While Desus Nice and The Kid Mero have become de facto tourism spokespeople for their home borough of the Bronx, they’re not here to whitewash the grittiness out of their New York turf. Make that “clown-white” the grit out, as, on Monday’s Desus & Mero, the pair mocked the elevation of one of the most dreary and arduous landmarks of their youthful memories into America’s newest movie-spawned Instagram fad.
“There is a new tourist attraction in the Bronx, and it sucks!,” pronounced Nice, as he and his partner ran down all the reasons why unwary looky-loos should think twice before recreating Joaquin Phoenix’s perversely triumphant Joker dance on the steep, treacherous cement stairs on the corner of Shakespeare and Jerome Avenues. For one thing, as Nice commiserated with fellow Bronx denizens in the audience, the city never shovels those goddamned things, so any winter photo opportunities are destined to end with a trip to the emergency room, at best. For another, as Mero put it, “You can’t shoot a movie where I once smoked angel dust,” and agreed with Nice that anyone fantasizing about capping off their Joker experience with a romantic encounter wouldn’t be alone. “People have sex on those stairs all the time, dog,” Nice explained, “It ain’t sexy.”
But it was the increase in outsider foot traffic that the pair had the most fun with, showing news clips of (largely white, male) tourists waxing anti-heroic about the forbiddingly long and dingy steps’ new place in their Joker-worshipping hearts. Responding to a clip of one accented young man’s excitement to “feel what he feels,” concerning Joaquin’s character’s budding embodiment of thwarted white male entitlement and rage, Mero stated flatly, “No you do not—you’re gonna feel Julio’s boot in the back of your back, and you flying down the stairs unconrollably.” Showing further footage of film fans taking dancing selfies while skeptical Bronx residents make their arduous daily hike up and down what looks to be about a million stone steps, Mero gave his best Joker laugh at one Joker fanatic visitor’s goosebumps. “This guy came up to me, no mask on!,” Mero impersonated how he imagined most of such interactions going, “Gun right in my ribs . . . it was an amazing experience!”
45 Comments
Does anyone else find it odd that the music they used for the scene in question was from a Gary Glitter song? You know, the notorious pedophile. Kind of a weird thing to add to a movie that’s only real message is “We Live in a Society!”.
No because it’s “twisted(tm)”
Not really. Mostly because the movie isn’t about society at all. It’s about the mental health of Arthur, who views himself as a hero. Gary Glitter’s Rock & Roll Part 2 has been a sports anthem forever, and this was his post transformation montage before the big game, in the sports movie in his head. If you find that choice of music troubling, good. You aren’t supposed to support Arthur’s decisions. He’s the fucking Joker.
“He’s the Joker.” is not an explanation for the song’s inclusion because it’s clearly non-diagetic, meaning he isn’t literally listening to the song. You could literally insert any song in that scene and nothing would change except WB wouldn’t be giving royalties to a pedophile. Also Arthur isn’t a pedophile so why use the song at all?Just because he’s the Joker doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter why the movie is the way it is.
Wait, you think he literally needs to be jamming out with a walkman or boombox for it to be a valid stylistic choice? The director is creating a feel. This is his way of establishing the Joker psyching himself up for his big performance. He doesn’t actually need to be listening to the song.I know you’re trying really hard to get some outrage points, but it isn’t really working.
Gary Glitter sold the rights to his catalog before the first accusations against him were made. He’s not making any money off of this.
You could literally insert any song in that scene and nothing would change except WB wouldn’t be giving royalties to a pedophile.Check again…For “Joker,” much of the criticism is centered on assumptions that Glitter was personally profiting from its use in the film, but Glitter sold away all his rights to the recording and publishing of “Rock and Roll Part 2,” co-written by the late Mike Leander, as well as his other songs more than two decades ago, according to Snapper Music, the London-based label that now owns Glitter’s master recordings.“Gary Glitter does not get paid,” said a spokesman for Snapper in London who asked to remain anonymous. “We’ve had no contact with him.” The song consistently attracted filmmakers and TV showrunners long before “Joker,” landing in “Meet the Fockers,” “Boyhood,” “South Park” and “The Office.” “People generally come to us,” added the spokesman. “We don’t promote it at all.”
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2019-10-11/joker-gary-glitter-rock-and-roll-part-2
Probably because they are like most people who say:Garry Glitter? Rock n Roll part 2? Was there a part 1?No they say, hey lets use that stadium rock song that gets everyone up and moving.
An article I read cited that he hasn’t received royalties for his music since he sold the rights in the 90s, for what that’s worth
Most, if not pretty much all of those royalties are going to the record label and his lawyers and possibly any funds dedicated to his victims (if that was arranged). Even with the publishing rights in his name.
You know that they still continued/ and continue to play that song at sports games and etc even long after Glitter was caught and convicted right? Not sure what point or connection you’re making here? Guy Fawkes is right too in that you aren’t supposed to like this guy, so sure why not play it?
because a convicted pedophile is earning royalties from it?
How can he earn royalties when he doesn’t own the rights to the song as he sold it away over twenty years ago? Hence why it continues to be played to this day in movies and at sports games? Universal and BMG own the song and get any and all royalties from it and give none of it to Gary. Like what Guy Fawkes said, you guys here on Kinja always try really hard to get your wokerage points to where you bend reality and truth.
He’s not. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2019-10-11/joker-gary-glitter-rock-and-roll-part-2
The song is not even a song. It was just a mish-mash of samples from jam session. The song also fits the movie perfectly because it’s a false triumphant song because the pomp and ‘glitter’ are empty.
Gary Glitter and his pedophilia aside, it’s still just a baffling song choice for that moment. It’s like an editor left their iPhone and shuffle and the track was accidentally left in the movie.
Responding to a clip of one accented young man’s excitement to “feel what he feels,” concerning Joaquin’s character’s budding embodiment of thwarted white male entitlement and rage, Mero stated flatly, “No you do not—you’re gonna feel Julio’s boot in the back of your back, and you flying down the stairs unconrollably.”You guys are really still pushing that line, huh? Interesting, since the movie appears to be more about mental health and class struggle than any of that, but okay.
Yeah no, you’re literally just reading sources that justify this trash media designed to make sad white dudes feel “seen”. Literally everyone else sees it for what it is – unnecessary, extremist, and apologist.
Please, find me one source who has seen the movie and still describes it that way. Literally every review I’ve seen has mentioned how the panic ahead of time was entirely overblown and not actually what the movie was about. Or, just fuck off and take your buzzwords with you. Either way, I’m good.
I found them so quickly dude – they all call it for what it is, designed to get people’s ire up – far from an exposition of mental health and class division. The writer of this piece even goes into the controversy from the beginning and comes to one conclusion – this is not art, it’s not designed to do anything other than make money.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/07/todd-phillips-joker-is-no-laughing-matter The film, however, takes no serious interest in what might be wrong with Arthur. It merely invites us to watch his wrongness grow out of control and swell into violence, and proposes a vague connection between that private swelling and a wider social malady.
So, in support of your opinion that the film is ‘“designed to make sad white dudes feel “seen”,’ you give us a review that doesn’t say that at all and change your tune to accusing it instead of wanting to make… money? (Which renders it “not art,” because apparently you feel you haven’t made enough of a fool of yourself.)
Thanks for linking to an article that says absolutely nothing about “making sad white dudes feel seen”. Really, dynamite work.
Literally everyone else sees it for what it is – unnecessary, extremist, and apologist. Have you actually seen the film yourself to make that determination? No? Are you just literally just reading trash media like AV Club that keep calling this movie as some kind of incel influence even though everyone who has actually seen the movie says otherwise? And yes, I saw it, and no, this movie is hardly “extremist” or “apologizes” for that crowd.
Found the angry incel!
Well thank God “literally everyone else” shares your dumbass opinion, otherwise it wouldn’t be intrinsically valid and you’d have to bring forth data and arguments in its favor like the rest of us schmucks.
He literally stops taking his meds and becomes the Joker. I’m not saying it’s an enlightened take on mental health, but it is absolutely a take on mental health. And who in their right mind wants to be this version of the Joker? The Heath Joker was fun, in an anarchist’s way. This Joker has me terrified that I *might* share some of the his less desirable characteristics and spurs me to work on those (I don’t actually think I’m anything like the Joker, but I’m self reflective enough to be on the lookout).
I saw it too – if that’s what a “take on mental health” is, then we’ve got different definitions. Yes, he stops taking his meds but so do tons of people – it’s apologist in the sense that it apologizes for his behavior and excuses it on the basis of his mental health, rather than what it really is – only a certain subset of people get to act the way he does when they stop their meds, and only a certain subset of people are excused because of it. So I stand by what I said. It’s unnecessary, doesn’t tell any stories other than stay on your meds – and crazily points in a super damaging way, in the same stupid fucking way conservatives do, to mental health being the lynchpin of extreme violence. It’s a sad, old, and untrue fallacy. .
It’s a Joker origin story. I reject this false narrative that they weren’t simply making a cool movie about a clown themed psychopath (who later antogonizes a bat themed billionaire ninja detective), and instead needed to match the nuance of Dog Day Afternoon. Your first post said it was “apologist.” Apologist for what? Who is this Joker actually excusing? He’s the least reliable narrator possible so we the viewer don’t really know how settled the class outrage is, and we certainly don’t establish that he’s the Incel that early pre-reviews feared. The message isn’t “Stay on your meds.” The message is “The Joker is a fucking lunatic, and this is a reasonably plausible origin story for the goofy as balls comic book terrorist.”
I wouldn’t even call it that. Instead of the Nietzschean superhuman, the attacker of morals, the agent/angel of chaos from the comics and TDK, we get a yet another flick about another pathetic sick loser getting wrecked by ordinary circumstances that implausibly turns him into a rebel/revolutionary that we’ve seen a million times before in tons of other movies, shows, etc. Sure its a better explanation and origin than him falling into a vat of chemicals while wearing a red hood, but I also felt like it was a wasted opportunity that everyone got worked up over nothing for.
Joker begins with Arthur being assaulted and ends with the Waynes being gunned down amidst a citywide riot. You’re a fucking idiot.
When I stop taking mine, my eyes hurt and I get a headache. I would have quit them long ago if I could become a super villain by not taking my meds!
Why so sinusey?
It *wants* to be about mental health and class struggle, but botches the job so incredibly that it actually requires the main character to come out and speak the thesis statement of the film near the end, because actually portraying it cinematically is too challenging, apparently.
That the movie fails to do a good job of articulating its own point doesn’t mean it has a different point. Like two months out I was seeing people talking about this as an “incel” movie and I think it’s notable that none of the reviews I’ve read (none of which were positive!) back that up to any degree.
It doesn’t mean it has a different point, but it does mean that it muddles things badly enough that the message delivered is not the one it intends, which I, personally, feel is very much the case, here.
As someone who went into the movie expecting not to like it, I was really surprised to see that it was much more about the system failing mentally ill people and the problems of unchecked wealth disparity than… the incel hype that everyone was spreading before it started showing
This. It felt more like a wannabe V for Vendetta if V were a unstable, failed comedian, and mamma’s boy more than anything. Had nothing to do with the Joker from the comics and don’t see it apologizing or influencing any incels like everyone was so worried about.
The moment where he just says the thesis got a sincere belly-laugh out of me. I couldn’t believe how inelegant the whole thing was.
Have you seen the movie? It is not subtle in any way in it´s message about mental health, abuse and class struggle.
Okay, sure, that’s a fair critique. Regardless of how well it gets it’s intended point across, it’s still definitely not a movie about “thwarted white male entitlement and rage”…that’s only what people who wanted to push an agenda were claiming before anyone had a chance to watch it.
It’s basically The Lonely Island’s I Threw it on the Ground song but played completely straight.
Yeah, I didn’t get that from Joaquin’s performance, I get it from Todd Phillips crying about not being able to make comedy, but yeah, as far as the movie is concerned, all I saw was a homicidal mentally ill man, unable to get treated in large part because social services were being underfunded…
I think there’s something wrong with me. As a white male, I guess is should want to dance down those stairs like a psychopath in a movie, but all I can think about doing is some nasty stair workouts.
They should sell T-shirts reading “I visited the Jokers Bronx staircase and all I got was hep-c when I slipped on a used rubber and landed on a needle”