« Mirror, mirror on the wall...

 ...Who's the grimmest of them all? »

M - 1931

Joker - 2019

Apesar da semelhança entre as imagens (e entre a doença mental das personagens em questão---coincidências?), são mais as diferenças que separam estes dois "filmes-sociais" do que as similaridades que os aproximam. 

A sociedade/civilização no filme de Lang está fundada na ordem, na harmonia entre as partes, e num sistema de "equilíbrios e compensações" que é em último caso eficaz (mesmo que bastante ineficiente).

O filme de Todd Phillips por seu lado aposta as suas fichas na incapacidade institucional em curar a corrupção e as feridas do "sistema", e na emergência do caos urbano e do motim como resultados inevitáveis (desejáveis?) da decadência social.

O filme de Lang denuncia o "vigilantismo" e a tomada da justiça pelas mãos populares, enquanto o filme de Phillips parece abraçar a ideia.

Ainda assim, teria sido interessante perceber se Lang tornaria a filmar "o mesmo filme", e manteria a mesma "fé" nas estruturas sociais, uns anos mais tarde, no contexto em que Hitler e o Partido Nazi haviam já tomado as rédeas do poder.

Da natureza do Homem

    « He spoke of his campaigns in the deserts of Mexico and he told them of horses killed under him and he said that the souls of horses mirror the souls of men more closely than men suppose and that horses also love war. Men say they only learn this but he said that no creature can learn that which his heart has no shape to hold. His own father said that no man who has not gone to war horseback can ever truly understand the horse and he said that he supposed he wished that this were not so but that it was so.

Lastly he said that he had seen the souls of horses and that it was a terrible thing to see. He said that it could be seen under certain circumstances attending the death of a horse because the horse shares a common soul and its separate life only forms it out of all horses and makes it mortal. He said that if a person understood the soul of the horse then he would understand all horses that ever were.

They sat smoking, watching the deepest embers of the fire where the red coals cracked and broke.

Y de los hombres? said John Grady.

The old man shaped his mouth how to answer. Finally he said that among men there was no such communion as among horses and the notion that men can be understood at all was probably an illusion. Rawlins asked him in his bad Spanish if there was a heaven for horses but he shook his head and said that a horse had no need of heaven. »

-----

    « When I was in school I studied biology. I learned that in making their experiments scientists will take some group - bacteria, mice, people - and subject that group to certain conditions. They compare the results with a second group which has not been disturbed. This second group is called the control group. It is the control group which enables the scientist gauge the effect of his experiment. To judge the significance of what has occurred. In history there are no control groups. There is no one to tell us what might have been. We weep over the might have been, but there is no might have been. There never was. It is supposed to be true that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. I don't believe knowing can save us. What is constant in history is greed and foolishness and a love of blood and this is a thing that even God - who knows all that can be known - seems powerless to change. »

in  All the Pretty Horses - Cormac McCarthy