Joker” is clearly a distinct breed of the film with comic-book roots, however, it still comes from that world. It’s basically an adult-oriented consequence of the DC amusement label, one which will sure spawn lots of Halloween costumes, even though the studio — recognizing its niche — did not go beat on selling around it.
Add that to recent coverage of mass shootings, and as Hollywood communicator journalist Scott Feinberg noted, “random senseless killings do not play as they accustomed at the films.”
You’d need to be living in an exceeding cave, balmy or otherwise, to utterly dismiss those apprehensions, that are expressed by, among others, families of the Aurora victims.
There is, admittedly, a bent guilty media for violence — from movies and television to videogames –in some way that goes well on the far side any correlative proof. Sometimes, those assertions are used with cynicism to deflect attention from different culprits and potential causes, among them guns.
Even so, Hollywood will itself no favours once it loosely uses “Art is messy” as a protect.
The most important gripe concerning “Joker,” in fact, is that there is no real reason for it, on the far side the expectation — accurately, because it seems — that the name recognition, to the talent concerned, would persuade be a box-office draw.
In a free society, giving an enormous buffet of content, that is justification enough. However, being liberal to do one thing does not imply being free from criticism. “Joker” sounds like a smashing success, financially speaking. By dressing up the picture show as “art,” though, the Joker is not the only activity behind poorly applied makeup.