Joker (2019)

Joker (2019)

Director: Todd Phillips 

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert Deniro

Joker has taken the world by storm. I had a hint that it was going to be better than your ordinary comic book movie when the media started their fear campaign against it. Somebody somewhere made damn sure that major media outlets started spreading the news that going to see Joker might be a dangerous thing because the movie might instigate a crazy loon to sneak into your theater and shot gun you to death. Sure it happened before during The Dark Knight Returns (2008), but that was an isolated incident and we sure as hell are not gonna let one crazy bastard (who started shooting people in a theater while dressed in a Joker outfit) ruin our movie going experiences. They also had people believe that it is way to violent. Okay, so it is violent I wont say it isn’t, but there’s way more violent films out there. John Wick Chapter 3 (2019) and Rambo: The Last Blood (2019) are two fine examples of films that are way more violent and graphic than Joker, so that argument was weak. So why did the media target this film for termination? Why did the powers that control the media focus all their forces against this film? Could it be that it actually had something to say? 

 Glad to say that yes, this film does in fact have a lot to say and I applaud it for doing so because we do live in a world in which being truthful is frowned upon and wearing a mask to hide what we really have to say is the norm.  Film reviewers who weren’t attached to mainstream media (and I speak of bloggers and movie sites) were hailing it as a masterpiece. My movie buff experience has shown me that usually, when the media tries its best to kill a movie, its’ because they are afraid of it. When the media started to label it as dangerous, I immediately put the movie on my must watch list. The media tells me not to do it, I’m gonna do the opposite, because normally they don’t give a shit what crappy movie you go see. But when they’re self-righteous, politically correct minds stand against something so strongly, it’s because they are afraid of it. And ho boy do they have a reason to be afraid of Joker. 

 Sure, it's “just a movie”, but like the highest type of literature, film can also serve as a mirror to ourselves; to society and Joker simply put, is right on the money as to how a huge part of society feels right now. The poor are suffering, the rich are getting fatter and things are tough all over as Cheech and Chong use to say. Yeah people are struggling to survive in this crazy world, many are one paycheck from living out on the streets…one crazy moment away from going totally bat shit insane. And when the masses can’t take it no more, all they need is a little push to drive them over the edge. This is what “they” are afraid of, that those in need of waking up might do so because of this movie. That they might suddenly see what’s being done to them and that seeing the film might push them to do something about it. That is the reason “they” don’t want you to see it. But tell a kid not to do something, and he’ll go right ahead and do it. So others might see the whole “controversy” as a marketing campaign. If it is, it worked like gang busters. 

 Will this movie incite people to revolt? To scream as the main character in Network (1976) did “I’m mad as hell and I can’t take it anymore!”? Actually, that quote is referenced in Joker, leading us cinephiles and movie buffs to understand the mentality behind this fine picture. That mentality of uncovering the insanity behind the status quo of society, showing us, with laser like accuracy, the ones to blame for the state of the nation. What they fear with this movie is that people will see themselves mirrored in the main character of the Joker. And I’m sure many will. We’ve all been in that tight spot, living paycheck to paycheck, praying that pay day gets here…only to see our checks vanish in thin air due to how expensive life is at the moment. So yes, many people will see their lives addressed in this here film.

 Now these are all issues that need to be addressed, we cannot go through life ignoring problems. As we all know, when we do that, problems only tend to get bigger. Issues have to be addressed and talked about, so solutions can surface and progress is achieved. Kudos to the filmmakers behind Joker for that. For harnessing societies collective anxieties in one film. Now, Joker is not the first film to do that and the filmmakers behind Joker know this, which is why they borrowed and paid homage to films of the same ilk. I speak of course of Taxi Driver (1976), The King of Comedy (1982), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Fight Club (1999) and Network (1976). You’ll find bits and pieces of all these movies in Joker. And that’s a good thing in my book, it drew inspiration from similar films and created this amazing film that brings its own original and show stopping moments to the silver screen. 

 I am pleasently surprised with where DC went with Joker. This film is the anti-thesis of Marvel movies. Joker was decidedly adult and dramatic, serious and raw. It’s not a cgi fest, it’s not PG-13, it does not have a post credits sequence…simply put, if you had superhero fatigue, Joker is the cure. Now keep in mind that it is not your traditional “comic book film”, you’re not gonna see heroes posing with the full moon in the back looking all mysterious and menacing. You’re not going to get your traditional Joker either, so don’t expect Joker falling into a vat of chemicals while fighting Batman. No, this film functions more like an issue of ‘What If…?’ from Marvel Comics, an alternate take on the Joker. It’s closer in spirit to what Fox did with Logan (2017), it takes the character to previously unseen levels of dramatic possibilities. It takes the Batman mythos and uses it as an excuse to address social issues and present us with a picture perfect character study of a mental patient. 

 Speaking of which Joaquin Phoenix delivered such a masterful performance. The Oscar for performance of the year is his, I am almost certain of it. If he doesn’t win it, I will lose what little faith I had in the Oscars. If he doesn’t win, there’s something wrong with “the academy”, which has always been a bit looney anyways. Joaquin will convince you of his madness. He really did immerse himself into the role, losing weight to look sickly and being extremely intense on set. He was recorded getting upset because someone was making fun of him on the set, calling him a “diva”. To that I say, why mess with an actor that is “in the zone” trying to create a memorable performance? I side with Joaquin who said “I’m sorry, but he shouldn’t have done it”. And I totally get him. When you see the performance, you see he wasn’t just reading his lines, he wasn’t just “getting a paycheck” with this movie. No, he was living that role, he was meaning it. With this performance, Joaquin puts other actors to shame. This will be, I’m sure, the performance of his life. The one they will most remember Phoenix by. 

 Technically speaking the film is amazing as well. It shows us a very ugly picture of society, sure, but it looks so beautiful. Somebody had the brilliant idea of shooting in New York and making it look like Gotham and I have to say this was a genius idea. Maybe it had something to do with Scorcese producing? As cinephiles everywhere know, Scorcese has always been enamored with the Big Apple, and so maybe his clout made it all happen. Because normally, studios stay away from filming in New York because it is so expensive to shoot there. On a personal note, I had a blast when I discovered they shot the most iconic scene in the film (that of Joker dancing on those long steps) in the neighborhood where I grew up in, in The Bronx. It was so cool to see Joker dancing around my old elementary school! To see him dancing his glorious dance in those steps I went up so many times! 

 Final words: it’s not all the time that we get a film that syphons the way the public feels about society so well. This is the reason why the film is breaking all sorts of records. It’s because people see themselves in the film. Joker has high marks all around, great performances, great script, an amazing musical score (reminiscent of Taxi Driver's own score) and beautiful visuals, a true masterpiece of modern cinema. I love that DC is finally doing the right thing by not trying to duplicate Marvel’s movies, but rather getting as far away from them as possible. Keep it up DC, chins up, you’ve redeemed yourselves with this one! Don’t drop the ball with the next one!  

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Inherent Vice (2014)

Title: Inherent Vice (2014)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix , Josh Brolin, Benicio del Toro, Martin Short, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, Katherine Waterston, Eric Roberts, Maya Rudolph

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of those film directors who never miss; he’s on my “pitch perfect directors” list, right next to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Stanley Kubrick. These are directors who never disappoint me, even when they’re making one of their lesser films. Boogie Nights (1997)? There Will Be Blood (2007)? Punch Drunk Love (2002)? All amazing and engrossing Paul Thomas Anderson films; interesting part is that they are all vastly different films thematically and tone wise, yet one thing brings them together: they all have strong main characters, which I think is what Anderson specializes in, making films with strong, driven characters who will leave a lasting impression on you. He distills the most amazing performances from his actors, and he’s done it yet again in Inherent Vice. Anderson has created yet another memorable character in the form of ‘Doc Larry Sportello’. Inherent Vice gives us an amazing collaboration between actor, author and filmmaker, the result is a film with the makings of a bona fide cult classic.

Now I haven’t read Pynchon’s Inherent Vice (I’ll be correcting that soon) so I literally didn't know what to expect from this film. I’d read a few reviews that said that the film has an incomprehensible story,  others said it was their least favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, others would praise it as the next Fear andLoathing in Las Vegas (1998), all these opposing views got me all fired up to see Inherent Vice. On which side would I fall on? Something told me I’d love it, it had all the indicators of awesomeness.  I was expecting a convoluted lovable mess, which is I think a good way to describe this film. So yeah, this is a polarizing film, it will divide audiences, some will love it to death (like me) some will leave the film feeling like they just smoked a doobie. While I watched it, a woman behind me said “I don’t get it”, the visceral reply in my mind was “you idiot!”, in the real world, I couldn’t help letting out an involuntary giggle. This personal anecdote best exemplifies what will surely happen in any given theater with this movie.   

I don’t blame anybody for not “getting it”, this movie can be confusing. Characters keep popping up and the story seems to twist and twist with every coming scene, which is the way it’s supposed to be. I think the best way I can describe the experience of watching this film is like reading a Chuck Palahniuk novel. Excuse me for my literary comparison, but it’s the first thing that popped into my mind while watching this movie. You see, in my experience, when I start reading a Chuck Palahniuk book (he’s the author of Fight Club and Choke) I always feel a little lost. Each chapter starts a little incomprehensible, but as you read on things get clearer and clearer, by the ending of the chapter, poof, everything makes perfect sense. This is how Inherent Vice unfolds. When the film ends you’ll feel that it really wasn't as confusing as you had thought, suddenly everything clicks! But ultimately, I guess what this film must really capture is the experience of reading Thomas Pynchon's book, which I haven't done yet. I guess Palahniuk and Pynchon come from the similar literary universe. But here’s a trick to enjoying this movie, don’t try to follow it so much, simply enjoy the crazy characters and situations, because I think that’s really what this movie is about, experiencing the crazy ass moments that unfold and the visuals, which are entertaining and beautiful to look at.

Paul Thomas Anderson drew inspiration from many places to make this film, aside from Thomas Pynchon's novel, Anderson has stated that Inherent Vice has a little bit of Gilbert Shelton’s ‘The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers’ an underground comic from the 70’s and the Cheech and Chong movies. Inherent Vice can be categorized as a Stoner Film, though I wouldn't recommend watching it stoned, it will only mess with your chances of “getting it”, the movie is already trippy enough as it is! With the character of Doc Sportello, we get yet another memorable cinematic stoner, ranking right up there with Cheech and Chong, ‘The Dude’ and Jeff Spicoli. Doc Sportello is smoking weed literally throughout the entire film, and you’ll feel that haziness, you’ll feel that care free who gives a shit vibe in Inherent Vice. In many ways, this is the ultimate stoner film. But like some of the Cheech and Chong movies, cocaine use also works its way into the story. In fact, if there are two movies that Inherent Vice shares its DNA with it’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) and The Big Lebowski (1998). Fear and Loathing because of its constant drug use and overall trippy vibe and The Big Lebowski because Doc Sportello feels like The Dudes long lost brother. 

A distinctive quality of Inherent Vice is how accurately Paul Thomas Anderson managed to capture that counter culture vibe from the 70’s where everyone was always high, had long hair, wore shades at all times, a time when everyone gathered around to philosophize, everyone believed in “good vibes” and in Ouija boards. I loved that whole relaxed breezy vibe the film elicits. There are scenes that take place in beach side communities filled with hippies and beautiful sunsets…loved that whole sit back and relax vibe that is a constant throughout the whole film. You will be transported to the 70’s, an era that Paul Thomas Anderson is apparently obsessed with; he also brought it to life to perfection in Boogie Nights (1997), one of Anderson’s best films. In fact, Anderson is so 70’s he even shot Inherent Vice on film! Personally, I immediately noticed the difference in look, there’s something about films shot on film. The images look so much better, the colors have richness; the definition is far superior than anything shot on digital. I am forever in love with films shot on actual film. Tarantino and Anderson are both on my good side for still doing it. 

  

Anderson is one of those “serious” directors, even when he’s films are funny, they are somehow disturbing. I mean, look at Punch Drunk Love (2002). There’s no doubt the film is hilarious, but it’s not slapstick, har har har slap on your knees funny, it’s dark, twisted funny. The main character is a complete anti-social nut job! The same can be said of Inherent Vice, it’s a dark sort of funny. You see this movie is about sex, drugs and hedonism. The movie will be hilarious, but only to those who enjoy black, acid comedies that are funny because of how fucked up the situations are. What type of comedy am I talking about here? Well, for example, there’s this moment in which Doc Sportello visits a spiritual retreat in which everyone's tripping out on some sort of high; a commune for spiritual trippers. At one point, someone orders a bunch of pizaas and as the camera pans back we start seeing how the scene resembles Davinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ with Sportello as Jesus, and pizzas instead of bread and wine and it's just hilarious! Again, this scene will probably be hilarious to a select few. Side note, I’m going to give this movie the award for “sexiest scene of the year” and the scene I’m referring to is a scene with the beautiful Katherine Waterston seducing Doc Sportello, holy moly, what an erotic scene. Made me shiver with antici…pation! So anyhow, final words are this movie is awesome for the many reasons stated above, the awesome cast, which peppers the film with awesome little moments acted out by great actors. Keep your eyes open for Martin Short. But again, this film is made for a select audience, it will not appeal to everyone. Which group will you fall under?

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Her (2013)

Title: Her (2013)

Director: Spike Jonze

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams

In order to truly understand Her, I suggest you first watch Sophia Coppola’s Lost in Translation (2003), you see, there’s a connection between both of these films; one comes as a response of the other. This is not to say that you can’t get anything out of watching the film without understanding its back story, but you’ll get a whole different perspective on them once you understand where they are both coming from. So this is how it goes: once upon a time not so long ago, Sofia Coppola, the youngest daughter of legendary film director Francis Ford Coppola, grew up with quirky music video director named Spike Jonze; their friendship blossomed and grew until in 1999 they ended up getting hitched. So anyhow, to make a long story short, their marriage ended in 2003. In order to deal with the divorce Sofia Coppola, though denying it a first, wrote and directed a film that expressed her feelings on the break up; that film ended up being Lost in Translation (2003), which curiously was released on the very same year she divorced Jonze.

In Lost in Translation, Scarlett Johansson plays a woman who’s married to a photographer, played by a very loopy Giovanni Ribissi. The photographer is so wrapped up in his career that he completely neglects Scarlett Johansson’s character and she ends up befriending a much older man played by Bill Murray; they end up developing a platonic romance even though their age difference is huge. The loopy, sort of absent minded photographer was actually Sofia Coppola’s version of Spike Jonze. The way I see it, that character was a cartoon like version of Spike Jonze, it’s how Sofia Coppola saw Jonze. So if we are to read between the lines, we can deduct that Coppola felt neglected by Jonze during their marriage because he was so wrapped up in his film career, which was beginning to take off back then. “I was trying to figure it out when I was writing that” she said in an interview to ONTD. That’s one thing I can say about the Coppola’s: they make very personal films that talk about their life experiences, sure they’ll deny the hell out of it if you ask them, but truth is, they are simply sharing their life experiences with us. Beautiful thing about these films is that even though they are extremely personal in nature, we can still enjoy them and get a lot out of them because they are genuine reflections of the human spirit, of what it means to be ‘us’. Her is another good example of an extremely personal film; detailing the thoughts and situations that go into a divorce. 

Jonze sets up a shot

So, fast-forward ten years later and now its Spike Jonze’s turn to address how he feels about that divorce. From what I can tell after watching Her, I think it’s safe to say that it was Jonze who ended up the most heartbroken from that divorce and he projects himself in the character of Theodore; a very sensitive man who truly misses his wife and can’t seem to stop remembering the good times he had with her. This film feels as if ten years later, Sofia Coppola still lingers in Spike Jonze’s soul. In that same interview to ONTD , Sofia Coppola mentions that “Spike didn’t end well” so I’m not just talking out of my ass here. Jonze was truly broken up and we can definitely pick that up from watching Her. So, it is understandable then that the main character in Her; Theodore Twombly, is mopy and anti-social; he can’t take the fact that he is about to divorce his wife Catherine of many years; who by the way looks a heck of a lot like Sofia Coppola! 

Many other things let us know that Her was made in response to Lost in Translation; Scarlett Johansson was the main character in Lost in Translation, while on Her she plays the voice of the operating system for which Theodore falls head over heels for. In the film, Theodore and Catherine grew up together which made the divorce that much more difficult, same as with Jonze and Coppola who also grew up together. Actually, if we want to get really detailed, some shots in the film are extremely similar, starting with Theodore’s room which looks a heck of a lot like Scarlett Johansson’s hotel room in Lost in Translation. Point is, if you want to really understand Her, you should watch Lost in Translation while keeping all these things in mind. Just remember that in Her, Theodore is Spike Jonze’s alter ego, while in Lost in Translation Charlotte was Sofia Coppola’s alter ego. The difference between the two films is that they are told from different points of view, one film is from the female perspective, while the other shows us the males point of view; which instantly makes both films all the more fascinating to me. It's like hearing both sides of the story; interesting thing is that both of them make sense in their own ways. They both got interesting points to make, and we can learn a lot from both films. 

But trust me, you don’t need to know any of this to enjoy Her, seen without all the context behind it, you can still get a lot out of it. The film works on two fronts:  it works as a comment on relationships, break-ups and male/female dynamics, while at the same time it throws a bit of commentary on society’s current obsession with social media and technology. Her is not for everybody, its a very cerebral film, which relies heavily on dialog, so if you like that in your films, you'll love Her. It seems to me that a lot of people where having a difficult time digesting the fact that Theodore was falling in love with a computer program. But you can’t go in thinking this is a silly premise, after all, this is a science fiction film, we are here to escape into a fantasy world where anything can happen. Her takes place in a slightly futuristic version of L.A., which by the way, Spike Jonze brilliantly shot in China, making China look like a futuristic version of L.A. How genius is that? So anyways, be ready for a film in which the main character falls for an artificial intelligence. What I loved about it is how Theodore’s obsession with his computer program represents our obsession with technology, an obsession that only serves as a way to alienate us from real human contact. Take a bus or a train and you’ll see more than half of the people connected to their phones, i-pads and I-pods, sometimes all at the same time! Are we growing apart as a human race? Are we in desperate need to reconnect with our fellow humans? Well yes we are and I’m glad we have films like Her to point that out.

Rating: 5 out of 5