Joker (second-pass)
Cert: 15 / 122 mins / Dir. Todd Phillips / Trailer
Well then, it turns out a second-pass of Todd Phillips' Joker didn't bring me a great deal more insight than the first, although that's not to say it was any less enjoyable. Not being a DC-kid, any Easter-eggs which slipped under the radar last time continued to do so, with my focus landing more on Joaquin Phoenix's magnetic performance in the central role.
The overall film itself is great but make no mistake, Phoenix is far and away the best thing in it. The bottom line is that Joker would be nowhere near as intricate-yet-powerful with any other contemporary actor in the role. At this point we'd expect little else from Phoenix, but because so much of this is Arthur Fleck discovering then shaping the character he wants to present to the world, we get to see more of Phoenix-the-actor; channeling some of his own off-screen craft and homework (well, as much as he wants us to see, of course). While I probably don't think it's the 'best' performance he's given, I believe this will be the one which sticks in people's minds, not least due to the mainstream appeal of the movie.
MOCKED After the subway murders and Arthur's first standup gig (to which, other than the outrage of being mocked by Murray Franklin, it's difficult to read his own reaction), our protagonist suddenly looks his best in the whole movie. He's standing up straight, he has confidence. And while Arthur hasn't quite found his purpose in life, he suddenly knows where to look. That soon begins to unravel of course, but at least it's doing so at a rate of Fleck's causing (although still not his actual control). In many another movie this uplift would be spelled out in small words, here it's just one facet of everything that's going on. The psychopath's life is still falling apart, he just cares less about that.
And there are a myriad of smaller moments, buried under the shrieking descent into panic. When Arthur is told he's fired and headbutts the phone booth, the splintering glass doesn't cut his head because of the clown's bald-cap he's wearing. This is the subconscious moment when Arthur realises he can protect himself from harm, be insulated from his own intuitive violence, by wearing an outfit that others will see as a disguise (because although it conceals the public-identity of Arthur Fleck, it is in actuality the closest he gets to becoming his true self).
NINJA'D What I enjoyed most about this is that it's a single snapshot of an already fragmented canon. It's not the origin story of The Joker, it's an origin story of this Joker. There's a beginning, a middle and an end which is also a beginning. And that's beautiful. Which is a polite way of saying that we don't need a sequel. Which a polite way of saying that I don't want a sequel. But DC and Warner Bros are there to make money (obviously), and we play the cards we're dealt. But nothing which comes later can spoil this particular iteration of the Joker. Not least because Phillips has already tried that with the Glitter Band.
Just as Logan is the highlight of 20th Century Fox's X-Men franchise because it's not a superhero movie, so Joker is to DC/Warner's pantheon. Maybe take the hint and bow out before we get a DC-equivalent of Dark Phoenix?
Level 2: Robert De Niro is in this, and he was in Little Fockers with Laura 'Holdo' Dern.
(That's right Bob, I'm not going to let you forget all the shite comedies you've done over the last decade)
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Joker (spoilers in the footnotes)
Cert: 15 / 122 mins / Dir. Todd Phillips / Trailer
It's not supposed to be an easy-ride. Just keep that in mind as you sit down to watch the story of a middle-aged man, single but living with his elderly mother in a run down apartment block as he ekes out an existence as a jobbing clown in a city which has forgotten how to laugh. As he's taken for granted, mocked, ignored and assaulted on a daily basis. As he has neither the social nor the practical skills to pursue his dream of being a standup comedian, evoking only laughs of pity rather than knowing camaraderie. As it's not one thing which tips him over the edge, like the timings of a fast food outlet breakfast menu, but a succession of bad decisions and worse reactions that corner him and seem to offer only one logical way out. As that involves becoming one of the most notorious villains of comic culture, by which bloodsoaked point he's long past trying to make other people happy. It's not supposed to be an easy ride.
DOWNFALL Which is just as well, really. Todd Phillips' highly anticipated Joker movie is very good but is also bloody hard work, for both the right and wrong reasons. Charting the downfall of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), it's a snapshot of crisis which plays as well to today's time as its 1981 setting. And don't let that year fool you, the sets, wardrobe, makeup and titles have a delicious 1970s vibe, as does Lawrence Sher's cinematography. His desaturated eye flits from the confines of Fleck's claustrophobic apartment to voyeuristic tracking shots across the street as he makes his way through Gotham's urban jungle. This is a city which doesn't know the decade has ticked over.
There are references to wider DC lore (to the point where even a Marvel-kid like me picked them up), but the movie is largely self-contained. Comparisons are inevitable of course, and tonally Phoenix is perhaps the closest to the Nolan/Ledger Joker, with the sense of deranged threat every bit as palpable when the character is pinned down. Of course that earlier performance was by definition more mysterious, his backstory shifting every time he spoke to someone new. There's no such ambiguity here. Phillips wants to (and does) explain every excruciating beat of Arthur Fleck's fall between the cracks. And while Joaquin's hypnotic performance adds intrigue to the characterisation, there's still no real Mystery™.
BABY But it's the performances that matter here, rather than adherence to any previous timeline. Phoenix leads brilliantly as usual, although we'd expect nothing less at this point. And while there are strong supporting turns from Robert De Niro as talk show host Murray Franklin, Zazie Beets as Arthur's neighbour Sophie and Frances Conroy as his mother Penny, everyone else is firmly in second-place here*1. At a hair over two hours, the film is tight but never rushed. And with a full stage to himself, Phoenix manages what Leto couldn't and redefines the character properly. This new iteration carries all the critical DNA of the Joker, while still being its own thing.
The story is underscored by a fantastically mournful score from Hildur Guðnadóttir and a darkly wry jukebox soundtrack*2. The film is definitely over-egged in places but Phillips paints his scenes perfectly, and it's an overdue lesson to others in the DC-verse insisting that visual and thematic darkness are automatically the same thing. Although the director is by no means unaware of his successes here, and spends the last ten minutes of the movie cruising past a swathe of natural end-points, desperate to wring every last drop out of his subject with patience-testing curtain calls (confirmation: there's no bonus content during or after the credits).
YOKO ONO This wants to be the Logan of DC, and in many ways it succeeds. But while there are certainly plenty of things working in Joker's favour, I don't think it'll become the classic it's being lauded as in some quarters. When the hype has died down, we'll be left with a damned solid love letter to 70s noir cinema, viewed through the socio-political lens of 2019. Phillips has assembled this well, but it's too reliant on the movies it homages to be truly groundbreaking.
Joker often feels like it's Phillips making a statement rather than telling a story. And it's a statement which will be taken out of context by some*3. And it really shouldn't be, but not everyone can read in subtext and there are some genies you just can't put back in the bottle...
Given the movie's provocative nature and mixed critical reaction, that's probably not unlikely.
Not that I heard.
Level 2: Joaquin Phoenix is in this, and he was in The Sisters Brothers with Riz 'Bodhi Rook' Ahmed.
*1Interesting casting point: A young Bruce Wayne is shown here in a couple of scenes, played by Dante Pereira-Olson. Dante also starred in You Were Never Really Here where he was the childhood iteration of Joaquin Phoenix's character, Joe. So while this movie toys with the long-recurring theme that Batman and the Joker are two sides of the same coin, that's done with performers who have previously played the same person in the same film, again with a generational divide between innocence and clinical psychoticism. It's a small point which is unlikely to be picked up in the cinema, but adds to the architecture of the film. Lovely stuff. [ BACK ]
*2 At one point there's been a production meeting in which someone has asked "So can we use Gary Glitter on the soundtrack?", and it appears that someone else has replied "Yes. Yes, that is entirely in keeping with the vision of this piece. Do that." Er, okay mate. [ BACK ]
*3 Although at least it's a statement which stands up to some scrutiny, unlike some of the utter bollocks Phillips has come out with on the movie's promotional-trail. Ho-hum. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Batman (1989, 30th anniversary screening)
Cert: 12A / 126 mins / Dir. Tim Burton / Trailer
Well, it was my birthday last week and as if to hammer the point home, time is teaching me I'm now of an age where I can go to 30th anniversary screenings in full nostalgia mode, having attended the cinema to watch the movie the first time round, too. Tim Burton's Batman ushered in the age of me regularly Going To The Pictures with my friends*1. I didn't live particularly close to a cinema, and movies before this tended to either be family outings or even just waiting for the VHS (and bear in mind that back in those days, the journey to the small screen took around a year).
MACHINE Batman also drew me into the multimedia marketing machine surrounding its release. The specially produced comic adaptation featured scenes and character likenesses based on stills from the film, and along with the high-contrast, tonally-blended, full colour printing it was leagues ahead of the rapid-fire, block-colour-and-halftone pulp Marvel fare I'd been used to previously. I loved comics anyway (mainly Marvel, although that stands to this day), but this was in indicator that they could be more.
And that score. Danny Elfman's iconic work here was the first time outside of John Williams' Star Wars that a movie soundtrack had really excited me, one I could listen to separately and still clearly evoke the imagery inside my mind. It was the album which made me understand the role that the right music can play in enhancing a film while adding to the overall identity. A far cry from Williams' equally superb work for Superman, there were no romantic overtones to this new Batman theme, just a pounding, dynamic urgency.
PUGH Prior to 1989, our superheroes had arrived onscreen clad in brightly coloured spandex (a reflection of their comic origins, to be fair). Batman rocked up in black, bulletproof rubber body armour, patrolling the streets of a Gotham City which looks for all the world like Blade Runner's Los Angeles if it had become run-down before the off-world boom. There's very little daylight in the movie, every character seemingly a nocturnal creature or one who just doesn't need to sleep. With 1980s tech meeting 1940s wardrobe and a self-awareness which that's ahead of its time, Burton's work is a great foundation for the Nolan retelling.
Along with writers Warren Skaaren and Sam Hamm, Burton brings a theatrical, borderline pantomime, classically gothic take on the anti-hero, flamboyantly dark and knowingly playful (a point which went over my head when watching this as a youngster). There's a lightness of touch that rarely feels the need to rely on outright gags, but coasts along with a wry subversiveness. The film broods but it never wallows. I'm looking at you, DC.
CUTHBERT Michael Keaton may not be the most fearsome Batman, but he's the most accessible Bruce Wayne and is far and away the best combination of the two. He brings a fragility to both halves of the role that other actors have been unable to accomplish - or worse still, just haven't attempted. We shouldn't sympathise with either a billionaire businessman or a surly vigilante, but we're on this guy's side all the way through. Keaton shows us Batman's vulnerability and determination, not his inflexible strength. As well as showing us how Batman does his thing, Keaton gives us a window into why.
It's also worth noting that Keaton and Michael Gough make the most endearing Bruce/Alfred combination to date. There's genuine warm emotion there on both sides, and we understand their relationship instantly. Y'know, rather than having Michael Caine trying to remember how to cry while Christian Bale looks faintly embarrassed*2.
DIBBLE And put your hand up if you're old enough to remember the clamour of "yeah, this new movie Batman is DARK like it's meant to be, man! This is how grim the original comics were!", while Jack Nicholson prances around in a purple suit with Prince playing in the background. Nicholson is terrible of course (his usual form), but his performance as The Joker is definitely what this movie needs. It only really tips over in the scenes he shares with Jack Palance, where they're trying to out-overact each other onscreen and are somehow both succeeding.
The pacing of the first half is masterful, perfectly formed and spinning the plates of its main characters with care and precision. The story begins to run out of steam once the setup is accomplished, dragging its heels in bringing everything to the cathedral-top conclusion, but it's so much fun that this doesn't matter. On the whole, it's still a hell of a lot more focused than a lot of other Batman appearances, even (let's face it, especially) within its own series.
GRUBB And the remastering on display for this presentation is absolutely gorgeous. Crystal clear and with vivid colours, the care which has gone into this is a credit to all concerned. Even when you notice the very-obvious miniatures (ie when the chemical plant is exploding), the craft which has gone into assembling them is still evident, first and foremost. There are a couple of very brief shots which don't seem to have been re-touched, but the optimist in me things that this is to reinforce the amazing work throughout the rest of the film. That said, it's been a long time since I watched this (to my shame), so those moments may always have looked terrible.
Batman 30th anniversary screenings and vintage marathons are happening across the country via the major chains and a few of the independents. If you can, do…
Er… Batman films? I mean it's definitely also Tim Burton™, but that aspect is far more restrained here than other work where he's allowed free rein. If anything, this makes Tim work harder to produce a better film, but there we go.
If you get the opportunity, hell yeah.
It is. (even though I don't have this at home as noted, so who am I to make recommendations?)
*1 There were a few sporadic others before this - Spaceballs being one, although we don't talk about that film here - but Batman was the opening of a door, so to speak. [ BACK ]
*2 Look, I do love the Nolan films and I respect the Caine's canon as much as anyone, but he's generally not a good actor. He can act well, he just usually chooses (and is somehow permitted) not to. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, this is definitely a film. (Warner Bros, you can have that one for the back of the DVD cover if you like). DC's cinematic interpreters bring their equivalent of Phase One to a head with the long awaited Justice League, featuring Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck's Batman saving the world from a horny god with three evil boxes*1 by recruiting The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and concocting a plan to exhume and resurrect Superman (Henry Cavill) to lend a hand. There will be scenes.
First things first, Justice League is disposable, undemanding fun. Mostly. Gadot and Miller are by far the standout stars, the former arguably bringing the film's only real sincerity to her role, the latter some much needed humour. Cavill is on slightly shakier ground, although that's largely down to how the Man of Steel is treated in the film, and Batfleck still doesn't get his moment in the spotlight, sadly*2.
Things get off to a staggered start as the team are introduced one by one, as well as the threat they'll be facing, and it's there we begin running into problems (see footnote 1). With the best will in the world, the whole thing reeks of its re-writes, asking more questions than it attempts to answer*3. The customary act-three carnage begins in act-two, followed by a dip that's far longer than the breath-catching pause needed. The resulting finale is a brightly-coloured CGI panic-attack, with the team becoming little more than NPCs in a game you're watching someone else play. I didn't not-enjoy the film, but I have to admit to not actually caring about a single character, situation or plot point therein. And that's not a good sign.
Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon try to show DC's world in chaos, and succeed better than I think they meant to. Much like Superman's upper lip, Justice League is an imperfect oddity that's making the best of a troubled production, but never quite convinces…
^^ I found this amiable enough to be a 5/7 movie, but I'm taking a point off for Superman's CGI'd upper-lip. A ridiculous situation with an inexcusable outcome*4.
*1 Probably best if you don't ask. Much like David Thewlis' Ares from Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf is a CGI'd one-dimensional baddie with only half-dimension of actual character (think of a crossover of Malekith and Apocalypse), chasing a trio of macguffins whose only purpose is apparently to evoke memories of Marvel's Infinity Stones and Tolkiens's Rings. Without going into any detail, let's just say that his eventual defeat is brought about by a crisis in the writers-room when they realise that they aren't allowed the cojones to have any of their Heroes™ actually deal a killing blow to a sentient being (man, beast, god, or otherwise). It's an insult to not only the audience, but also DC's flagship characters. Well done, guys. [ BACK ]
*2 Although he's off again in Justice League. If you remember, Bruce Wayne's raison d'etre for killing Supes in Dawn of Justice was that, and I quote, "if we believe there's a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty". Which is clearly mathematical (not to mention moral) horseshit. This time round he's learned his lesson of course, and during the discussion of digging up the body of Kal El with a view to bringing him back to life (don't ask), proffers: "If there's even a fraction of a chance it could work-". It's just as well Bruce inherited his fortune off his old man, because he sure as shit wouldn't win anything in a casino with that grasp of probability…
[ BACK ]
*3 To wit, and in no particular order of importance:
Q. Bruce Wayne and Alfred have quite a nice conversation near the start of the film about being left behind by a changing world. Was this going to be a running subtext at one point in the screenplay's development? Because it doesn't rear its head again.
Q. If Wonder Woman can move faster than bullets (shown in this film) and Superman can move faster than bullets (pretty much known anyway, I think), what exactly is The Flash bringing to this party other than sarcasm and millennial-angst?
Q. Why has Aquaman - the superhero who lives in the sea - got that straggly hair and beard? The barnet's not practical for swimming with, and he's getting out of the sea/river and just air-drying. He's going to smell like a wet dog most of the time.
Q. What the hell is Cyborg's dad playing at? Given that he's Miles Dyson out of Terminator 2, you'd think he'd know better than to arse around with robotics, 'trying to help'.
Q. Given that even the trailer throws in that gag about Diana Prince doing "nothing interesting" at the weekend, and the fact that the Bat-Signal can only realistically be used at night, why didn't Steppenwolf attack at 10:30 on a Monday morning? Or better still, during prison visiting-hours? The Justice League wouldn't be about, it'd be a piece of piss…
Q. Does… does Amber Heard think she's doing A British Accent™? Oh, mate… [ BACK ]
*4 Much like Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One, it looks absolutely fine until the shot requires actual movement. Then it's like watching that devil-kid off the AA adverts all over again… [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
It's an unusual feeling for me, being someone who sees more than their fair share of BBFC cards, to be watching the ident screen with the green-detailing of a U-certificate. It's not that I actively avoid the Us, more that most of the movies seem to be PG at the least. All the more interesting then that the summary notes read "mild comic violence, rude humour, very mild bad language". Rude humour? How much 'rude' can you put into a film which is suitable for everybody? Well providing you keep it resolutely silly, the answer is 'a fair bit'. The fact that one of the main characters is called Dick hasn't been lost on the writing team.
Yes, the eagerly anticipated Lego Batman Movie finally swings down into cinemas for weekend-previews ahead of general release. The short version: enormous amounts of fun, and I say that as someone who went for the animation, comedy and bricks without being a Batman geek per se. Chris McKay's film is consistently funny and has a script far too tightly packed to take in on the first viewing. And while it may not be anywhere near as meta as its forebear, it's very self-aware nonetheless and quick to poke fun at its own ancestry, albeit in a playful way.
Learning quickly from The Big Boys, the Warner Animation Group have opened their latest outing with an five-minute promo teaser for the upcoming Lego Ninjago movie. And while kids and Lego-geeks will be rightfully excited, I suspect that it'll be the first real test for the series, being slightly too niche for civilian audiences that previously fell within the catch-all net of Lego™ and Batman™.
Aside from being a perfectly robust family adventure movie, the main event however, is also like some wonderful case-study in brand-licensing. The film is positively stuffed with Batman characters and references of course, with Lego interpretations from pretty much all eras of the canon and expanding out into the wider DC continuities. There are also various appearances by more generic Lego faces (particularly their Monster Fighters line), but the net is cast wider still into other Warner properties with characters from the Gremlins, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Matrix movies showing up, among others. Which is all well and good, but Warner seem to have hammered out an appearance-deal for some of Universal's trademarks too, with King Kong, the Creature From The Black Lagoon and velociraptors from Jurassic Park rounding out the antagonistic team. While I genuinely love this level of crossover, it draws needless attention to the absence of Marvel superheroes. And sure, we didn't get any of those in the first Lego movie, but we at least got Disney's newly acquired Star Wars in the mix. This time round however, even that olive branch has been withdrawn. Nothing underlines the messed-up world of licensing agreements more than this movie featuring hordes Daleks, which are then referred to as "British Robots"*1.
This is undoubtedly the most fun we've had in the caped crusader's company for some considerable time, although I have to say I found it a little disposable. I preferred the film when it was being a Batman movie rather than a DC one, if only because the number of references and easter-eggs (both scripted and visual) makes for a very crowded screenplay. And the movie will work just fine for audiences who aren't picking all of those up, but it'll still feel a little cluttered. Truth be told, I think I just need to see the movie again, and soon.
*1 This could be an elaborate and self-referential in-joke, but when the only Marvel reference allowed in the script is the Batcave's password being "Iron Man sucks", that seems unlikely... [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
