The ending **SPOILERS** - Joker (2019) Discussion

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

*ding ding* to the first point. But it's not the entire film.

And there's more left to interpretation at key points, and it's clearly edited to do just that.

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

I thought I only made one point. What do you agree with? That it’s ambiguous? And/or that what we saw in the film was all a twisted fantasy in Arthur’s mind?

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

I just added to what I wrote. And the director's comments today are not doing anything to disabuse viewers of these things.

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

Thanks for your replies. I was pretty sure that there was a lot of ambiguity open to interpretation but nobody seemed to be mentioning it on this forum, it’s all shitposting about incels. I thought it was a very well made film with amazing acting from Phoenix. I think I’ll definitely need to watch a few more times to catch all the nuances of it.

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

I've been holding back b/c despite alerting to spoilers, I know people peek anyway.

I've replied to some via IM instead. Look at Foxcatcher's post about all of it.

And yes, the incel nonsense has been beaten to death.

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

Thanks, I’ll need to find foxcatchers post and have a read.

reply

[–] AP (5262) 5 years ago

Yeah, at least part of the ending is ambiguous. One minute, he's free from police custody and being adored by his followers, the next he's in the hospital. Then he starts picturing Bruce with his dead parents. I think after the he killed Murray, he was arrested and that was the end of it but he imagined all the stuff with the Waynes and the rioters gathering around him.

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

There are a few of them along the way. If you roll with one, you run into the next carefully positioned edit that puts what comes before or after in doubt.

One thing is clear, the origin of "The Joker" remains ambiguous as ever. We saw a sketchy story about a guy named Arthur in a film called "Joker". That's all you can be sure of.

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

Yeah I agree, I was saying that to my wife after it that I liked the way that due to the delusional nature of the character and things being open to doubt that it still left the Jokers origin story as an enigma which I thought was a clever way of handling this character and movie.

reply

[–] Kingswood (1243) 5 years ago

Also, note that DC is not claiming this as part of their official DCEU, and their logo didn't even appear at the beginning of the movie.

They know if they did that, this story could be taken as canon.

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 5 years ago

My impression was that he found out, somehow that Thomas Wayne was assassinated (Maybe the hospital had a TV set and he saw it there?). I do think he didn't imagine the rioters cheering him on though when the cops drove him away.

What's definitely clear to me is that he wasn't hallucinating when those guys beat him up for his sign. Everything leading up to him going off his medication is real (with the exception of the relationship with his neighbor).

reply

[–] h-oates (172) 5 years ago

The whole movie is ambiguous. Everything on screen can be disputed because Arthur is an extremely unreliable narrator. But one thing we do know for sure. This movie is still primarily an origin story. No matter what, Arthur becoming the Joker is certain, so things like Bruce's parents dying definitely did happen. I know that the director has said there won't be any more movies regarding this version of the Joker, but even so, certain things we can be sure of. The rest is left entirely up to interpretation.

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

I know that in standard Batman canon, Bruce’s parents die but the way this film was edited, can we be sure that happened in this story? I know it’s still Gotham but not convinced that this universe would end up containing Batman. I think it would be more likely that young Bruce would end up as Mayor for better or worse.

reply

[–] h-oates (172) 5 years ago

I think it's nailed on myself that in this universe Bruce still becomes Batman. I think this for two reasons.

1. It's who Bruce is.
There's just no other way the tale can go. Bruce has always been Batman and Batman has always been Bruce. Which leads me to point number two.

2. Batman and the Joker are two sides of the same coin.
In almost every incarnation of these two characters, the link between them has been displayed. It's true that the Joker needs Batman...but Batman also needs the Joker. Batman is the Joker's only true source of comfort, while the same can't be said for Bruce. But Bruce still feels a connection with Joker. He knows that in the eyes of so many they're both just freaks. One cannot really exist without the other.

I appreciate that this movie is trying to be different. But if it really wanted to transcend the genre and characters within...it should never have been a Joker movie in the first place. In many ways, I think making it about the Joker has taken some of the impact away slightly. Having a random man snapping would be a far more poignant tale. Instead, we know that this was always Arthur's destiny and that he's actually going on to greater things (in terms of notoriety, anyway). By making this movie about the Joker it limited itself. To be completely honest, Bruce didn't need to be in this movie at all. Including him was just a way of bringing fans of the Batman on board.

So to sum up. However much people try and say this movie isn't actually about the Batman/Joker conflict as we know it, I have to disagree. The very idea of making this movie about the Joker and including Batman (and showing his parents die) is practically beating us over the head with the fact that somethings never change.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

Still processing the movie, but two things worth commenting on:

"2. Batman and the Joker are two sides of the same coin.
In almost every incarnation of these two characters, the link between them has been displayed."

This (Like the whole "grim & gritty" trend) is a concept that fairly recently has gained traction, and could not be more false. As the biggest comic nerd on the Planet, it makes my head spin to think about how very many stories SHARPLY contradict this idea.

"Batman is the Joker's only true source of comfort, while the same can't be said for Bruce. "

Again, this is an idea that several writers of the character have explored, but it's just that. . .One Idea. There are countless others.

"But Bruce still feels a connection with Joker. He knows that in the eyes of so many they're both just freaks. One cannot really exist without the other."

Ditto. And in fact, this is the point thats easiest to disprove: Batman existed just fine before the Joker was created; he has a rich history with a Huge rogue's gallery that has nothing to do w/the Joker, and. . .most tellingly. . .the book that arguably brought most of the concepts to the zeitgeist (Miller's Dark Knight) relates IN DETAIL how Batman/Bruce exists just fine, After The Joker Dies.

"But if it really wanted to transcend the genre and characters within...it should never have been a Joker movie in the first place. In many ways, I think making it about the Joker has taken some of the impact away slightly."

Agree a thousand percent. Great movie; so-so "Joker" movie.

reply

[–] h-oates (172) 5 years ago

I must confess, I am not a reader of the comics, but do still consider myself to be well versed within the histories of each character. And yes, it may be a recent idea that has gained traction, and I know that Batman has many other villains to square off against. Even so, I think it's fair to say that the Joker has always been Batman's main nemesis. And to be fair, making Bruce feel connected to Joker on some level does make him more interesting as a character, IMO. I don't know if you've played the Arkham video games, but Arkham Knight delves into this throughout the whole game. The ending is just wonderful. I won't go into detail and spoil it, but essentially Batman has to overcome his connection to Joker. He has to let him go, as it were, and finally succeeds in doing so. That game captures the Batman/Joker dynamic really well, as do all the Arkham games, for that matter.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

"I must confess, I am not a reader of the comics, but do still consider myself to be well versed within the histories of each character."

With respect, if you're not a reader of the comics, you're the furthest thing from "well versed."

"And yes, it may be a recent idea that has gained traction, and I know that Batman has many other villains to square off against. Even so, I think it's fair to say that the Joker has always been Batman's main nemesis."

You'll just have to trust me on this: while it's obvious that there's a compelling argument for the Joker, the fact is that Bane, Hush, and going back to the 40's, Hugo Strange have all been that central big bad. . .perhaps most notably, there's a Very Good case to be made for Ra's al Ghul as Batman's primary/biggest adversary, over the years. In the past X years: DEFINITELY the Joker. . but this has more to do with the films/alternative media, than the comics.

"And to be fair, making Bruce feel connected to Joker on some level does make him more interesting as a character, IMO."

Well, sure. . .YMMV, and all that.

"I don't know if you've played the Arkham video games, but Arkham Knight delves into this throughout the whole game. The ending is just wonderful. I won't go into detail and spoil it, but essentially Batman has to overcome his connection to Joker. He has to let him go, as it were, and finally succeeds in doing so. That game captures the Batman/Joker dynamic really well, as do all the Arkham games, for that matter."

I hear great things about the games. Played a couple very briefly; not really a gamer so didn't get through much of the story.

reply

[–] h-oates (172) 5 years ago

Haha. I get that when reading what I typed back it almost sounds insulting to describe myself as being well versed when I haven't read the comics. What I meant is, I haven't just seen the films and played the games, I've also done research on the characters. I know their backstories and motivation (or lack thereof when it comes to Joker at times). And I have actually read The Killing Joke online, which I think was a perfect origin story for the Joker.

Of course it's all subjective, but I think Joker has to be Batman's main nemesis because I believe he's appeared more times as a villain than anyone else. He also appeared in the very first Batman comic, I believe. But yes, Ra's al Ghul is a good shout. Don't know as much about him, but I find the character more compelling than Penguin/Riddler/Catwoman, etc.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

I probably wasn't clear. On balance, the Joker would Have to be on everyone's short list as Batman's main nemesis. It's just that the character(s) have such an involved, rich (sometimes contradictory) history, it's a mistake to make sweeping generalizations.

Some stuff for you:

https://www.amazon.com/Batman-Year-One-Frank-Miller/dp/1401207529/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=batman+year+one&qid=1570353602&sr=8-1

Detective Comics #466-468, 471-479

JLA #43–46 ("Tower of Babel")

Batman #492-500 ("Knightfall")

And of course, Killing Joke. . .don't know if you read it, or just saw the movie. While the movie is good, the book wins, in my opinion.

This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. . .

reply

[–] h-oates (172) 5 years ago

Cheers. I'll look into that. As for the Killing Joke, I read it online years back. I haven't actually seen the movie yet. I probably will someday because I do love Mark Hamill's Joker.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Interesting. Never thought this way. But I don't think the whole movie is his imagination... Where do you think the cutoff is?

Is it right after he got his mom's documents in Arkham? Probably he got caught in the stairs and ended up inside Arkham right through the end scene?

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

I’m not sure where the cut off would be, as someone else pointed out, there seems to be many scenes where the ‘reality’ of it could be questioned and I’m realising that the more I think about the film.

Another part that just came back to me that makes me question just what really happened are the scenes with his work mate Randall(?). When Arthur is fired, his boss said that he was trying to buy a gun from Randall. When Arthur is leaving his work and he brings up Randall giving the gun to him, Randall’s reaction seems very indignant and in disbelief at the accusation. Obviously it could just be Randall lying and covering his ass. However, the whole sequence leads me to think that Arthur maybe acquired the gun in a different way from what was shown on screen.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

But if he didn't get the gun from Randall then why the boss brought that up? How did he can possibly know?

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

The boss obviously hears that he had a gun at the children’s hospital which is why he was fired. The Randall part, if we are to take the alternative version that I put forward, Randall might have just mentioned it to the boss as a concern since it was said that workmates were thought he was strange or a freak etc. Could just be a concerned work mate. Remember, all the boss says is that Randall told him that he asked if he could buy a gun from him.

When Arthur brings it up when he’s leaving, this could just be because his workmates bring it up first because they’ve heard about him having a gun.

I think it could easily be either, 1) as we saw it all on-screen OR 2) that Arthus acquires the gun elsewhere but brought Randall’s name into it all because of his delusions.

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 5 years ago

I think the cutoff might be when he goes off his meds.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

I forgot.. was that before or after he got punched by Thomas Wayne?

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 5 years ago

Before he got punched. I want to say that the meeting with his therapist (in regards to his meds) happened before he got fired. He gets punched by Thomas Wayne after he goes to see Little Bruce Wayne.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Hmm.. that opens the possibility that Thomas Wayne might actually never punched him, but he punched himself Fight Club-style. Interesting.

Cause I've talked to some posters here and most don't like that Thomas Wayne was portrayed as such a dick.

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 5 years ago

Tbh I like it because it made sense. I agree with the other user who said that for Thomas to get where he was, he had to have done some seriously dirty shit, and it gave the Joker a plausible motive. But maybe I like it because I'm not a Batman Loyalist of sorts (although it's funny, out of all these comic book franchises, I'm the most familiar with the Nolan Movies, Burton's movie, and now this movie).

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

I don't particularly like the portrayal myself... I thought the pompous jerk attitude makes sense, but the punch to the face felt a bit much. I mean, he's supposed to be a highly educated gentlemanly man, a politician even. Punching people at public places seems too... mafia like.

The possibility that all that was only Arthur's imagination also makes sense. This movie is great like that, there's so many possibilities to dig deeper.

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 5 years ago

That's a fair point. I don't think Thomas liked to get his hands dirty. Blue blood types tend to have security around them. It's more plausible that he had a security guard that beat on Arthur than him personally hitting Arthur himself.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Although it is ambiguous, I personally think that most of the film, minus his relationship with his neighbor, did actually happen. I believe that after the riots he probably got caught again and locked up in Arkham. Sure, he didn't see the Waynes' murder, but it would have been big news; Arthur would have heard about it, and the fact that his actions indirectly caused their deaths was the "joke". The therapist would indeed not "get it", as she's unaware of Arthur's (and his mother's) connection to Thomas Wayne.
However it is ambiguous, and much of the rest of the film is also ambiguous. This is just my interpretation.

reply

[–] AdamS (336) 5 years ago

The joke she wouldn't get, might also allude to the fact that he was about to kill her.
His bloodstained footprints as he walked down the hall? Unguarded? Unrestrained?
He murdered her and laughed and danced his way down the hall.
Running from orderlies when they realized what happened? He knew he had nowhere to run, he was just having fun at that point.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wags9452 (25) 5 years ago

I too believe everything presented pretty much played out as intended. Outside of the obvious unreliable narrator the film stays well grounded in it's own reality. I didn't leave with any unanswered questions. The last scene is a hard cut to Arkham. At this point hes been apprehended and locked up. Time has passed and hes aware of the Wayne's murder. Of course we know he eventually escapes.

I think interpreting this as some elaborate put on by the director and searching for what's real and what's not, and is it all in his head is akin to believing the Hot Tub Time Machine suicide theory.

In this case I think Occoms Razor holds true. You just have to separate this from the other films because it wasn't trying to tie into any of them with the exception of setting up the context to the Wayne's murder.

reply

[–] Juschill (794) 5 years ago

I’m not trying to be difficult and maybe you or someone who paid attention can verify... are we sure that is Arkham at the end? I know we saw Arkham earlier in the movie but I don’t recall seeing a shot outside Arkham before the final scene. I’m becoming convinced it is just some generic mental hospital and the rest of the movie was played out in Arthur’s head.

reply

[–] wags9452 (25) 5 years ago

I would say it's far more likely to be Arkham, a place already established in the film and in the lore than some made up hospital. Again, this is a case where I believe the most likely conclusion is the correct one.

reply

[–] Juschill (794) 5 years ago

I’m starting to think your interpretation is correct the more I think about this movie.

I’m not convinced this story isn’t just some random crazy person imagining he is the Joker.

reply

[–] Juschill (794) 5 years ago

I’m also agreeing with you that the entire movie is played out in this insane person’s mind because the Joker from Batman is a smart, cunning villain. This one can’t outsmart a couple of street teens and gets beat up by a rich old guy. This can’t be the guy that gives Batman fits.

reply

[–] WeeChips (9) 5 years ago

It is certainly a possibility, It is an interpretation I’ve seen a few times now since starting this thread. One interpretation I found interesting that ties in with yours is that, if some of the events in the movie were ‘real’ it was Arthur who ended up inspiring the ‘real’ Joker in the future that fights Batman. Arthur’s Joker doesn’t really seem like the genius that is Batman’s foe.

reply