.
Next, the author doubles down and accuses Phillips again of racializing the attack by a group of non-white youth. Never mind that the very next attack occurs exclusively by white men and this is the one where he goes full Goetz. I’ll chalk this up to sloppy reviewing. I believe I’m being generous.
Next, I simply have to look at the films of another “downer” director, David Fincher - Seven, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Insomnia, Zodiac, etc. - as Exhibit A of equally dark and cynical storytelling. Like those films, Joker has a place, and frankly, I loved it. Furthermore, I have no idea how you tell the story of Joker without going to a very dark place. ‘Nuff said.
Last but not least, I am confused by what Brody is saying about conservative versus liberal politics. I don’t see the film as either promoting gun violence or limiting gun control to the mentally ill. Although I do agree with the author’s interpretation of a possible indictment of radical liberals, though I’m actually OK with that. Because I see it as a cautionary tale about the excesses of any radicalism, right or left, and about the dangers of allowing our radicalism to create vacuums for crazy people to come in and seize the agenda. I think that’s a really important thing to put out there. Perhaps the most important thing we could hear at this point in history. I fear that the knee-jerk reaction against the film, especially from the left weirdly, will cause us to miss this important lesson.
Overall, I see the film as a necessarily dark and cynical descent of a disturbed individual through the circles of hell and into the abyss. That’s exactly what this film should be. Of course that makes it uncomfortable viewing. Of course that makes it feel sinister and ominous. Of course that means some people won’t like it and other people arguably shouldn’t even see it. And of course it’s open to interpretation and co-opting, like many, many good films. But it has something to say and that’s why I loved it, even though I’m not sure I totally enjoyed it any more that I “enjoyed” (in the usual sense of the word) the aforementioned films by Fincher, but still find them important and worthy.
I didn’t interpret Joker as an indictment of either right or left, but rather as a warning to all of us to be careful about the social and political conditions we create, as well as an invitation to be more compassionate and thoughtful toward our fellow human beings. And, lest we forget, an origin story of a master villain.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I completely respect Brody’s right to feel the way he does about this film. I just think he’s largely missed the mark and couldn't disagree more.
Next, the author doubles down and accuses Phillips again of racializing the attack by a group of non-white youth. Never mind that the very next attack occurs exclusively by white men and this is the one where he goes full Goetz. I’ll chalk this up to sloppy reviewing. I believe I’m being generous.
Next, I simply have to look at the films of another “downer” director, David Fincher - Seven, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Insomnia, Zodiac, etc. - as Exhibit A of equally dark and cynical storytelling. Like those films, Joker has a place, and frankly, I loved it. Furthermore, I have no idea how you tell the story of Joker without going to a very dark place. ‘Nuff said.
Last but not least, I am confused by what Brody is saying about conservative versus liberal politics. I don’t see the film as either promoting gun violence or limiting gun control to the mentally ill. Although I do agree with the author’s interpretation of a possible indictment of radical liberals, though I’m actually OK with that. Because I see it as a cautionary tale about the excesses of any radicalism, right or left, and about the dangers of allowing our radicalism to create vacuums for crazy people to come in and seize the agenda. I think that’s a really important thing to put out there. Perhaps the most important thing we could hear at this point in history. I fear that the knee-jerk reaction against the film, especially from the left weirdly, will cause us to miss this important lesson.
Overall, I see the film as a necessarily dark and cynical descent of a disturbed individual through the circles of hell and into the abyss. That’s exactly what this film should be. Of course that makes it uncomfortable viewing. Of course that makes it feel sinister and ominous. Of course that means some people won’t like it and other people arguably shouldn’t even see it. And of course it’s open to interpretation and co-opting, like many, many good films. But it has something to say and that’s why I loved it, even though I’m not sure I totally enjoyed it any more that I “enjoyed” (in the usual sense of the word) the aforementioned films by Fincher, but still find them important and worthy.
I didn’t interpret Joker as an indictment of either right or left, but rather as a warning to all of us to be careful about the social and political conditions we create, as well as an invitation to be more compassionate and thoughtful toward our fellow human beings. And, lest we forget, an origin story of a master villain.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I completely respect Brody’s right to feel the way he does about this film. I just think he’s largely missed the mark and couldn't disagree more.
