The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Film Review: the Joker
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

THE JOKER (2019)
Rating: 5/5

You can access all of my latest book, film, and video game reviews at this link, as well as an ordered, categorized list of all my film reviews and ratings here: https://akarlin.com/films


The Joker seems to be all things to all people. Tyler Cowen believes it is “the most anti-Leftist movie I have seen, ever.” The Leninist Komsomol of Sverdlov oblast (LOL) hailed it as a masterpiece showcasing the “problems of a capitalist society.” It upset the more genteel Alt Right boomers such as Trevor Lynch, who called it a “boring movie about a disgusting loser”, while The Daily Stormer gave it 10/10 and praised its justification of violence “as an appropriate response of abused white men to what society has done to them.” The New York Times was enraged it didn’t signal hard enough against problematic whiteness, highlighting trivial issues like mental illness and class war instead.

This because The Joker is an unreliable narrator. That is the single most important observation about the film – the main character’s mental problems means we can’t know which of the scenes are real, and which are hallucinations or flights of fancy. The only thing we really know for sure is there is a mentally disturbed incel called Arthur Fleck who lives in a shitty apartment with his no less crazed mother, scraping by and trying to ends meet as best he can with his limited abilities in a metropolis that seems to be going down the dumps. He has a severe case of jungle fever for a neighboring single mother, whom he imagines going out with, only to be told to leave the one time he finds himself in her apartment. This narrative device leaves the audience free to interpret the film anyway they like. Judging from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, ordinary people enjoyed the creative ambiguity, while the official reviewers were much less enamored. This makes it very different from Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, which was a straightforward paeon to conservative values of law and order and the dangers of populist anarchy.

Two scenes in particular set the stage for Arthur Fleck’s transition into The Joker. In the first scene, he gets jumped while working as a human billboard by a band of diverse Youths, who run away with his sign. They lure him into an alley and beat him up. In the second scene, a band of drunk Wall Street Frat Boys beat him up for his weirdo mannerisms, which he can’t help on account of his mental illness. The Frat Boys work for Thomas Wayne, an oligarch with political aspirations who is supposed to be a stand-in for [insert generic tough on crime conservative oligarch]. Only this time, he fought back, and lethally so – and became a folk hero of the masses in the process. These two scenes can be considered to be a composite of a real event in New York in 1984, in which a white man called Bernhard Goetz shot four Black muggers and was acquitted by a jury.

However, it strikes me that the following question is basically a short Political Compass test: Did any of these two assaults actually happen, at least in the way they were portrayed?

  1. Youths N / Frat Boys N – You think the Joker really is just a low-IQ loser with mental problems. [sort of centrist/rationalist?]
  2. Youths Y / Frat Boys N – You are a crypto-racist conservative like Charles Murray. [bottom right]
  3. Youths N / Frat Boys Y – Youths dindu nuffin, Frat Boys exercised their toxic white male privilege. You are an SJW and want the Joker to go on Chapo. [left]
  4. Youths Y / Frat Boys Y – You think the FBI is correct on the color of crime, as well as skeptical about the elites and cuckservative establishment. You are Alt Right. [top right]

Personally, I lean towards (1), though I don’t exclude (2) – aside from statistical priors, there’s also actually less circumstantial evidence showing the Fray Bot assault happened than the Youth assault (e.g. visible physical damage, the missing sign). Though in theory, any of these combinations are possible – even (3), which I consider to be the least likely. But the key point to emphasize here is that people with different biases and priors from me will come up with different probability rankings. This gives scope to interpret the causes of the Joker’s descent (or ascension?) from the Underground Man to a Raskolnikov character who is beyond good and evil any way one wishes. In this sense, it is a very nihilistic, postmodernist film. There are no unalloyed goodies or baddies. It is neither anti-capitalist, nor anti-antifa.

This “all viewpoints are equally valid” theme seeps into every niche and crevice. The oligarch Wayne is an unsympathetic, cold-hearted conservative, but one will improve things through broken windows policies. The Joker is held in adulation by the proles (or lumpenproles?), but can he really be a hero of the working class when he openly declares he has no political positions? He certainly doesn’t read theory – he’s not interested, and probably doesn’t have the intelligence for it anyway; dependent on whether Wayne is lying or not about being his father, Arthur Fleck is either an orphan (average IQ = one S.D. lower than population average; more mental health problems), or the son of a mentally ill woman who claims the father was Wayne, but who I suspect was actually the abusive boyfriend who tormented the young Arthur and then left her (all personality traits are heritable).

However, importantly, it is also the mental illness that humanizes The Joker – can one really blame him for going haywire when Reaganesque oligarchs such as Wayne are shuttering the free mental health clinics that people like him need to cope with his severe problems? However, contra Bronze Age Pervert’s take, the movie hardly endorses the liberal view on mental health provisioning either – note that the Joker’s affirmative action therapist only punches in at work, and doesn’t even listening to what he has to say; her only function is to rubber-stamp his medications. Once again, the movie teases people of all ideological stripes while delivering to no-one.

It is this ideological malleability that is making The Joker a cult classic amongst people of very different ideological persuasions, be they leftist anti-capitalist critics or rightist HBD pessimists. Not surprisingly, the only major class that are taking exception to this are the NYT bugmen, the Blue Checkmarks, the NPCs – for them, there is one correct answer: Toxic masculinity and white privilege as the root cause of all evil, anything else being distraction at best.

PS. I survived the screening of The Joker without getting shot or any other major incident in a Moscow theater – except at the end, when clapping broke out and spread to the entire audience. Not the reaction I expected to see. However, on checking up a closed nationalist Telegram chat, I saw that one of its participants said he had started clapping at the end of the movie, inciting the rest to join in; furthermore, I was pretty sure it was that same theater, as the guy was also in Moscow and the time he posted it at correlated perfectly with when the movie I was at ended. Globalization in action in our clown world: Russian shitlord adopts Alt Right meme, gets Russian normies to unwittingly partake in an American movie about a killer clown, I experience it IRL and then get to hear the full story via a nationalist Telegram chat.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Alt Right, Comedy, Film, Review 
Hide 88 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    You can find all my reviews here.

    My personal website also has (more or less) current lists of my book, film, and video game reviews.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    Excellent review, but one mischaracterization did bother me somewhat: The movie is not The Joker, it's just Joker.
  2. Black Pilled has an interesting review of The Joker, which is appears to be a rip off of several movies:

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    I saw his review last night. Like most of BlackPills movie reviews, I thought it was crummy. It's obvious that he chose not to understand the movie.
    , @Anarcho-Supremacist
    It was a rip off of around 100 different things. What he did on the late night talk show was the most predictable thing ever.
  3. The joker may be mentally ill, a murderer and all round evil genius, but I would still prefer him than the current ruling elite. Many others that like the joker movie probably have similar thoughts, that should tell you all about how rotten the ZOG status quo is.

    Was this movie translated or has subtitles btw?

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat

    The joker may be mentally ill, a murderer and all round evil genius, but I would still prefer him than the current ruling elite. Many others that like the joker movie probably have similar thoughts, that should tell you all about how rotten the ZOG status quo is.
     
    If it's truly a clown world, then a clown should run it.
    , @fish
    Agree button malfunction.......



    Agree!
     
  4. 1/5, doesn’t even say the N-word
    It’s an above average capeshit, doesn’t deserve a perfect score especially since it’s ripping off better movies

  5. Here is the real interpretation of the movie. It’s just mass media entertainment peddled by Hollywood and the owners are laughing all the way to the bank at the suckers for all the free publicity by people looking for meaning in their otherwise meaningless lives.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    This is basically the same as the review given the film by the Daily Shoah podcast guys.

    Those guys are somewhere between Alt Right boomer perspective and the Daily Stormer perspective. They thought it was simply a somewhat "cringe" movie.

  6. There is merit in the idea of Joker as political-personality Rorschach test.

    I don’t think most people are critical viewers, though, capable of taking a strong view on whether a scene they have just been shown is “untrue” due to the ‘narrator’ being unreliable, unless the point is made (near-)explicit (as it was for one series of scenes in the movie, but not about the two violent incidents you mention). I would expect a majority of viewers simply accept everything as true, which would default the majority to the Alt-Right category.

    As for Joker as Rorschach test. I wonder what other movies this concept might apply to.

    • Replies: @Hail
    An alternate 2x2 grid on a viewer's overall reaction to Joker:

    1- Are you right-wing or left-wing?
    2- Is the movie right-wing or left-wing?

    (There is material to support either an 'L' or an 'R' responses to question 2.)

    Four combinations: RR, RL, LR, LL.

    - RR: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a right-wing, tacitly pro(-white)-male movie critical of the ruling Left. In Hunter Wallace's words, "Arthur Fleck lives in the wreckage of the world that liberalism has created after it has destroyed the social fabric...The Joker is a product of…the severe cultural disintegration and the mental illness and nihilism it causes in urban areas in advanced liberal societies."

    - RL: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a left-wing movie, as it presents us with a corrupt, WASP-like power elite lording it over the people; that having been done, the film then praises a quasi-communist uprising (the Joker mask movement) against the corrupt WASP elite, and is careful to keep us largely in sympathy with the uprising’s unlikely leader, the downtrodden and mistreated, if highly imperfect, Arthur Fleck. (FWIW, Fleck is an often-Jewish surname.)

    - LR: A left-winger who sees it as 'right-wing,' worries that it glorifies/sympathizes with white males of some kind, maybe "incels," maybe Alt-Right types.

    - LL: A left-winger who reads a left-wing message into the movie, perhaps ranging from a conventional liberal who supports social programs to an Antifa who sees the Joker Mask movement as a kind of allegory for an Antifa-like leftist resistance group against a corrupt elite.

    _________________


    Generally, letter mismatch correlates with "dislike." RL and LR people tend towards liking Joker less, at least in political terms. (There are many non-political reasons to possibly like, or dislike, the movie. But it wouldn't be getting the attention it is getting without the political angle.)

    Possible examples of each type:

    Examples of RR: Hunter Wallace. He even changed his website's banner to a Joker poster for a few days, but I think was pro-Joker before actually seeing it, because of what was being said about the political angle. Hunter Wallace's comments on Joker are insightful and not inflammatory or trollish, and could easily have appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Another RR would be the Daily Stormer, as mentioned, but the large majority of RR people would agree with Hunter Wallace, who wrote: "I think of [Arthur Fleck in Joker] as being a kind of avatar for the absurd world we live in. He’s a cautionary tale, not a role model."

    Examples of RL: Jim Goad's short review of Joker at Takimag puts him as a solid RL, which is also where I would put myself. (I saw it before reading any reviews.) Trevor Lynch is likely an RL, too, though he claims he was not sure there was any political message, and only "lame and conventional" social satire.

    Examples of LR: The hand-wringers in the American MSM who are in histrionics over Joker are oddly aligned with RR. In a classic self-reinforcing circle, RR gets a strong boost by an uncommitted person seeing LR in action, which is similar to the process that keeps Donald Trump's popularity high among Republicans, and why impeachment will probably boost his popularity.

    Examples of LL: This might actually be the default view of the typical. The way the typical not-very-political person would see it. After all, a fair political reading of Joker is: "It's all because they defunded social programs." Maybe a shallow reading, but a fair one from what is shown. To the extent that the Jewish filmmakers crafted a sympathetic picture of both Arthur Fleck and of the far-left, communist-anarchistic Joker Mask movement, I think "LL" may actually be the filmmakers' intention. The Christopher Nolan movies depicted the same kind of far-left movement in Gotham, but very harshly, very negatively, unlike this one by the all-Jewish production team; Nolan's Batman series certainly didn't moralize about the pressing need for social programs, either.

    _____________

    As for Trevor Lynch's review (and Steve Sailer's to a great extent), their ambivalence about the movie is explained on a different axis than the political. Commenter Leonard at Steve Sailer's blog explains this insightfully:

    there is a substantial split in the critical reception of [Joker], between people who are looking mainly at the surface-level movie (its plot, plausibility, fit with canon, etc.) and those looking at it as a deeper-level work of art. The former tend to dislike it — there’s not that much plot per runtime, you’re being led to sympathize with a disgusting mentally ill killer, how is this guy ever possibly the Joker? The latter tend to look at the moviemaking and be wowed — the direction, the references to all sorts of older films, the ambiguity over what is real and what is Fleck’s imagination or delusions, Phoenix’s acting, etc.
     
    , @sayless
    ,Joker as Rohrschach test,

    Offhand can’t think of another movie, but The Prisoner comes to mind, particularly the final episode.
    Patrick McGoohan, 1966-67 production.
    , @SFG
    Yeah, I basically took the whole thing as real (within the fiction of the movie, of course), with the possibility he makes the whole thing up and then kills the social worker lady at the end. As you point out, though, given the extreme unreliability of the narrator--this isn't just any mentally ill person who doesn't know what's real, after all this is the Joker, a genuinely iconic figure of chaos and evil with a famously uncertain past-- anything's possible.

    Your political compass might be framed as, which of the two assaults would be likely to actually happen? In that case, I'm with your Charles Murray type--I can believe the assault by the kids easily enough, but while the globalist elite does a lot of evil (mass immigration, degenerate media, outsourcing, etc), I don't get the sense they get their hands dirty with a physical assault on a random clown. Given that there's three of them, unless they're Patrick Batemanesque serial killers (itself also very unlikely), he's unlikely to register as a threat--they'd probably just spit on him and move on.
  7. This because The Joker is an unreliable narrator. That is the single most important observation about the film – the main character’s mental problems means we can’t know which of the scenes are real, and which are hallucinations or flights of fancy.

    Are we supposed to believe anything in comic book universe?

    This sounds like Lumet’s DOG DAY AFTERNOON and NETWORK.

    However, it strikes me that the following question is basically a short Political Compass test: Did any of these two assaults actually happen, at least in the way they were portrayed?

    Joker is rashomon.

    • Replies: @El Dato

    Joker is rashomon.
     
    And the blogosphere is the Shaman.

    Note that the movie is titled "Joker" instead of "The Joker", leaving us unsure about whether this is about "THE Joker" or just "A Joker".

    Also:

    Russian shitlord adopts Alt Right meme, gets Russian normies to unwittingly partake in an American movie about a killer clown, I experience it IRL and then get to hear the full story via a nationalist Telegram chat.
     
    Pretty sure William Gibson wrote about that.
  8. I survived the screening of The Joker without getting shot

    Another Joker-Survivor.

  9. The Joker Joins ANTIFA

    What I do not understand is why people are portraying this as a ‘right-wing’ mentality. The covered Anonymous Face, the obsessive-compulsive victimhood, the delusions about righteousness, the violence first mentality.

    Whether intentional or not, this film is a perfect illustration of white males adopting self hatred and becoming Antifa.

    Be honest, count the Antifa members by race in the picture below.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    I guess, if it's intentional, it would make arguments that the film has a "ring-wing" agenda somewhat stronger, although I would still call that interpretation a half-truth.
  10. The ambiguity may have been a strategem.

    Films about delusional Tyler Durden types may be the only way to smuggle reality-based social commentary into Hollywood.

  11. @Duke of Qin
    Here is the real interpretation of the movie. It's just mass media entertainment peddled by Hollywood and the owners are laughing all the way to the bank at the suckers for all the free publicity by people looking for meaning in their otherwise meaningless lives.

    This is basically the same as the review given the film by the Daily Shoah podcast guys.

    Those guys are somewhere between Alt Right boomer perspective and the Daily Stormer perspective. They thought it was simply a somewhat “cringe” movie.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Richard Spencer did not like Joker.
  12. @Hail
    There is merit in the idea of Joker as political-personality Rorschach test.

    I don't think most people are critical viewers, though, capable of taking a strong view on whether a scene they have just been shown is "untrue" due to the 'narrator' being unreliable, unless the point is made (near-)explicit (as it was for one series of scenes in the movie, but not about the two violent incidents you mention). I would expect a majority of viewers simply accept everything as true, which would default the majority to the Alt-Right category.

    As for Joker as Rorschach test. I wonder what other movies this concept might apply to.

    An alternate 2×2 grid on a viewer’s overall reaction to Joker:

    1- Are you right-wing or left-wing?
    2- Is the movie right-wing or left-wing?

    (There is material to support either an ‘L’ or an ‘R’ responses to question 2.)

    Four combinations: RR, RL, LR, LL.

    – RR: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a right-wing, tacitly pro(-white)-male movie critical of the ruling Left. In Hunter Wallace’s words, “Arthur Fleck lives in the wreckage of the world that liberalism has created after it has destroyed the social fabric…The Joker is a product of…the severe cultural disintegration and the mental illness and nihilism it causes in urban areas in advanced liberal societies.”

    – RL: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a left-wing movie, as it presents us with a corrupt, WASP-like power elite lording it over the people; that having been done, the film then praises a quasi-communist uprising (the Joker mask movement) against the corrupt WASP elite, and is careful to keep us largely in sympathy with the uprising’s unlikely leader, the downtrodden and mistreated, if highly imperfect, Arthur Fleck. (FWIW, Fleck is an often-Jewish surname.)

    – LR: A left-winger who sees it as ‘right-wing,’ worries that it glorifies/sympathizes with white males of some kind, maybe “incels,” maybe Alt-Right types.

    – LL: A left-winger who reads a left-wing message into the movie, perhaps ranging from a conventional liberal who supports social programs to an Antifa who sees the Joker Mask movement as a kind of allegory for an Antifa-like leftist resistance group against a corrupt elite.

    _________________

    Generally, letter mismatch correlates with “dislike.” RL and LR people tend towards liking Joker less, at least in political terms. (There are many non-political reasons to possibly like, or dislike, the movie. But it wouldn’t be getting the attention it is getting without the political angle.)

    Possible examples of each type:

    Examples of RR: Hunter Wallace. He even changed his website’s banner to a Joker poster for a few days, but I think was pro-Joker before actually seeing it, because of what was being said about the political angle. Hunter Wallace’s comments on Joker are insightful and not inflammatory or trollish, and could easily have appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Another RR would be the Daily Stormer, as mentioned, but the large majority of RR people would agree with Hunter Wallace, who wrote: “I think of [Arthur Fleck in Joker] as being a kind of avatar for the absurd world we live in. He’s a cautionary tale, not a role model.”

    Examples of RL: Jim Goad’s short review of Joker at Takimag puts him as a solid RL, which is also where I would put myself. (I saw it before reading any reviews.) Trevor Lynch is likely an RL, too, though he claims he was not sure there was any political message, and only “lame and conventional” social satire.

    Examples of LR: The hand-wringers in the American MSM who are in histrionics over Joker are oddly aligned with RR. In a classic self-reinforcing circle, RR gets a strong boost by an uncommitted person seeing LR in action, which is similar to the process that keeps Donald Trump’s popularity high among Republicans, and why impeachment will probably boost his popularity.

    Examples of LL: This might actually be the default view of the typical. The way the typical not-very-political person would see it. After all, a fair political reading of Joker is: “It’s all because they defunded social programs.” Maybe a shallow reading, but a fair one from what is shown. To the extent that the Jewish filmmakers crafted a sympathetic picture of both Arthur Fleck and of the far-left, communist-anarchistic Joker Mask movement, I think “LL” may actually be the filmmakers’ intention. The Christopher Nolan movies depicted the same kind of far-left movement in Gotham, but very harshly, very negatively, unlike this one by the all-Jewish production team; Nolan’s Batman series certainly didn’t moralize about the pressing need for social programs, either.

    _____________

    As for Trevor Lynch’s review (and Steve Sailer’s to a great extent), their ambivalence about the movie is explained on a different axis than the political. Commenter Leonard at Steve Sailer’s blog explains this insightfully:

    there is a substantial split in the critical reception of [Joker], between people who are looking mainly at the surface-level movie (its plot, plausibility, fit with canon, etc.) and those looking at it as a deeper-level work of art. The former tend to dislike it — there’s not that much plot per runtime, you’re being led to sympathize with a disgusting mentally ill killer, how is this guy ever possibly the Joker? The latter tend to look at the moviemaking and be wowed — the direction, the references to all sorts of older films, the ambiguity over what is real and what is Fleck’s imagination or delusions, Phoenix’s acting, etc.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @A123
    So how would I fit in the 2x2?

    The filmmaker was trying to make an 'anti-right' movie and accidentally turned out an 'anti-left' movie that exposes Antifa for the violent thugs that they are.

    Or, do I once again defy conventional methods of analysis?

    PEACE 😇

    , @Not Raul
    Ok; but we already knew that Phoenix was a fantastic actor.

    It’s possible for something to be less than the sum of its parts.

    Phoenix, and a lot of other talented people who worked on the film, could have used their considerable talent on a better project.

    This film sounds like a chore. It sounds boring.
    , @SFG
    You can decide for yourself if I'm left or right based on my comment history, but I would characterize the movie's politics as pre-Great Awokening left.

    There's a character with mental illness who, given social collapse and lack of support, becomes dangerous, kills people, and starts an uprising (is it really portrayed positively? it's thrilling to watch but they are just going to do more damage to the city). As such there's a message that people are affected by the 'root causes' and more programs would have helped--even if the therapist isn't that great, he seems to get a lot worse after he goes off medication (which is realistic!). Not to mention the whole social inequality thing is played up--Gotham's in a shambles, but the fancy opera still looks nice. Standard 70s-90s liberal movie about the plight of the poor.

    Thing is, in the post-Great Awokening era, the standard late-20th-century liberal critique is now viewed by the MSM as weakly reactionary, because it doesn't make the white guy an unambiguous villain. The big complaint the critics had was that the movie made a violent white man somewhat sympathetic. I'd argue the underlying complaint is that it made a white man somewhat sympathetic, but that's harder to prove.

    It's similar to the guys in that alt-lite-lite, the Intellectual Dark Web--most of the positions on Quillette were pretty standard liberal positions 10 years ago, but now they're just barely to the right of center as the culture shifts.

    I would say most normal people viewing the movie would see the Joker as a villain, albeit a sympathetic one (and this is a hard thing to pull off). Real comic book fans are probably trying to figure out if they're setting us up for another series of Batman movies.

    BTW, for what it's worth, the director himself says he was sick of woke culture ruining comedy:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/joaquin-phoenix-cover-story
  13. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    This is basically the same as the review given the film by the Daily Shoah podcast guys.

    Those guys are somewhere between Alt Right boomer perspective and the Daily Stormer perspective. They thought it was simply a somewhat "cringe" movie.

    Richard Spencer did not like Joker.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    Who cares what that full of himself, blowhard Richard Spencer thinks?
  14. @neutral
    The joker may be mentally ill, a murderer and all round evil genius, but I would still prefer him than the current ruling elite. Many others that like the joker movie probably have similar thoughts, that should tell you all about how rotten the ZOG status quo is.

    Was this movie translated or has subtitles btw?

    The joker may be mentally ill, a murderer and all round evil genius, but I would still prefer him than the current ruling elite. Many others that like the joker movie probably have similar thoughts, that should tell you all about how rotten the ZOG status quo is.

    If it’s truly a clown world, then a clown should run it.

  15. Trevor Lynch is a boomer?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    I know that Trevor Lynch's review sucked. Anatoly's was much better.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't know, but some people have hinted to me that he is. I just checked and he's co-authored books with Greg Johnson and has been writing since at least 2001. That said, I'll be happy to retract if someone can confirm otherwise.
  16. However, it strikes me that the following question is basically a short Political Compass test: Did any of these two assaults actually happen, at least in the way they were portrayed?

    Frat Boys murder are real because the subsequent murder of Thomas Wayne and his wife by a clown is confirmed by independent sources (biography of Bruce Wayne).
    And Frat Boys nefarious behavior is also real (the behavior of Frat Boys became known through a witness (woman which run), and this made Arthur Fleck a hero).
    According to the logic of the comics (and the photo that flashed in the film) Thomas Wayne is really the father of Arthur Fleck (and model villain).

  17. @Hail
    An alternate 2x2 grid on a viewer's overall reaction to Joker:

    1- Are you right-wing or left-wing?
    2- Is the movie right-wing or left-wing?

    (There is material to support either an 'L' or an 'R' responses to question 2.)

    Four combinations: RR, RL, LR, LL.

    - RR: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a right-wing, tacitly pro(-white)-male movie critical of the ruling Left. In Hunter Wallace's words, "Arthur Fleck lives in the wreckage of the world that liberalism has created after it has destroyed the social fabric...The Joker is a product of…the severe cultural disintegration and the mental illness and nihilism it causes in urban areas in advanced liberal societies."

    - RL: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a left-wing movie, as it presents us with a corrupt, WASP-like power elite lording it over the people; that having been done, the film then praises a quasi-communist uprising (the Joker mask movement) against the corrupt WASP elite, and is careful to keep us largely in sympathy with the uprising’s unlikely leader, the downtrodden and mistreated, if highly imperfect, Arthur Fleck. (FWIW, Fleck is an often-Jewish surname.)

    - LR: A left-winger who sees it as 'right-wing,' worries that it glorifies/sympathizes with white males of some kind, maybe "incels," maybe Alt-Right types.

    - LL: A left-winger who reads a left-wing message into the movie, perhaps ranging from a conventional liberal who supports social programs to an Antifa who sees the Joker Mask movement as a kind of allegory for an Antifa-like leftist resistance group against a corrupt elite.

    _________________


    Generally, letter mismatch correlates with "dislike." RL and LR people tend towards liking Joker less, at least in political terms. (There are many non-political reasons to possibly like, or dislike, the movie. But it wouldn't be getting the attention it is getting without the political angle.)

    Possible examples of each type:

    Examples of RR: Hunter Wallace. He even changed his website's banner to a Joker poster for a few days, but I think was pro-Joker before actually seeing it, because of what was being said about the political angle. Hunter Wallace's comments on Joker are insightful and not inflammatory or trollish, and could easily have appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Another RR would be the Daily Stormer, as mentioned, but the large majority of RR people would agree with Hunter Wallace, who wrote: "I think of [Arthur Fleck in Joker] as being a kind of avatar for the absurd world we live in. He’s a cautionary tale, not a role model."

    Examples of RL: Jim Goad's short review of Joker at Takimag puts him as a solid RL, which is also where I would put myself. (I saw it before reading any reviews.) Trevor Lynch is likely an RL, too, though he claims he was not sure there was any political message, and only "lame and conventional" social satire.

    Examples of LR: The hand-wringers in the American MSM who are in histrionics over Joker are oddly aligned with RR. In a classic self-reinforcing circle, RR gets a strong boost by an uncommitted person seeing LR in action, which is similar to the process that keeps Donald Trump's popularity high among Republicans, and why impeachment will probably boost his popularity.

    Examples of LL: This might actually be the default view of the typical. The way the typical not-very-political person would see it. After all, a fair political reading of Joker is: "It's all because they defunded social programs." Maybe a shallow reading, but a fair one from what is shown. To the extent that the Jewish filmmakers crafted a sympathetic picture of both Arthur Fleck and of the far-left, communist-anarchistic Joker Mask movement, I think "LL" may actually be the filmmakers' intention. The Christopher Nolan movies depicted the same kind of far-left movement in Gotham, but very harshly, very negatively, unlike this one by the all-Jewish production team; Nolan's Batman series certainly didn't moralize about the pressing need for social programs, either.

    _____________

    As for Trevor Lynch's review (and Steve Sailer's to a great extent), their ambivalence about the movie is explained on a different axis than the political. Commenter Leonard at Steve Sailer's blog explains this insightfully:

    there is a substantial split in the critical reception of [Joker], between people who are looking mainly at the surface-level movie (its plot, plausibility, fit with canon, etc.) and those looking at it as a deeper-level work of art. The former tend to dislike it — there’s not that much plot per runtime, you’re being led to sympathize with a disgusting mentally ill killer, how is this guy ever possibly the Joker? The latter tend to look at the moviemaking and be wowed — the direction, the references to all sorts of older films, the ambiguity over what is real and what is Fleck’s imagination or delusions, Phoenix’s acting, etc.
     

    So how would I fit in the 2×2?

    The filmmaker was trying to make an ‘anti-right’ movie and accidentally turned out an ‘anti-left’ movie that exposes Antifa for the violent thugs that they are.

    Or, do I once again defy conventional methods of analysis?

    PEACE 😇

  18. the multiple reactions to the movie are probably as or more interesting than the movie itself.

  19. @Anatoly Karlin
    Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    You can find all my reviews here.

    My personal website also has (more or less) current lists of my book, film, and video game reviews.

    Excellent review, but one mischaracterization did bother me somewhat: The movie is not The Joker, it’s just Joker.

  20. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Black Pilled has an interesting review of The Joker, which is appears to be a rip off of several movies:

    https://youtu.be/PJIZSYcgi90

    I saw his review last night. Like most of BlackPills movie reviews, I thought it was crummy. It’s obvious that he chose not to understand the movie.

    • Replies: @afadf
    Maybe you don't understand Steck's reviews, asshole.
  21. @Hail
    Richard Spencer did not like Joker.

    Who cares what that full of himself, blowhard Richard Spencer thinks?

  22. @Not Raul
    Trevor Lynch is a boomer?

    I know that Trevor Lynch’s review sucked. Anatoly’s was much better.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Maybe; but he doesn’t seem like a boomer.

    I don’t think he ever indicated his age.
  23. @follyofwar
    I know that Trevor Lynch's review sucked. Anatoly's was much better.

    Maybe; but he doesn’t seem like a boomer.

    I don’t think he ever indicated his age.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    Did you even read my two sentence comment, Raul? I didn't talk about the age of either one. Don't know and don't care.
  24. @Not Raul
    Trevor Lynch is a boomer?

    I don’t know, but some people have hinted to me that he is. I just checked and he’s co-authored books with Greg Johnson and has been writing since at least 2001. That said, I’ll be happy to retract if someone can confirm otherwise.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    If he was in his 20s in 2001, he was probably born in the 1970s.

    It’s possible that he wasn’t old enough to see “Pretty in Pink” unattended when it came out in 1986 (1986-13=1973), so he might not even be old enough to be a core GenXer.

    If he started writing in 2001 when he was 22, he would have been born in 1979, making him practically a millennial.

    , @Ian Smith
    Trevor Lynch is just the nom de plume of Greg Johnson when he writes film reviews. From what I can gather, Johnson was born around 1970, so he’s an Xer rather than a boomer.
  25. My take (haven’t watched it): Youths Y / Frat Boys N

    Youths beating up a loser is depressing enough to be Real Life.

    The loser beating up frat boys, and becoming a hero, sounds like fantasy.

    So, I guess this makes me a “right wing boomer”, even though I’m definitely not a boomer, and I don’t think that Lynch is a boomer, either. Was Lynch even old enough to drive during the oil crisis of 1973? Had he even been born?

    • Replies: @melanf

    The loser beating up frat boys, and becoming a hero, sounds like fantasy
     
    What's impossible? Three rich bastard at first scoffed at the woman, then was distracted by Arthur Fleck. The woman escaped (and witnessed the prehistory of the murder). That is, for the residents of Gotham, the story looks like this-an unknown clown killed three scum from the elite, scum who scoffed with impunity at ordinary residents of Gotham. Accordingly, for them, the clown - hero, it is quite logical.
  26. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't know, but some people have hinted to me that he is. I just checked and he's co-authored books with Greg Johnson and has been writing since at least 2001. That said, I'll be happy to retract if someone can confirm otherwise.

    If he was in his 20s in 2001, he was probably born in the 1970s.

    It’s possible that he wasn’t old enough to see “Pretty in Pink” unattended when it came out in 1986 (1986-13=1973), so he might not even be old enough to be a core GenXer.

    If he started writing in 2001 when he was 22, he would have been born in 1979, making him practically a millennial.

  27. @Hail
    An alternate 2x2 grid on a viewer's overall reaction to Joker:

    1- Are you right-wing or left-wing?
    2- Is the movie right-wing or left-wing?

    (There is material to support either an 'L' or an 'R' responses to question 2.)

    Four combinations: RR, RL, LR, LL.

    - RR: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a right-wing, tacitly pro(-white)-male movie critical of the ruling Left. In Hunter Wallace's words, "Arthur Fleck lives in the wreckage of the world that liberalism has created after it has destroyed the social fabric...The Joker is a product of…the severe cultural disintegration and the mental illness and nihilism it causes in urban areas in advanced liberal societies."

    - RL: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a left-wing movie, as it presents us with a corrupt, WASP-like power elite lording it over the people; that having been done, the film then praises a quasi-communist uprising (the Joker mask movement) against the corrupt WASP elite, and is careful to keep us largely in sympathy with the uprising’s unlikely leader, the downtrodden and mistreated, if highly imperfect, Arthur Fleck. (FWIW, Fleck is an often-Jewish surname.)

    - LR: A left-winger who sees it as 'right-wing,' worries that it glorifies/sympathizes with white males of some kind, maybe "incels," maybe Alt-Right types.

    - LL: A left-winger who reads a left-wing message into the movie, perhaps ranging from a conventional liberal who supports social programs to an Antifa who sees the Joker Mask movement as a kind of allegory for an Antifa-like leftist resistance group against a corrupt elite.

    _________________


    Generally, letter mismatch correlates with "dislike." RL and LR people tend towards liking Joker less, at least in political terms. (There are many non-political reasons to possibly like, or dislike, the movie. But it wouldn't be getting the attention it is getting without the political angle.)

    Possible examples of each type:

    Examples of RR: Hunter Wallace. He even changed his website's banner to a Joker poster for a few days, but I think was pro-Joker before actually seeing it, because of what was being said about the political angle. Hunter Wallace's comments on Joker are insightful and not inflammatory or trollish, and could easily have appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Another RR would be the Daily Stormer, as mentioned, but the large majority of RR people would agree with Hunter Wallace, who wrote: "I think of [Arthur Fleck in Joker] as being a kind of avatar for the absurd world we live in. He’s a cautionary tale, not a role model."

    Examples of RL: Jim Goad's short review of Joker at Takimag puts him as a solid RL, which is also where I would put myself. (I saw it before reading any reviews.) Trevor Lynch is likely an RL, too, though he claims he was not sure there was any political message, and only "lame and conventional" social satire.

    Examples of LR: The hand-wringers in the American MSM who are in histrionics over Joker are oddly aligned with RR. In a classic self-reinforcing circle, RR gets a strong boost by an uncommitted person seeing LR in action, which is similar to the process that keeps Donald Trump's popularity high among Republicans, and why impeachment will probably boost his popularity.

    Examples of LL: This might actually be the default view of the typical. The way the typical not-very-political person would see it. After all, a fair political reading of Joker is: "It's all because they defunded social programs." Maybe a shallow reading, but a fair one from what is shown. To the extent that the Jewish filmmakers crafted a sympathetic picture of both Arthur Fleck and of the far-left, communist-anarchistic Joker Mask movement, I think "LL" may actually be the filmmakers' intention. The Christopher Nolan movies depicted the same kind of far-left movement in Gotham, but very harshly, very negatively, unlike this one by the all-Jewish production team; Nolan's Batman series certainly didn't moralize about the pressing need for social programs, either.

    _____________

    As for Trevor Lynch's review (and Steve Sailer's to a great extent), their ambivalence about the movie is explained on a different axis than the political. Commenter Leonard at Steve Sailer's blog explains this insightfully:

    there is a substantial split in the critical reception of [Joker], between people who are looking mainly at the surface-level movie (its plot, plausibility, fit with canon, etc.) and those looking at it as a deeper-level work of art. The former tend to dislike it — there’s not that much plot per runtime, you’re being led to sympathize with a disgusting mentally ill killer, how is this guy ever possibly the Joker? The latter tend to look at the moviemaking and be wowed — the direction, the references to all sorts of older films, the ambiguity over what is real and what is Fleck’s imagination or delusions, Phoenix’s acting, etc.
     

    Ok; but we already knew that Phoenix was a fantastic actor.

    It’s possible for something to be less than the sum of its parts.

    Phoenix, and a lot of other talented people who worked on the film, could have used their considerable talent on a better project.

    This film sounds like a chore. It sounds boring.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    That's quite a stupid observation, "This film sounds like a chore. It sounds boring." How about watching the movie before you comment next time, bucco.
  28. @Hail
    There is merit in the idea of Joker as political-personality Rorschach test.

    I don't think most people are critical viewers, though, capable of taking a strong view on whether a scene they have just been shown is "untrue" due to the 'narrator' being unreliable, unless the point is made (near-)explicit (as it was for one series of scenes in the movie, but not about the two violent incidents you mention). I would expect a majority of viewers simply accept everything as true, which would default the majority to the Alt-Right category.

    As for Joker as Rorschach test. I wonder what other movies this concept might apply to.

    ,Joker as Rohrschach test,

    Offhand can’t think of another movie, but The Prisoner comes to mind, particularly the final episode.
    Patrick McGoohan, 1966-67 production.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    That's going back aways. And, if I recall correctly, The Prisoner started out as only a summer time replacement show. It was far too cerebral for today's dumbed-down TV audience, most of whom only want to zone out in front of the omnipresent idiot box.

    @Hail's virtue signaling dig at the alt-right is both ludicrous and unfounded.
  29. I took my wife to see this last Saturday, and we both enjoyed it a lot. I’m going to go alone to see it a second time tomorrow morning, and really try to focus on the narrative ambiguities inherent to the film. I’ll let y’all know if I come up with anything interesting.

  30. I would just like there to be a movie that has nothing to do with comic books or superheroes or crazy villains blowing up the world.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Watch “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”.
  31. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    I would just like there to be a movie that has nothing to do with comic books or superheroes or crazy villains blowing up the world.

    Watch “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1183202593704730629
  32. @Not Raul
    Ok; but we already knew that Phoenix was a fantastic actor.

    It’s possible for something to be less than the sum of its parts.

    Phoenix, and a lot of other talented people who worked on the film, could have used their considerable talent on a better project.

    This film sounds like a chore. It sounds boring.

    That’s quite a stupid observation, “This film sounds like a chore. It sounds boring.” How about watching the movie before you comment next time, bucco.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Why not watch it? Because it doesn’t sound like it’s worth my time and money.

    Do you watch everything they show at the cinema?
  33. @sayless
    ,Joker as Rohrschach test,

    Offhand can’t think of another movie, but The Prisoner comes to mind, particularly the final episode.
    Patrick McGoohan, 1966-67 production.

    That’s going back aways. And, if I recall correctly, The Prisoner started out as only a summer time replacement show. It was far too cerebral for today’s dumbed-down TV audience, most of whom only want to zone out in front of the omnipresent idiot box.

    ’s virtue signaling dig at the alt-right is both ludicrous and unfounded.

  34. @Not Raul
    Maybe; but he doesn’t seem like a boomer.

    I don’t think he ever indicated his age.

    Did you even read my two sentence comment, Raul? I didn’t talk about the age of either one. Don’t know and don’t care.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    My bad. I thought that I was replying to AK.
  35. The Proglob prolly hate JOKER because its leftism is about class.

    Wall Street is now proglob. Big Capital is ‘woke’. Globalists have been suppressing class themes in favor of 50 genders and immigration-diversity.

    It’s been said the ‘left’ hates JOKER because it sees the movie as right-wing or white-male-centric.
    But there is no real left in America. What passes for ‘progressivism’ are elite Jews and their cuck-collaborators. They are the uber-class. And their favored ‘leftism’ is about globo-homo celebration and scapegoating whitey. They are afraid of class politics because they are on top.

    I haven’t seen JOKER but from what I’ve heard, it seems to be about Class Rebellion. Joker and the angry unter-class rise up against the urban rich and elites. Wealth may be embodied by some Trumpian figure in the movie, but the fact is most of the rich in big cities are Jews and Libby-dib whites.

    And that is why so many Jews and libby-dib elite hate JOKER. It’s not because it’s about ‘white supremacism’ but because it stirs up what had long been suppressed by Proglob: Class politics.

    But the urban elites who denounce JOKER are disingenuous about this because they don’t want to admit that they are the ruling class and that they’ve dicked over the lesser classes. What they really fear is that JOKER might trigger class warfare mentality among the viewers against the urban rich who’ve had it so good for so long. And they are all globalists.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Good observation.
  36. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Black Pilled has an interesting review of The Joker, which is appears to be a rip off of several movies:

    https://youtu.be/PJIZSYcgi90

    It was a rip off of around 100 different things. What he did on the late night talk show was the most predictable thing ever.

  37. An amazing movie, dunno why some people here don’t like it so much. Probably either boomers or Jews.

    I don’t see why either the scene with the urban youths or the frat boys would be hallucinations, we see he was under medication for the first and the whole second part of the movie hinges on his run in with the bankers. A good portion of people make the movie so much more complex than it is. IMO, the only scenes that didn’t happen were scenes that the movie made very obvious didn’t happen.

    I’ve seen absolutely rock stupid takes saying that the movie glorified antifa somehow, I guess by showing them fucking up the whole city + that one guy shooting Bruce’s parents in front of him. If you think people are supposed to identify with that, or with the joker/arthur, you are dumb.

    The movie takes almost nothing from taxi driver, and it isn’t so ambiguous that basic plot bleats should be under debate. It is neither left or right wing, and T. Wayne is more of a Romney analog than a Trump analog, if he is even an analog at all.

  38. @Not Raul
    My take (haven’t watched it): Youths Y / Frat Boys N

    Youths beating up a loser is depressing enough to be Real Life.

    The loser beating up frat boys, and becoming a hero, sounds like fantasy.

    So, I guess this makes me a “right wing boomer”, even though I’m definitely not a boomer, and I don’t think that Lynch is a boomer, either. Was Lynch even old enough to drive during the oil crisis of 1973? Had he even been born?

    The loser beating up frat boys, and becoming a hero, sounds like fantasy

    What’s impossible? Three rich bastard at first scoffed at the woman, then was distracted by Arthur Fleck. The woman escaped (and witnessed the prehistory of the murder). That is, for the residents of Gotham, the story looks like this-an unknown clown killed three scum from the elite, scum who scoffed with impunity at ordinary residents of Gotham. Accordingly, for them, the clown – hero, it is quite logical.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    I wasn’t clear.

    The loser was fantasizing about being a hero. He didn’t actually fight the frat boys.
  39. @Priss Factor

    This because The Joker is an unreliable narrator. That is the single most important observation about the film – the main character’s mental problems means we can’t know which of the scenes are real, and which are hallucinations or flights of fancy.
     
    Are we supposed to believe anything in comic book universe?

    This sounds like Lumet's DOG DAY AFTERNOON and NETWORK.


    However, it strikes me that the following question is basically a short Political Compass test: Did any of these two assaults actually happen, at least in the way they were portrayed?
     
    Joker is rashomon.

    Joker is rashomon.

    And the blogosphere is the Shaman.

    Note that the movie is titled “Joker” instead of “The Joker”, leaving us unsure about whether this is about “THE Joker” or just “A Joker”.

    Also:

    Russian shitlord adopts Alt Right meme, gets Russian normies to unwittingly partake in an American movie about a killer clown, I experience it IRL and then get to hear the full story via a nationalist Telegram chat.

    Pretty sure William Gibson wrote about that.

  40. Anatoly, “5/5”is very high praise indeed. It’ll be interesting to see how this film compares to the last Spiderman movie “Spider-Man – Far from Home” that has earned more that 1.1 billion worldwide – the highest grossing film put out by Sony. When are you going to do a thread about the state of Russian comic books, anyway?

    I can’t wait to see it!

    • Replies: @songbird
    I have seen one Russian comic book-style movie, called "Black Lightning." It was derivative, but for what it was, I didn't think it was that bad.

    Of course, I appreciated the lack of diversity as a contrast to American comic book movies, so that probably had something to do with it. The film title itself was almost a nod to it, since in America, there is a black superhero by that name.

    I wonder if that is the top one, or if there are others? Anyone know? I'm curious because I have seen relatively few Russian films, not that I particularly like the genre.
    , @SFG
    Don't they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.
    , @Mr. Hack
    In Russian, get out your magnifying glass:

    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/JDsAAOSwjL5ZDfNF/s-l1600.jpg

  41. @Mr. Hack
    Anatoly, "5/5"is very high praise indeed. It'll be interesting to see how this film compares to the last Spiderman movie "Spider-Man - Far from Home" that has earned more that 1.1 billion worldwide - the highest grossing film put out by Sony. When are you going to do a thread about the state of Russian comic books, anyway?

    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8OkAAOSwH09ZDfNA/s-l640.jpg

    I can't wait to see it!

    I have seen one Russian comic book-style movie, called “Black Lightning.” It was derivative, but for what it was, I didn’t think it was that bad.

    Of course, I appreciated the lack of diversity as a contrast to American comic book movies, so that probably had something to do with it. The film title itself was almost a nod to it, since in America, there is a black superhero by that name.

    I wonder if that is the top one, or if there are others? Anyone know? I’m curious because I have seen relatively few Russian films, not that I particularly like the genre.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    There's got to be something going on in the Russian comic book market. Here's a photo taken from the "Comic-Con" in Mocow (2014). For all of Karlin's highbrow antics, I know that he'd appreciate an occasional trip down to the local comic book shop. He does like science fiction and video games. Who doesn't like just a good story, now and then?

    https://static.themoscowtimes.com/image/article_1360/04/7eeeae7eb05e42dda4d5038e1b710390.jpg

  42. @neutral
    The joker may be mentally ill, a murderer and all round evil genius, but I would still prefer him than the current ruling elite. Many others that like the joker movie probably have similar thoughts, that should tell you all about how rotten the ZOG status quo is.

    Was this movie translated or has subtitles btw?

    Agree button malfunction…….

    Agree!

  43. @songbird
    I have seen one Russian comic book-style movie, called "Black Lightning." It was derivative, but for what it was, I didn't think it was that bad.

    Of course, I appreciated the lack of diversity as a contrast to American comic book movies, so that probably had something to do with it. The film title itself was almost a nod to it, since in America, there is a black superhero by that name.

    I wonder if that is the top one, or if there are others? Anyone know? I'm curious because I have seen relatively few Russian films, not that I particularly like the genre.

    There’s got to be something going on in the Russian comic book market. Here’s a photo taken from the “Comic-Con” in Mocow (2014). For all of Karlin’s highbrow antics, I know that he’d appreciate an occasional trip down to the local comic book shop. He does like science fiction and video games. Who doesn’t like just a good story, now and then?

    • Agree: songbird
  44. @A123
    The Joker Joins ANTIFA

    What I do not understand is why people are portraying this as a 'right-wing' mentality. The covered Anonymous Face, the obsessive-compulsive victimhood, the delusions about righteousness, the violence first mentality.

    Whether intentional or not, this film is a perfect illustration of white males adopting self hatred and becoming Antifa.

    Be honest, count the Antifa members by race in the picture below.

    PEACE 😇

    http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/Antifa-protesters-gty-hb-170816_16x9_992.jpg

    I guess, if it’s intentional, it would make arguments that the film has a “ring-wing” agenda somewhat stronger, although I would still call that interpretation a half-truth.

  45. @follyofwar
    That's quite a stupid observation, "This film sounds like a chore. It sounds boring." How about watching the movie before you comment next time, bucco.

    Why not watch it? Because it doesn’t sound like it’s worth my time and money.

    Do you watch everything they show at the cinema?

  46. @follyofwar
    Did you even read my two sentence comment, Raul? I didn't talk about the age of either one. Don't know and don't care.

    My bad. I thought that I was replying to AK.

  47. @melanf

    The loser beating up frat boys, and becoming a hero, sounds like fantasy
     
    What's impossible? Three rich bastard at first scoffed at the woman, then was distracted by Arthur Fleck. The woman escaped (and witnessed the prehistory of the murder). That is, for the residents of Gotham, the story looks like this-an unknown clown killed three scum from the elite, scum who scoffed with impunity at ordinary residents of Gotham. Accordingly, for them, the clown - hero, it is quite logical.

    I wasn’t clear.

    The loser was fantasizing about being a hero. He didn’t actually fight the frat boys.

  48. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't know, but some people have hinted to me that he is. I just checked and he's co-authored books with Greg Johnson and has been writing since at least 2001. That said, I'll be happy to retract if someone can confirm otherwise.

    Trevor Lynch is just the nom de plume of Greg Johnson when he writes film reviews. From what I can gather, Johnson was born around 1970, so he’s an Xer rather than a boomer.

  49. I saw it in Moscow yesterday and there was a smattering of applause. This was the cinema in Detskii Mir, which I think is a higher end, probably more westernised audience, especially as it was in English with Russian subtitles. Weirdly enough, you get a better experience with the subtitles, as they translate background dialogue that you can hardly hear (or at least, that my aged ears can hardly hear).
    My two cents on the film is that it’s about a mentally ill man being driven to evil acts by an uncaring capitalist society, so I saw it as left-wing, and I didn’t see anything to support the meta-view that this was so overdone that it actually caricatured this position. But then, I don’t live in America and no doubt miss the cultural context that Tyler Cowen comes from (although I listen to his podcast).
    From a Russia point of view, you could argue that this film was the standard view of America from the point of view of Soviet propaganda, that the inhuman capitalist system drove people against each other. The Soviet propaganda machine couldn’t make a film this good, but if there had been a Theodore Dreiser type novelisation of the film, it would probably have been translated into Russian because it followed the party line.
    In modern day Russia they probably see the links between Wayne senior and Trump, and are willing to believe that modern America is not too far from the country shown here, but also know in their heart of hearts that if they were mentally ill they would probably have a less shitty life in the US than in Russia.

    • Replies: @melanf

    From a Russia point of view, you could argue that this film was the standard view of America from the point of view of Soviet propaganda, that the inhuman capitalist system drove people against each other.
     
    That's not so. From the Soviet point of view, the Joker and his followers who rebelled against the capitalist order must be good, very good. In the film, they are (rebels in masks of clowns) even more repulsive than the Gotham oligarchy.
    , @notanon

    My two cents on the film is that it’s about a mentally ill man being driven to evil acts by an uncaring capitalist society, so I saw it as left-wing...
     
    i was working nasty areas in the 1980s when they closed down the mental asylums and as i've hated the people who did it for 35 years that made me hate the movie as well for reminding me and i think you're right that is what the movie was *intended* to be about (with Joker's origin tacked on for marketing purposes).

    i think the main reason for the media's hostile reaction is they know the destruction of America's middle class has lead to millions of alienated young people which the media can't actually discuss honestly cos the alienation is caused by the economic policies supported by the people who own the media and they're worried films like Joker could spark some kind of reaction among those alienated youth - and i think they're probably right.
  50. @Sleeper
    I saw it in Moscow yesterday and there was a smattering of applause. This was the cinema in Detskii Mir, which I think is a higher end, probably more westernised audience, especially as it was in English with Russian subtitles. Weirdly enough, you get a better experience with the subtitles, as they translate background dialogue that you can hardly hear (or at least, that my aged ears can hardly hear).
    My two cents on the film is that it’s about a mentally ill man being driven to evil acts by an uncaring capitalist society, so I saw it as left-wing, and I didn’t see anything to support the meta-view that this was so overdone that it actually caricatured this position. But then, I don’t live in America and no doubt miss the cultural context that Tyler Cowen comes from (although I listen to his podcast).
    From a Russia point of view, you could argue that this film was the standard view of America from the point of view of Soviet propaganda, that the inhuman capitalist system drove people against each other. The Soviet propaganda machine couldn’t make a film this good, but if there had been a Theodore Dreiser type novelisation of the film, it would probably have been translated into Russian because it followed the party line.
    In modern day Russia they probably see the links between Wayne senior and Trump, and are willing to believe that modern America is not too far from the country shown here, but also know in their heart of hearts that if they were mentally ill they would probably have a less shitty life in the US than in Russia.

    From a Russia point of view, you could argue that this film was the standard view of America from the point of view of Soviet propaganda, that the inhuman capitalist system drove people against each other.

    That’s not so. From the Soviet point of view, the Joker and his followers who rebelled against the capitalist order must be good, very good. In the film, they are (rebels in masks of clowns) even more repulsive than the Gotham oligarchy.

  51. @Hail
    There is merit in the idea of Joker as political-personality Rorschach test.

    I don't think most people are critical viewers, though, capable of taking a strong view on whether a scene they have just been shown is "untrue" due to the 'narrator' being unreliable, unless the point is made (near-)explicit (as it was for one series of scenes in the movie, but not about the two violent incidents you mention). I would expect a majority of viewers simply accept everything as true, which would default the majority to the Alt-Right category.

    As for Joker as Rorschach test. I wonder what other movies this concept might apply to.

    Yeah, I basically took the whole thing as real (within the fiction of the movie, of course), with the possibility he makes the whole thing up and then kills the social worker lady at the end. As you point out, though, given the extreme unreliability of the narrator–this isn’t just any mentally ill person who doesn’t know what’s real, after all this is the Joker, a genuinely iconic figure of chaos and evil with a famously uncertain past– anything’s possible.

    Your political compass might be framed as, which of the two assaults would be likely to actually happen? In that case, I’m with your Charles Murray type–I can believe the assault by the kids easily enough, but while the globalist elite does a lot of evil (mass immigration, degenerate media, outsourcing, etc), I don’t get the sense they get their hands dirty with a physical assault on a random clown. Given that there’s three of them, unless they’re Patrick Batemanesque serial killers (itself also very unlikely), he’s unlikely to register as a threat–they’d probably just spit on him and move on.

  52. @Mr. Hack
    Anatoly, "5/5"is very high praise indeed. It'll be interesting to see how this film compares to the last Spiderman movie "Spider-Man - Far from Home" that has earned more that 1.1 billion worldwide - the highest grossing film put out by Sony. When are you going to do a thread about the state of Russian comic books, anyway?

    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8OkAAOSwH09ZDfNA/s-l640.jpg

    I can't wait to see it!

    Don’t they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I think that they do, but I've been hoping that Karlin could tell us more about this?...

    Or maybe somebody else out there that lives in Russia and reads this blog?

    , @melanf

    Don’t they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.
     
    Such comics exist (watch the trailers below if you want to plunge into Slavic folklore)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=WABEOO4v-ro

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k5KWFnnXK4

    , but this phenomenon is rare (as in General comics in Russia are a marginal phenomenon)

  53. @Hail
    An alternate 2x2 grid on a viewer's overall reaction to Joker:

    1- Are you right-wing or left-wing?
    2- Is the movie right-wing or left-wing?

    (There is material to support either an 'L' or an 'R' responses to question 2.)

    Four combinations: RR, RL, LR, LL.

    - RR: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a right-wing, tacitly pro(-white)-male movie critical of the ruling Left. In Hunter Wallace's words, "Arthur Fleck lives in the wreckage of the world that liberalism has created after it has destroyed the social fabric...The Joker is a product of…the severe cultural disintegration and the mental illness and nihilism it causes in urban areas in advanced liberal societies."

    - RL: A right-winger who thinks Joker is a left-wing movie, as it presents us with a corrupt, WASP-like power elite lording it over the people; that having been done, the film then praises a quasi-communist uprising (the Joker mask movement) against the corrupt WASP elite, and is careful to keep us largely in sympathy with the uprising’s unlikely leader, the downtrodden and mistreated, if highly imperfect, Arthur Fleck. (FWIW, Fleck is an often-Jewish surname.)

    - LR: A left-winger who sees it as 'right-wing,' worries that it glorifies/sympathizes with white males of some kind, maybe "incels," maybe Alt-Right types.

    - LL: A left-winger who reads a left-wing message into the movie, perhaps ranging from a conventional liberal who supports social programs to an Antifa who sees the Joker Mask movement as a kind of allegory for an Antifa-like leftist resistance group against a corrupt elite.

    _________________


    Generally, letter mismatch correlates with "dislike." RL and LR people tend towards liking Joker less, at least in political terms. (There are many non-political reasons to possibly like, or dislike, the movie. But it wouldn't be getting the attention it is getting without the political angle.)

    Possible examples of each type:

    Examples of RR: Hunter Wallace. He even changed his website's banner to a Joker poster for a few days, but I think was pro-Joker before actually seeing it, because of what was being said about the political angle. Hunter Wallace's comments on Joker are insightful and not inflammatory or trollish, and could easily have appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Another RR would be the Daily Stormer, as mentioned, but the large majority of RR people would agree with Hunter Wallace, who wrote: "I think of [Arthur Fleck in Joker] as being a kind of avatar for the absurd world we live in. He’s a cautionary tale, not a role model."

    Examples of RL: Jim Goad's short review of Joker at Takimag puts him as a solid RL, which is also where I would put myself. (I saw it before reading any reviews.) Trevor Lynch is likely an RL, too, though he claims he was not sure there was any political message, and only "lame and conventional" social satire.

    Examples of LR: The hand-wringers in the American MSM who are in histrionics over Joker are oddly aligned with RR. In a classic self-reinforcing circle, RR gets a strong boost by an uncommitted person seeing LR in action, which is similar to the process that keeps Donald Trump's popularity high among Republicans, and why impeachment will probably boost his popularity.

    Examples of LL: This might actually be the default view of the typical. The way the typical not-very-political person would see it. After all, a fair political reading of Joker is: "It's all because they defunded social programs." Maybe a shallow reading, but a fair one from what is shown. To the extent that the Jewish filmmakers crafted a sympathetic picture of both Arthur Fleck and of the far-left, communist-anarchistic Joker Mask movement, I think "LL" may actually be the filmmakers' intention. The Christopher Nolan movies depicted the same kind of far-left movement in Gotham, but very harshly, very negatively, unlike this one by the all-Jewish production team; Nolan's Batman series certainly didn't moralize about the pressing need for social programs, either.

    _____________

    As for Trevor Lynch's review (and Steve Sailer's to a great extent), their ambivalence about the movie is explained on a different axis than the political. Commenter Leonard at Steve Sailer's blog explains this insightfully:

    there is a substantial split in the critical reception of [Joker], between people who are looking mainly at the surface-level movie (its plot, plausibility, fit with canon, etc.) and those looking at it as a deeper-level work of art. The former tend to dislike it — there’s not that much plot per runtime, you’re being led to sympathize with a disgusting mentally ill killer, how is this guy ever possibly the Joker? The latter tend to look at the moviemaking and be wowed — the direction, the references to all sorts of older films, the ambiguity over what is real and what is Fleck’s imagination or delusions, Phoenix’s acting, etc.
     

    You can decide for yourself if I’m left or right based on my comment history, but I would characterize the movie’s politics as pre-Great Awokening left.

    There’s a character with mental illness who, given social collapse and lack of support, becomes dangerous, kills people, and starts an uprising (is it really portrayed positively? it’s thrilling to watch but they are just going to do more damage to the city). As such there’s a message that people are affected by the ‘root causes’ and more programs would have helped–even if the therapist isn’t that great, he seems to get a lot worse after he goes off medication (which is realistic!). Not to mention the whole social inequality thing is played up–Gotham’s in a shambles, but the fancy opera still looks nice. Standard 70s-90s liberal movie about the plight of the poor.

    Thing is, in the post-Great Awokening era, the standard late-20th-century liberal critique is now viewed by the MSM as weakly reactionary, because it doesn’t make the white guy an unambiguous villain. The big complaint the critics had was that the movie made a violent white man somewhat sympathetic. I’d argue the underlying complaint is that it made a white man somewhat sympathetic, but that’s harder to prove.

    It’s similar to the guys in that alt-lite-lite, the Intellectual Dark Web–most of the positions on Quillette were pretty standard liberal positions 10 years ago, but now they’re just barely to the right of center as the culture shifts.

    I would say most normal people viewing the movie would see the Joker as a villain, albeit a sympathetic one (and this is a hard thing to pull off). Real comic book fans are probably trying to figure out if they’re setting us up for another series of Batman movies.

    BTW, for what it’s worth, the director himself says he was sick of woke culture ruining comedy:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/joaquin-phoenix-cover-story

    • Agree: AP
  54. @SFG
    Don't they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.

    I think that they do, but I’ve been hoping that Karlin could tell us more about this?…

    Or maybe somebody else out there that lives in Russia and reads this blog?

  55. @SFG
    Don't they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.

    Don’t they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.

    Such comics exist (watch the trailers below if you want to plunge into Slavic folklore)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=WABEOO4v-ro

    , but this phenomenon is rare (as in General comics in Russia are a marginal phenomenon)

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Fantasy novels? graphic novels or comic books? Although all three are related and their respective output is often blurred, they are different. Pulp novels are another related unique format.
  56. @melanf

    Don’t they have their own, based on Russian history and myth? If not, they should.
     
    Such comics exist (watch the trailers below if you want to plunge into Slavic folklore)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=WABEOO4v-ro

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k5KWFnnXK4

    , but this phenomenon is rare (as in General comics in Russia are a marginal phenomenon)

    Fantasy novels? graphic novels or comic books? Although all three are related and their respective output is often blurred, they are different. Pulp novels are another related unique format.

  57. @follyofwar
    I saw his review last night. Like most of BlackPills movie reviews, I thought it was crummy. It's obvious that he chose not to understand the movie.

    Maybe you don’t understand Steck’s reviews, asshole.

  58. I haven’t seen the movie but none of reviews I’ve read mention the anarchic Insane Clown Posse and the Juggalos as a possible inspiration. This criminal gang subculture of clowns has been notorious in US for quite some time, doing IRL what the Joker and his fans get up to in the movie – spreading murder and mayhem on the streets of Amerika – clown world come alive.

  59. @Priss Factor
    The Proglob prolly hate JOKER because its leftism is about class.

    Wall Street is now proglob. Big Capital is 'woke'. Globalists have been suppressing class themes in favor of 50 genders and immigration-diversity.

    It's been said the 'left' hates JOKER because it sees the movie as right-wing or white-male-centric.
    But there is no real left in America. What passes for 'progressivism' are elite Jews and their cuck-collaborators. They are the uber-class. And their favored 'leftism' is about globo-homo celebration and scapegoating whitey. They are afraid of class politics because they are on top.

    I haven't seen JOKER but from what I've heard, it seems to be about Class Rebellion. Joker and the angry unter-class rise up against the urban rich and elites. Wealth may be embodied by some Trumpian figure in the movie, but the fact is most of the rich in big cities are Jews and Libby-dib whites.

    And that is why so many Jews and libby-dib elite hate JOKER. It's not because it's about 'white supremacism' but because it stirs up what had long been suppressed by Proglob: Class politics.

    But the urban elites who denounce JOKER are disingenuous about this because they don't want to admit that they are the ruling class and that they've dicked over the lesser classes. What they really fear is that JOKER might trigger class warfare mentality among the viewers against the urban rich who've had it so good for so long. And they are all globalists.

    Good observation.

  60. @Mr. Hack
    Anatoly, "5/5"is very high praise indeed. It'll be interesting to see how this film compares to the last Spiderman movie "Spider-Man - Far from Home" that has earned more that 1.1 billion worldwide - the highest grossing film put out by Sony. When are you going to do a thread about the state of Russian comic books, anyway?

    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8OkAAOSwH09ZDfNA/s-l640.jpg

    I can't wait to see it!

    In Russian, get out your magnifying glass:

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/148AAOSwcgNZDfNK/s-l1600.jpg

    Actually, left click twice with your mouse and voila - readable!

  61. @Mr. Hack
    In Russian, get out your magnifying glass:

    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/JDsAAOSwjL5ZDfNF/s-l1600.jpg


    Actually, left click twice with your mouse and voila – readable!

  62. Neither article/comment thread in this online pub about the movie talks about the song/dance moment.
    Interesting.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski

    Neither article/comment thread in this online pub about the movie talks about the song/dance moment.
     
    Which moment in particular?

    I loved all of them. When he suited up and started dancing on the stairs, I thought to myself "can't wait to download the soundtrack and play this song in my car so everyone I pass by who gets the reference thinks I'm a wannabe serial killer".

    And when he pained his smile with blood and started dancing on the hood of the car, that was also great.

    And the scene after he murdered the yuppies although that wasn't really dance.

    There was also some real comedy in the film - maybe it was to release all the built up tension but the scenes with the dwarf after killing Randal or whatever the name of the guy who gave him the gun was - almost cried from laughter and plenty of other people in the cinema did too.
  63. I haven’t gone to the cinema in 3 or 4 years, maybe more. This was the first movie in a long time I thought is worth watching and even though I went with high expectations, it actually exceeded them.

    Incredible movie.

  64. @peterAUS
    Neither article/comment thread in this online pub about the movie talks about the song/dance moment.
    Interesting.

    Neither article/comment thread in this online pub about the movie talks about the song/dance moment.

    Which moment in particular?

    I loved all of them. When he suited up and started dancing on the stairs, I thought to myself “can’t wait to download the soundtrack and play this song in my car so everyone I pass by who gets the reference thinks I’m a wannabe serial killer”.

    And when he pained his smile with blood and started dancing on the hood of the car, that was also great.

    And the scene after he murdered the yuppies although that wasn’t really dance.

    There was also some real comedy in the film – maybe it was to release all the built up tension but the scenes with the dwarf after killing Randal or whatever the name of the guy who gave him the gun was – almost cried from laughter and plenty of other people in the cinema did too.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Which moment in particular?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbeZB1ZEquM

    ....that wasn’t really dance.....
     
    O.K.
  65. @Not Raul
    Watch “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Fair enough.

    Hasn’t Tarantino always been reactionary? His work is heavily influenced by genre films and television from about 1955-1975.

    He’s like a time-traveler from the pre-Spielberg era.

  66. @Spisarevski

    Neither article/comment thread in this online pub about the movie talks about the song/dance moment.
     
    Which moment in particular?

    I loved all of them. When he suited up and started dancing on the stairs, I thought to myself "can't wait to download the soundtrack and play this song in my car so everyone I pass by who gets the reference thinks I'm a wannabe serial killer".

    And when he pained his smile with blood and started dancing on the hood of the car, that was also great.

    And the scene after he murdered the yuppies although that wasn't really dance.

    There was also some real comedy in the film - maybe it was to release all the built up tension but the scenes with the dwarf after killing Randal or whatever the name of the guy who gave him the gun was - almost cried from laughter and plenty of other people in the cinema did too.

    Which moment in particular?

    ….that wasn’t really dance…..

    O.K.

  67. When he suited up and started dancing on the stairs, I thought to myself “can’t wait to download the soundtrack and play this song in my car so everyone I pass by who gets the reference thinks I’m a wannabe serial killer”.

    Yeah

    I think to enjoy the movie to the maximum, you have to look at it as a human movie, not a political movie even though politics is naturally in everything.

    Analyzing it from the point “what is the director’s real political message and does it agree with mine” is just small-minded for a true piece of art like “Joker”. And a bit sad.

    People who don’t like Joker because he’s a “loser” like “Trevor Lynch” or Richard Spencer seem like losers to me for wanting too much to be able to fully identify with him, they somehow demand that this movie must be necessarily about them.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    If you drive around with Gary Glitter blaring out of your speakers, I don't think "serial killer" is the crime you are going to be suspected of...
  68. @Spisarevski

    When he suited up and started dancing on the stairs, I thought to myself “can’t wait to download the soundtrack and play this song in my car so everyone I pass by who gets the reference thinks I’m a wannabe serial killer”.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWakSmT2c3A

    Yeah

    I think to enjoy the movie to the maximum, you have to look at it as a human movie, not a political movie even though politics is naturally in everything.

    Analyzing it from the point "what is the director's real political message and does it agree with mine" is just small-minded for a true piece of art like "Joker". And a bit sad.

    People who don't like Joker because he's a "loser" like "Trevor Lynch" or Richard Spencer seem like losers to me for wanting too much to be able to fully identify with him, they somehow demand that this movie must be necessarily about them.

    If you drive around with Gary Glitter blaring out of your speakers, I don’t think “serial killer” is the crime you are going to be suspected of…

    • LOL: AP
    • Replies: @Spisarevski
    Oh, I googled him now...

    Anyway I'm pretty sure that nobody has heard of this guy in Bulgaria so if someone recognizes this, it will be because of the song and the movie, and not the artist.
  69. @Nodwink
    If you drive around with Gary Glitter blaring out of your speakers, I don't think "serial killer" is the crime you are going to be suspected of...

    Oh, I googled him now…

    Anyway I’m pretty sure that nobody has heard of this guy in Bulgaria so if someone recognizes this, it will be because of the song and the movie, and not the artist.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    There are plenty of people who would never have heard of him in the English-speaking world. Apparently he's going to make a lot of money from royalties from this film.
  70. @Sleeper
    I saw it in Moscow yesterday and there was a smattering of applause. This was the cinema in Detskii Mir, which I think is a higher end, probably more westernised audience, especially as it was in English with Russian subtitles. Weirdly enough, you get a better experience with the subtitles, as they translate background dialogue that you can hardly hear (or at least, that my aged ears can hardly hear).
    My two cents on the film is that it’s about a mentally ill man being driven to evil acts by an uncaring capitalist society, so I saw it as left-wing, and I didn’t see anything to support the meta-view that this was so overdone that it actually caricatured this position. But then, I don’t live in America and no doubt miss the cultural context that Tyler Cowen comes from (although I listen to his podcast).
    From a Russia point of view, you could argue that this film was the standard view of America from the point of view of Soviet propaganda, that the inhuman capitalist system drove people against each other. The Soviet propaganda machine couldn’t make a film this good, but if there had been a Theodore Dreiser type novelisation of the film, it would probably have been translated into Russian because it followed the party line.
    In modern day Russia they probably see the links between Wayne senior and Trump, and are willing to believe that modern America is not too far from the country shown here, but also know in their heart of hearts that if they were mentally ill they would probably have a less shitty life in the US than in Russia.

    My two cents on the film is that it’s about a mentally ill man being driven to evil acts by an uncaring capitalist society, so I saw it as left-wing…

    i was working nasty areas in the 1980s when they closed down the mental asylums and as i’ve hated the people who did it for 35 years that made me hate the movie as well for reminding me and i think you’re right that is what the movie was *intended* to be about (with Joker’s origin tacked on for marketing purposes).

    i think the main reason for the media’s hostile reaction is they know the destruction of America’s middle class has lead to millions of alienated young people which the media can’t actually discuss honestly cos the alienation is caused by the economic policies supported by the people who own the media and they’re worried films like Joker could spark some kind of reaction among those alienated youth – and i think they’re probably right.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Miro23

    i think the main reason for the media’s hostile reaction is they know the destruction of America’s middle class has lead to millions of alienated young people which the media can’t actually discuss honestly cos the alienation is caused by the economic policies supported by the people who own the media and they’re worried films like Joker could spark some kind of reaction among those alienated youth – and i think they’re probably right.
     
    IOW radical left cred. belongs to the US elite - they've got the copyright on "alienation" and "social justice".

    Shadowing the Bolshevik Jews. Live like a Russian aristocrat while claiming rights as the "leading cadre of the proletariat".
  71. @notanon

    My two cents on the film is that it’s about a mentally ill man being driven to evil acts by an uncaring capitalist society, so I saw it as left-wing...
     
    i was working nasty areas in the 1980s when they closed down the mental asylums and as i've hated the people who did it for 35 years that made me hate the movie as well for reminding me and i think you're right that is what the movie was *intended* to be about (with Joker's origin tacked on for marketing purposes).

    i think the main reason for the media's hostile reaction is they know the destruction of America's middle class has lead to millions of alienated young people which the media can't actually discuss honestly cos the alienation is caused by the economic policies supported by the people who own the media and they're worried films like Joker could spark some kind of reaction among those alienated youth - and i think they're probably right.

    i think the main reason for the media’s hostile reaction is they know the destruction of America’s middle class has lead to millions of alienated young people which the media can’t actually discuss honestly cos the alienation is caused by the economic policies supported by the people who own the media and they’re worried films like Joker could spark some kind of reaction among those alienated youth – and i think they’re probably right.

    IOW radical left cred. belongs to the US elite – they’ve got the copyright on “alienation” and “social justice”.

    Shadowing the Bolshevik Jews. Live like a Russian aristocrat while claiming rights as the “leading cadre of the proletariat”.

  72. @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1183202593704730629

    Fair enough.

    Hasn’t Tarantino always been reactionary? His work is heavily influenced by genre films and television from about 1955-1975.

    He’s like a time-traveler from the pre-Spielberg era.

  73. @Spisarevski
    Oh, I googled him now...

    Anyway I'm pretty sure that nobody has heard of this guy in Bulgaria so if someone recognizes this, it will be because of the song and the movie, and not the artist.

    There are plenty of people who would never have heard of him in the English-speaking world. Apparently he’s going to make a lot of money from royalties from this film.

  74. JOKER is the event of the year. Or it’s something like BLACK PANTHER.

    We’ve come a long way since the days of Sarris.

    https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2019/02/the-american-cinema-revisited/

  75. Y / Y?

    I’ve experienced both situations.

    Beating up random strangers who strayed onto your patch was a working class thing in the 1970s. I was a stranger in a strange town. The director know nothing about it. When you are on the ground being kicked you protect your head. Your balls can look after themselves. There is a code of honour. The working class will let you get up onto your feet after they have each had a kick. Of course sometimes there is a psychopath.

    Posh public school boys beat each other up, not strangers, certainly not people who are vastly socially inferior. Such people don’t really count.

    When you can get back on your feet go insane at just one of them. The rest will back off. Especially the public school boys. Especially the psychopath.

    You may well meet again in the hospital Accident and Emergency department to have X-Rays in a civilized country with medical care free at the point of use. Your attackers will run out to avoid being identified as the police have taken you there. (in the old days). In the US in the 1970’s did you have to have insurance for Emergency treatment?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Interesting post.

    I'd like to update is for some nice White man reading all this:
    Assume each fight you can get in, especially against...ahm..."youths" will see you on the ground. When you are on the ground being kicked you protect your head; kick back, with heels, at their shins/knees/groin.

    There is NO code of honour. They will NOT let you get up onto your feet after they have each had a kick. They'll kick you to coma, at least, if they can.

    When you can get back on your feet fight back smart (let's skip the chat what that means). They won't back off, so, you can easily get to the ground again.
    My two cents.

    I have a feeling there will be some replies. Based on experience so far in this pub, I'll skip most of them. Won't, say, those who know...hehe...what's better: straight lead or one-two for the pre-emptive? Or simply the one with a strong hand? Headbutt? Choices.....
  76. @Philip Owen
    Y / Y?

    I've experienced both situations.

    Beating up random strangers who strayed onto your patch was a working class thing in the 1970s. I was a stranger in a strange town. The director know nothing about it. When you are on the ground being kicked you protect your head. Your balls can look after themselves. There is a code of honour. The working class will let you get up onto your feet after they have each had a kick. Of course sometimes there is a psychopath.

    Posh public school boys beat each other up, not strangers, certainly not people who are vastly socially inferior. Such people don't really count.

    When you can get back on your feet go insane at just one of them. The rest will back off. Especially the public school boys. Especially the psychopath.

    You may well meet again in the hospital Accident and Emergency department to have X-Rays in a civilized country with medical care free at the point of use. Your attackers will run out to avoid being identified as the police have taken you there. (in the old days). In the US in the 1970's did you have to have insurance for Emergency treatment?

    Interesting post.

    I’d like to update is for some nice White man reading all this:
    Assume each fight you can get in, especially against…ahm…”youths” will see you on the ground. When you are on the ground being kicked you protect your head; kick back, with heels, at their shins/knees/groin.

    There is NO code of honour. They will NOT let you get up onto your feet after they have each had a kick. They’ll kick you to coma, at least, if they can.

    When you can get back on your feet fight back smart (let’s skip the chat what that means). They won’t back off, so, you can easily get to the ground again.
    My two cents.

    I have a feeling there will be some replies. Based on experience so far in this pub, I’ll skip most of them. Won’t, say, those who know…hehe…what’s better: straight lead or one-two for the pre-emptive? Or simply the one with a strong hand? Headbutt? Choices…..

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Agree. Code of honour is for White vs. White fighting. The NHL fighting "code" is the epitome of white man's respect and gentlemanlyness towards one another. Of course the Jewish commissioner, Bettman, is slowly removing fighting altogether from the sport.

    That said, yes, non whites hate you and want to see you dead. Around them, there are no morals, no honour. You go full inner savage mode or be savaged.

    FWIW, from a glance I look like I have the potential to be psycho and the vibrants have never bothered me. I'm not particularly big but you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great "readers". My softer friends got bothered by negroes all the time. They only go after the weak.

    Same applies in work and school. If you wanna get ahead in a workplace of vibrants... you better ditch that quaint whitey morality real fast and start backstabbing... again anything goes when it's non whites. Treat your white colleagues well of course.
  77. Well it exceeded expectations. Best American film I’ve seen in theatres for a long time.

  78. Peter Hitchens references the Joker in his Daily Mail article commenting on the Battle of Canning Town (London commuters personally removing Extinction Rebellion protesters blocking their trains when the police did nothing – or rather told everyone to leave the station).

    But how long will this restraint last? I’m told the new Joker film portrays a sinister, malevolent world in a modern setting, and I think that’s where we are heading if we are not careful – blood and flying boots among the skyscrapers. When justice sleeps and authority folds its arms, people eventually decide that there is no further point in obedience or restraint.

  79. @peterAUS
    Interesting post.

    I'd like to update is for some nice White man reading all this:
    Assume each fight you can get in, especially against...ahm..."youths" will see you on the ground. When you are on the ground being kicked you protect your head; kick back, with heels, at their shins/knees/groin.

    There is NO code of honour. They will NOT let you get up onto your feet after they have each had a kick. They'll kick you to coma, at least, if they can.

    When you can get back on your feet fight back smart (let's skip the chat what that means). They won't back off, so, you can easily get to the ground again.
    My two cents.

    I have a feeling there will be some replies. Based on experience so far in this pub, I'll skip most of them. Won't, say, those who know...hehe...what's better: straight lead or one-two for the pre-emptive? Or simply the one with a strong hand? Headbutt? Choices.....

    Agree. Code of honour is for White vs. White fighting. The NHL fighting “code” is the epitome of white man’s respect and gentlemanlyness towards one another. Of course the Jewish commissioner, Bettman, is slowly removing fighting altogether from the sport.

    That said, yes, non whites hate you and want to see you dead. Around them, there are no morals, no honour. You go full inner savage mode or be savaged.

    FWIW, from a glance I look like I have the potential to be psycho and the vibrants have never bothered me. I’m not particularly big but you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great “readers”. My softer friends got bothered by negroes all the time. They only go after the weak.

    Same applies in work and school. If you wanna get ahead in a workplace of vibrants… you better ditch that quaint whitey morality real fast and start backstabbing… again anything goes when it’s non whites. Treat your white colleagues well of course.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    .... you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great “readers”. ....
     
    Yep.
    Some people have it naturally. Some can develop it. That's the tricky part. Almost impossible for nice "normies".

    Having said all that, there IS a flip side to that coin.

    The White "mass shooters", so far, (let's skip naming them here for obvious reasons) weren't giving any vibes I am sure.
    Makes you think, a?
    , @Gabru_Ak47
    Your mindset is false, you've never bothered the vibrant either.
    Stop being so defensive,
  80. While not having seen this film ,knowing any of the actors previous films or even intending to see it……..I can safely say it is useless garbage – the strict American rating system has effectively made it not viable to make truly violent films such as the 1980’s Robocop – instead we got what is probably effeminate garbage “violence” in this Joker film for kids.

    All this rushing to praise it is from desperate people who know the quality of Hollywood films has massively deteriorated since Mel Gibson got into trouble/too much CGI

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    If you really consider Mel Gibson's films as a high point of Hollywood I don't really know what to say to you... boomers will be boomers I guess.
  81. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Agree. Code of honour is for White vs. White fighting. The NHL fighting "code" is the epitome of white man's respect and gentlemanlyness towards one another. Of course the Jewish commissioner, Bettman, is slowly removing fighting altogether from the sport.

    That said, yes, non whites hate you and want to see you dead. Around them, there are no morals, no honour. You go full inner savage mode or be savaged.

    FWIW, from a glance I look like I have the potential to be psycho and the vibrants have never bothered me. I'm not particularly big but you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great "readers". My softer friends got bothered by negroes all the time. They only go after the weak.

    Same applies in work and school. If you wanna get ahead in a workplace of vibrants... you better ditch that quaint whitey morality real fast and start backstabbing... again anything goes when it's non whites. Treat your white colleagues well of course.

    …. you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great “readers”. ….

    Yep.
    Some people have it naturally. Some can develop it. That’s the tricky part. Almost impossible for nice “normies”.

    Having said all that, there IS a flip side to that coin.

    The White “mass shooters”, so far, (let’s skip naming them here for obvious reasons) weren’t giving any vibes I am sure.
    Makes you think, a?

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Some people have it naturally.
     
    White people seem to be the most deficient in this trait, by far. In some ways it would be nice if I wasn't "aware" of how others feel. Apparently white normies don't even notice that everyone hates them.

    Ages of high trust living has bred it out of us, apparently.

    East Asians also don't have this, but they are much more ethno-centric and closed to the world, so it's not really a problem for them.

    weren’t giving any vibes I am sure.
     
    I bet they were. Anybody who can "read" can see when somebody is severely depressed, mentally unstable, and/or angry. Some creepy loner with an interest in guns? Pretty sure I could pick him out.

    But yes, the great fear is a "normal" guy coming out and supporting the "Dissident Right". Notice that while David Duke has been around for decades, James Allsup and Jared Taylor are censored. The crazies are fine with the left, since it feeds their boogeyman. The regular DR guys, are the ones they are scared of, not because of their violence but because of their ideas spreading.
  82. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Agree. Code of honour is for White vs. White fighting. The NHL fighting "code" is the epitome of white man's respect and gentlemanlyness towards one another. Of course the Jewish commissioner, Bettman, is slowly removing fighting altogether from the sport.

    That said, yes, non whites hate you and want to see you dead. Around them, there are no morals, no honour. You go full inner savage mode or be savaged.

    FWIW, from a glance I look like I have the potential to be psycho and the vibrants have never bothered me. I'm not particularly big but you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great "readers". My softer friends got bothered by negroes all the time. They only go after the weak.

    Same applies in work and school. If you wanna get ahead in a workplace of vibrants... you better ditch that quaint whitey morality real fast and start backstabbing... again anything goes when it's non whites. Treat your white colleagues well of course.

    Your mindset is false, you’ve never bothered the vibrant either.
    Stop being so defensive,

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Your mindset is false
     
    Please explain?

    you’ve never bothered the vibrant either.
     
    I have no interest in bothering them. However, I do not want them within my borders. Therefore, I propose peaceful separation.

    Stop being so defensive,
     
    did you mean to write something else?
  83. @Gerard2
    While not having seen this film ,knowing any of the actors previous films or even intending to see it........I can safely say it is useless garbage - the strict American rating system has effectively made it not viable to make truly violent films such as the 1980's Robocop - instead we got what is probably effeminate garbage "violence" in this Joker film for kids.

    All this rushing to praise it is from desperate people who know the quality of Hollywood films has massively deteriorated since Mel Gibson got into trouble/too much CGI

    If you really consider Mel Gibson’s films as a high point of Hollywood I don’t really know what to say to you… boomers will be boomers I guess.

  84. @peterAUS

    .... you give off a certain vibe. Low IQ third worlders are great “readers”. ....
     
    Yep.
    Some people have it naturally. Some can develop it. That's the tricky part. Almost impossible for nice "normies".

    Having said all that, there IS a flip side to that coin.

    The White "mass shooters", so far, (let's skip naming them here for obvious reasons) weren't giving any vibes I am sure.
    Makes you think, a?

    Some people have it naturally.

    White people seem to be the most deficient in this trait, by far. In some ways it would be nice if I wasn’t “aware” of how others feel. Apparently white normies don’t even notice that everyone hates them.

    Ages of high trust living has bred it out of us, apparently.

    East Asians also don’t have this, but they are much more ethno-centric and closed to the world, so it’s not really a problem for them.

    weren’t giving any vibes I am sure.

    I bet they were. Anybody who can “read” can see when somebody is severely depressed, mentally unstable, and/or angry. Some creepy loner with an interest in guns? Pretty sure I could pick him out.

    But yes, the great fear is a “normal” guy coming out and supporting the “Dissident Right”. Notice that while David Duke has been around for decades, James Allsup and Jared Taylor are censored. The crazies are fine with the left, since it feeds their boogeyman. The regular DR guys, are the ones they are scared of, not because of their violence but because of their ideas spreading.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    .... severely depressed, mentally unstable, and/or angry. Some creepy loner with an interest in guns?...
     
    You mean to qualify/classify the guys "from Norway and New Zealand" as such, I guess.
    O.K.
  85. @Gabru_Ak47
    Your mindset is false, you've never bothered the vibrant either.
    Stop being so defensive,

    Your mindset is false

    Please explain?

    you’ve never bothered the vibrant either.

    I have no interest in bothering them. However, I do not want them within my borders. Therefore, I propose peaceful separation.

    Stop being so defensive,

    did you mean to write something else?

    • Replies: @Gabru_Ak47
    Defensive as in defensive mindset.
    You should want to tear them apart and drink their blood||

    There will never be a peaceful separation lol stop living in a fantasy, go lift weights & enlist.
  86. @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Your mindset is false
     
    Please explain?

    you’ve never bothered the vibrant either.
     
    I have no interest in bothering them. However, I do not want them within my borders. Therefore, I propose peaceful separation.

    Stop being so defensive,
     
    did you mean to write something else?

    Defensive as in defensive mindset.
    You should want to tear them apart and drink their blood||

    There will never be a peaceful separation lol stop living in a fantasy, go lift weights & enlist.

  87. @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Some people have it naturally.
     
    White people seem to be the most deficient in this trait, by far. In some ways it would be nice if I wasn't "aware" of how others feel. Apparently white normies don't even notice that everyone hates them.

    Ages of high trust living has bred it out of us, apparently.

    East Asians also don't have this, but they are much more ethno-centric and closed to the world, so it's not really a problem for them.

    weren’t giving any vibes I am sure.
     
    I bet they were. Anybody who can "read" can see when somebody is severely depressed, mentally unstable, and/or angry. Some creepy loner with an interest in guns? Pretty sure I could pick him out.

    But yes, the great fear is a "normal" guy coming out and supporting the "Dissident Right". Notice that while David Duke has been around for decades, James Allsup and Jared Taylor are censored. The crazies are fine with the left, since it feeds their boogeyman. The regular DR guys, are the ones they are scared of, not because of their violence but because of their ideas spreading.

    …. severely depressed, mentally unstable, and/or angry. Some creepy loner with an interest in guns?…

    You mean to qualify/classify the guys “from Norway and New Zealand” as such, I guess.
    O.K.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS