Question

short story any movie .500 words
​

Answer 1

Answer:

okkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Answer 2

Answer:

There is a widespread belief in the world of cinema that the original “King Kong” was an allegory for African colonialism and the slave trade. Film-makers, including Quentin Tarantino, argue that it does not matter whether this was the intention of the 1933 film or not: that is the film that was made, influenced as it was by the subjective worldviews and subconscious of those involved in producing it.

This brings us onto “Joker”, the most anticipated film of 2019 – and one of the year’s most controversial creations. Focusing on the origins of the infamous supervillain, audiences watch the inception of the man behind the make-up, peering into his struggles to deal with the grim grittiness of everyday life in a crime- and rat-infested Gotham City. Here, the man mirrors the city: isolated, depressed, envious and enraged, on the verge of breaking point.

There has been so much talk about “Joker” that another personal review may get lost in the maelstrom of noise that is only bound to get louder as more people have the opportunity to see the film. However, it is necessary to say this: “Joker” is a powerful, evocative and effective film. It is, for better or worse, important and relevant, devastatingly frightening because it hits so close to home, reflecting the negative and cynical atmosphere of much of modern western society.

Thus, we return to the “King Kong” comparison: it does not matter if this interpretation was the intention of director Todd Phillips and his team. This is the film they have made. This is how “Joker” has already been – and will continue to be – understood: an allegory that puts a microscope on the worst elements of society, illustrating its main themes in a cinematic, overtly-stylised presentation.

“Joker” is, unquestionably, a cinematic triumph. Joaquin Phoenix fills the character with a magnetism and, dare I say it, sympathy that should make you and your cognitive dissonance uncomfortable. While his affected, fluid movements excite and entice in equal measure, this man, tipped over the edge by the day-to-day misery of his existence, accidentally but violently takes action that puts him front-and-centre of the society that has rejected him. He arrives at the fame he seeks in a far more twisted way than he had imagined, but arrives there nonetheless. This raw iteration of the character makes you wonder, despite all he has done and will do, can you understand his point-of-view?

This is a film of serious choices: the choice to present a raw, dark version of Joker that kills abruptly, viciously and unceremoniously. The choice to introduce the full Joker transition via a Gary Glitter song. The choice to make a movie that the film-makers knew could be interpreted, as my good friend Joe put it, as “a call-to-arms” for the disaffected of society. These choices have been made now. Whatever happens, within the film world or out of it, one thing is certain: we will all be talking about “Joker” for a long time to come.

Explanation:

hope it helps mark brainlist ☺️☺️✌️✌️