Moe_Syzlak said:
I think you should reread my post. I very clearly state themes which those 70s films explore are very much still prevalent today which is why NOT setting it in the present seems to miss the point of the original 70s films which it pays homage. And I love Fight Club. But not because Tyler Durden is some hero the way some incels and alt-righters do. Joker feels to me like someone made a movie that worships Travis Bickel in the way those folks worship Durden.
Does a movie have to be
set in the present to speak to the present? Shakespeare is relevant today, as are futuristic sci-fi like ...haha...let's say,
1984. A Joker
origin story would clearly be set many years back. DC did a Joker which was "current" and I'm good, thanks. I think they found a way to lend a unique style to this version of the Joker which allows it to not immediately be dissed by everyone as "not as good as Heath Ledger". And it still speaks to today. Film homage+comics reference+modern commentary= win-win.
As far as people worshiping Bickel, I think it was people cheering on a person that made a stand and "did something" when others seemed not to. That kind of vigilantism is dicey. Everyone thinks their own actions are justified, from Lincoln to Hitler. One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. The Batman films have already shown that both Batman and Joker are vigilantes who inspire followers. This film sets that up. I applaud it for making it believable that anyone would follow a deranged maniac. But that's not the same as the film worshiping him. Every character in the film that's not just part of a mob clearly comes out against the Joker by the end. His actions eventually lose everyone's sympathy, as he loses Arthur. The film is a tragedy, not a comedy. It's asking us to understand the villains in our society as fellow humans, actually to be more human to everyone. But that's not the same as condoning their actions. Bit of a big ask for today's movie-going audience, I guess.