I conclude that we are basically just in the mind of a mad man for two hours.
I actually enjoyed it more on the second viewing knowing that much, or all of it, was just delusion.
It is incredibly vague, and it is up to the viewer to decide really.
I definitely believe he murdered Sophie (in real life or in his delusion) which takes away any pretence that he was a kind of Robin Hood figure. He was just psychotic.
While I understand why you came to your conclusion.
Todd Phillips recently did an interview that pretty much directly contradicts your conclusion that 'it is up to the viewer to decide really."
In the interview, He asked about the ambiguity of the film and he said He likes that everyone has there own opinions about what actually took place and happened, But he said The film was made with definitive answers and that he would give the answers in a few years, but right now He wants everyone to see and talk about it and Then In a few years, He give the answer to any questions, He didnt write or make the film to be left open to interpretation, It has a definitive answers to everything.
To me that says he does want people to interpret it themselves, otherwise he would give those answers now and not be happy about people having their own versions.
shareTo me that says he does want people to interpret it themselves, otherwise he would give those answers now and not be happy about people having their own versions.
^^^
I have no clue how you get that out of what i said, i'll try to find the interview and post it for you,Maybe then you'll understand...
heres the interview-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX94qLX9Pv0
^^the part i'm talking about starts at 2:10
He literally says one day he'll answer questions, and specifically says he likes that fans have their own theories but he will reveal one day what "he meant when he was writing it"
and then to end All DOUBT, the interviewer pushes him further and specifically says "we are talking about a film that a completely unreliable narrator, after watching the film, I was talking to my friend, what do you think, did this really happen?'".....she then asked phillips, "Will you ever reveal what you were thinking while writing the movie?"
Philliips then answers clearly-"ya i will one day in the future , I dont want to hamper other peoples experiences"
i'm sorry but it doesnt get more definitive than that.
Hes clearly stating the movie has definitive answer, The movie was writing not to be ambiguous, for the director and writers they wrote the movie With clear direction and answers.
Yes one day he'll answer the questions, in the meantime "He likes that everyone has there own opinions about what actually took place and happened" as you point out from that interview. So yes while he has a definitive answer he is not against leaving it up to the viewer to decide right now in this space and time, sure probably because it is good publicity and will drive ticket sales however none the less he's happy for us to draw our own conclusions.
share none the less he's happy for us to draw our own conclusions.
^^^
thats what I said in my first post....Yes he's happy and is enjoying viewers coming to the own conclusions, but Hes also clearly stating the film was not written or made to be ambiguous, He had a clear, definitive path while writing the movie.
again I completely see how you or anyone else would come away thinking the movie is ambiguous... Theres a number of different options and conclusions one could come to if the really wanted...in fact, had Phillips not made these comments, just going by the movie itself, I would 100% agree the film is open to interpretation....but for me, Theres no getting around Phillips comments, He is flat out saying, He wrote the movie with 1 definitive path...
now until he reveals that Path and gives the answers, Its completely reasonable to talk about and discuss any of the possible interpretations for the film....But i just dont see how anyone can say "Its open to interpretation" or "Up to the viewer" after His comments....
Love that it makes people think this way.... myself as well...
But I think they made it clear, the delusions were pointed out (in film), the being in the audience on DeNiro's show... the relationship with his neighbor...
Everything else, I think was true what we saw.
Else... why point out a couple delusions and leave out others?
I watched a Youtube video pointing out that there were two kinds of Arkham Asylum depicted: the regular dirty delapidated asylum, and the squeaky clean well mantained asylum at the end.
Would that means Arkham (and probably Gotham, Thomas Wayne, etc.) was actually in good condition, just that through the Joker's prespective everything is bad because he's full of negative thoughts?
What do you think?
Reaching.
The delapitated part was only on the outside... which we only saw from one view.
We saw the inside of the building too... when Arthur asked for his mom's files.
shareDidn't look noticeably bad (unclean).
shareBut still not the squeaky clean all-white asylum depicted at the ending scene.
shareWe only saw a room and a hallway at the end...
Not the downstairs where many people come and go (like when he got his mom's papers)
Yeah, but they looked so different. Like deliberately. I didn't realize it until after the Youtube video pointed that out.
I was asking what people would tought about that. So, do you think that was the same Arkham, just that the downstairs is a little bit dirty, but the actual patient rooms were very bright and clean?
It's possible too.
Yes... I think the patient areas would be more clean.
Doctor's thoughts on how to keep patients calmish… new dirt here or there, these are crazy people!!!
Keep everything the same for them... ie, clean.
I’m convinced what we saw at the end was not Arkham. When they wanted us to think Arkham they showed us definitive proof it was Arkham. At the end there was no sign telling us they were at Arkham.
So you noticed that those asylums depicted look very different?
shareYes it was my first thought. It took me a while to come to my conclusion that this movie was just the delusion of a lunatic but I noticed the different asylum right away. No way the asylum at the end is Arkham unless I missed a sign saying so.
shareIt was implied that he killed her, but I suppose we don't know for sure. As I watched, I suspected he was imagining their time together, and that was overtly shown to be the case with the flashbacks where she was there, then gone, so maybe there's something to read into that? We are lead to believe she's a figment of his imagination, and then we're shown proof, after which we're lead to believe he kills her, and probably her daughter, but not shown proof.
shareThat was my view at the end of the film that Arthur/Joker was telling his story to that same social worker from the start but this time likely in Arkham and that is the film we saw.
Basically as in 1988's The Killing Joke maybe this is Joker with one of his: "Well you see sometimes, I remember it one way, sometimes another...if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! My point is...my point is, I went crazy when I saw what a black awful joke the world was...I went crazy as a coot!" moments.
Like I said in another thread the whole Gotham protesting the 1% and uprising is not far removed from Charles Dickens A Tale Of Two Cities, so Joker could have weaved parts of that into his story or thought in a delusional state that was part of his story.
The other side of why I felt Joker was telling his story, is at the end the social worker asks why are you laughing, so if the part about his condition and his inappropriate laughing was real, as in the card he handed out, then that social worker/shrink would have known based on their past encounters (like at the start of the film).
Yep I'm in the mind that's it's all in Fleck's head, and the Joker is like his Tyler Durden really. Damn such a ballsy move for a film to leave the audience with more questions then answers especially one from a popular genre. I like that he's the kind of Joker like past films, this guy is a mentally ill psychotic and someone not to look upon as some cool figure.
I definitely think he killed his Mother, and he tried to justify it in his head. She never adopted him. Maybe he was abused by his mother's boyfriends while she stood by and watched, I could buy that. It never came into my mind that he killed Sophie. I have to go watch it again. I knew when the bit when he first visits his Social worker, and she asks him why he was put into mental home and we see a short clip of him banging his head in a white room. Then when it comes back to it in the end with the same Social worker just older, then I knew it was all in his head.
Such a fantastic film.
The more I think about this movie the more I agree with you.
I’m not sure that his friend gave him the gun. I think that is in his head just like the girlfriend is.
why do people always try to overinterpret movies. everybody want to be a smartass but only ends seeing patterns where none exist.
the scenes that were delusions, were pretty much revealed straight forward. the only thing that was clouded whether or not he harmed his neighbours.
Interpret it how you want. I just gave my view. Didn’t suggest anybody adopt my view. If you don’t like my view don’t adopt it.
Why do people feel the need to comment on other’s viewpoints if they disagree? In the same sentence they are using the word “smartass” why must they refuse to use capital letters and spell words incorrectly?
smartass confirmed
shareIlliterate confirmed as well.
[deleted]
You keep confirming your illiteracy with your incessant need to name call and inability to write and your torturing of the English language. Please, quit while you’re behind.
Welcome to my ignore list.
you dont even know what illiteracy means dude. i give a fuck about your ignore, since retards are welcome to add me.
shareHe for sure murdered Murray on live TV. She'd definitely know if he was lying about that.