Is the new Joker movie dangerous?

[joko104]

Why do you think advertisers and political groups waste money on on advertising since it influences on one? Maybe someone should tell them that any increase in sales or in the polls after heavy advertising was merely coincidental and the money was a 100% waste.

 

[The Mark]

Why do you think advertisers and political groups waste money on on advertising since it influences on one? Maybe someone should tell them that any increase in sales or in the polls after heavy advertising was merely coincidental and the money was a 100% waste.

This may be only tangentially related, but I've on occasion wondered if an advertising tactic is to get bad reviews from "critics" so that you get in the news for being so terrible, which gets people to check out your product, like it, and also feel a bit like they're fighting the man by doing so.

Specifically wondered that about this movie.

 

[3leftsdoo]

It's not difficult to make a movie that's better than Thor 2 (or, for that matter, Thor 1). Iron Man 3 was decent. Suicide Squad was unwatchable.

Percentage-wise, there are as many bad MCU movies as there are good DC good movies.

As with Joker, the best part of Suicide Squad is the end credits.

But Jared Leto blows everyone else's Joker away; he is perfect.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Just saw the movie tonight. I wish I hadn't.

I voted yes. While the acting is ok - though the main character overplayed his role - this is an extremely dark, depressing movie that tries to portray the "Joker" as both sympathetic and cool - as he became a mentally ill, psychotic murderer. You won't leave this movie feeling good.

I voted it is dangerous for a specific reason. Subliminal suggestions are extremely powerful on people - with this understood in the movie industry. DOZENS of times in the background they had signs and newspaper headlines declaring "KILL THE RICH"! (rich people), portraying wealthy people as arrogant, cruel and aloft, while everyone else was desperately poor, barely surviving, because of the rich people. All wealthy characters of any significance in the movie were evil, viciously violent people. It also blames him becoming the Joker for lack of social services money - also the fault of rich people.

Basically, the underlying theme of the movie is that evil greedy and violent rich people created the Joker - as they destroy society - and lead to everyone who isn't rich being a desperate victim. In the end there are poor-people riots murdering police and wealthy people in a semi-heroic sense - while flashing "Kill the Rich" over and over and over as background subliminal suggestions. Bruce Wayne (the future Batman) is a child - and his father is portrayed as a violently evil man, with him and the mother murdered by someone motivated by Joker's righteous murders of 3 rich guys who were beating him up just because they were rich and therefore evil.

Joker is portrayed as a hero to the poor people because he is murdering rich people. Basically, that is the entire subliminal suggestions and theme of the movie: All rich people - meaning everyone who isn't very poor - are the cause of all problems and therefore they all should be murdered. Joker, despite all his efforts to devoting his life to making people laugh and be happy, is forced systematically by evil rich people to justifiably become an insane psychotic mass murderer.

I voted yes, though it has nothing to do with portraying violence itself.

An interesting interpretation.

I see the film as ruthlessly mocking everyone except the little person and girl next door, and portraying those seemingly inspired by Joker in the worst possible light.

But if you could read it as an attack on the rich specifically rather than a misanthropic romp through human Hell in which nearly everyone is revealed as less than, perhaps others might as well.

Whether this would inspire violence...

 

[3leftsdoo]

Movies of 2019 have nothing on the ultraviolence of the 80's and 90's.

Or 70s.

Taxi Driver and Death Wish were HUGE influences on Joker.

 

[HK.227]

Is the new Joker movie dangerous?

Absolutely.
Anything that makes people think is dangerous. Anything that does not make people think is dangerous.
I'm pretty sure the movie will be in one of those two categories.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you claim there was nothing wrong with Nazi movie propaganda, nothing dangerous by it at all.

Propaganda of any kind is artistically bad, but in a society that values free expression, it's important to allow people to air their grievances as they will.

The trouble with pre-Nazi German society was that the people didn't value free expression in general; they wanted a "final solution" to their perceived troubles.

I've now seen the film. It's good but not great, and may be a little too dependent on two major inspirations as I see them: Martin Scorcese's KING OF COMEDY and Alan Moore's THE KILLING JOKE. (Trivia note: because of the quarrels between Moore and DC Comics, Moore's name is not in the "indebted to" credits, but his artist Brian Bolland is.

There may be films that have the sheer power to make people riot in the streets.

I don't think JOKER is one such.