the_barnacle

My immediate reaction coming out of the cinema was that the film would be better suited as a play. This being because in the film there are only really four main settings: the apartment, the city, the subway, and the comedy club/theatre/television studio. Especially with the last setting(s) I mentioned, as a play the various reactions of a live audience could add realism and also an active reciprocal interaction between Arthur and an audience which I think would be more entertaining.

I agree with my friend's opinion of the film, for which he believed the range of issues covered was "as wide as a sea but as deep as a pond". The main issues such as mental health, misogyny, class, politics, and parental relations (as well as many others) were all raised and recognised as issues but were not explored in any depth, again as my friend put beautifully he believed Phillips was "tickboxing" issues that are meaningful to current audiences.

When Arthur is sitting alone at the back of the bus, the CGI outside the back window is horrendous. There is also a weird camera shake when Arthur climbs into the fridge, which from the angle makes you think this is from a first-person perspective of an unknown person in Arthur's flat, but then there is a cut and on reflection seems bizarre. Clearly Phillips ran out of budget and had to film on a potato.

The musical score was excellent until it was muddled with contemporary music (for example when Arthur dances down the concrete steps) which was a jarring and incongruent.

On a more positive note, Phoenix's Joker was original and superbly acted. Arthur having a condition making him laugh creepily and inappropriately was an authentic and believable aspect of his character. Phoenix is very effective at laughing with dead and soulless eyes, making him seem utterly sinister.

Similar to Hamlet, The Joker can be played in many different ways because of the ambiguous complexity of his character. Phoenix's Joker is a victim of the worst aspects of society, fragile, and deeply forlorn. This being a very different interpretation to the assertive and more dominant representations in Leto's or Ledger's performances.

All in all, a good watch but please someone adapt it into a play!

PS: I want that suit.

This biopic was an entertaining and informative watch. However, I believe I would have liked more prior knowledge of Cuban history, both political and cultural, in order to fully appreciate the more subtle cinematographic references. Hence, on a second watch, with additional background research, it is blatant that it will be a more enriching experience.

I think the main success of this film is the clear demonstration of scenes set in pre and post revolution by the use of 'full-colour' and 'black and white' scenes respectively. It is remarkable that such a simple device can indicate a time change to a viewer so succinctly.

The map in the beginning of the film was very effective in widening my understanding of Cuban geography. The visual representation made me later realise the lengths the guerrillas were willing to travel in order to spread the revolution.

It was shocked to hear Che use the word 'f**got' when insulting a deserter. Again, this was such an economical way of portraying how society has progressed since the 1950s, even through the language we use, in just that utterance.

All in all, it's most definitely worth a watch (in silence).

PS: Eddie Izzard: 'Cake or Death!'...Che: 'Homeland or Death!'... I think I prefer Eddie's version.