• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Movies JOKER v.3 (Dragonlord's Review)

If you have seen JOKER, how would you rate it?

  • Total voters
    345
Giner-Rogers-William-Marshall.jpg

Josh-Middleton.jpg
 
Last edited:
Peteyandjia said:
source.gif



Ironically, I do respect your opinion. However, I don't agree. Sure, there is a lot of subjectivity in art, and specifically the artform at hand, acting; but I do believe there is also quite a lot which is objective about it. It's not as entirely quantifiable as something like say, athletics; and yet, much of it is. There is a basis of craft to it, like carpentry; and then beyond a certain degree of fundamentals, plenty of room for creative experimentation, which can be interpreted or felt subjectively. The fundamental craft of the art remains however, and can be judged objectively. So if someone thinks that say, Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis, they are entitled to their opinion; but they are also certainly wrong. And I don't mean they have a different opinion than me, I mean they are scientifically, objectively wrong. That doesn't mean I would insult them for it, but I do believe it to be a fact.


giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Weirdly enough I don't disagree so much when it comes to leading roles and the fundamentals of what is expected of that lead performance in realism genres, but when it comes to character or genre acting (acting for a particularly abnormal, or unusual style of behavior) it can be aesthetically impossible to prove in any direction. Are you going to say that a killer clown from outer space should sound like ___ or a super stoned character shouldn't have the munchies, or a disgruntled manic construction worker shouldn't be so disgruntled and manic? That's a tough call for characters/behaviors that break behavioral norms, and with mentally unstable characters the rules are even more breakable than usual.

You're allowed to say Tommy Wiseau's acting is abnormal behavior to the expectations of leading men in film history, but to Tommy's friends they knew someone who really sounded like that. He was an abnormally behaved person in real life, owed largely to language and cultural gaps he never bothered to correct. That style of expression was still regular, realistic even, to his own behavior.
 
Last edited:


Mix review from Oscar judges.
 
Going back to see it again tonight.

7even said:
Didn’t Will Smith wanted to kick Leto’s ass for being so annoying when Leto tried so hard to get into character? I mean he did mailed dead animals in condoms to the whole cast.
Click to expand...
Dead animals IN condoms?! Now that I'd like to see!

MoiraL7 said:
Weirdly enough I don't disagree so much when it comes to leading roles and the fundamentals of what is expected of that lead performance in realism genres, but when it comes to character or genre acting (acting for a particularly abnormal, or unusual style of behavior) it can be aesthetically impossible to prove in any direction. Are you going to say that a killer clown from outer space should sound like ___ or a super stoned character shouldn't have the munchies, or a disgruntled manic construction worker shouldn't be so disgruntled and manic? That's a tough call for characters/behaviors that break behavioral norms, and with mentally unstable characters the rules are even more breakable than usual.

You're allowed to say Tommy Wiseau's acting is abnormal behavior to the expectations of leading men in film history, but to Tommy's friends they knew someone who really sounded like that. He was an abnormally behaved person in real life, owed largely to language and cultural gaps he never bothered to correct. That style of expression was still regular, realistic even, to his own behavior.
Click to expand...
No such thing as proof or rules when it comes to subjective opinion.

Steve Rogers said:
Absolute nonsense. Completely illogical. You're making no logical sense. None. "Sure, there is a lot of subjectivity in art". There's nothing but subjectivity in art. Art is all subjective. Did you bother to watch the video? Hume said beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He was right. Beauty is in each individual beholder's eye. It is not objectively present in the object or person or whatever itself. Because if it were, we would be able to scientifically measure it. There would be a scientifically standardised, universally agreed upon unit of beauty, just as there are units of length, speed, distance, etc. There would be a beautimetre or a qualimetre. There is none. Therefore, there is no aesthetic objectivity. Objectivity, in the sense of statements like A is not as good as/as good as/better than B, does not and cannot exist where there is no standardised unit of measurement to assert such a claim as fact. If you look at a certain flower and think it's beautiful, and ask me for my opinion, and I think it looks dull and is nothing special, what right have you to tell me I'm wrong? My opinion is my opinion and yours is yours and neither of us is wrong because we're not talking facts, we're talking opinions. As I said before, opinions are opinions and facts are facts and never the twain shall meet. Never. Ever, ever, ever. How many times will I have to repeat that in order to get the message through to you? Learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. A fact is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it or anyone's reactions or anyone's feelings or anyone's emotions. A fact is true regardless of whether or not there even is anyone in existence to be aware of its truth. Imagine for a moment our entire species were to be wiped out tomorrow. Just imagine that tomorrow every man, woman and child on the planet were to suddenly drop dead. All that would be left besides our corpses would be our own creations, the plants, the animals, and the planet itself. Now say a tree falls over in a forest, and at that time, there are no lifeforms in the forest capable of perceiving it falling over. Forget about whether or not it makes a sound. The question now is does it fall over? Well if it falls over, it falls over. It doesn't matter that there was no wolf in the forest who saw it falling over. It doesn't matter that there are no humans around to come across the fallen tree and say, "Well this tree has to have been upright at some point. So therefore, to get to where it is now, it must have fallen over." No, none of that matters. The FACT remains, the tree fell over. I'll give you an historical fact. The American Civil War. The American Civil War... happened. That is a fact. No one ever disputes that. No one ever denies it. And even if there were no longer anyone around to know about that war, it still... happened. Long before the species died out, that war took place. Our extinction would do nothing to change what happened in the past. What happened happened.

"There us a basis of craft to [acting]. Ya know, it's funny, but I was never taught anything about craft in mathematics or science class. I had to learn about length and distance and weight and gravity and solids and liquids and gases and this and that and the other; no math or science teacher ever mentioned to me a word about craft. So I never learned the unit of it. Please, enlighten me, o wise one, what, pray tell, is the standardised, univerally agreed upon unit of CRAFT?! And shouldn't there also be a different unit for each form of craft? The craft of composing, the craft of painting, the craft of writing, etc., etc., etc., the craft of acting. What about all the distinctions that exist within each one of those crafts? Please, tell me, o wise and ancient master of all objective truth, what is the unit of the craft of composing pop music/heavy metal/grunge/New Wave? The craft of painting in oils/watercolours/acrylics? The craft of writing magazine/newspaper articles/books/critical reviews/historical essays? The craft of voice/stage/film/television acting? "As you can see from their respective performances in Taxi Driver and Speed, De Niro's acting level is 3.796 Brandoes higher than Reeves's. If only the difference had been 3.793, Reeves would, we can be sure, have won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his compelling and electrifying turn in Always Be My Maybe." Oops, spoiler alert!

"A certain degree of fundamentals". Oh I do love the objective vagueness and non-specificity of that phrase. Allow me to repeat it so I can once more experience tand be enraptured by the syllabically exquisite melody. "A certain degree of fundamentals". Damn... I should have worn my white pants. What the fuck are ya talkin' about?! "A certain degree of fundamentals"?! Well if it's so certain, would it kill ya to specify exactly what degree that is? 97? 132? And are we talking degrees North or degrees West? I'm not a mind-reader, ya know. Come to think of it, how can ya specify? Ya haven't yet told me what these so-called "fundamentals" are. Head-tilting? Lip-smacking? Pussy-eating? I must ensure I achieve mastery over these "fundamentals" so I can become the next President of the Screen Actors Guild and revel in anonymity and despair for the seemingly interminable remainder of my abjectly futile existence.

"if someone thinks that say, Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis, they are entitled to their opinion; but they are also certainly wrong." Certainly wrong. It is a fact that their opinion is scientifically, objectively wrong. Bullshit. Utterly, offensively bullshit. Again, where's your scientifically standardised, universally agreed upon unit of quality, where's your qualimetre, by which you can objectively state, as a fact, that their subjective opinion is wrong? A fact is something that is true irrespective of whether anyone can perceive it or is aware of it. Again, going back to my scenario of every huiman being dying tomorrow, historical facts will still be true. Events that did take place will still have taken place. Nothing can change that. The fact that no one is aware of those events can't change that. For a scientific fact, an 8 foot long table will still be longer than a 4 foot one. These are truths. These are facts. Human beings are completely irrelevant when it comes to cold, hard, scientific or historical facts. The moment you introduce an observer into the situation, the moment they start thinking about what it is they're perceiving or learning and deciding how they feel about it, how it hits them, then you exit the world of objective fact and enter the world of subjective opinion. And a subjective opinion cannot be judged objectively. It cannot be proven false. Or true, for that matter. That's the main difference bettween a fact and an opinion. Whether something is a fact depends on whether or not it can be proven. If it can't, then it's just, at best, an opinion. So you can't judge an opinion objectively, nor should you ever think that you can. Because the moment that you do think that, the moment you think that you can objectively call someone else's opinion wrong, and yours right, therefore factual, then what's to stop you from stating any opinion as fact? What's to stop you from saying it's a fact that a certain person is ugly? Now you may say you'd never say that. But what's to stop you? Seriously. Nothing. Again, I implore you, understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. You may say you wouldn't insult a person for having an opinion you think is objectively wrong, but just to be told that your opinion is objectively wrong is insulting. No one wants to be told that their subjective opinion is objectively wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter what it is, or how crazy anyone may think it is. No one should be told their opinion is wrong because an opinion cannot be wrong. That's what makes it an opinion.

Click to expand...
 
Steve Rogers said:
No such thing as proof or rules when it comes to subjective opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes there are -- there is internal logic and there are the rules of clear communication. For instance, @MoiraL7 talks about one facet of acting (accuracy to real life) and it sounds like he's saying that's the entire criteria for acting. This isn't to insult his part of the conversation, but rather to establish how one person can talk about one thing, and another responds with a completely different set of considerations independent of the first speaker.

The rules of clear communication dictate that everyone clearly understands what the other person is saying, but oftentimes you can see that people have misinterpreted statements and never, ever bother to reassess their part in the conversation. They'd rather burn bridges than admit mistake, and while you may not consider clear communication a rule of film subjectivity -- why should it be excluded from film subjectivity just because it applies to ALL discussion?

What you mean to say is there are no set of rules that holds true for all people -- but even then my first sentence still applies. Everyone must provide a context from which they speak or else the other party must speculate and assume what is being said, which, again, often creates confusion thus begetting two different conversations being simultaneously ignored. So, in order to understand my subjectivity, everyone needs to be introduced to my landscape: my choice of words, my scope of focus, etc. My rules of subjectivity may not apply at all to you, but they absolutely need to be in place if I am to make any sense of my subjectivity and, further, to persuade you to my side.

Have you noticed a lot of people coming to your side? Do you think your success rate could be improved by adopting more rigorous rules to your subjectivity?

The validity of your statement applies more to the fallacy of a ranking hierarchy, which pretends this film or this performance is better than that one. The best we can do is determine which films score the highest marks in various categories, with the firm understanding that each category only matters in and of itself. Box office gross does not translate to technical achievement nor to human performance. These are all separate factors, and not everyone agrees with how some critics will selectively collate their categories in an attempt to force opinion down our collective throat. But, then, that's the fun of conversation, isn't it? Flexing and being flexed upon?
 
A.A. Riggs said:
Yes there are -- there is internal logic and there are the rules of clear communication. For instance, @MoiraL7 talks about one facet of acting (accuracy to real life) and it sounds like he's saying that's the entire criteria for acting. This isn't to insult his part of the conversation, but rather to establish how one person can talk about one thing, and another responds with a completely different set of considerations independent of the first speaker.

The rules of clear communication dictate that everyone clearly understands what the other person is saying, but oftentimes you can see that people have misinterpreted statements and never, ever bother to reassess their part in the conversation. They'd rather burn bridges than admit mistake, and while you may not consider clear communication a rule of film subjectivity -- why should it be excluded from film subjectivity just because it applies to ALL discussion?

What you mean to say is there are no set of rules that holds true for all people -- but even then my first sentence still applies. Everyone must provide a context from which they speak or else the other party must speculate and assume what is being said, which, again, often creates confusion thus begetting two different conversations being simultaneously ignored. So, in order to understand my subjectivity, everyone needs to be introduced to my landscape: my choice of words, my scope of focus, etc. My rules of subjectivity may not apply at all to you, but they absolutely need to be in place if I am to make any sense of my subjectivity and, further, to persuade you to my side.

Have you noticed a lot of people coming to your side? Do you think your success rate could be improved by adopting more rigorous rules to your subjectivity?

The validity of your statement applies more to the fallacy of a ranking hierarchy, which pretends this film or this performance is better than that one. The best we can do is determine which films score the highest marks in various categories, with the firm understanding that each category only matters in and of itself. Box office gross does not translate to technical achievement nor to human performance. These are all separate factors, and not everyone agrees with how some critics will selectively collate their categories in an attempt to force opinion down our collective throat. But, then, that's the fun of conversation, isn't it? Flexing and being flexed upon?
Click to expand...

well I think I was agreeing there are basic communicative human standards for interacting with others on camera or on stage. Yelling at your lines for no reason would violate appropriate volume levels, gesturing wildly may be out of place, speaking at the highest pitch in your register may be uncharacteristic of your role, etc.

But fantasy realism? Characterization applied to disordered states? That's pretty hard to nail down in aesthetic; the only thing you could critique would be the general rules for stage/filmcraft like general legibility and consistency in acting choices. But even then, people make their own rules for exceptional, wild characters that would defy performing arts rules and standards. Eye contact may not be in your character's M.O. even if it's a general rule for performing.
 
Cool Hand Luke said:
Vincent aged like fine mold.
Click to expand...

Gotta look the dude up now. I recognize his last name, but that could just be a coincidence.

Oh, that dude. Yeah, if he'd excercise a little more he'd probably look a lot better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,270,970
Messages
57,693,210
Members
175,809
Latest member
lawfulgood

Share this page

Back
Top