As a long-time fan of DC comics and the Joker character, I must say that my initial excitement for Joker: Folie a Deux quickly turned into disappointment with its ending. Having watched both films back-to-back, I can’t help but feel like Todd Phillips took a sledgehammer to any sense of continuity or cohesion in the story.
To begin with, allow me to express some praiseworthy points. The movie “Joker: Folie a Deux” breaks away from the typical sequel pattern. Instead of offering “more of the same,” it delves deeper into the complex character of Arthur Fleck, a role that earned Joaquin Phoenix an exceptional Academy Award. The film’s direction by Todd Phillips and Lawrence Sher’s cinematography is nothing short of stunning. The performances are captivating, with Joaquin Phoenix standing out exceptionally, while I feel Lady Gaga’s character could have been stronger due to the script. Upon exiting “Joker: Folie a Deux” for the first time, I told you that the film left me pondering, and that sentiment persists.
The problem is, the more I think about the film’s ending, the more I hate it.
Moving forward, I’ll be discussing the climax of the film “Joker: Folie a Deux,” so please continue reading at your own risk if you’ve watched the movie or if you’re fine with knowing the details ahead of time. Enjoy the analysis!
What happens at the end of Joker: Folie a Deux?
In the sequel of Todd Phillips’ movie, Joker, a significant part revolves around the internal struggle within Arthur Fleck, questioning if he genuinely transforms into The Joker or if it’s another side of him. Did Arthur commit all the gruesome acts from the first film – murdering passengers on the subway and shooting talk-show host Murray (Robert De Niro) live on TV – or were these deeds performed by an alternate persona, The Joker? Arthur’s lawyer, played by Catherine Keener, plans to argue that Fleck is legally insane. On the other hand, his new companion, Lee (Lady Gaga), encourages him to accept Joker as his fundamental self and unleash chaos.
Eventually, Arthur steps forward in court, rejecting the Joker persona. He admits to the wrongdoings he’s committed and declares himself not to be the Joker, which causes Lee to depart from him. The authorities re-arrest Arthur and return him to Arkham. In Arkham, a younger inmate approaches Arthur and begins to share a joke with him. However, the inmate then stabs Arthur fatally, and we can observe the inmate etching a grin onto his own face in the background. It seems that a new Joker – and possibly even the true Joker – has emerged.
Why this ending bothers me so much
Why do these films carry the title “Joker”? Even if you attempt to view them as parts of a larger DC narrative – which Todd Phillips didn’t seem particularly focused on creating – the connections are tenuous at best. The character we were introduced to in the initial movie would have been too young to be Bruce Wayne during the events of “Joker: Folie a Deux”. So, is the character who murdered Arthur Fleck destined to transform into the Joker who eventually battles Batman in Gotham?
It’s improbable. In actuality, Lawrence Sher, the cinematographer for both “Joker” and “Joker: Folie à Deux”, shared on TopMob’s official ReelBlend podcast that he thinks the concept of a “Joker” will evolve into a myth passed down among criminals. He mentioned this during our conversation.
Your question strikes me as particularly insightful. Upon reflection, it seems to me that the character of Arthur Fleck, portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in “Joker,” transcends typical portrayals of characters within a prison system. It’s almost as if you encounter a legendary figure, someone who leaves an indelible mark on those around him. For instance, imagine hearing tales like: ‘There was this man who was incarcerated! He aspired to be a comedian and sought to create something meaningful… and he had this peculiar laugh…’
In essence, what this boils down to is that Todd Phillips created two feature-length films centered on a character who fails to transform into The Joker as we know him. A possible way to rephrase it could be: Phillips’ movies focus on an individual whose actions and decisions spark the concept of The Joker within Gotham City. However, Arthur Fleck doesn’t fit the bill for The Joker, considering he distances himself from the role, and would likely reject the admirers who have gathered around him. Notably, characters like Lee (Lady Gaga) abandon Arthur as soon as they understand that he won’t become the person they expect him to be.
Let’s go one step further. To me, this ending of Joker: Folie a Deux completely deflates the impact of Joker. Why would I ever go back and rewatch a movie about a character who I now know never becomes The Joker? I can see the argument being made that Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy made a similar point. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) left the Dark Knight persona behind, and it likely was carried on by Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character. The myth had been created, and handed down.
Here, Arthur doesn’t become The Joker as one might expect. Instead, he rejects the role and ultimately pays the price for defying the expectations imposed upon him. In essence, we, the audience, are the ones being fooled. This film, directed by Todd Phillips and co-written with Scott Silver, is indeed tragic in its own right. However, it’s also a bold statement against the concept of a Joker origin movie, as it barely touches upon the character’s origins at all.
And that pisses me off.
In its standalone form, the movie “Joker” served exceptionally well as a potential backstory for the villainous character known as the Joker, the so-called Clown Prince of Crime. Will he eventually confront Batman? That remains to be seen. Director Phillips had no intention of tying these events together. However, in the sequel “Joker: Folie a Deux“, those connections are deliberately removed and reshaped into something entirely different, challenging and contradicting the narrative of both films.
Folie a Deux as peculiar attempts to navigate intellectual property. The first film didn’t fully embrace being an origin story for Joker, instead subtly suggesting key Batman aspects without making them crucial to the plot. The sequel seemed to reject how the initial movie was received and undermined any foundation it had established. This could have been director Todd Phillips’ intention, and I must admit, I admire his boldness. However, the overall message of these films suggests they lead nowhere, leaving behind a legacy that feels empty, lacking substance, and perhaps even poking fun at the audience.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-05 16:08