★★★★
Did I see a different movie than everyone else?
Most people seem to be saying that Joker: Folie à Deux is a dumpster fire of a disaster that hates its own fans. It’s not a stretch to say this might be the most disappointing comic book movie of all time for a lot of people.
But for me… while I am still not 100% sure how I feel about it, I definitely don’t agree with the majority. I really appreciated this film.
Joker: Folie à Deux (or Joker 2 as I will refer to it) is bold, unafraid, and complex, delivering a commentary on the sensationalism of trauma and mental health over the actual care for it. This is a film that swings for the stars in its execution, and while it doesn’t always work, this is a film that will be talked about for years to come. While the initial backlash to the film is strong now, I feel after some time, people will begin to revisit this movie and re-evaluate it with adjusted expectations. Because frankly, Todd Phillips took most people’s expectations of a sequel to the first Joker film and absolutely threw those out the window, giving all of us the middle finger for wanting that in the first place. The film is completely disinterested, and is actively hostile towards fulfilling your expectations, and then seems to chastise you for wanting to see a film about the Joker.
And goddamn it, even if the end result is a mess, I fucking love that he had the courage to do this. I can’t think of another major studio film with a $200 million budget in the last 10 years that actually had the guts to make something that wasn’t just pandering to the fans — instead this film offers a subversive deconstruction of the character and in a meta-sense, the first film, that challenges our preconceived notions of what this movie would be. From a business perspective, this was a terrible idea, as we can see the results — a failing box office, theatres are empty, there’s a disappointed fan base, and the film will ultimately lose money. But from an artistic perspective, like it or hate it, we are so lucky to have a film like this. I so appreciate the boldness of this film — I would rather see movies like this that take risks and swing for the fences (even if they don’t always connect) than 100 of the same movies I see again and again. It starts an interesting dialogue over what has become the norm for tentpole films. I just love that Todd Phillips went for it.
I’ve sat with this movie for a week now — and honestly, it gets better the more I think and process it. I left and initially was very mixed, both disappointed and yet genuinely surprised that it actually sort of worked for me. Regardless of good or bad, it’s a polarizing movie that is inciting an interesting discussion, and that's ultimately what good art does. In some ways, this is even more interesting than the first.
Discussing this movie is difficult without going into slight spoilers, so be warned.
This film is about Arthur rejecting the Joker persona, and ultimately we discover that he never even was the classic Batman villain we know — instead, he was just Arthur Fleck. I remember saying after the first film that you didn’t even need to call it Joker as it was essentially a character study of Arthur Fleck; This is the tragedy of Arthur Fleck, a broken man failed by the system and greater society, who found the only way to get attention was to embrace the violence inside. This film continues that character arc, instead of doing what many wanted and seeing him descend even further into becoming the Joker. This movie isn't about Joker or Harley, it's about Arthur Fleck. Once you understand that, the movie will start to make perfect sense. The animated sequence at the beginning of the film offers the perfect key to how to view the film — seeing the Joker as a part of Arthur that he is trying to escape. Throughout the film, we see many citizens of Gotham as well as Lee/Harley attempting to convince Arthur to give into his darker side rather than get better. Harley/Lee is clearly meant to represent the fans of the first Joker. She loves “Joker” and the “TV movie” they made about him, and she wants him to do Joker things. Arthur keeps resisting and tries to be just Arthur, despite that not being “giving the audience what they want.” And when Arthur outright rejects becoming the Joker, she abandons him. I find it interesting that in the film, supporters of the Joker are seen walking out of the courtroom when Arthur decides not to be Joker anymore, the same way in real life Joker fans were walking out of theatres just as soon as Joker the movie became Arthur the movie. It’s almost like the movie itself was trying to comment on this… hm…
Arthur has a speech during the trial where he seems to be talking to the cinema audience; he literally says that people only love him when he's the Joker but no one gives a damn when he's Arthur. Joker 2 was made to make a statement: people love sensationalism and don’t really care about mental illness. That’s what this movie is about. That’s what it has to say, and it’s a powerful message. The general public reception describes it PERFECTLY. The more I think about it, the simpler the message becomes and how the audience is proving the point: the world does not care about anyone's mental health, they care about the spectacle/sensationalism. Phillips clearly noticed a lot of people might have misunderstood the sympathetic and non-toxic point of the first one—especially with the messy balancing act of having to cater to the commercially mandatory IP bait. But then he had some unrequested money thrown at him by the studio to make an unnecessary vanity sequel, so he sat back, cracked his knuckles, and delivered one of the most ballsy IP sequels ever. This sequel wasn’t meant to do well at the box office - it was intended to be a humiliation ritual to destroy the first film’s legacy as punishment for it resonating with the “wrong” people (those who felt seen in Joker’s violent acts). Hollywood has had a long run of accidentally creating sympathetic antagonists and never once did it give them pause to think. For once, someone has gone back to rectify this. It is astonishing Warner Bros ever let this get made, but I think it’s so damn cool that Todd Phillips had the guts to deliver his uncompromised vision for this sequel. It's the opposite of fan service, which makes me appreciate it--and makes others angry at it.
It somewhat reminds me of what Frank Herbert did when writing Dune: Messiah – essentially writing an extended epilogue of the original Dune novel to make the point that Paul Atredies is not the “hero” of the story and readers should not be rooting for him. Its main purpose was to clarify the author’s intentions as he was distressed that readers misunderstood the end of the original novel. Todd Phillips’ Joker 2 does the same sort of thing, offering an examination of the events of the original film from Phillips’ perspective.
Some may ask, why would Phillips make this if he was so uninterested in telling a story about the Joker?
I think the film is very interested in Joker as an idea. Joker is just a human who takes on an alternate identity to escape his reality and become something larger. It's critical of the audience's desire to root for him to become less human. You don't have to think it is good or successful, there's a lot to criticize, but I think it's important to at least engage with the movie on its terms. If you dive into the truth and sadness of the Arthur from the first film, Joker is not something to root for him to become. I do think it would be easier for people to engage with what it's saying if it was offered more as a standalone story, and it's partly the film's fault for not offering that to the audience. It’s unfortunate the film isn’t really trying to do anything else other than be a piece of commentary on the first film — it doesn’t really create a memorable story of its own — it simply exists as an add-on to clarify the meaning behind the original, quite literally re-examining key moments from the original in a courtroom setting. It is not a memorable story, just a good piece to think about. It’s best looked at as a deconstruction of the first Joker.
The script is certainly messy and not as polished as the original was. Joker 2 looks spectacular — the visual style is just as phenomenal as expected and some of the production design is top-tier. And yes, this is a musical to some degree. Not all the musical elements flow together with the rest of the film, but I enjoyed them! The musical interludes seemed essential to the fantasy of Arthur Fleck’s vulnerable and yearning desires, and altogether I felt they were shot and performed really well. The only problem is every time a song would start, the story would stop in its tracks. A good musical should be able to tell the story through the music, but this one seems to just reiterate the point of the scene before. But hey, again I gotta give it to them — never in a million years did I expect to see musical sequences in a sequel to Joker! Joaquin Phoenix gives an even better, more nuanced performance the second time around, really clawing into Arthur’s psychology. Lady Gaga was mesmerizing and elegantly manipulative, however, I felt like she didn’t have enough material to work with.
So Joker: Folie à Deux is not a bad film. It’s just not what audiences wanted from the Joker sequel. I can’t even say the direction of this film is where I wanted a sequel to go, but I can’t say Todd Phillips didn’t have a vision here and this is not at all the cash grab that I expected. This version has never been a supervillain origin story. It is social commentary wrapped in characters from DC comics. I just can’t get it out of my head. I might be in love with the heavy themes of this movie, it’s darker and a lot more thematically intriguing, and it throws all comic book conventions out of the window to tell a compelling story of mental illness, as well as challenges our idea of what these movies can be.
So, here is how I recommend viewing Joker: Folie à Deux:
1. Watch it, realize it's absolutely not what you wanted and not what the title/marketing makes it out to be, hate it, mourn it, read reviews.
2. Watch it again, bearing in mind it's gonna be about Arthur's battle with his mental illness and Todd Phillips doing EVERYTHING in his power to not quench your thirst for sensationalism, and realize it's actually pretty amazing in that regard.
I’m in the small minority for this one, but I really appreciate this messy but bold film. In a landscape of films that are so focused on fan service, cameos, and rebooting everything, it’s refreshing to see a filmmaker take risks and do something so different with an IP we know so well. Say what you will about Joker: Folie à Deux, but you have to agree we have never seen anything quite like it in a mainstream blockbuster before. I’m so happy this film exists!
Film Info:
Tyler you are so insiteful! You saw beyond the surface and got the true message of the film.