Hunting Easter Eggs - Breakdown for The Joker

Going on an Easter Egg hunt by rewatching the Joker, catching all these Easter eggs makes the movie interesting all over again.

There's a part in the movie where the Joker is working on his comedy in his kitchen. He's writing with his right hand, as he's naturally a right-handed person. As the scene progresses, he switches over to writing with his left hand with a clear message being written. This is the first moment Jokers other schizophrenic side comes out.

He starts off by writing right-handed "The worst part about having a mental illness is[....]"

And that's when he switches to writing with his left hand, to continue saying "people expect you to behave as if you don’t.".

This sentence could have been ended many other ways than the way he ended it after having switched over to his left hand to finish the sentence. This portrays the conflict in his mind between his two split personalities. And furthermore, his "girlfriend" showing up right after his other personality comes out, just reaffirms his alter personality to manifest, which we can see when he "breaks out of his shell" and asks her out. The Arthur before would have shied away in fear, those actions were because of the inclination of the Joker, not Arthur, to be bold. This is again portrayed in the subsequent train murder scene. He is put into an alarming and compromising position whilst riding the train, and upon being beaten up, gains the courage to not only defend himself finally, but to actually kill 3 individuals.

This movie is absolutely riveting.

You can see in any scene where there is a clock, it's always set to 11:11. When Arthur is banging his head against the Psyciatric Ward glass panel, the clock above him is set at 11:11. When he punches the punch-out clock off the wall when he is fired, the clock is set at 11:11.

If you've seen the Gotham TV Series, the Jokers alias in that movie was really Jeremiah Valeska

If you look up a verse in the bible, Jeremiah 11:11, it says:

"Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them."

That being said, this brings a deep understanding of who and what the Joker really is. He is merely just a manifestation of the sinful nature of humanity. He is the agent of destruction, sent to destroy.

Anyway, I know there's plenty of discussion probably, just like cultish fans broke down the Avenger movies to hunt out all the Easter Eggs. At this point, I'm just sharing my interest and personal observations with you fine specimens. Maybe we can find more Easter eggs that haven't already been found?

Since quarantine started, I've been on a quest for knowledge. I'd love to hear everyone's outlook on the movie and to hear your personal break down.

Actually, I found this movie to be something akin to a virulent (irresponsibly reckless) attempt at social sabotage. And of course, released at the worst possible time with zero #s given as to the possible consequences of it.

It was an interesting watch but I couldn't help but have flashbacks of Taxi Driver. Which was probably at least part of the intent of it (I kind of doubt they cast Robert De Niro just for the hell of it or because they thought he was a good actor).

a reply to: BrianFlanders

It's a movie about a comic book character.
I can't see how anything in this movie is worse than Hollywood's treatment of killers like Charles Manson.
Every channel shows sex, drugs and violence on a daily basis so how exactly is a movie showing the breakdown of a man with a mental illness any more dangerous?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BrianFlanders

It's a movie about a comic book character.

Of course it is.

I can't see how anything in this movie is worse than Hollywood's treatment of killers like Charles Manson.

Did I say it was? I didn't say I liked Hollywood's treatment of killers like Charles Manson, either.

Every channel shows sex, drugs and violence on a daily basis so how exactly is a movie showing the breakdown of a man with a mental illness any more dangerous?

Maybe it isn't? Maybe we should just acknowledge that it's all dangerous if the wrong types of people see the wrong types of things and that film makers and other makers of entertainment should be more thoughtful and careful in their art?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I kind of doubt they cast Robert De Niro just for the hell of it or because they thought he was a good actor).

That being one of the biggest easter eggs of the movie. In 1983 De Niro starred as a psychotic paparazzi who stalks a late night talk show host played by Jerry Lewis. In that movie, ''The King of Comedy'' the stalker undergoes various states of fantasy, picturing in his own mind a life of fame as a stand up comedian.

Of course he has no talent so cannot get on the air. He tries to befriend the Lewis character but fails. So he kid naps Lewis and blackmails the studio to let him deliver his special guest monologue.

Throughout the Joker the fantasy scenes of fame are directly associated with the same scenes in the earlier movie. Much of the Joker character are built on that earlier De Niro character. Hence the tribute to De Niro , and of course ''The King of Comedy being one of the most bizarre and never heard of movies of all time, by having De Niro, much older now take the Lewis roll in the Joker. Much like in the movie Cape Fear when Robert Mitchum who played the original Max Cady and was honored by having him back in the remake playing an older character.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

No..artists should not censor their art.

It's a waste of time to think rationally when dealing with an irrational mind.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I kind of doubt they cast Robert De Niro just for the hell of it or because they thought he was a good actor).

That being one of the biggest easter eggs of the movie. In 1983 De Niro starred as a psychotic paparazzi who stalks a late night talk show host played by Jerry Lewis. In that movie, ''The King of Comedy'' the stalker undergoes various states of fantasy, picturing in his own mind a life of fame as a stand up comedian.

Of course he has no talent so cannot get on the air. He tries to befriend the Lewis character but fails. So he kid naps Lewis and blackmails the studio to let him deliver his special guest monologue.

Throughout the Joker the fantasy scenes of fame are directly associated with the same scenes in the earlier movie. Much of the Joker character are built on that earlier De Niro character. Hence the tribute to De Niro , and of course ''The King of Comedy being one of the most bizarre and never heard of movies of all time, by having De Niro, much older now take the Lewis roll in the Joker. Much like in the movie Cape Fear when Robert Mitchum who played the original Max Cady and was honored by having him back in the remake playing an older character.

Well, I haven't seen that movie but I have seen Taxi Driver and it reminds me of Taxi Driver and the Joker Character reminds me of Travis Bickle. This does not seem like a coincidence. And/or perhaps the character from the other movie you mentioned was loosely based on Travis Bickle as well so it maybe makes sense either way?

At any rate, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on that film...

Taxi Driver connection
Rupert Pupkin has been compared to Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver: both characters have serious issues with reality testing that is drawing the line between outer objective and inner subjective reality. In her review, entertainment columnist Marilyn Beck approved Johnny Carson's refusal to participate in The King of Comedy, supposedly because he feared the film could inspire psychopaths like John Hinckley. Beck considered The King of Comedy even more dangerous than Taxi Driver due to its lack of blood and gore, as well as the fact that viewers could easily identify with De Niro.[54] In a documentary featured in the first DVD release of the film, Scorsese himself acknowledged the connection between the two characters: "Taxi Driver. Travis. Rupert. The isolated person. Is Rupert more violent than Travis? Maybe."

So at any rate. Both Martin Scorsese films. Both very obviously featuring very similar characters (as Martin Scorsese tends to do in many of his films). And the people who made the Joker film could not have done that accidentally. Since people who make films for a living tend to be people who have seen a lot of films, I'm sure they would have also seen Taxi driver and would be aware of the Hinckley thing. Just an overall creepy, slimy vibe. I'm not going to say such films should be censored or banned. I'm just saying that it is a valid criticism to point out the similarities and the fact that it's probably not a good idea in these crazy times to make such films. I feel perfectly fine saying that. It's not wrong to say that it's irresponsible.

But thanks for bringing that to my attention. That's one Martin Scorsese film I haven't seen and I guess wasn't even aware of. I might watch it but it will not change my opinion that there really should be a more intellectually honest discussion about the impact of media.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
...and the fact that it's probably not a good idea in these crazy times to make such films.

Someone forcing people to watch this? Is it a Leni Riefenstahl flick that's become mandatory viewing?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
...and the fact that it's probably not a good idea in these crazy times to make such films.

Someone forcing people to watch this? Is it a Leni Riefenstahl flick that's become mandatory viewing?

Why does that even matter?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Because you're going on about how this isn't 'the right tike to make this film' like it was maybe in April.

You do know this went into production during the fall of 2018, right? If you don't like it's message don't watch it.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yes, I have seen Taxi Driver several times. And Joker does have similarities. But somehow, find your way to getting a hold of a copy of King of Comedy and you will find the close similarities in De Niro's character there to the character Joker.

KofC is a real niche movie. Ahead of it's time in portraying the fantasy life of a neurotic who, in his complete over confidence goes to great lengths to advance himself with only a modicum of talent and then scores biggly in a manner similar to the Jokers transendence to fame. The mix of mental fantasy and reality are nicely done in both movies.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yes, I have seen Taxi Driver several times. And Joker does have similarities. But somehow, find your way to getting a hold of a copy of King of Comedy and you will find the close similarities in De Niro's character there to the character Joker.

And also (apparently) to Taxi Driver, as pointed out earlier.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yes, I have seen Taxi Driver several times. And Joker does have similarities. But somehow, find your way to getting a hold of a copy of King of Comedy and you will find the close similarities in De Niro's character there to the character Joker.

KofC is a real niche movie. Ahead of it's time in portraying the fantasy life of a neurotic who, in his complete over confidence goes to great lengths to advance himself with only a modicum of talent and then scores biggly in a manner similar to the Jokers transendence to fame. The mix of mental fantasy and reality are nicely done in both movies.

OK. I watched it. And while it is obviously similar to Joker (and Taxi Driver) both Joker and Taxi Driver are MUCH darker and more twisted and ugly. The King of Comedy film is downright lighthearted compared to Joker. Joker is like it's evil twin. In the worst kind of way. Joker embodies everything that is wrong with the times we live in.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yep, I agree that Joker and Driver are both very dark. I"m not trying to take away from that. You wondered why they cast Di Nero in Joker and thought maybe it was because of the similarities to Driver. And yes, there is that, however I offered that it was also and likely more that the comparisons to King as far as story line were more of a tribute to King rather than Driver.

In Driver, the best I can recall of his sense of his own image was his talking to himself in the mirror, practicing how he would respond As well his grooming, cutting his hair into that Mohawk, at that time a symbol of revolt against the system.

Bickle was not a very sympathetic character. Not really a nice guy as I recall. He took his own sense of self into darkness on purpose seeking his own fulfillment. I can only recall his pointed empathy with the young hooker who he attempted to safe. But other than that that is how I came away from him.

The Joker was always a tortured soul who held onto his own empathy longer than did Bickle. He struggled to remain a nice guy until finally giving over to what he had come to believe to be his own darkness, his only way to be who he really was.

In King though, Pupkin never questioned the system other than that he just had to find a way to get around it. The system is as the system is. In both Joker and Driver I think that both called into question the nature of the system and decided for one reason or another to just go outside of it. Pupkin at best only got to the stage of kid nap and even then the threatened violence was not in his nature. In the end, the mixture of his own fantasy and reality blended so that the audience could not be sure which was what had really happened. It was meant that way.

King was a satire, done in a light hearted manner, attempting to illustrate how far off the path hero, or celebrity worship can be taken. He was never really a bad guy, just a guy lost to the hope of fame to validate himself.

Both Joker and Bickle though gave up to their darkness. In King, Pupkin does receive validation from a celebrity worshiping public but Bickle never does. Joker of course does receive public adoration as we could see from the rioters taking on his image.

And the question of is is wise to publish movies like the Joker at times like this. Well to answer that I guess we need to consider the whole nature of violent and pathological characters in movies today. Socially irresponsible? Yeah, I get it.

Phoenix to my taste is the best actor of the last decade. Since Gladiator I have looked for movies he stars in. When I first saw trailers of Joker, I could hardly wait and jumped the first day of cinematic opening.

So to me the major question is, just how does the public react to movies such as these. Do they consider the juxtapositions of good and evil, of right and wrong and take them into consideration in their own lives or do they just go ''wow that looks like fun'' and proceed to emulate the tortured souls they see on screen. I have no answer here that would be better or worse than your own.