A: I'm just a simple guy that loves movies, almost as much as I love talking about them. As for why I chose the name "Joshua the Anarchist" well, that's a bit more complicated.
First off, you should know I was calling myself “Joshua the Anarchist” before I actually meant anything by it. I came up with the handle in 2008 right around the time The Dark Knight came out. Like everyone else (and their dog Jeffrey) I was obsessed with Heath Ledger's Joker performance. Been there, had the poster, wore the T-shirt. The name came from that, just a way of communicating my love for the character through a concept I associated with him ("Introduce a little...anarchy" and so forth), but hardly knew anything about. But as time went by and I grew out of that, I became more focused in my goals, and eventually realized that the term "anarchist" conveniently fit what I was trying to say. Now, most of you, went you think “anarchist ”, you think of this:
 |
| Fight the power!! |
...or, of course, this:
 |
| Still love you, big guy. |
But for my own purposes, I like to think of it more broadly. Let’s look up the actual definition of the word, shall we?
an⋅ar⋅chist [an-er-kist] -noun
a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
I admit, I do not entirely subscribe to anarchism as a functional political theory (though I have at certain points in my life). But I am attracted to the basic concept of leaderless order. And like most human beings I have an instinctive desire to revolt against any force that tries to impose ideas on me. I call myself "the Anarchist" simply to declare my intention to "excite revolt", so to speak, against certain ideologies or institutions.
The next logical question then, is what those ideologies or institutions are. On some level I'm rebelling against very obvious targets, the stagnancy of Oscar film culture and the anti-intellectualism of the summer blockbuster audiences. But once again, I prefer to think of it in broader terms. Summarized, I am rebelling against one idea.
Consensus.
It's great that we can agree on things, don't get me wrong. The issue is that once consensus is reached by our culture on any given issue, films being of course the most relevant example, it becomes increasingly difficult to offer a contradictory take on the subject without being dismissed out of hand. Many films have such an overwhelming consensus around their perceived quality or lack thereof that the matter is considered "settled"; nothing more can or need be said on the subject.
Say, for example, you thought you had a strong case that Pulp Fiction was actually empty & uninspired, or that Battlefield Earth was actually an underrated masterpiece. I may not be able to conceptualize how you could credibly make such a claim, but I would certainly be eager to hear what you had to say. As I said, I love talking about movies, and there's nothing that sparks more interesting and lively conversation on the subject of movies than a radical, dissenting opinion like that.
Sadly, not every shares that willingness to listen. To them, there are just some movies that are so unanimously agreed upon as to be untouchable. Back to the Future is "officially good", Batman & Robin is "officially bad", and debating them any further is pointless, right?
There is nothing more boring or more frustrating to me than that mindset. NO film is beyond reproach. NO film is indefensible. If the film was ever worth talking about (and I can think of no film that isn't) there is ALWAYS more to say.
And that's why I call myself Joshua the Anarchist. Also because my name is Joshua, in case I didn't mention.
Q: Why are you in an insane asylum?
A: After my second episode, in which I made the declaration that Joel Schumacher's Batman films were "not that bad!" (GASP), I was declared mentally unsound and confined to Arkham Asylum. Presumably they picked that particular asylum for dramatic irony. Ever since then, as part of my "treatment", they've been strapping me down & forcing me to watch movies Clockwork Orange-style, and then recording my responses. Then posting said recordings to the internet for some reason. They're really unprofessional here at Arkham.
Or maybe I just needed a interesting visual gimmick to make my show stand out. Whatever you choose to believe.
Q: How do your reviews work?
A: As often as I can I produce and host an online movie review show in video form called The Lunatic Fringe. On this show I either take a popular movie that I thought was crap and trash it, or an unpopular movie I felt was underrated and show you guys just how awesome it is. Basically, anything that I feel hasn't been said before is a potential Lunatic Fringe episode. I also frequently post other content whenever the whim strikes me: commentaries, rants, analyses, top 10 lists, etc.
Q: What's "Season Zero" ?
A: The experimental phase of The Lunatic Fringe. Basically all the old reviews from before the show found it's identity. I put them in their little "Season Zero" box because I'm not terribly proud of them, especially the Blade Runner review.
Q: What are your favorite movies?
A: Watch my reviews to find out. Eventually I will probably post a video top 10 list of my favorites.
Q: I have more questions.
A: Well you could just email me, or if your question is a short one you could ask on my Formspring account.
