A shared theme beyond deadly violence. …Joker and Parasite … Both films boil down to a similar argument: Wealthy people have too much, and the rest of society suffers because of it. … Parasite does a better job of illustrating the wealth problem as it exists in the world today. (
I disagree about Parasite being concerned with society rather than individuals compared to Joker. Joker begins by informing the viewer of general societal problems as the garbage system & social services in Gotham basically shut down. In the bit Robin quoted of Arthur ranting on TV he says "everyone" treats each other terribly, and he'd said earlier that people are awful which is why he doesn't feel sympathy for them. He's not singling out individuals.
Thomas Wayne speaking out with sympathy about his killed employees might mark him as a "bad guy" since we know their awful behavior resulted in their deaths, but he wasn't there and doesn't know that and his reaction is understandable. It's because he launches a mayoral campaign while denouncing those killings that he becomes a hated symbol to the masked rioters (while the anonymous killer clown is embraced as their symbol). And even if you think he's a bad guy, his wife is clearly blameless, and she gets murdered with him outside a theater.
I also think you're being too harsh on Murray Franklin. The video clip he showed was intended to make fun of Arthur, but a standup comedian who agrees to be filmed is holding himself up to scrutiny. When Murray actually invites Arthur onto the show, he treats him rather well and is entirely accommodating (up until Arthur claims responsibility for three killings).
As for the result of the riots, this is one of the few areas where our knowledge of the Batman IP pays off. We know that Thomas Wayne's son will define his personality in reaction to what happened to his parents, in opposition to Joker. When Arthur hears that the Waynes were killed, we get a flash of their son at their funeral, and Arthur laughs. He knows the kid he met (and at the time believed was his half-brother) is now an orphan, while Arthur has orphaned himself by murdering his adoptive mother after learning she adopted him and permitted him to be abused as a child. The life he hoped for as Wayne's son is now denied to Wayne's actual son, who will react in a very different way. Arthur has reflected the worst tendencies of his society and caused that society to become worse, whereas Bruce will dedicate himself to fixing Gotham (a terrible place when he begins his crusade in most depictions) by stopping people like Arthur and those inspired by him. Granted, if Aaron Swartz had still been alive he would have pointed again to Dark Knight Rises as showing that Bruce Wayne's efforts actually only made things worse, but normally Batman is indeed the hero.
Who is it that you refer to as 'those who claim to side with the lower classes'? I think you have to make the distinction between socialists and liberals, etc. Among liberals I think that this analysis is pertinent. If the subject is the socialists who dislike joker, I think you have to look at how the anger is directed. Is it directed in a purposeful direction against those whose fault it *really* is that Arthur suffers, or against other victims of the system? In the socialist mindset those people who are really to blame are those in power (or those who continue to perpetuate the system that causes the misery: Marxism is focused on the systemic).
The movie didn't strike me as especially internally diverse. Nominating it contributes to diversity in the Academy Awards, but would not in the context of South Korea.
I suspect it's got a bit more to do with validation of low class vs upper class narratives, Joker is about those whose abuse is socially endorsed, "if it was me on the street you'd walk right over", something that makes the usual upper class critic feel a strong sense of cognitive dissonance, it points the finger at them and says "you know you'd never care for Arthur, you are the problem".Parasite on the other hand, validates much of their ideas, poor people take 15 minutes of smart thinking to rise above poverty, the rich commit no crimes themselves and the system itself is to blame (in fact they do nothing but help the poor and get betrayed for it) and the suffering of being at the bottom isn't that great, after all they seem quite mentally stable for a family living in abject poverty, all things very comfortable for the upper class to believe.
Rotten Tomatoes critics vs audience votes can be used as a proxy for comparing wealthier/more-liberal/"sophisticated" opinions versus the general population's concerning movies. However, this is limited by selection effects in cases like Parasite since the general population is less likely to watch a foreign film. Below are Parasite and Joker.
in Parasite, the violence between classes was sudden, shocking and almost accidental, while the violence within the lower classes almost routine and common. This fact comforts upper class critics.
Just saw 'Joker. It seems the movie was made with the idea of a sequel. They could start a Revolution with a sequel if this movie made a billion dollars! They could rehabilitate the idea of 'resentment' into a positive good. Keep the resentment limited to a stated goal of say a .35 Gini coefficient(like in the sixties) rather than let it go full bore kulak killing as in out-of-control resentment in the former USSR mid thirties. Let us all be middle class so we can buy the cars and houses they stream on the tube. Modern day Henry Ford 'virtuous circle' middle class salaries will be created for us clowns.In the sequel the Jokers Gini Revolution would start by inspiring the clown epigones to murder all the billionaires. We have nothing to lose but our chains of student debt.
This aspect of globalization, that is declining labor shares of income, seems to get no recognition. I guess a non-PC topic.
I wonder if globalization not only exacerbates class tensions, but sectarian/religious/racial animosity. India is seeing a revival of Hindu-Muslim conflict. In the US, black-white relations are seen by some as regressing.
Highbrow critics' likes & dislikes always point less to the durability of an artwork than parochial struggles within the guild. Hence the commonplace, "Popular classic [x] couldn't be made today." The original "Swept Away" was a good left-wing didactic/symbolic actor-centric allegory that modern critics would punish with much grandiosity. The Stack looms large now. Ebert had to apologize within his praise of Jesus á Gibson. The New Yorker published a 25th anniversary review condemning their Pauline Kael review panning Claude Lanzmann's 10-hour Holocaust opus. Critics don't bet real money on which picks will hold up and rarely write in defense of their most wrongheaded reviews
I very much enjoyed this analysis. It is worth noting that Joker has had significant support from left wing figures. Most notably the Marxist critic Slavoj Žižek:
I disagree about Parasite being concerned with society rather than individuals compared to Joker. Joker begins by informing the viewer of general societal problems as the garbage system & social services in Gotham basically shut down. In the bit Robin quoted of Arthur ranting on TV he says "everyone" treats each other terribly, and he'd said earlier that people are awful which is why he doesn't feel sympathy for them. He's not singling out individuals.
Thomas Wayne speaking out with sympathy about his killed employees might mark him as a "bad guy" since we know their awful behavior resulted in their deaths, but he wasn't there and doesn't know that and his reaction is understandable. It's because he launches a mayoral campaign while denouncing those killings that he becomes a hated symbol to the masked rioters (while the anonymous killer clown is embraced as their symbol). And even if you think he's a bad guy, his wife is clearly blameless, and she gets murdered with him outside a theater.
I also think you're being too harsh on Murray Franklin. The video clip he showed was intended to make fun of Arthur, but a standup comedian who agrees to be filmed is holding himself up to scrutiny. When Murray actually invites Arthur onto the show, he treats him rather well and is entirely accommodating (up until Arthur claims responsibility for three killings).
As for the result of the riots, this is one of the few areas where our knowledge of the Batman IP pays off. We know that Thomas Wayne's son will define his personality in reaction to what happened to his parents, in opposition to Joker. When Arthur hears that the Waynes were killed, we get a flash of their son at their funeral, and Arthur laughs. He knows the kid he met (and at the time believed was his half-brother) is now an orphan, while Arthur has orphaned himself by murdering his adoptive mother after learning she adopted him and permitted him to be abused as a child. The life he hoped for as Wayne's son is now denied to Wayne's actual son, who will react in a very different way. Arthur has reflected the worst tendencies of his society and caused that society to become worse, whereas Bruce will dedicate himself to fixing Gotham (a terrible place when he begins his crusade in most depictions) by stopping people like Arthur and those inspired by him. Granted, if Aaron Swartz had still been alive he would have pointed again to Dark Knight Rises as showing that Bruce Wayne's efforts actually only made things worse, but normally Batman is indeed the hero.
The outside and the second story from the outside is entirely CGI
I mistyped - my mistake. My comment, however, was predicated on the correct version of the statement so I think it's still a valid critique.
I talked about those who claimed to side with the LOWER classes.
Who is it that you refer to as 'those who claim to side with the lower classes'? I think you have to make the distinction between socialists and liberals, etc. Among liberals I think that this analysis is pertinent. If the subject is the socialists who dislike joker, I think you have to look at how the anger is directed. Is it directed in a purposeful direction against those whose fault it *really* is that Arthur suffers, or against other victims of the system? In the socialist mindset those people who are really to blame are those in power (or those who continue to perpetuate the system that causes the misery: Marxism is focused on the systemic).
Edit: Silly mistake
The movie didn't strike me as especially internally diverse. Nominating it contributes to diversity in the Academy Awards, but would not in the context of South Korea.
That's a fair point. Though Parasite does arguably show negatives from the high class folks.
I suspect it's got a bit more to do with validation of low class vs upper class narratives, Joker is about those whose abuse is socially endorsed, "if it was me on the street you'd walk right over", something that makes the usual upper class critic feel a strong sense of cognitive dissonance, it points the finger at them and says "you know you'd never care for Arthur, you are the problem".Parasite on the other hand, validates much of their ideas, poor people take 15 minutes of smart thinking to rise above poverty, the rich commit no crimes themselves and the system itself is to blame (in fact they do nothing but help the poor and get betrayed for it) and the suffering of being at the bottom isn't that great, after all they seem quite mentally stable for a family living in abject poverty, all things very comfortable for the upper class to believe.
Rotten Tomatoes critics vs audience votes can be used as a proxy for comparing wealthier/more-liberal/"sophisticated" opinions versus the general population's concerning movies. However, this is limited by selection effects in cases like Parasite since the general population is less likely to watch a foreign film. Below are Parasite and Joker.
ParasiteCritics: 99%Audience: 96% 364 critics votes4,228 audience votes
JokerCritics: 69%Audience: 88%541 critics votes66,220 audience votes
Using rotten tomoatoes as a proxy, I would rate Parasite as indeterminate and Joker as potentially following your indicated trend.
Yes, the larger apparent scale of rioting in Joker probably feels more threatening to upper class critics.
in Parasite, the violence between classes was sudden, shocking and almost accidental, while the violence within the lower classes almost routine and common. This fact comforts upper class critics.
Just saw 'Joker. It seems the movie was made with the idea of a sequel. They could start a Revolution with a sequel if this movie made a billion dollars! They could rehabilitate the idea of 'resentment' into a positive good. Keep the resentment limited to a stated goal of say a .35 Gini coefficient(like in the sixties) rather than let it go full bore kulak killing as in out-of-control resentment in the former USSR mid thirties. Let us all be middle class so we can buy the cars and houses they stream on the tube. Modern day Henry Ford 'virtuous circle' middle class salaries will be created for us clowns.In the sequel the Jokers Gini Revolution would start by inspiring the clown epigones to murder all the billionaires. We have nothing to lose but our chains of student debt.
Are class tensions rising globally?
Here is s study from the freshwater St Louis Fed, that posits globalization leads to declining labor shares of income. Even in India!
https://fredblog.stlouisfed...
This aspect of globalization, that is declining labor shares of income, seems to get no recognition. I guess a non-PC topic.
I wonder if globalization not only exacerbates class tensions, but sectarian/religious/racial animosity. India is seeing a revival of Hindu-Muslim conflict. In the US, black-white relations are seen by some as regressing.
Interesting...and taboo topic?
Highbrow critics' likes & dislikes always point less to the durability of an artwork than parochial struggles within the guild. Hence the commonplace, "Popular classic [x] couldn't be made today." The original "Swept Away" was a good left-wing didactic/symbolic actor-centric allegory that modern critics would punish with much grandiosity. The Stack looms large now. Ebert had to apologize within his praise of Jesus á Gibson. The New Yorker published a 25th anniversary review condemning their Pauline Kael review panning Claude Lanzmann's 10-hour Holocaust opus. Critics don't bet real money on which picks will hold up and rarely write in defense of their most wrongheaded reviews
Parasite is a foreign film. Upper-class people all know that foreigners have magic powers. Therefore it must be a better film.
I very much enjoyed this analysis. It is worth noting that Joker has had significant support from left wing figures. Most notably the Marxist critic Slavoj Žižek:
https://www.rt.com/news/472...
and the popular American documentary maker Michael Moore:
https://www.facebook.com/mm...