What should or shouldn’t be shown on TV?

[luvdids]

[David]

I can’t quite explain – it’s a very famous short film from 1928 with a lot of surreal imagery, a lot of which doesn’t make much sense. In that clip I posted, the woman’s underarm hair disappears and ends up on the guy’s face, which seems to upset her a great deal.

[K]

If the film is very bad, does that make it "safer" or more "dangerous"?


Clown Prince of Crime makes joke of film award

https://www.theage.com.au/culture/movies/clown-prince-of-crime-makes-joke-of-film-award-20191002-p52wz1.html

"Joker is not a particularly good film, much less an important one. It is, however, an interesting cultural phenomenon: the Venice prize may represent a milestone in the history of taste, implying a new conception of quality cinema.

Whatever its pretensions, this is undeniably a comic-book movie; moreover it’s directed by the brazenly low-brow Todd Phillips, known for a string of wilfully tasteless comedies...

But the film pins most of its artistic hopes on Phoenix, playing yet another variant on the established Joaquin Phoenix Character: morose, potentially violent, inarticulate yet with glimmers of sensitivity.
...

Phoenix is the kind of actor who has to work hard to be uninteresting. But he never manages to make Arthur into a coherent person, partly because it’s hard to see this schmuck as any kind of future arch-villain and partly because the film’s thesis is kept broad and vague...

But this is not the sort of subject-matter Phillips knows how to handle..."

[K]

What’s the Panic Over ‘Joker’ Really About?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/magazine/the-joker-movie.html

"In a slightly different culture, an art film about the Joker would be a premise for a comedy sketch. The beats write themselves... Taking a dumb idea very seriously is an evergreen comic conceit; in 1999 it might have been a sketch on MadTV.

In 2019 it is an opportunity to wring our hands. ...

Much of the criticism of the film has centered on the question of what effect it will have on such people. David Ehrlich of Indiewire called it “a toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels,”... David Edelstein echoed the idea that “Joker” is “an anthem for incels” in his Vulture review, warning that the film is “scary on a lot of different levels.” At Slate, Sam Adams wrote that “no matter how emphatic Phoenix’s performance, it feels like a risk to feel too much for him, not knowing who might be sitting next to you in the theater using his resentments to justify their own.” Adams could handle this movie’s nuanced portrayal of self-loathing turned outward, but what about its effect on sexless losers?
...

It’s an anxiety that has led reviewers to condemn the kind of moral ambiguity that was supposed to distinguish art from crass commerce in the first place. Legitimate movies are about complicated protagonists who combine good and bad qualities; superhero movies are about two guys, one good and one evil. By combining them into a single guy, won’t this movie cause dummies to think the Joker is good? To ask the question is to argue that nuance is dangerous. By fretting over Arthur Fleck’s sympathetic qualities, progressive-minded critics are demanding the same sort of bright line between good and evil that makes comic-book movies so boring."


[But how would the author know this type of film can't encourage violent "dummies"?? He just doesn't want it to be true, so he refuses to consider even the possibility.]

[stui magpie]

It's not a superhero movie, it's a movie about a comic book bad guy.

As far as a bad movie, many critics are saying Pheonix has the Oscar in the bag.

If this runs anywhere near the John Wick movies for actual violence I'll go he.

There is a term for the lead character of a movie who is the hero but has little in the way of heroic qualities, the Anti Hero and it's been around for decades.

Some incel imbecile will probably go on a shooting spree wearing Joker makeup after watching it, but in the USA do they really need a coherent reason?

[think positive]

probably, but its just a prop for attention! gees, watch old war movies, or docos, there is an excuse everywhere you look! even home alone could be accused of setting some moron off! excuses excuses, is it the movies or the lack of gun control that has left people so desensitised to gun violence over there? id hazard a guess those 4D shootem up games with toy, but so lifelike, guns are a worse teaching tool.

[David]

[K]

But it's not really about "critical distance", and so on. It's about forensic psychology. The issue is that not only do film guys have no idea about that but even the field of forensic psychology must not know with much certainty.

[David]

Everyone's just groping in the dark on this topic, K. Anyone who tells you different is lying.

[think positive]

[K]

[thesoretoothsayer]

Excellent origin story.
It's like Taxi Driver with clowns.

[David]

To be fair to the moral panickers, I did see this comment underneath a Facebook acquaintance’s post (in which he’d criticised the film) the other day:

[think positive]

Nah my reaction is to want to give him a hug.

Lucky is the person who has never ever known even a day of darkness

[K]

Nah, TP, save your hugs for me.