But at the same time, I can see the point of makers of the film as well. They obviously did not expect this outcome or this kind of reaction from the audience. It was a careful tale of a man, falling into the pit of insanity, through family trauma, overall gradual neglect and mockery and top of that insufficient facilities to help him recover from that. Although there may or may not be political agendas, of which it is often accused. The content is prone to that kind of discussion.

But as filmmaking process, the makers have their own reasonable point. The film is on social issues, mental health, futile violence and social disorder, and it is bound to create such friction. Also, it is somewhat viewer’s fault to perceive this all so poorly; idolizing the obvious villain, or atleast an antihero. People always liked to do that. We have seen countless examples where the antiheroes are glorified unreasonably. Although what happened to Arthur was unfortunate and his fate was disappointing but that gives us the reason to sympathize with him but not to glorify him. 

I see in terms of storytelling and what the director showed in the film was fairly fine. Although there were moments of glamorized violence and ambiguity in what the side the director was actually on. It was a really thin line. Still makers have that liberty to use their creative vision and provide certain qualities they want to give to a particular movie. Even if they are provocative.