JOKER, and IN THE TALL GRASS -- Mike N.

 It's Friday again. For many of us, the gateway to the fleeting but essential respite of the weekend.
 This time I'll talk about two recent arrivals. Each has elements of subjective and twisted reality.
  Hitting theaters this past weekend was Joaquin Pheonix's beautifully tortured performance in Joker.
  Starting most broadly, don't be concerned that this is another comic book movie. To the contrary, while the setting and some name-dropping tosses some associative scraps to the comics cognoscenti it's mostly for naught. There's no advance knowledge required, and anyone looking at this as a gateway to Batman is wasting not only everyone's time, but most of the efforts that went into making this film.
  I don't want to spoil details, which makes this sort of review of something that's still very new difficult.

  Son Nick and I caught it early Sunday night of the opening weekend, and we both enjoyed it. We went in knowing not to expect something at all upbeat, and instead to think something more in the vein of Taxi Driver. It's not a happy, triumphant time, but anyone who'd approach a Joker story expecting one isn't juggling a full complement of balls.
  The story gives us much, but ultimately gives us reason to suspect every detail we've been witness to, which can provide an escape hatch to those who have problems with some of the details. Remember, the general rule is that we're all the hero of our own story, even if the tale is tragic. Madness, be it from trauma - of body, mind and spirit - is a matter of perspectives and beliefs. While one can insist on a clinical, absolute reality, we're generally highly subjective beings. Usually that's a protective mechanism, though sometimes it swings the other way, if we believe we deserve to suffer.
  Anyway, be highly suspicious of anyone who claims they have the definitive run-down on what "really" happened in the movie. There are too many trap doors and odd pieces that don't quite fit for it to be clear. If you just take it as the story as the main character saw it, you can't go far wrong.
   It's an affecting piece. Those who don't have at least a few moments of empathy for what the main character is going through are probably the people we should be wary of.

  The official running time is 122 minutes, so just over two hours. There are neither mid- nor post-credits scenes, so the only reason to sit through the credits (aside from wanting to look at the credits, I suppose) would be the soundtrack.
 (Here's a link to the Joker soundtrack on Spotify. If you don't have an account, one can sign up for a free one quickly. I opted to try this rather than try to fold select music videos into this piece.)
  The soundtrack's noteworthy, being especially heavy with '60s and early '70s music (Cream, The Guess Who, Jefferson Airplane, Donovan, The Zombies, Jimi Hendrix, and much more - some of them for two or three songs each) along with some from an earlier era, including a couple from Sinatra, and one from Jimmy Durante. It was only in rolling back over the specifics, days later, that I realized how packed with music the film was. Sinatra's "That's Life" felt like the signature piece for the film, getting one or more call-backs. On the other hand, there are quite a few rap tracks in the mix from Tony K, which I must have protectively forgotten I'd heard during the movie -- I've never been a fan of rap.
  Gotham City in the film is a scene of grimy decay, from physical to the spiritual, and while I believe it's meant to be set in the early '80s, it reeks of the early '70s. That's not important to lock down, though.
   Themes of alienation and class struggle are prominent, as is the message that mental illness is something society approaches with some small sympathy, but an even smaller measure of patience and commitment to meaningful care. As the main character mentions in his notebook - meant to be a therapeutic journal - people still ultimately just want the mentally ill to hide it and act normally.

  Joaquin Phoenix delivers a strong performance as the tortured, damaged and mentally ill Arthur Fleck. Phoenix studied mental illness in preparation for the role, particularly ones suffering from pathological laughter, and those those driven to politically-motivated murder. I read he lost 52 pounds for the role, and his emaciated frame advertises that. I've also read that he was aiming to make his character someone audiences wouldn't identify with, but while his later actions and growing nihilism shook me a little from it, I still for the most part found him to be a sympathetic character. I tend to be loyal that way.
   Frances Conroy plays his shut-in mother, Penny. Arthur lives with her, and they're devoted to each other. Each in their own fantasy bubbles, there are times when they overlap.

   Zazie Beetz plays Sophie Dumond, a neighbor of,and a romantic interest for, Arthur.
   Robert Deniro plays talk show host Murray Franklin, a Gotham City celebrity who comes to play a critical role in Arthur's life.
  The film took in roughly $93.5 million domestically its opening weekend, along with over $140 million from international markets. The pre-promotion and distribution cost budget for the film was $55 million, so industry estimates are that easily anything above a worldwide take of $190 million is pure profit, so it made a hefty profit even before I landed in my theater seat on Sunday. I mention all this to note that it's a financial success, and because I'm curious to see how studio bottom-liners will react to that, especially as the film felt strongly of something that was to be one and done, with no interest in continuing the story.

  As we're now well into October, it's seasonal to give a little more emphasis to horror and items with a horror element.
  Just as Joker dropped in theaters, Netflix added the movie In The Tall Grass. (Running time 1hr 41 min.)

  Written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, it's an adaptation of a novella of the same name by the father & son team of Stephen King and Joe Hill, originally published in two parts in issues of Esquire. I have not read the source story -- indeed, everything by Joe Hill I've taken in so far (mostly the first season of N0S4A2, which ran on AMC a few months ago) has simply been adaptations of his work to the screen. Natali is perhaps best known for his 1997 movie Cube, which involved strangers thrown together in another sort of bizarre, shifting, hostile trap.
  Cal and Becky, a brother and sister, are traveling cross-country to San Diego, and are passing through Kansas. Becky is six months pregnant, and has made arrangements to give the baby up for adoption. They stop along a long stretch of verdant, but otherwise desolate, road, near an old church. Hearing a child call out for help from the deep, thick expanse of almost impossibly high grass - roughly seven feet high - first Cal, then Becky wade into the sea of grass, in what should be an easy assist. All of this happens in short order.

  What follows becomes increasingly Lovecraftian, as reality begins to bend. Aside from letting you know that this simple act of attempting to help someone proves to be anything but simple, and has dire consequences, I don't want to give details away.
  The small cast works well as this mystery twists back and compounds itself.
  I enjoyed it, though a quick survey of reviewing groups gives me the impression it was generally less liked. At a check during its premiere weekend those at IMDB were giving it 5.6 out of 10, while it was running 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. A quick look at the complaining reviews gives me the general impression that they wanted to be spoon-fed, and wanted a full, clear explanation. Neither of those is to be expected from something done in the Lovecraft spirit, where reality becomes twisted and subjective under the influence of an inhuman something that's Not From Here. Some people are also too easily bored, it seems. If one insists on cause always preceding effect, and on inhabiting rigidly Euclidian space, then this isn't a story for you.
   It's not for the kids, either. The violence and borderline carnality from late in the piece, isn't sustained, but it is present. There may be language concerns for some, though it flowed naturally enough for me. I'm too many years distant from monitoring things protectively for either small children or sensitive elders.

  Thanks again for taking the time to read this. Feel free to let me know in the comments below if any of my suggestions led somewhere entertaining, and if any of it made you think of something you liked..
   I'll aim to cast a wider net next week.

Go to the next C7 post