‘Joker: Folie à Deux’s’ Fatal Flaw Is Turning the Fans Into the Villains of the Sequel

As a film critic with a background in psychology, I find the “Joker Folie à Deux” to be a profoundly intriguing and thought-provoking piece of cinema. It’s a film that doesn’t shy away from challenging its audience, much like life does.

ATTENTION: This essay delves into significant storylines and the conclusion of “Joker: Duo Madness.” It’s best to read this piece after watching the movie, not as a substitute for it.

I strongly disliked Todd Phillips’ initial “Joker” film, which left me feeling grumpy when it turned out to be a massive hit, winning top honors at Venice, receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and earning over a billion dollars worldwide in 2019.

The movie resonated deeply with me, but unfortunately not in a positive sense, as it portrayed the iconic Batman antagonist as an idol for incels. Although I strongly support the idea that art can aim to provoke, I was disappointed by this representation. I’ve encountered people similar to Arthur Fleck, and I worry that such a movie could inadvertently endorse their behavior or provide them with a twisted role model. I was concerned that it might follow the same tragic trajectory as “Scarface,” becoming a fictional icon for unhealthy minds.

Five years later, the character returns for a controversial sequel that seems to antagonize its original audience, as if director Phillips has grown to dislike us. Interestingly, this disfavor appears to be reciprocated; I spoke with a couple of theater managers yesterday, and they’ve noticed an unusual trend: Some patrons are canceling their tickets or failing to attend the movie due to negative reviews.

Who is the antagonist in “Joker: Folie à Deux”? Here’s a clue: It won’t be Arthur Fleck. Instead, it might be more concerning to watch Joaquin Phoenix’s fans, particularly those who hope he will reprise his role as the clown-masked instigator of chaos.

Let’s explore an extension of that idea: In this portrayal, Lady Gaga embodies Harley Quinn, a character as mentally unstable as the Joker himself. This relationship is symbolically represented by the term “folie à deux,” a psychiatric concept where one person’s delusional beliefs seemingly infect another. According to Wikipedia, this term is used when two people share a delusion. Initially, Gaga appears much like Angelina Jolie in “Girl, Interrupted,” but as the story unfolds, she transforms into someone entirely different – not unlike fans who write to infamous criminals or even plan to wed them from prison.

The “Joker 2” we anticipated was not what we got. Instead of continuing from the previous movie’s climax with Gotham City spiraling into disorder, setting up a natural transition for Arthur Fleck’s tale within Batman’s broader mythos, the sequel chose a different path. In truth, “Joker” wasn’t merely the title character’s backstory but also laid the groundwork for Bruce Wayne witnessing his father’s murder, which is why fans might have expected a more direct connection.

But Phillips defiantly steers us elsewhere.

Hollywood sequels often follow one of two paths: They may expand upon the previous film’s story, turning it into an epic saga as seen in “The Dark Knight” or “The Godfather Part II”. Alternatively, they might replicate what made the original successful, enlarging and intensifying it with a larger budget (like how “The Hangover Part II” was done by Phillips himself).

The movie doesn’t follow the concept of ‘Folie à Deux’. Instead, it resembles a prolonged courtroom sequence, punctuated by intermittent musical performances. These melodies are mostly classic tunes that seem to play only within Arthur’s mind.

As a diehard movie enthusiast, if the chaotic and violent spectacle of “Joker” piqued your interest, I’m afraid you might be disappointed. Unlike in the film, Arthur doesn’t commit any more murders here – unless we consider a hypothetical sequence as a fantasy where he supposedly attacks the prosecutor and judge. The characters, including Harley Quinn and the masses supporting him in the streets, are all clamoring for more of the Joker persona, but Arthur ultimately turns away from his alter ego. The ending, while not what one might expect, I’ll save for the last part of this review to avoid any spoilers. Unfortunately, it seems that fewer people than anticipated saw this movie (the film earned a dismal Cinemascore grade of “D” from exit-polled audiences).

As a passionate film enthusiast, I must admit that this sequel showcases an audacious approach, managing to bring back Joaquin Phoenix in his iconic red suit and clownish makeup once more. However, the movie primarily unfolds within the confines of Arkham State Hospital or Judge Herman Rothwax’s courtroom, which somewhat limits its scope. The songs, supposedly mirroring Joker’s unspoken emotions, unfortunately seem to slow down an already leisurely pace, almost bringing it to a grinding halt. While the original was a “slow burn,” I always felt it was a clever ploy to give it an air of sophistication. This sequel, in my opinion, is more like striking a match and waiting for it to go out.

You want to know what’s wrong with the “Joker” sequel? It’s boring.

The story’s crux revolves around a commonly used trope in trial movies: the insanity defense – a legal loophole often portrayed favorably in Hollywood, but seldom effective in reality. This defense allows a defendant to be committed to a mental institution instead of facing execution if it can be demonstrated that his mental state prevented him from understanding that his actions were wrong.

Instead of delving into familiar storytropes right away, it seems we’re surrounded by overused screenwriting stereotypes: the harsh warden (Brendan Gleeson), the self-satisfied district attorney (Harry Lawtey portraying Harvey Dent), and the morally questionable defense attorney (Catherine Keener). Is this the direction you envisioned for your “Joker” follow-up?

It transpires that if you purchased a ticket, it was actually a joke since Lady Gaga doesn’t appear much as Harley Quinn compared to what one might anticipate. Interestingly, despite her reduced screen time, she still manages to hold her own in the role. Jared Leto, who previously won an Oscar for his intense method acting in the first film, appears just as dedicated this time around, going to great lengths to lose a significant amount of weight to reprise his role as Arthur Fleck.

However, could it be that he assumes the role of the Joker in this new storyline? The verdict is yours to pass – feel free to form your own opinion regarding his psychological state, and whether you believe it justifies the murder of seven individuals in the previous film: three arrogant white-collar workers on a subway, the colleague who caused his dismissal, his mistreating mother, a psychiatrist from Arkham Asylum, and Robert De Niro’s character, talk show host Murray Franklin.

Instead of exploring uncharted territories, a significant portion of the new film delves back into revisiting the past, compelling Arthur to grapple with the aftermath of his choices. If you found excitement in witnessing Arthur’s retaliation against his tormentors in “Joker,” Phillips challenges you to ponder why you feel this way when “Folie à Deux” concludes, trying to help you understand your feelings of disillusionment. Essentially, the movie seems to pose the question: “Were your expectations unrealistic?

Did Todd Phillips suddenly develop a sense of moral responsibility? As Owen Gleiberman put it in his critique, Phillips’ downfall appears to be heeding the criticism – a reasonable interpretation given that Phillips admitted to Vanity Fair that the final joke in “The Hangover Part III” (the post-credits scene where the Wolf Pack wakes up after Zach Galifianakis’ wedding) was essentially a middle finger to those who said this group wouldn’t get drunk again.

It appears quite clear that in this situation, Phillips may not comprehend the concerns about “Joker.” This implies that if he had altered any aspects of the film to address criticisms, he would have essentially created a movie for nobody.

As a cinephile, I’ve found myself engaged in numerous discussions about the 2019 release of “Joker.” While my friend Owen hails it as the standout movie of that year, I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, this film seems to have elicited an unexpectedly conservative response from me. Instead of being a cinematic marvel, I believe “Joker” is a rare exception—one whose creation I feel tarnishes our world rather than enriches it.

Looking back, I’ll acknowledge that my response might have been excessive. The incident reminded me of news stories about the shooter at an Aurora, Colorado megaplex, who reportedly wore the Joker character’s costume. However, further investigation revealed that this wasn’t true; yet, it seems unlikely to me that he didn’t choose “The Dark Knight Rises” movie as his target by chance.

Initially, I’d argue that “Joker” isn’t so much a film about the Joker as it is a resemblance to Martin Scorsese’s works, particularly “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy.” The involvement of De Niro could be seen as the punchline to an ongoing joke. Todd Phillips created a tragic portrayal of a self-absorbed psychopath (which isn’t inherently problematic), and then inserted this character into one of Warner Bros.’ most profitable franchises.

The outcome only slightly aligns with Batman’s established backstory, and I would contend it deviates more significantly from Vera Drew’s profoundly personal “The People’s Joker.” As we witnessed when she directed that film, the studio wasn’t too keen on such departures. However, given the Joker’s enduring popularity, portraying Arthur’s mental breakdown as a new origin story for the character seemed less like an act of empathy (as Phillips suggests in his director’s commentary) and more like a risky move to make public. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher and the score by Hildur Guðnadóttir, which were both standout aspects of both films, serve to heighten Arthur’s actions, making them almost appealing. This polished presentation seems likely to inspire imitators.

Owen labels individuals who criticized “Joker” as “moralizers,” and he might have a point. I strive to avoid being overly judgmental or sanctimonious when it comes to movies, but I’ve always had reservations about films that seem to romanticize serial killers such as “Man Bites Dog,” “American Psycho,” and “Natural Born Killers.

I find these characters intriguing, and I believe it’s crucial, though often challenging, to comprehend them. However, there’s a cinematic genre – ranging from sensationalistic TV movies and true-crime content on streaming platforms like Netflix, to more balanced depictions such as “Elephant” and “Nitram” – that appears to glorify the actions of sociopaths. In today’s world, if you commit heinous acts like shooting up a school or attempting to assassinate a president, it’s likely that someone will produce a movie, or even several, about your actions.

In his book “On Moral Fiction,” author and critic John Gardner asserts that art is fundamentally serious and valuable, serving as a contest against chaos, decay, and death. He proposes that creators, including writers and filmmakers, should not glorify unpleasantness and failure while disparaging the good, but rather should strive to produce art that wards off evil and “evaluates human actions, instilling trustworthy emotions about what is right and wrong.

I cite Gardner not because I agree with him. He’s even harder on critics than he is on “bad artists,” and his parochial arguments are blinded with bias toward a conventional (white, male) canon he likely would have derided as degenerate in its time. By contrast, I find artistic value in marginal voices and moral ambiguity, from Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” to a film like “Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom.”

Drawing inspiration from Gardner, who masterfully created a literary genre that encompasses “Joker”, I find myself captivated by his work, particularly “Grendel”. This remarkable piece offers a fresh perspective on the Beowulf legend, telling the story from the monster’s point of view. What intrigues me most is how Gardner approached this task responsibly, not as a call to arms for would-be anarchists. Instead, he saw the artist’s imagination as a space for exploring the extraordinary and the unimaginable, echoing my belief that “The artist’s imagination, or the world it builds, is a laboratory of the unexperienced, encompassing both heroic and unspeakable realms.

In my perspective, the main idea in Phillips’ “Joker” seems to revolve around the notion that Arthur’s actions are a response to the destructive nature of society, specifically Gotham City. Right from the start, when Arthur is brutally attacked by a group of kids in an alleyway, we can see him as a victim. In this upcoming sequel, a lawyer intercedes, working diligently to portray him in this light. She contends that Arthur’s traumatic childhood, hinted at in the first film and further explored here, along with other forms of mistreatment, have shaped his mental state – be it schizophrenia or those uncontrollable fits of laughter caused by a condition known as pseudobulbar affect (PBA).

The movie “Joker: Folie à Deux” seems to take a satirical approach towards its audience, as evidenced by the Looney Tunes-esque opening cartoon titled “Me and My Shadow.” In this cartoon, Arthur’s sinister doppelgänger carries out a murder that Arthur later gets blamed for. The storyline raises questions about Arthur’s future: Will he manage to escape from custody? Will he seek revenge on his oppressors? Or will the majority of the film focus on court proceedings?

In Todd Phillips’ commentary on “Joker”, he refers to one of a director’s crucial roles as setting the overall mood or atmosphere, which could alternatively be explained as the “meta-ironic” tone – a complex, challenging, and sometimes confusing form of satire where understanding the creator’s purpose can be quite elusive.

As a movie reviewer, I found Todd Phillips’ latest offering, “Joker: Folie à Deux,” to be steeped in the vernacular of certain online communities, particularly those where disenchanted individuals express their feelings through a blend of humor and anger. While Phillips himself doesn’t explicitly use terms like “incel,” I believe the film is designed to resonate with this group, much like how the original movie was interpreted as an exploration of that phenomenon.

Instead of explaining Phillips’ decision to contrast “Joker” with a completely different genre that his audience might expect, consider phrasing it this way:

Phillips is not holding back; instead, he’s targeting his criticism squarely at the demographic that Arthur Fleck identifies with.

In the closing scene of the initial film, Arthur responds to his therapist’s question “What’s so funny?” with “You wouldn’t understand.” Throughout the subsequent movie, it seems as though it’s filled with inside jokes that only those who emulate or draw inspiration from the Joker might not fully appreciate. In the storyline (approaching spoiler territory), Arthur eventually dismisses his lawyer and chooses to represent himself in court, donning the Joker persona. When Arthur addresses the television cameras directly, as he did on Murray Franklin’s show, we anticipate some sort of chaotic action. However, in a surprising turn, Arthur disowns his alter ego and accepts the verdict instead.

Following an explosion caused by a car bomb in a courtroom, Arthur is saved by a group dressed as clowns who seem to idolize him excessively, leaving him terrified and trying to flee. Intriguingly, Harley Quinn is their leader. The poignant aspect of “Folie à Deux” lies in the fact that none appear even slightly intrigued by Arthur Fleck. Only the Joker captures attention. Even if Arthur were to disappear, the mythology he constructed as the Joker would persist. This is symbolically represented by the vague activity in the background of the final shot. The main issue with Phillips’ franchise and the irony of this film is that remove the Joker/Batman connection, and nobody would give a moment’s thought to Arthur Fleck.

2024-10-08 23:48

‘Joker: Folie à Deux’s’ Fatal Flaw Is Turning the Fans Into the Villains of the Sequel

Read More

Minority Mindset