Chapter 1,742 Where does the uneasiness come from?
"Joker" is of course controversial, and the key point of the controversy is: "The film's obsessive description of evil and its aesthetic promotion of destruction will produce some kind of incitement in this era of endless sudden violence."
In fact, this is really not nonsense. On the eve of the release of "Joker", some theaters have either reduced the schedule of "Joker" or strengthened security.
Yes, this is not only true for the North American market, but also for the European market.
Because just like the thugs in the movie, it's hard to tell that they weren't inspired by the clown!
In fact, on the first day of the movie's global release, there were audiences in many regions wearing clown masks who wanted to watch the movie. Of course, in the end, for safety reasons, theaters in various regions did not allow audiences to wear clown masks.
Alfa, a well-known social critic, wrote: ""Joker" actually has nothing to do with mental illness. It is a character profile of a contemporary bottom-class collapse."
"What's interesting is that most of the people who support this film are critics, and these critics are generally divided into two groups.
The supporters of this faction, the "Critical Faction of Capitalist Establishment", sympathize with Arthur's experience, hate the sanctimony of Thomas Wayne and other interest groups, and are horrified by the coldness of humanity in the movie "Joker".
Of course, these critics are actually supporters of "Joker". They believe that "Joker" is a masterpiece that points directly to the dark side of society.
From another perspective, Arthur's words and deeds were releasing the anger in their hearts.
Even if this anger is blindly followed, incited, inexplicable, and has no program.
The stance of this group of viewers determines that they believe that the clown struggle "triggered" by Arthur is correct, that is, it is an atrocity and is forced by a society enslaved by capitalists.
Some even explain that this is a means of struggle that "seeks peace through struggle, and peace will survive; seeks peace through compromise, and peace will perish."
But generally speaking, their spearhead is aimed at interest groups, and overthrowing interest groups to achieve their demands regardless of method or cost is their fundamental purpose.
But the movie "Joker" cunningly erased the importance of the program in the pursuit of political demands. Therefore, it also exposed the blind obedience of the mob.
There is also a group of thugs who blindly follow criticism.
The "thugs blindly follow the critics" is another major faction after the release of "Joker". They will not talk much about the quality of "Joker" as a movie itself. For the reason of "cultural empathy", they will label "Joker" as "Joker".
The label with ulterior motives.
These viewers believe that the movie "Joker" is "evil and distorted". Through the Joker's "memory" of Arthur in the movie, they believe that the movie is instigating the audience to participate in atrocities. Some radical viewers also
Summarizing the offensive remarks like "all the people who applaud the movie "Joker" are leeks". This kind of remarks is based on the established position and ignores the audio-visual language value of "Joker" as a movie itself.
However, without a deep understanding of the reasons and attitudes of the audience who support the film, attacking it together with the audience is tantamount to breaking away from the specific analysis principles of specific problems in practical analysis.
This also exposes the side of Murray that does not understand and respect him.
Of course there are also dual critics.
Most critics of the "double criticism" group believe that the clown in the movie is, as usual, another malicious attempt to make fun of people both inside and outside the movie.
In the eyes of these viewers, the movie "Joker" is just another joke told by the clown, and Arthur is the Stitch Monster in his memory. This is his usual trick.
They believe that this is a consistent trick of the clown. Under his words, no one will sympathize with the plight of the bottom class of society.
He tried his best to prove that he was innocent and that he was a person with sinister intentions in society, forcing him to become a clown.
Therefore, the "double critics" will not believe the clown's lies at all. In their eyes, the clown is an "illogical evil." The gun drawn on Murray's show is a clear mockery of the capitalist powerful, outlined in blood
The smile on his face was an insinuation of the mob.
In the eyes of this madman, there are only "nothing to do with me" and "nothing to do with you."
This faction has emerged recently. They are not centrist, but their behavior is very "peaceful"."
Some people also said: ""Joker" is a very "cunning" movie. It blurs all key identifying information. No matter how you discuss it, the main creator can say: That is your understanding.
I never said that.
For example, the audience was told from the beginning that Arthur had a severe mental disorder, that he needed to receive therapy regularly, that he took a lot of medicine in large doses, and that he would laugh wildly for no reason...
In other words, he was never a "normal person" from the beginning.
However, in terms of the emotional brewing and rendering at the beginning of the movie, the movie tries its best to make Arthur look like a humble "normal person": he is harmless (omitting the plot that he was previously detained in a mental hospital), he works hard
, taking care of his mother, he actively cooperates with the treatment, he also has his own idols and dreams, and he tries his best to respond to all unsatisfactory situations with a smile.
When the audience's empathy is established, "abnormality" as a medical diagnosis becomes vague and suspicious, and its pathological characteristics can be given other meanings.
Until the end, you can still choose what to believe and what to doubt, but there is no doubt that this is not an enjoyable movie for anyone. If you like clowns, the first half of the movie will be a huge torture for you
, if you hate clowns, the second half of the movie will make you sit on pins and needles. The movie seems to be pulling every audience member by the hair and dragging them out of their respective comfort zones.
'Joker' does a great job of interpreting madness because it gives it a lot of legitimacy. That's the main reason people are deeply disturbed."
Others simply interpret it from the audio-visual language of the cinema itself.
"Joker is a good movie. Although it is not a classic, it is definitely not bad.
Because director Li Yi is really careful, he first focused on the audio-visual creation and created a complete and stylized audio-visual language. The core keywords of this audio-visual are "exquisite abruptness and strong contrast"
”.
The colorful clown contrasts with the gray and dirty city, the sad and frightening laughter contrasts with the muffled and low sound of the cello, the ubiquitous audience laughter and the news broadcast contrast with Arthur who has always been in a state of semi-aphasia.
It's all abruptness and contrast.
The same goes for the few violent scenes, which happened suddenly and without warning, started quickly and ended decisively.
The direction of Steven's performance is also to create "abruptness". In fact, the role this time is really difficult to play. What's even more difficult is that this character expresses emotions not through lines or even mainly through body movements, but through laughter.
Yes, through laughter, many people say that crying or looking at the eyes is the most difficult thing for actors, but in fact, laughter is ignored.
There are many kinds of laughter, but how to give a special meaning to laughter? The movie "Joker" can be said to truly show the expression of "laughter" vividly.
Since there are cries of joy, cries of sadness, and all kinds of cries, the same is true for laughter.
The whole movie laughed out loud several times, but four scenes were the most crucial.
The first scene is the suppressed smile when facing the social worker at the beginning, the second scene is the desperate smile when he performs for the first time on stage, the third scene is when he learns his mother's secret in the stairwell and laughs so hard that his nose is full of snot, and the fourth scene is when he sits in the police car at the end
Li looked at the rioting city and laughed with "relief".
From the initial "untimely" to complete despair, brokenness and indulgence, every emotional upgrade and character fission are achieved through the same but very different "laughter".
In fact, in addition to laughing, Steven also has several very crucial and stunning solo dance scenes.
In one scene, after committing a murder on the subway, he hid in a dirty toilet and began to dance solo uncontrollably, and the feeling of "inner demons coming out of the cage" burst out.
There are also several solo street dances that appear repeatedly in the following scenes, which are the sense of deja vu of "I am blooming in the midst of killing", and are also like the sense of relief that a depressed patient feels after he or she decides to commit suicide.
Steven is worthy of being called a crazy actor. His acting is in his bones.
Some people say that he used every bone in his acting, which is no exaggeration at all.
Finally, let’s focus on the story.
"Joker" is, of course, a thoroughly dark, evil, negative, and disturbing movie.
But the question is, where does this uneasiness come from? Some say it comes from the glorification and incitement of violence and destruction in movies.
In my opinion it doesn't.
Yes, no, this is also the most clever thing about the director.
There are only three major violent scenes in the film, the first is a murder on the subway, the second is a murder of an old colleague at home, and the third is a shooting of a talk show star on stage.
Except for the second scene, which gave some close-up shots and showed blood, the shooting scenes in the previous two scenes were all medium and long shots, and they were all closed very quickly.
More importantly, especially the violence in the last two scenes was very abrupt, and the director did not try to justify the clown's violence from the beginning.
This is the key!
Some people say that everything Arthur does in "Joker" follows logic, but in fact, it doesn't.
Because the violence in the last two games was, in fact, really abrupt!
The same does not justify the clown's violence!
Some people say that he killed Randall because he betrayed Arthur, but in fact, this is something that cannot be explained.
A clown brought a gun to a children's hospital to perform, and then dropped the gun lamely on the ground. This is the most illogical thing. It can only be said that if Randall gave Arthur a gun, he could predict in advance what Arthur would bring.
To the children's hospital?
Could he have predicted in advance that Arthur's gun would fall to the ground?
Obviously not, so there is nothing wrong with his behavior of giving Arthur the gun.
What is problematic is Arthur's own subsequent behavior.
And he reported it to his boss, which is very common in the workplace, but is this really such a heinous crime that he needs to be killed?
All I can say is that it is too narrow-minded!
In this way, Arthur's killing of Randall has no basis for legitimacy at all!
In the last scene, Murray never showed any special care for Arthur. Before that, they were just strangers to each other, and it was just Arthur's unilateral "admiration" of Murray.
And that time was just their first real meeting.
As for using Arthur's videos to make jokes, this is really normal for comedians. If you can't bear this kind of pressure, then it can only be said that Arthur himself is not suitable for this industry.
Therefore, when he kills people on the show, there is no legitimacy at all!
In this case, what is the so-called incitement? At most, it allows some people who have experienced suppression in the workplace to watch the movie and vent their anger.
Others say that the uneasiness of "Joker" lies in its incitement, the kind of incitement to frustrated people that "society has forced me to do this, and I will kill them all."
I don't think so either.
The whole movie uses the clown's subjective perspective instead of the objective perspective to tell the story to describe the clown's fission. The director is very restrained in showing Arthur's "poorness", but instead focuses on showing his sensitivity, suspicion and loss of control.
Would you feel sympathy for Arthur? Maybe, but that's not the main emotion of the movie.
The main emotion is just uneasiness.
This uneasiness does not come from the clown's violent process, but from the clown's process of becoming a clown.
According to the definition of a horror movie, it is a terrifying process in which a person fails to fight against his inner demons and ultimately surrenders to become a devil.
But the premise is that this city is Gotham, because in the Gotham described in the movie, in today's society, who doesn't have a dark, evil, and destructive clown in their heart?
The cowardly Arthur was swallowed up by the clown in his heart and became a real clown. What about you, can you really say to the clown in your heart that you will never defeat me?
Can you really guarantee that you will never be as cowardly as Arthur? Will you overestimate your own talent like him, and overestimate the goodwill of others like him?
Not sure.
That kind of uneasiness comes from this uncertainty.
This is what makes the audience really uneasy.
In fact, Arthur also had a kind and gentle side at the beginning. When teasing children on the bus, he would carry cards with him to explain his laughter.
Is it too fussy for someone to blame the boy's mother? But don't forget that in this society, people need a sense of boundaries, not to mention an adult and a child. They are strangers, so they naturally need a sense of boundaries even more.
But slowly, the "clown" in my heart grew up rapidly, feeding on the darkness of real society.
This "nourishment" has always been there. Reality has always been dark. The rich people on TV have never really cared about us. Our bosses and colleagues have never been our friends. Wei Guangzheng's superheroes have always only existed in comics or novels and movies.
Poverty and disease never go away, while misunderstanding, violence and indifference always pile up around us.
There is ruthless killing in the near distance, and indifference in the distance. The "clown" appears at any time, and there is no guarantee that we will not be defeated by him.
If I had to say there was something provocative about the movie, this would be it.
There is a line that can be called the title of the entire film: I thought my life was a tragedy, but it is actually a comedy.
At first I thought I heard it wrong. Shouldn't it be "I thought my life was a comedy, but I didn't expect it to be a tragedy"?
At the end, I realized that I was right. Arthur had long accepted that his life was a tragedy, but what he couldn't accept was that his tragic life was laughed at by you.
"What's funny or not is up to you."
Do you see? Arthur essentially hates comedy, and he has no talent for comedy at all.
But he misunderstood that this was his way of communicating with the world. The final ending pushed this "uneasy feeling" to its peak. Evil was enshrined, clowns came to the altar, and believers began to revel.
Regarding the values of movies, there is also a very correct criticism, "I know you have suffered, but this is not the reason for you to kill."
Of course this is true.
But what I want to say is that when faced with the situation of being completely deprived, facing the dilemma of having nowhere to escape, some people can stand up again and again and continue, and some people choose to aim the gun at their own throats.
And some people can only choose madness and killing.
You can say "you can only blame yourself for being weak", but each of us will be weak for at least one day in our lives.
Instead of beautifully accusing clowns of their ugliness, it is better to warn yourself not to become a clown."
