Joker (Todd Phillips, October 4, 2019) Movie • Page 43

I know people seemed generally uninterested in the Chapo take and I'm not here to regurgitate it or convince anyone of it but one of them did have the take that this was actually a movie about how the character of the Joker has become a thing in our culture and how it came to represent what it now represents. Like, how we went from conservative anti-Obama protests where they were holding signs with Obama as the Joker to conservative pro-Trump protests which have Trump as the joker. This reminded me of that a little. Obviously that's not what the hangover guy intended but you know, death of the author and all that

 

Even with death of the author that’s strained based on the text of the movie

 

This is where the discussion basically begins and ends for me about any of these arguments, and it gets back to the heart of my initial worry about what this film would be saying/what the public would take from it. There are so many different issues that this seemed to just throw in a blender without understanding ANY of them, and now things are being conflated that shouldn’t be.

 

I mean I'm sure, but sometimes its fun to try to strain these things as far as they can go. That's why I bring it up personally, but I'm not claiming that's why he thought it up originally lol

 

Taking responsibility for your actions, regardless of control, just means accepting that those were actions YOU did and that actions have consequences. That’s to me at least though but I see what you mean.

I agree with you and don’t think it should be implied that violence and mental illness aren’t linked-like, engaging in violent acts counts as symptoms for plenty of illnesses I’m sure.
However, mainstream media continuing to paint the narrative that mass violence is a direct result of mental illness and nothing else, or worse that it is an inevitable outcome for the severely mentally ill is...patently false.

I mean yes I do have to wonder what you mean because if I say people need to be held accountable for what they’ve done (specifically when “what they’ve done” is killed numerous people) and you argue with that, I really can’t comprehend that logic. Maybe you didn’t mean they get to go on and live their life (not that I took it that way) but you seem to think that it makes them unable to be held responsible. So I don’t know what you’re suggesting, honestly.
Like genuinely idk what the point is to argue against me saying that mentally ill people are still held accountable if they kill people. What’s the counter argument? I’m confused.

Also, thanks for being so condescending but thought it would be clear that “guilty by insanity” was a typo/mindless error, and not an indication that I didn’t know the bare minimum about how this stuff works via the justice system.



Anyway this has gone on too long so I think I’ll leave it at I absolutely reject the notion that mass violence is an inevitable result of the system being broken and that the onus is on the system. It seems like some of us fundamentally disagree on whos responsible (if anyone?) when these things happen, and that’s fine, prob time to leave it at “agree to disagree”

 

Again, "being held accountable" is so fundamentally different from "blaming." There's a difference between acknowledging someone did something and addressing their mental state when they did something. If someone is in a dissociative state when they do something awful, it's obviously incorrect to blame them for that awful thing. They literally could not help it. But you literally said "I am blaming the “severely mentally ill and abused” man for the violence he caused."

It's not the typo, it's just literally everything else you're saying that indicates you don't know how the system works. You said a finding of insanity is not an excuse, when it categorically is. It is a mitigation of culpability. That's what it is, and you've repeatedly said that is isn't. So yeah it's literally not condescension, it's just reasonable for anyone to assume you don't know how the system works lol

 

Yeah since seeing this Saturday I've tried multiple times writing out my full thoughts on the "political message" of the film but it's genuinely difficult because it gets all mixed up with the mental illness aspect in a way that's never really coherent. Which led me to write a more meta analysis but that still doesn't totally hold up (not to mention it's definitely not what Phillips intended lol)

 

Right. Like I just said, we seem to fundamentally disagree on who to blame (or hold responsible) when these things happen. I’m okay blaming the person carrying out the acts of violence. I have sympathy and empathy for the fact that mental illness might have taken away some of their agency, but at the end of the day they did the thing that took someone else’s life. Again, this is how the conversation boils down to agree to disagree.

And no, it’s just a disagreement on what “not guilty by reason of insanity” means. Because it’s not “not guilty”. The person is sent to a facility, which is exactly what I said. That is still them being held accountable, by being required to be in custody receiving treatment.

 

Honestly, I like 40% agree w/ that take. The only problem is, Matt Christman is too irony poisoned to just say it accidentally hints at that, lol, & instead has to troll the libs by calling it an accidental masterpiece.

 

Are you talking about specific acts here, or just any sort of violent offense? Because now we're getting into discussion where it's just incorrect to speak beyond a case-by-case basis, obviously. A mental illness can take away some or all or none of someone's agency. But in general it's by means minimizing the harm caused.

...Yes it is? Being found not guilty via insanity means you lacked the mental capacity to be guilty of an offense.
Do you really want me to do a whole 1L Crim Law lecture here? A crime requires both a criminal act and criminal state of mind. "Insanity" is one way in which a person can lack the requisite criminal state of mind. It doesn't mean they aren't dangerous or the state has no responsibility to ensure that they don't hurt anyone again, but it IS a finding of "not guilty." This isn't an "agree-to-disagree" thing here lol

Yes, but that's just not fundamentally the same as guilt or a criminal conviction. Winning on insanity defense has never really been a "victory" in the same way a straightforward "not-guilty" is. The "victory" is that you get to go to a facility instead of prison. Prison is punitive, a facility is solely rehabilitative

 

You’re splitting hairs to an insane degree after I’ve said repeatedly let’s stop and agree to disagree.
This is legit not even a conversation anymore. Stop engaging w me, I no longer wish to go back and forth with you over extremely pedantic interpretations of portions of my argument.
You can honestly feel good about being “right” about the technicalities of all of the above if that’s what makes you feel good ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

It's not splitting hairs when you're just objectively wrong about something you insist you're correct about.

And if you want to stop discussing this then just stop, whatever, but how ridiculous and childish to literally say "stop engaging w me" lol

 

So deep

 

I’m just glad he gave us the honor of being able to follow him on insta

 

To me, that was because he stopped taking his pills. The boundary between fantasy and reality became more blurred, which was pretty interesting for me to watch as the film went on.

 

Haha... Ha...

Fight Breaks Out During 'Joker' Screening at AMC Burbank

 

Is the implication here that the film somehow caused this?

I really enjoyed the film. I think it was a little too on the nose at times, but as a whole I was pleasantly surprised. Think it had a lot of interesting themes and things to say, though some were questionable. I think an insight into such a character is always going to be interesting to me, the same way thousands have enjoyed documentaries on violent criminals.

 

I'm not implying anything. Or I just don't feel like arguing. Although I should've probably mentioned that I go to that theater all the time.

 

No argument necessary haha - was genuinely asking! Didn’t understand the ‘haha...ha’ thing prefacing the link. Only just ducked into this thread!

 

Have not listened to the Chapo bit, but now that you mention this I will. Interesting thing to think about.

 

That dude is based on Moscow apparently. Tough place to be an artist. The quality is good even if you don't like the flick.

 

Dumb question: while that’s wicked, doesn’t leaving your insta tag make it kinda easier for authorities to track you down? Assuming this isn’t a commissioned piece by the government of Moscow haha.

 

Totally. He also has vids on his IG that show his face as he paints. Not the way I would run things given his location and his preferred art form.