I just re-watched the Todd Phillips' Joker movie last night and was pondering how "easy" it is to get the audience to root for a schizophrenic murderer. I say "easy" because I think it is a masterful film, but still, shouldn't the audience be insurmountably revolted by the Joker?
Taken solely by their on camera presentations, Thomas Wayne, Murray, and the police seem pretty reasonable people. However, this is overshadowed by the screen time and depth given to the joker.[1] The audience might briefly wonder if they deserve to die, but before that question can sink in, the plot advances, and the question is forgotten. It is easy to see how time, perspective, speed, and narrative saturation drive emotion.
I think our modern political environment has a lot of parallels. It is all thinking fast and no thinking slow.
[1] Aside, I think it is a great example of cinematic dissonance, where multiple meanings are intentionally or unintentionally layered. Eneaz Brodski had a great article about that introduced me to the term: https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/cinemanarrative-dissonance...
Taken solely by their on camera presentations, Thomas Wayne, Murray, and the police seem pretty reasonable people. However, this is overshadowed by the screen time and depth given to the joker.[1] The audience might briefly wonder if they deserve to die, but before that question can sink in, the plot advances, and the question is forgotten. It is easy to see how time, perspective, speed, and narrative saturation drive emotion.
I think our modern political environment has a lot of parallels. It is all thinking fast and no thinking slow.
[1] Aside, I think it is a great example of cinematic dissonance, where multiple meanings are intentionally or unintentionally layered. Eneaz Brodski had a great article about that introduced me to the term: https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/cinemanarrative-dissonance...