MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > The Joker Could Have Been Norman Bates

The Joker Could Have Been Norman Bates

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
51 replies | jump to latest

I post this the same weekend that "Joker" (2019) opens in the US, arriving with strong reviews(most loving it, some hating it) and strong controversy: will some "incel" somewhere rise up and shoot up the theater where the movie is playing, ala the 2012 Colorado mass shooting at a showing of The Dark Knight Rises?

Its rare that a movie arrives with the possibility of the viewer actually getting killed in the theater -- its like William Castle has been topped for all time.

Dark humor that may be -- but these are the times we live in. It has been interesting to live in them up to this point.

You could say that Psycho started it all...William Castle's movies were about ghosts and crooks, but Psycho was about..psychopathy. And that's what these shootings are about.

When Frenzy came out in 1972...a Vietnam's worth decade after the more innocent Psycho --- critic Richard Schickel in Life pointed out that Hitchcock's world now WAS our world -- people joked about the most horrible murders (think Manson Family) and tried to ignore the danger all around us.

And hell, that was almost 50 years ago!

4 years after Frenzy came the more landmark Taxi Driver, with strong ties to Psycho. Both films had scores by Bernard Herrmann(he would die after completing Taxi Driver) and Taxi Driver ends (at Scorsese's request) with the same three notes of madness that ended Psycho.

But more importantly, many a critic looked to connect Robert DeNiro's urban loner Travis Bickle with Tony Perkins' rural loner Norman Bates....damaged, shy men trying to connect with women(Janet Leigh, Cybill Shepard), failing, and killing. (That's where this "incel" business has come today, by the way --"involuntarily celibate" young men who can't get a date and either become hermits by the millions, or killers by the few. So I've read.)

Me, I never quite made the connection between Norman and Travis. Norman was, admittedly, more of an Old Hollywood creation -- cast with a beautiful movie star tested in "studio features"(Perkins) and filmed by Hitchcock with a certain fantastical dazzle. Bickle was "70's New Hollywood" through and through: filmed in a gritty documentary manner, shown driving the crummy streets of NYC and living in a crummy one room "apartment." It was like the difference between Count Dracula at his castle and a near-homeless person in a hovel.

And this: the key scene in Taxi Driver that turned me off the film(as a matter of "sophistication") was the scene where DeNiro, having finally actually managed to get a date out of Cybill Shepard(hard to believe in certain ways, but young DeNiro was fit, thin man with a certain handsomeness)...took her to a porno movie! To me this was clear evidence not simply that Bickle was (potentially) "psycho," but that he was developmentally disabled...mentally retarded as it was once called. I could not relate to that character other than with a certain pity and distress. He was no Norman Bates.

I have not seen the new "Joker" yet, but we are told that his template is Taxi Driver and thus, Travis Bickle. (The casting of DeNiro in another role is a clue.) The "mental state" issue arises again in all of its sensitivity...is this new Joker to be as "retarded" ..ie...as DUMB as DeNiro's Travis Bickle? Or closer to the supposed brilliance of the Joker as essayed by Nicholson and Ledger? I suppose either way, this Joker is supposed to be...crazy. But Nicholson and Ledger brought humor and smarts to their madness. I'm not seeing it so far with Phoenix.

(I'm reminded of Nation' Robert Hatch's outrage about the 1960 Psycho...that he was offended and disgusted that mental illness would provide the source of a mystery thriller. As if mental illness does not sometimes manifest in evil, murderous behavior...but what OF developmental disability? )

And now, the moment I've wanted to further explore:

It is "on the record" that Joaquin Phoenix, the man playing the new Joker, COULD have played Norman Bates for Gus Van Sant in the 1998 remake. After many other actors turned Van Sant down, evidently Phoenix gave him a solid "yes" -- but with the proviso that Phoenix had to finish another movie first. Van Sant didn't want to risk losing his tenuous "green light" to make the remake, so he went with Vince Vaughn(serious miscasting) instead.

And all these years later(21), with Joaquin Phoenix getting a lot of Oscar talk for his Joker, and general praise as an actor, we have to wonder:

How would he have been as Norman Bates?

Better than Vince Vaughn, I'm sure.

Better than Anthony Perkins? I'm not so sure.

Look, it was 1998. Phoenix was very young, hadn't made a lot of movies. Van Sant wanted him because he had been in "To Die For" with Nicole Kidman -- where he played a rather gooney and...er.. mentally disabled? young teenager with hardly the saintly face of Tony Perkins. (BTW, Van Sant offered Nicole Kidman the role of Marion and was politely, but publically turned down.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

There was some irony back then that the bigger star of the Phoenix family had been Joaquin's older brother , River Phoenix. River Phoenix got a few starring roles and famously died of drugs in front of Johnny Depp's Viper Club. River had a prettier face than Joaquin; had River lived I suppose HE would have been offered Norman Bates in 1998.

IMDb reveals that it was in 2000 -- two years after the release of Van Sant's Psycho -- that Phoenix played the creepy villain in Best Picture "Gladiator" -- so Joaquin Phoenix was "launched as a name" very close to when the Psycho remake came out. Fasinating that we've had him out there for 20 years now as a name -- not too much of it as a star. Moreover, Joaquin Phoenix has been just this side of Crispin Glover as a bizarre talk show guest. Is the nuttiness real...or an act?

---

Side-bar. Its rather a "fals-fals--falsity" to trace the Joker's villainy back to Norman Bates in the Hitchcock canon. Hitchcock's Norman(Perkins) is far too shy and reclusive to qualify ...he doesn't go out in the world(however forcibly) as Phoenix's Joker("Arthur Fleck" -- a rather Batesian name, yes?)

No, I trace the Joker back -- if at all -- in Hitchcock , to Robert Walker's Bruno Anthony, who, like the Nicholson and Ledger incarnations of the Joker, is a showboat egotist with an aim towards destroying society or at least other people's lives. Put Robert Walker in the Joker's green hair and clown face and let him talk like Bruno does(think: the opening scene on the train with Granger) and...voila!...you're a lot closer.

My "hidden Hitchcock villain fave," Bob Rusk, was Cockney-British of voice but also had some of the Joker's flamboyance. Except Rusk's flamboyance sounded more in "good guy cheeriness" -- he was a faker. A bad guy masquerading as a good guy.

No, Bruno Anthony was Hitchcock's Joker. At least of the Nicholson/Ledger variety.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm thinking that the proposed "Phoenix version"(and hey, Joaquin PHOENIX....that's a Psycho connection, right there), isn't going where Nicholson and Ledger did. Indeed, he CAN'T. There's no Batman in this Joker movie, and the Joker is rather a loner(though the trailers suggest a gang of anarchists are ready to be his henchmen.)

I'm on record as loving two Jokers so much(Nicholson's and Ledger's), that I gave their movies my favorite movie awards of 1989 and 2008. But that was for qualities I don't see in the Phoenix version. Actually seeing the movie -- and seeing what Joaquin Phoenix does with the role -- will make all the difference, of course.

Dare I?

Interesting how life is such a life-or-death proposition these days...

[–] jay440 (107) 5 years ago

And like Psycho, Taxi Driver was partly inspired by a real-life crime, the attempted assassination of presidential candidate George Wallace by Arthur Bremer. Bremer kept a diary (published later as "An Assassin's Diary") which Paul Schrader drew inspiration from for his Taxi Driver screenplay (DeNiro's voiceover narration comes from Travis's diary).

Bremer also appears to have been a ticking-bomb of an "incel", as his diary details an unsuccessful visit to a massage parlor.

Bremer's motive was fame, initially targeting Richard Nixon, and he even showed up at one of his campaign stops, gun in pocket, but couldn't get close enough (a scene mirrored in Taxi Driver), so he downgraded his target to Wallace. And of course, John Hinkley was inspired to shoot Ronald Reagan because he was in love with Jodie Foster, who played the child prostitute in Taxi Driver.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And like Psycho, Taxi Driver was partly inspired by a real-life crime, the attempted assassination of presidential candidate George Wallace by Arthur Bremer.

--

Yes, that's right, I remember that now. Bremer came from that period where the horror was...individual political figures being assassinated or attempts being made on them(JFK, RFK, MLK...Wallace, Reagan). But we never saw "regular people" becoming targets of these madmen. That is today.

---

Bremer kept a diary (published later as "An Assassin's Diary") which Paul Schrader drew inspiration from for his Taxi Driver screenplay (DeNiro's voiceover narration comes from Travis's diary).

---

I didn't know that. It certainly sounded "real," read in DeNiro's weird monotone(I've had problems with DeNiro's acting from the beginning; is he playing dumb, or kind OF dumb?)

---

Bremer also appears to have been a ticking-bomb of an "incel", as his diary details an unsuccessful visit to a massage parlor.

---

Yes, well -- that's too bad. Sex workers have long been offered as a possible "de-fusing mechanism" for men who can't get dates. Or heck...read a book! Killing should never be the automatic default. And a note in passing: one issue with some of these incel killers is that they strike out "out of their league." Regular guys know not to do that, just find someone who is compatible.

I suppose in Hitchcock, both Norman Bates and Bob Rusk are variants on this "incel" business. Norman clearly can't FIND women(he's a hermit.) Rusk is said to be "one for the birds," and he's handsome and successful enough, but we learn his secret soon enough: he wants to hurt women as part OF his sex life. Unacceptable. Prison is where he belongs.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And BTW, if the new "Joker" presents the Joker as an incel...closer to a Norman Bates or Bob Rusk or Travis Bickle than to a Bruno Anthony...its really taking the Joker off course, I'd say.

I don't know the comic book history on the Joker, but the Nicholson and Ledger Jokers are clearly "mob bosses" -- gangsters. Nicholson starts out as a "regular gangster"(Jack Napier), and Ledger seems to materialize at a mob gathering as "the new leader in town."

I love both of those Jokers for their line readings.

I like Ledger's Joker talking of his crime family: "I'm into AGGRESSIVE(he puts his hands together) EXPANSION!"(he opens his arms wide.) Great line reading with a little "Richard Boone" hand physicality. Whereupon he breaks a pool cue in half to create jagged edge spears and tells two henchmen there's only one job....(fight to the death implied.)

Nicholson as the Joker is...Nicholson as the Joker. I particularly like his "classic Jack" facial expressions and line readings when he discovers Bruce Wayne(Michael Keaton) at Vicki Vale's(Kim Basinger's) apartment. Some random examples:

"What's this? (French words.) Another rooster in the henhouse?"

"Never rub another man's rhubarb!"

(Told about the psycho gangster he USED to be): "I like him already!"

"Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? I say that to all my prey...I just like the sound of it."

On paper...not much to those lines. In their readings by Jack, with his eyebrows rising and his grin spreading... movie star heaven.

I'm not sure if Joaquin will take his Joker quite to the flamboyant fun places Jack and Heath went.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Bremer's motive was fame, initially targeting Richard Nixon,

---

I remember that...

---

and he even showed up at one of his campaign stops, gun in pocket, but couldn't get close enough (a scene mirrored in Taxi Driver),

---

I remember THAT. A funny scene in THAT movie. DeNiro now has his Mohawk, so he rather stands out to the Secret Service agent talking to him.

---

so he downgraded his target to Wallace.

---

It was indeed a downgrade.

---

And of course, John Hinkley was inspired to shoot Ronald Reagan because he was in love with Jodie Foster, who played the child prostitute in Taxi Driver.

---

Full circle.

And yet -- again -- the terror in 2019 isn't about a lone gunman shooting down a lone politician...its about a lone gunman shooting US.

[–] jay440 (107) 5 years ago

And yet -- again -- the terror in 2019 isn't about a lone gunman shooting down a lone politician...its about a lone gunman shooting US.

--------------------
The current debate about whether media outlets should release the names of mass shooters or withhold them (so as not to encourage "fame-seekers") resonates with Travis and Hinckley. Scorsese pursued this theme in King of Comedy, with DeNiro's Rupert Pupkin kidnapping Carson-esque talk show host Jerry Lewis so he could appear on his show. And now DeNiro plays a Carson-esque talk show host in Joker. Full circle.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The current debate about whether media outlets should release the names of mass shooters or withhold them (so as not to encourage "fame-seekers") resonates with Travis and Hinckley.

---

I've noticed a few things in this regard.

First of all , police spokesmen(Chiefs) with the last two or three mass shootings have said "The shooter's name is (BLANK)...and that is the last time you will ever hear his name said by me." And they MEAN it. These names disappear fast.

I've also noticed that internet outlets seem to drop stories about these shootings pretty quick now, after a day, maybe.

Finally, I have noticed that a few too many of these mass shooters have indeed said how an earlier mass shooter "inspired" them, often naming that earlier shooter. I would expect that the cops are hoping, by not naming the shooter more than once and convincing a (compliant?) media to drop the stories fast...maybe we will see fewer copycat shooters.

It's worth a try.

---

Scorsese pursued this theme in King of Comedy, with DeNiro's Rupert Pupkin kidnapping Carson-esque talk show host Jerry Lewis so he could appear on his show. And now DeNiro plays a Carson-esque talk show host in Joker. Full circle

---

Full circle indeed. I suppose it was pretty darn crucial for the filmmakers to convice DE NIRO to take the talk show host role, otherwise -- no homage. I mean, Al Pacino could have played it, but the direct Scorsese connection would be lost.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A "NO SPOILERS" JOKER REVIEW:

Well, I saw it and survived.

Next week: parachuting off of Mount Everest.

I did scan the theater for suspicious personnel. It was a small room, about 1/2 full. A number of young men in groups. A few single men -- i watched them, but decided they looked safe.

So I saw it, and I can only review it "backwards":

I considered "Batman" my favorite movie of 1989, and "The Dark Knight" my favorite movie of 2008, for exactly the same reason:

The Joker(whether superstar Nicholson the first time or tragically gone Heath Ledger the next time) ran the movie. In EACH movie, each time the Joker showed up , the movie took off, and each time the Joker was offscreen, the movie went flat. I would say that I liked Keaton as Batman in the first one better than Bale, but Michael Caine as Alfred (with Morgan Freeman as well) in the second one better than Michael Gough. The ladies? Kim Basinger was gorgeous; Maggie Gyellhaal was not.

But the Joker ran the show, and before he was scary, he was FUNNY. Nicholson was funny. Ledger was funny. I ascribe this to the screenwriters first, and then to the actor saying the lines. Interesting: each man has a key early scene in which they meet with mobsters...and kill somebody during the meeting. But each scene is hilarious. And each scene allows the actor(Nicholson, Ledger) to act just psychotic ENOUGH around the edges to take the edge off the comedy. With Nicholson, its when he talks to himself, Norman Bates-like from the skull face of the man he has just fried to death via a handshake buzzer. With Ledger, its when he reacts to being called insane -- he doesn't like it.

And ANY time I put Batman in the DVD player, and ANY time I put The Dark Knight in the DVD player, I just skip to the Joker scenes and I'm thoroughly entertained.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

NO SPOILERS JOKER REVIEW, CONT

Versus Nicholson and Ledger:

Joaquin Phoenix as a character who will ultimately be called "Joker" never once triggered that "comedy meets scary" beat that both Nicholson and Ledger got . He's getting some Oscar-bait cred(measured against some bad reviews) for playing a rather garden variety depressed, oppressed nutcase. I, personally, never for a moment associated the Phoenix character with a person who would ever "grow up"(so to speak) to become a major crime boss with a great sense of humor. "Joker" is simply not a movie about THE Joker. To me.

And Phoenix does some bizarre things, twisting his super-thin body around into rubbery knots and over-doing the method stuff. Its funny he is paired with De Niro , who sure GAINED a lot of weight for some roles(Raging Bull, Al Capone) and I think lost for some roles, but anyway: its a meeting of the brooding Method Messes and I for one was not entertained, like, ever.

I've noticed the reviews range from raves to pans. I guess I'm on the pan side, but I guess more to the point is that I think it is a pretty good version of a type of movie I don't much like.

And another thing, sensitive though it may be: the Taxi Driver similes are there, but both Travis Bickle and THIS fellow(Phoenix's Arthur Fleck) strike me as very DUMB men. Nicholson and Ledger projected smarts -- and Nicholson's Joker had a "scientific genius with chemicals" background -- and a background(nicely played for the first pre-Joker half hour of "Batman") as a tough gangster.

Ledger was smart in this exchange with gangsters:

Gangster: So why don't you just kill Batman yourself?
Joker(Ledger) If you're good at something, never do it for free.

Against Jack and Heath in al their brainy bravado...Phoenix is a meek mentally defective mouse driven mad.

This is "NO SPOILERS" so I'll just say that the violence is pretty gruesome when it comes, but still, the murders seem more the work of a moron than a madman.

So for 2019 so far, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood holds as my favorite.

Maybe The Irishman will best it...

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

it's a meeting of the brooding Method Messes and I for one was not entertained, like, ever.

That's an Ebert-worthy summary & slam.
I *almost* caught Joker myself last night but ultimately just didn't feel like putting myself through such a downer.

I did recently manage to catch It:Chapter 2... Not nearly as polished as Chapter 1, Chapter 2 seemed to me lazy & repetitive & (in a very self-aware way, which doesn't help!) lacking a good ending. Ultimately, I had much more time than I did in Chap 1 to be irked by inconsistencies in the clown-villain, Pennywise. Pennywise seems to be a full-bore serial killer of those who *aren't* in the central 'Losers' group, but he's only a scare threat to the losers- a threat they can always dissolve unilaterally by overcoming their own fears. Or something. It never gets its story straight about its villain I'm afraid, and by the end of Chap 2 the whole story feels quite deflated by this central gaseousness. Definitely makes one appreciate the relative solidity of Hitchcock's villains or Joker or Scorpio or Lector or Thanos.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

That's an Ebert-worthy summary & slam.

---

Thanks. I may have overstated the case a bit. I think part of what I mean is that Robert DeNiro must have met his match in Joaquin Phoenix in the "method" department. They probably tried to out-realistic each other. But its simple, really: Nicholson and Ledger were funny, entertaining Jokers -- one watched their dialogue scenes with the same enjoyment of a good Hitchocck dialogue scene, or a good Aaron Sorkin dialogue scene, maybe even a good QT dialogue scene. Phoenix never plays that game.

---

I *almost* caught Joker myself last night but ultimately just didn't feel like putting myself through such a downer.

---

Well, I'll be interested in your "take." There are things to like in it, and actually seeing Robert DeNiro in a variation on Jerry Lewis' character in The King of Comedy(with DeNiro as the Joker-like Rupert Pumpkin) IS interesting. But not much entertaining.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I did recently manage to catch It:Chapter 2... Not nearly as polished as Chapter 1, Chapter 2 seemed to me lazy & repetitive & (in a very self-aware way, which doesn't help!) lacking a good ending.

---

IT is one of the few Stephen King books I read all the way through(its a big one), and I saw the 1990 TV mini-series that had to pull its punches, but did the same thing the new one did in casting some interesting actors (like the Night Court judge) as the grown up Losers.

I tried to watch IT Part 1 on cable last year, but couldn't make it much past the opening "Yes, we float" scene(which IS scary, a few levels down from the shower scene but iconic enough on its own terms.) I could relate to the child actors very well.

I haven't seen the part with the adults(with SNL's Bill Hader the "offbeat" casting this time around and Jessica Chastain out for big bucks) but I think I will eventually. Probably both parts, back to back.

---

Pennywise seems to be a full-bore serial killer of those who *aren't* in the central 'Losers' group, but he's only a scare threat to the losers- a threat they can always dissolve unilaterally by overcoming their own fears. Or something. It never gets its story straight about its villain I'm afraid, and by the end of Chap 2 the whole story feels quite deflated by this central gaseousness.

---

This was my problem in all versions of IT I've read or seen thus far -- the clown's a killer until he isn't. Its too metaphysical. Psycho, at its plausible core -- was about a HUMAN BEING with monstrous killer appetites, STABBING the victim. Real killer. Real victim. Real -- and final -- death (vs all those Marvel resurrections.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

With Psycho, Wait Until Dark, Frenzy, Silence of the Lambs, and Se7en in my blood, I think I can say I much prefer realistic killers to the illusionary ghost killers of Stephen King. To rectify that aspect of his work, King wrote Misery, in which the killer is human and a psycho(and played in the movie by Kathy BATES, ha ha.) I've hardly read all the King books, but I guess Misery is my favorite, book and film. No wait -- I like The Shining better on film, and that one keeps you guessing about the ghosts(who lets Jack out of the freezer unit?)

--

Definitely makes one appreciate the relative solidity of Hitchcock's villains or Joker or Scorpio or Lector or Thanos.

---

I say "yes" to all of those with the exception of Thanos, who seemed to have some superhuman qualities to him -- or maybe just superstrong. There were a few too many scenes of multiple Avengers jumping on him at once in a futile attempt to bring him down(or strangle him.)

And good call on Scorpio...he has some Joker like qualities, but he's also just pure murderous EVIL(women, children, everybody). And the kicker is the fun we get watching Scorpio get stabbed and beaten along the way to his final satisfying death by gunfire.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Against Jack and Heath in all their brainy bravado...Phoenix is a meek mentally defective mouse driven mad.

Agreed. Arthur Fleck is *such* a one-note, purely confused, hopeless, pitiful case that he's not especially interesting for *us* to watch or listen to, and that in turn makes it hard to believe he'd draw crowds of followers, let alone go on to lead those crowds. (It also makes it hard to believe that Phoenix will win a Best Actor Oscar - he's short any especially great dialogue or any real variety in is character. But maybe Rainman & My Left Foot show I'm wrong about this.)

Joker was a mighty unpleasant watch, although channeling French Connection's art direction and lighting is a master stroke. Amazing that something this grungy is grossing at least $1 Billion!

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

It's worth mentioning that as well as resembling (the less fun aspects of) Taxi Driver & King of Comedy, Joker also resembles another recent Joaquin Phoenix film & performance, You Were Never Really Here (2017), whose explicit connections with Psycho I discussed here:
https://tinyurl.com/yz4vk8y3
Recall that the basic plot of YWNRH is Hit Man with (mommy & other) issues saves/retrieves girl from dire straits/sexual slavery. In my view the film literally lost the plot in its second half by plunging us so far into Phoenix's character's subjectivity that we didn't know what was going on, all dialogue became mumbled, etc... Looking back, Phoenix's hitman is revealed as being more of a nutcase, more Arthur Fleck-like than we realized.

So, Psycho & Norman were points of reference for what now feels like Phoenix's first draft of his Joker. YWNRH also feels like the real half-way house between Joker and its Scorsese antecedents. Both Taxi Driver & King of Comedy have 4-5 vivid supporting characters, YWNRH has 1-2, and Joker has 0 (we're so far in Arthur's head at all times that nobody else, not his Mom, not Robert De Niro's character ever really registers except as more drab wall-paper for Arthur to curl up into a ball in front of; until he doesn't).

I guess I'd like to add that 'plunges into subjectivity' can be dynamite in film. Burning (2018) subtly, brilliantly, poetically wrong-foots you going this route. Requiem for a Dream (2000) pulverizes you by sending you on a high-energy bad trip. Repulsion (1965) sort of takes both these routes at once. Joker's pity-party bad trip just didn't interest me as much as those.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

So, Psycho & Norman were points of reference for what now feels like Phoenix's first draft of his Joker.

--

Again, we can only "what if?" the issue of Joaquin AS Norman in Van Sant's remake. I mean, he would have been given almost all of Perkins' original lines. Would he have stayed calm...or gone nuts?

---

YWNRH also feels like the real half-way house between Joker and its Scorsese antecedents. Both Taxi Driver & King of Comedy have 4-5 vivid supporting characters, YWNRH has 1-2, and Joker has 0

---

Ha. Yeah. And no Batman to joust with.

---

(we're so far in Arthur's head at all times that nobody else, not his Mom, not Robert De Niro's character ever really registers except as more drab wall-paper for Arthur to curl up into a ball in front of; until he doesn't).

---

There's a spoiler about DeNiro in the movie that I guess I'll leave alone. He seemed oddly wasted in the part, trying to connect at a deeper level, but not allowed to.

But Mr. DeNiro is now in a billion dollar movie! (Next up: The Irishman, which CAN'T make a billion, not on Netflix.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I guess I'd like to add that 'plunges into subjectivity' can be dynamite in film. Burning (2018) subtly, brilliantly, poetically wrong-foots you going this route. Requiem for a Dream (2000) pulverizes you by sending you on a high-energy bad trip. Repulsion (1965) sort of takes both these routes at once. Joker's pity-party bad trip just didn't interest me as much as those.

---

Well, I fear those are the "real deal" in down low depravity and angst; Joker is a wannabee(that's how you make a billion -- kids come in.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Against Jack and Heath in all their brainy bravado...Phoenix is a meek mentally defective mouse driven mad.
Agreed. Arthur Fleck is *such* a one-note, purely confused, hopeless, pitiful case that he's not especially interesting for *us* to watch or listen to, and that in turn makes it hard to believe he'd draw crowds of followers, let alone go on to lead those crowds.

---

Aha. You've seen Joker. Well, we agree on this one. He just doesn't seem like THE Joker. Jack and Heath did.

---

(It also makes it hard to believe that Phoenix will win a Best Actor Oscar - he's short any especially great dialogue or any real variety in is character. But maybe Rainman & My Left Foot show I'm wrong about this.)

--

Ha. Maybe. Recall this is called (sadly?) "the affliction Oscar" and a few actors and actresses have won it.

---

Joker was a mighty unpleasant watch, although channeling French Connection's art direction and lighting is a master stroke.

---

French Connection? Gee, on top of Taxi Driver...that's one grimy movie. Didn't see the (French) connection, myself.

---

Amazing that something this grungy is grossing at least $1 Billion!

---

Well, the RIGHT comic book movie grosses one billion these days. Its pretty easy. Turns out, just calling it "Joker" did the trick. Though Jared Leto(Suicide Squad's Joker) now has a rather pitiful record with the role. Jack the Superstar. Heath the Superperformance. Those are the two to beat(and Jack's will never be beaten as a matter of casting a superstar. There are so few of them at any given time. None of them will want to ever play the Joker again).

---

There had been talk that this would be a "one off standalone Joker," but I expect one billion will change that. The question becomes: can and will Joaquin re-format the character into a gang boss and leader of men/women?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Meanwhile, a new Batman trilogy is in pre-production. It is called "The Batman." Evidently the gimmick is to put every Batman villain EXCEPT the Joker in every movie. Paul Dano has been cast as the Riddler, some woman named Zoe as Catwoman, Colin Farrell rumored as Penguin(after Jonah Hill and Seth Rogan were rumored first.) Seems a good plan -- FLOOD the next trilogy with villains and allow Batman to fade away(Robert Pattison.)

Its so quaint now to think of the original 1989 Batman as a standalone, meaningful epic that ruled a summer and rejuvenated Jack Nicholson for a new audience. Now Batmen and Jokers and Catwomen and Penguins will just keep rolling around...

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

!!! SPOILER !!! SPOILER !!! SPOILER !!!

I just saw this today and was like what am I watching during most of the movie? I tried to not have any expectations, nor read any comic or graphic novel associated with it, i.e. too old, but knew this was a dark movie and violent. It was that, but not so much uncomfortable to make one upset and leave the theater. I did think of Taxi Driver. That's what Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Arthur Fleck reminded me of. It wasn't the Joker from the comic books. Obviously, one is going to compare Phoenix's portrayal to that of Heath Ledger's. It wasn't as light as Ledger's. This was much more depressing and disturbing as we are subjected to watching the lower dregs of society. It was Taxi Driver with the Wizard and Travis and Fleck is someone who cannot defend himself from middle school thugs.

I don't want to give much more away discussing this film, but looking back on your comments, it does have that French Connection art direction and lighting. You can tell the director "borrowed" stuff, or maybe this was what he learned from 60s movies. It seems like he had some Easy Rider type music segments. It could be Top Gun, but it was MTV-ish to add drama and tone to the movie.

I can see older comic movie fans not getting it compared to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I didn't get it until it was over and then reading some articles on it. It really was too bloody and violent for a comic book movie, but who knows what else they are showing these days? Is The Irishman suppose to be this dark and violent?

ETA: As for the Joker, I'm not sure if Arthur Fleck is The Joker. He has become Joker and plays a more cartoonish one, but dark and violent, and more of a political icon than gangster. He isn't Jack Napier who ends up killing Bruce Wayne's parents in the other versions. We see another clown do the killing. There is a lot of psychology being discussed, but I'm not sure if what we saw explains The Joker. I'm sure there will be a Joker 2 due to its box office success and it could go several different ways.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I was hoping someone who saw Joker would reply. Was it something that is going to veer off from the DCEU? I was not sure as people have said it is the start of something different. It could be just one movie to veer from the DCEU character storyline. However, Joker was such a success that it was announced yesterday that there would be Joker 2. I suppose this is important or else the movie ends with a twist storyline.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Was it something that is going to veer off from the DCEU?

I'm not sure that there really *is* a DCEU. Yes, there have been a few DC films putting together a few heroes but none have been especially successful let alone the kind of all-round triumph that Avengers 1 was. If Joker connects to anything at least tonally I suppose it would be Nolan's second two Batman films, but those aren't connected to any EU, multi-hero worlds either.

If I had to guess, the projected Joker 2 *will* explore the 'Arthur Fleck is Bruce Wayne's half-brother' idea which would make him a different sort of Batman-nemesis than the Joker has historically been - he might eve track down and kill the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. Maybe then Arthur Fleck later inspires a completely unrelated Ledger-Joker. At the very least I take this sort of extension of Joker to be much more likely than an EU extension where he has to grapple with Aquaman & Wonder Woman, etc..

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

If I had to guess, the projected Joker 2 *will* explore the 'Arthur Fleck is Bruce Wayne's half-brother' idea which would make him a different sort of Batman-nemesis than the Joker has historically been - he might eve track down and kill the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. Maybe then Arthur Fleck later inspires a completely unrelated Ledger-Joker. At the very least I take this sort of extension of Joker to be much more likely than an EU extension where he has to grapple with Aquaman & Wonder Woman, etc..

---

This "Joker" had been sold as a "stand alone" -- almost an art film one off meant to explore the Joker in a different way. I contend that "different way" is a guy who simply isn't the Joker I knew and loved, whether Jack's or Heath's.

But...one billion dollars. There has to be a Joker 2. I like swanstep's concept, and it will be interesting to see if the Joker is REALLY Bruce's half brother (I'm not sure I like that; its like Psycho II giving Norman a DIFFERENT, alive mother as the killer.)

Alternatively, they could take Joaquin's Joker and twist him INTO the Jack/Heath version -- more dynamic, more of a leader, more of a GANGSTER. Just forget everything about his performance in this first film.

It looks like the DCEU has pulled off a few billion dollar(or little more, little less) movies in the past years: Wonder Woman(which I really liked); Aquaman(haven't seen it but the CGI looks great), Joker.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Begs the question: WHY is the Joker such a big, big money-driving villain(at least 3 out of 4 times at the movies?)

I've been pondering this, and here's a guess based on MY childhood:

I wasn't a comic book superfan, or even a comic book fan, but they were around and I did like Batman the best(I "dealt" with Robin as an irritant, even though he was supposedly my "kid identification" figure.)

Not only in Batman, but versus ALL OTHER villains on the page, the Joker stood out. That face of course. Clown-like, otherworldly, inhuman. You'd have all these men drawn "regular"(suits, ties, hats, normal skin on their faces) and there would be this one, leering, grinning clown-faced "alien being" on the page. He creeped me out. He piqued my curiosity.

I "got" the Joker better once Cesar Romero played him on the TV show, but it took all the way to 1989 and My Favorite Superstar taking the role to make the Joker "special." Jack was great in the role; then almost 20 years later , Heath was great too. And thus it has been cemented: there's just something about the Joker that makes a difference. The face, no doubt. The power of the character. HIs leadership. His insanity. His laugh(variations on a mad cackle with each Joker.) His humor. But probably above all: his face. (Yet again.)

And this: "Joker's" a cool name. Remember Steve Miller's song "The Joker" ("I'm a Joker, I'm stoker, I'm a midnight toker") or Matthew Modine in "Full Metal Jacket"("Joker" in Vietnam.)

Imagine the backfire if Bob Kane had named him "The Clown."

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

And this: "Joker's" a cool name.

Yep... a cool name has often been important for bands: The Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, Kraftwerk, Joy Division, The Jesus And Mary Chain, Pearl Jam, Massive Attack, Aphex Twin, LCD Soundsystem, Arcade Fire are all so intriguing-sounding, names you can conjure with.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

There you go.

"Joker" is pretty simple compared to THOSE but...he still has his cachet.

He's a real Joker....

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Begs the question: WHY is the Joker such a big, big money-driving villain(at least 3 out of 4 times at the movies?)<<

Probably because Batman's popular and his #1 nemesis. This one got good word of mouth; it's totally a different story. I didn't know what I was watching and even thought there was a twist at the end with I assume with the Jack Napier killer.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Maybe The Irishman will best it...<<

I'm still debating whether to watch The Joker in theaters as well as The Irishman.

Just wanted to mention, I saw The Color of Money and was surprised it was directed by Martin Scorsese. It seems Paul Newman approached him to direct his movie because he liked Raging Bull and thought The Hustler Part 2 would have a similar story line. Have you seen both? The latter is not your Scorsese type movie, but a collaboration. The cinematography does not match Raging Bull, but it's still pretty slick. Jackie Gleason did not want a bit role as Minnesota Fats. A cameo would not do the original The Hustler justice. (BTW I am still a pool player.) However, if he had a dramatic appearance and run-in with Fast Eddie, and made some comment that brought everything back, then it might have been worthwhile.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm still debating whether to watch The Joker in theaters as well as The Irishman.

---

Well, for me, if its a movie I really want to see...I gotta see it in the theater. It hasn't happened yet, but I have tickets to see The Irishman in a theater before it goes to Netflix...forever.

I'm reminded that:

North by Northwest opened in theaters in 1959, but didn't get its first TV showing for EIGHT YEARS(1967.)

Whereas The Irishman is in theaters now(November 16, 2019) but will be "on TV"(Netflix) by November 27(FOUR WEEKS after release!.)

That's a change.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Just wanted to mention, I saw The Color of Money and was surprised it was directed by Martin Scorsese. It seems Paul Newman approached him to direct his movie because he liked Raging Bull and thought The Hustler Part 2 would have a similar story line. Have you seen both?

---

I"ve seen 'em all: Raging Bull, the original Hustler, and The Color of Money.

---

The latter is not your Scorsese type movie, but a collaboration.

---

I've always found Scorsese's career very "structured." In the 70's, he makes his "genius" reputation with Mean Streets("debut" to us); Taxi Driver(especially) and, even though it is a 1980 movie, "Raging Bull." And "Raging Bull" kinda/sorta killed his career with the studios(after a flop before that with New York. New York.)

So Scorsese spends the 80's...struggling. Having trouble setting up projects. Making "less than" movies like "After Hours"(which I love.) Watching the very good "King of Comedy" flop( further hurting his ability to get financing. Watching his Christ movie generate controversy but no money.

And doing "The Color of Money." Pretty much "for hire," and pretty much in the service of TWO stars -- Newman(old and looking great in a moustache) and Tom Cruise(newly superstarred from Top Gun and wearing a RIDICULOUS pompidor.hairstyle)

Newman won the Best Actor Oscar for "The Color of Money" one year after getting a "lifetime achievement award" from the Academy. Irony! (Newman showed up for the lifetime gig, not for The Color of Money.) And the feeling was: Newman had deserved the Best Actor Oscar for a lot of movies OTHER than The Color of Money. The Verdict most recently(1982), but also ...the ORIGINAL Hustler, Hud, Cool Hand Luke...and, for my money, Hombre. (Torn Curtain, not so much.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I remember liking one thing best about The Color of Money: its MTV video, directed by Scorsese, and scored to Eric Clapton's "Its in the Way That You Use it." The video turned a rather boring movie into a hip and exciting thrill ride of images fast-cut to the ultra-hip song(billard balls being snapped apart on the "first break" in formation became a "rhythm" motif to the video) I do believe you can see that video on YouTube, and...there's the movie, right there.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The cinematography does not match Raging Bull, but it's still pretty slick.

---

That was a key problem with The Color of Money. "The Hustler" of 1961 was a quintessential "grimy New York City movie" of its time -- its in b/w the year after Psycho, but has none of the shimmer and shine of the Psycho b/w cinematography. Its...grubby and real and down low and many of the characters are mean (George C. Scott) or pitiable(Piper Laurie.) And Newman gets his fingers broken by thugs.

Whereas The Color of Money was in color and slick and as much of the 80s as The Hustler was of the 50's/60's cusp (The Hustler is as akin to On the Waterfront as to Hud.)
Cruise made the whole enterprise too "light."

---
Jackie Gleason did not want a bit role as Minnesota Fats. A cameo would not do the original The Hustler justice. (BTW I am still a pool player.) However, if he had a dramatic appearance and run-in with Fast Eddie, and made some comment that brought everything back, then it might have been worthwhile.

--

Jackie Gleason was an interesting guy to me from about 1970 on. He'd been a force of nature on The Honeymooners in the 50's and a pretty big TV star in the 60's. And then he just sort of disappeared, rich and happy in semi-retirement. And then, he CAME BACK...Smokey and the Bandit, as requested by Burt Reynolds. Thereafter, Gleason would appear in schlock like The Sting II and good stuff like "Nothing in Common"(with Tom Hanks as his playboy son.) But Gleason evidently stuck to his guns about staying out of The Color of Money. And his absence hurt.

So YOU"RE a pool player, too. Well, I trust you "got the vibe" of both The Hustler AND The Color of Money.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Which reminds me: in the 60's Steve McQueen in his pursuit of the Paul Newman career, did The Cinncinati Kid, which has him pitted in a poker gave versus Edward G. Robinson(in a role turned down by Spencer Tracy and CAry Grant) as the "Minnesota FAts" of poker. I like The Cincinnati Kid better than The Hustler, but The Hustler is the "better" movie: more real, more gritty,more dramatic.

But not as FUN. The Cincinnati Kid is in color and Ann Margret and Tuesday Weld are along as redhead and blonde eye candy, and an "all-star cast"(Eddie G, Karl Malden, Rip Torn, Joan Blondell) supports Cool Steve.

---

Back to Scorsese in the 80's. The Color of Money won an Oscar but didn't get Scorsese-great reviews. He WAS for hire.

Almost as if on schedule, it took the NINETIES -- and 1990 -- for Scorsese to never worry again about his career. GoodFellas in 1990 started it. Cape Fear in 1991 continued it(big bucks, OK reviews.) Casino in 1995 repeated it(GoodFellas with a bigger budget and looking more plush.) And he did his Merchant/Ivory prestige piece in there, too(The Age of Innocence).

By the 2000's, the canny Scorsese attached himself to a young star named DiCaprio and stayed bankable to this very day. Leo isn't in every Scorsese movie, but he was there when Marty needed him. And with bankability and respect, Marty has gotten Nicholson and Pacino and Day Lewis to work with him, too. Plus..DeNiro's back!

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>So YOU"RE a pool player, too. Well, I trust you "got the vibe" of both The Hustler AND The Color of Money.<<

I learned how to play from Willie Mosconi books and if you walk into enough pool halls, bars, bowling alleys, cafes, homes, etc., then you'll pick up the nuances of hustling. I have a 9-ball signed by Willie Mosconi. Playing like Minnesota Fats is not my style. Everyone develops a style. I think every pool player thinks they're a hustler, but both movies were talking about playing for big money and getting shills to go in on it because they think it's going to be easy money for them. Playing for $200 in 1961 is around $1686 per game today. Anyway, you get a lot of shills in any form of gambling including cards with guys talking.

Now this is NBA, but for example, I heard yesterday that someone bet $1000 to win a cool million if the Warriors won the championship again like they did in 2018. Of course, they're the worst team in the NBA right now and have no chance. That is a sucker bet and what the hustler is looking to find and bring out.

For the Hustler movie, Jackie Gleason did not play his role using the real Minnesota Fats as a model for his role. I would guess he created the character from one of the myriad of characters he could play. I've seen a few of his Jackie Gleason shows on one on Nick at Nite or rerun channels. He's quite good. "How sweet it is!"

Does this look and sound like MF in The Hustler to you? https://youtu.be/Gtnmfb9Dnkg

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

>>So YOU"RE a pool player, too. Well, I trust you "got the vibe" of both The Hustler AND The Color of Money.<<

I learned how to play from Willie Mosconi books and if you walk into enough pool halls, bars, bowling alleys, cafes, homes, etc., then you'll pick up the nuances of hustling

--

Another ringer in our midst!

Me and my childhood again: I had a friend, he had a cool basement room. We started with his "slot car racing" (remember those) and then he put a pool table in as he got older....and I played there. That's where I learned, have only played slop ball ever since...no ringer here.

---

I have a 9-ball signed by Willie Mosconi

---

Excellent!.

--

Playing like Minnesota Fats is not my style. Everyone develops a style.

---

I can't say I know MF's style.

---

I think every pool player thinks they're a hustler, but both movies were talking about playing for big money and getting shills to go in on it because they think it's going to be easy money for them.

---

Well, hustling(in these movies) is a dangerous con man's game. Act like you're no good, lose a few games, get big money on the table...THEN show that you're a ringer. Escaping seems to be the key skill after hustling.

Didn't Forest Whitaker "out-hustle" Newman in The Color of Money?

---

Playing for $200 in 1961 is around $1686 per game today. Anyway, you get a lot of shills in any form of gambling including cards with guys talking.

---

Yes. Though we seem to get a lot of old Westerns where the hero is winning at cards and a bad guy accuses him of cheating and...bang bang, you're dead(John Wayne and Lee Marvin in the Commancheros.)

Or bang bang, you're not dead:

Bad guy: I didn't know you were the Sundance Kid when I accused you of cheating. You'll kill me.
Sundance: There is that possibility.

(No gunfight.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Now this is NBA, but for example, I heard yesterday that someone bet $1000 to win a cool million if the Warriors won the championship again like they did in 2018. Of course, they're the worst team in the NBA right now and have no chance. That is a sucker bet and what the hustler is looking to find and bring out.

---

Or a long, long, long, LONG shot. (Hah.)

---

For the Hustler movie, Jackie Gleason did not play his role using the real Minnesota Fats as a model for his role. I would guess he created the character from one of the myriad of characters he could play. I've seen a few of his Jackie Gleason shows on one on Nick at Nite or rerun channels. He's quite good. "How sweet it is!"

---

Yeah, Gleason had plenty of style. He was some kind of kitchen sink God on The Honeymooners(though his "to the moon, Alice!" wife beating threat, never acted on....never again.

Funny thing I read...someone recently wrote that this generation's Jackie Gleason is...Melissa McCarthy. Kind of true in her comedy work.

---

Does this look and sound like MF in The Hustler to you? https://youtu.be/Gtnmfb9Dnkg
--

I'll take a look but I'm no expert on MF. Moreso on Jackie Gleason...but not much THERE, either. (Though my parents had some bizarre MUSIC albums where Gleason led some sort of small orchestra?)

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>So Scorsese spends the 80's...struggling. Having trouble setting up projects. Making "less than" movies like "After Hours"(which I love.) Watching the very good "King of Comedy" flop( further hurting his ability to get financing. Watching his Christ movie generate controversy but no money.

And doing "The Color of Money." Pretty much "for hire," and pretty much in the service of TWO stars -- Newman(old and looking great in a moustache) and Tom Cruise(newly superstarred from Top Gun and wearing a RIDICULOUS pompidor.hairstyle)<<

I didn't think about what happened to Scorsese's career or knew about it. Maybe he got typecast in the type of director he was with Mafia characters or crime figures. The 80s was about making money and it showed how the blue collar did it by "hustling."

As for the pompadour, I think there were variations of it in the 80s with it being sweipt up and maybe a flattop. They made Vince look that way to show he didn't exactly get that right either. He's still working at Toys R Us. His gf has a shady past with her burglar bf and he can't figure it out. Vince is a dork in other words, but he still has his one talent.

BTW, I didn't know this until after this thread, but Minnesota Fats was New York Fatty or something like it. He changed his nick to Minnesota Fats because of The Hustler. What a schmuck, but I guess it fits his character. The Jackie Gleason character was good and would've added a nice touch for the 50s (?), i.e. another generation if he was able to get a small scene, but Eddie had become Bert so would've been hard to contrast with Fast Eddie.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Whereas The Irishman is in theaters now(November 16, 2019) but will be "on TV"(Netflix) by November 27(FOUR WEEKS after release!.)
That's a change.

Last year was the big one: for Oscar season Netflix had Roma, Ballad of Buster Scruggs, Other Side of the Wind, each of which would previously have been (at least) a nice little earner for indie/artsy cinemas.

This year Netflix's Oscar plays are led by The Irishman & Marriage Story which it's starting to seem like may well scoop almost *all* the top Awards this year. Netflix is also releasing a top film from Cannes, 'Atlantics' next week, and maybe some other cool stuff I've forgotten.

The head dude for movies at Netflix is Scott Stuber, an impressive fellow (for a 'suit' - one of the good ones IMHO) who got his start with an aging Wasserman back in the '90s. Here's him chatting about Netflix's model and plans today:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-scott-stuber-talent-deals-theatrical-window-divisions-1253689
and here's a NY times profile from last year:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/business/media/netflix-movies-hollywood.html

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Well, Netflix is where its at these days....this idea of paying talent "in success" is hard to get one's arms around. But I'll bet their agents and lawyers know -- if it turns into ever-rising payouts on their work.

I do believe a lot of the big names doing Netflix flix(Sandra Bullock, Adam Sandler...Scorsese) are getting paid huge sums to show up.

I see where Harrison Ford just signed up for a Netflix series. I THINK its a Netflix series...

Oh, well, Netflix has given me my favorite movie of 2018 and my co-favorite movie of 2019, so...they must be doing something right.

It occurs to me, as I award OAITH/The Irishman a tie for favorite movie of the year, I DID do that one other time, but I changed my mind over time:

I tied Charlie Wilson's War and Sweeney Todd for 2007. Over the years, I found myself re-playing the harsh comedy of Charlie's War on DVD more than the spurting gore of Todd, and Charlie took the title. I did love some of the songs in Sweeney Todd though...and how they were staged to end in BLOOD. Pretty Women, especially.

It happens.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Thanks for posting this. I didn't know what was behind the scenes with the Netflix deal. I rather see The Irishman play longer in theaters than four weeks before it hits streaming. In fact, it's 12 days before streaming if the dates posted above are correct. What a lie. I'll just make sure not to renew my Netflix, maybe I'll try hulu instead, before I'm done watching The Irishman in theaters. It's got a high rating with over 12K votes.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'll just make sure not to renew my Netflix, maybe I'll try hulu instead, before I'm done watching The Irishman in theaters.

---

So you aren't going along with the "Netflix model"? Well, I'm sure that they were going to bug SOMEBODY.

I'm very glad that I got to see The Irishman on the big screen, and it was a BIG screen. The theater chose one of its biggest "non-IMAX" screens, so the movie was impressively big.

I will say that Scorsese used his clout to pull something off here.

Generally, the Netflix movies only play screens in Los Angeles and NYC for Oscar consideration. The Irishman was announced more widely across the country and I was set to travel about 100 miles to see it. And then it got announced only a few miles from my home. So it seems that Scorsese's clout must have pushed a few more theater chains to "take the Netflix deal" and just show the film for a few weeks(or less.) They made some money; people were there at my theater -- the scene in Florida where Pacino's Hoffa hassles the mob guy over being late got big laughs...something you really only get in a theater.

By getting The Irishman on so many movie screens, Scorsese has likely defused his pal Spielberg's demand that "Netflix movies are on TV, so they should only be eligible for Emmys."

Also a win for Scorsese: evidently studios would not finance The Irishman at the requisite $169 million (for the de-aging effects among other things) and a movie about "old men." So Scorsese cut his deal with Netflix "for TV almost exclusively" ...but slowly chipped away at the deal and got his movie into more theaters. That's "The Scorsese Way."

Hell, nowadays, MOST movies only play at theaters for a few weeks anyway. But they are supposed to stay off TV for 90 days or so.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

In fact, it's 12 days before streaming

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The Irishman starts streaming this Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving in the US. Could this become a new tradition: a prestige streamer release to watch in a post-Turkey, politics-fight-avoidant stupor?

---

...and off theater screens at the same time?

So what WAS the actual count of days that The Irishman is/was in theaters?

I think from November 2 through November 26? That's 24 days. Three seven-day weeks, plus a few days? So a little under four weeks, then.

---

Note that Netflix drops Atlantics (Grand Prix - second place - winner from Cannes) on Friday. Kewl

--What is this?

I'll note that even with my "tie for 2019" of the QT and the Scorsese, should I see something with a 2019 release date that bests them...I'll pick it. I haven't seen JoJo Rabbit or Parasite yet, I'm going to try to. That said, in the year that La La Land and Moonlight were the Oscar biggies...I saw the former, missed the latter, and chose..I can't remember..was that 2016 or 2017?...as my "favorite." (The Mag 7 or Molly's Game, I suppose...2016 and 2017.) So I'm no cineaste...

I recall picking The Descendants as my favorite of 2011(near the end of that year) but...a few months later, I saw Moneyball on cable(I had not seen it in theaters)..and I made my switch.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Note that Netflix drops Atlantics (Grand Prix - second place - winner from Cannes) on Friday. Kewl
--What is this?

It's from Senegal (on the Atlantic coast of Africa) & focuses on oppressed souls there trying to migrate to Europe (France I think given that it was the main colonizing power in Senegal). Apparently it has supernatural or 'magical realist' elements (literalizing ghosts of independence, ghosts of colonialism, African ancestors & traditions more generally? We'll see.).

Anyhow, it's the sort of marginal thing that has *always* struggled to find an audience at the movies. I strongly suspect that lots more people *will* give it a try on Netflix than ever would have sought it out on a big screen. Excellent use of the new tech in my view.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

I have now watched Atlantics on Netflix... and I liked it quite a lot. Like many of the more interesting films this year (OUATIH, The Irishman, The Nightingale), Atlantics has some pacing issues, & in my view it could probably shed 10 minutes or so from its first 45 with profit. Setting that problem aside, however, Atlantics is a beautifully shot & scored coming of age story set in Dakar, Senegal, a society under economic and ethnic & religious stress (somewhat papered over by the shared colonial language and institutions). Very risky ocean voyages to Europe (the closest piece of which is actually the Canary Islands although I had to look this up; the film doesn't pause to explain this or anything else much, we're just in it) are a commonplace attempted escape-route for the young (and beautiful). On the one hand, the film's committed to sharp realism about the lives of its characters & their political situation. On the other hand, some well-judged fx shots introduce an element of Afro-futurist sci-fi, and the ultimate plot-motor is a supernatural development. The upshot is a literally poetic realism about migration crises, and the hangovers of both colonialism & ultra-capitalism. It's beautifully & movingly done for the most part. Atlantics won't be everyone's cup of tea but I'd predict that anyone who dug Moonlight will dig this too.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>The Irishman starts streaming this Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving in the US. Could this become a new tradition: a prestige streamer release to watch in a post-Turkey, politics-fight-avoidant stupor?<<

I've opted to do the Netflix and will take them up on their free trial offer to come back. I think all I have to do is buy the Roku Express+ 2019 which has the HDMI to RCA conversion and cables for my old projector. If you have a high-end HD, 4K, or better tv, then I suppose HDMI-to-HDMI is the way to go.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

I haven't seen JoJo Rabbit or Parasite yet, I'm going to try to.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Parasite has a slight Psycho connection, one which it would be a spoiler to even hint at. Some of the new Oscar-courting advertizing for Parasite, e.g., on Instagram, makes the connection and should be avoided by those wishing to go in completely unspoiled

---

Uh oh. I recall reading that there was something "Psycho-like" to a new movie called The Crying Game, and I ran out and saw it on opening day. Good thing, too.

Parasite is playing near me in the same art house where I SAW The Crying Game; I'll try to get to it.

A personal irony revelation. There was a person in my past who sought to see ALL the movies playing at that particular art house, and we did. I am not with that person any longer. The "new" person has no such interest in art films, or in that (now quite aged) art theater("Elmer Gantry" played there first run in 1960 -- I discovered in my search for where Psycho played in this town that year) and I saw "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" there in 1969. Its OLD, this theater...and for art films and indies exclusively, now.

And I think I'll be seeing Parasite by myself. "Is OK."

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I can see why now. It's almost 3:30 hr movie. Only playing in one theater 30 mins. away in my city anyway.