As a film critic with over two decades of experience under my belt, I have seen countless adaptations of beloved characters, each striving to carve out their own unique narrative while staying true to the source material. The Joker, one of the most iconic villains in pop culture history, is no exception.
[This story contains spoilers for Joker: Folie a Deux.]
It appears that not many people are finding Todd Phillips’ latest film, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” amusing. This is surprising given the overwhelming success of its predecessor, “Joker” (2019), which earned over $1 billion at the box office, was nominated for 11 Oscars, and won awards for Best Actor and Best Original Score. With Joaquin Phoenix reprising his role as the Joker/Arthur Fleck, and Lady Gaga joining him as Harley Quinn, this film seemed like one of Hollywood’s most promising projects this year. However, the first movie didn’t establish a storyline for a sequel.
So, what gives?
Instead of just being criticized, the follow-up has sparked feelings of betrayal from some enthusiasts of the original. There are aspects that people might have differing opinions on: the movie can be slow at times, the songs used are mostly old tunes from the mid-20th century that repeat frequently, and the director seems to lack dedication to traditional musical films (while showing an unusual interest in ’70s variety shows).
But it seems much of that sense of betrayal, and anger comes from the film’s ending.
There is, of course, no right or wrong way to feel about it, or the film as a whole. What I’m offering here isn’t a defense of Joker: Folie a Deux, but a perspective through which to consider the film, however you may land on it. And with that comes a means to contextualize the ending, which in my opinion is the film’s finest moment. *Crickets.* Is this thing on?
Towards the movie’s conclusion, Arthur Fleck relinquishes his Joker identity in court, acknowledging that he is not a symbol of rebellion, but simply a man who knowingly carried out his actions. He was just an insignificant individual yearning for significance and affection. This confession triggers outrage among his supporters, causing Lee to abandon him, effectively ending their relationship. She desired the Joker, not Fleck. Post this, back at Arkham, Fleck remains silent, no longer laughing or joking, only contemplating the love he had and lost. Then, one of the guards, Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson), informs Fleck that he has a visitor and guides him to the reception area in the main hall.
In the movie, a fellow inmate who’s been present throughout approaches Fleck, never uttering a word but always observing Fleck and the responses he elicits from both the inmates and those at his televised trial. This silent inmate tells a joke that mirrors one previously told by the Joker (Robert DeNiro) in the first film: “You get what you fuckin deserve.” Following this, the inmate stabs Fleck repeatedly in the stomach. As Fleck lies dying on the asylum floor, the inmate tries out different laughs, eventually settling on one that perfectly captures Fleck’s demise: a deep, chilling, and blood-soaked laughter. With Arthur Fleck’s death, the true Joker emerges.
To fully understand this supposed audience’s connection to the film “Joker,” we need to revisit its initial premise. Following the debut of the first movie, I discussed the film’s questionable adherence to the comics. Despite Todd Phillips’ efforts to portray it as something more than a genre piece and a “real movie” rather than a comic book movie (with a hint of distaste), the director himself can be seen as embodying the Joker character. Instead of openly acknowledging the influence of comic books, Phillips framed the film as a character study with echoes of Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” (1976) and “The King of Comedy” (1982). However, it also bears similarities to “The Killing Joke” and various other Joker tales from different mediums. If it weren’t a “comic book movie,” the audience wouldn’t have responded to it as they did with Heath Ledger’s Joker in “The Dark Knight” (2008) or Jack Nicholson’s Joker in “Batman” (1989).
Prior to the release of “Joker” five years ago, there were worries about potential violence during its opening night, echoing the tragic event in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” in 2012. With these concerns in mind, some news outlets capitalized on speculation that “Joker” was appealing to a specific group known as incels. Fortunately, no violent incidents occurred, but the label of “Joker” as an incel movie persisted. Now, some view Todd Phillips’ sequel as a deliberate snub towards this audience and comic book fans.
I want to clarify that I don’t engage with the “incel” community on social media platforms, and I don’t identify with them. However, I do believe the association between the film and incels is exaggerated. It’s important to note that a movie driven by such ideologies wouldn’t have grossed over $1 billion or received Oscar nominations. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that “Joker: Folie a Deux” would receive negative reviews from both critics and audiences due to this connection.
Initially, some critics claimed that the movie portrayed excessive violence and depicted the Joker as victorious, a damaged character who found redemption in destroying the system. However, supporting a villainous main character doesn’t mean condoning viewers to adopt such wicked behavior as their moral compass.
As a devoted fan, I’ve pondered over the intriguing portrayal of the Joker in recent films, and some have raised concerns about his character being too complex, given his backstory of mental illness and abuse. They argue that this ambiguity could potentially justify his villainous actions, creating a dangerous narrative slippery slope.
Reading plenty of Batman comics reveals that a significant portion of Bruce Wayne’s wealth is dedicated towards his crusade, which isn’t surprising given their fictional setting free from real-world rules and social structures. However, the criticism of Batman reflects societal concerns, and after the release of The Joker, comic book author James Tynion IV assumed control of the Batman series, launching a year-long narrative in which Bruce Wayne loses all his wealth following The Joker War. This narrative seems to reflect unease about a wealthy man residing in a towering edifice, holding the highest political office, and perceived as draining resources that people depend on.
As a devoted admirer, I’d rephrase the passage as follows:
In the opening of Folie a Deux, an animated short reminiscent of classic Looney Tunes unfolds, where Joker battles his own shadow. This shadow not only attempts to usurp him by wearing his clothes, performing his acts, but also sets up the Joker for the murders he’s committed, thereby leaving the shadow free to perform as the Joker. The shadow then brutally beats Fleck, leaving him battered and bruised. This cartoon is quite chilling and importantly, it sets up the entire movie right from the start.
In the film’s continuation, we encounter Fleck once more, a man broken down by guilt and anticipating trial for the five murders he had committed in the preceding movie. He’s heavily drugged, submissive, and hasn’t uttered a joke in months. Within Arkham’s confines, he’s just another insignificant figure amongst the inmates. However, this changes when he encounters Lee Quinzel, an inmate housed in a less secure wing of the asylum. Fleck develops feelings for Lee, who motivates him to laugh once more, to reclaim his Joker identity and informs him that he was an inspiration to her – a fellow kid from their neighborhood, who endured an abusive father and a distant mother, similar to Fleck’s upbringing. Concurrently, Fleck’s lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (played by Catherine Keener), assists him in presenting a tale to the jury, claiming that Joker was merely a secondary persona, that he had no recollection of the crimes committed in the previous films while under duress due to his traumatic childhood and mother’s demise. This story serves as an effective defense, but it’s not entirely truthful. Yet, Lee’s narrative is also fabricated.
The film has a genuine interest in parasocial relationships and people who insert themselves into true crime narratives as a way to be seen or feel some kind of meaning. Pascal Plante’s French-Canadian horror-thriller, Red Rooms, was released a few weeks ago and tackles this very subject. That film, and Ryan Murphy’s sensationalized Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story weighed on my mind as I watched Gaga’s manipulative turn as Lee. As we come to find out, Lee is from a wealthy family on the Upper West Side, her father is a non-abusive doctor, and she finished grad school with a degree in psychiatry. She checked herself into Arkham to meet the Joker and then checks herself out once she has him on a hook and can control the media narrative surrounding him, building him up as a brilliant criminal mastermind.
In this movie adaptation, Harleen Quinzel-like character Lee first encounters a seemingly tamed Joker figure, not exactly cured but subdued. Over time, however, she manipulates him, enters into a relationship with him, and orchestrates a pretense of pregnancy to claim ownership over him. This manipulation allows her to rekindle his infatuation. The dynamic between them is reminiscent of the psychological thrillers popular in the late ’80s and ’90s, such as “Fatal Attraction” (1987), “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle” (1992), and “Disclosure” (1994). Lee’s behavior is driven by a unique form of delusion that often afflicts the wealthy with an abundance of leisure and resources. She desires to live out a fantasy, creating a makeshift family with Joker. Despite acknowledging the artificiality of her situation, she can escape whenever she chooses, much like leaving a mental institution such as Arkham. From the beginning, she is aware that there will be no happy ending for Arthur Fleck (played by Harry Lawtey), who faces the death penalty as D.A. Harvey Dent calls for it.
Lee’s depiction might be interpreted as a sly Jezebel, a woman intent on sabotaging the man who cares for her. If we were to give weight to the incel narrative, then undeniably, the movie could be seen as misogynistic, portraying women as the cause of troubles faced by supposed great men. However, I believe this argument holds water only if Joker is perceived as a hero rather than the narcissistic murderer he truly is.
In the first movie, the Joker exploited Gotham’s impoverished residents. In this film, one of Gotham’s rich manipulates Fleck, much like how a puppeteer controls a marionette. This manipulation is primarily through the media, as characters in the story seem to perform for the camera. Scenes such as Fleck’s interviews, the televised trial, and the musical sequences, which resemble old-time variety shows rather than grand Hollywood productions of yesteryears, are examples of this. Characters like Lee provide unrequested media interviews, positioning themselves in front of the camera to belittle Stewart’s legal skills and boost the Joker’s image. Other fans, who dress up as the Joker, serve as echoes or reflections of him, anticipating his appearance. However, Fleck is not the genuine article they are waiting for.
In the Blu-ray edition of the movie “Joker”, there’s a special feature named “Joker: Vision & Fury” where Todd Phillips expresses that there are various interpretations of the film. He suggests that Arthur Fleck might not actually be the Joker, but rather one possible origin story for the character, as told by this particular individual within the confines of a mental institution. This concept of multiple origins for the Joker was first introduced in “The Killing Joke” by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, and has been used frequently over the years as different authors and artists have contributed to the Joker’s backstory.
Following Gary Puddles, a former colleague of Fleck’s (Leigh Gill), recounting the emotional wounds inflicted by his encounter with the Joker and describing how the one person who treated him kindly at work turned out to be a murderer, a sense of disillusionment seeps into the Joker’s persona. This is because it becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile a man portrayed as a symbol of the downtrodden and oppressed with being an oppressor himself. When a fellow inmate at Arkham, another young admirer of Fleck who seemed destined to become the Joker, is brutally killed by Arkham guards, Fleck’s self-deception shatters. He realizes that he is not a revolutionary figure or the central character in his own story. Instead, Arthur Fleck is merely a murderer seeking power and recognition, but ultimately insignificant.
Meanwhile, Arthur confesses to the court on live television, but before he can finish his statement, a car bomb explodes, decimating the courthouse. Disoriented and lost in the ensuing chaos, Arthur is approached by two fans who urge him to set Gotham ablaze. However, Arthur manages to escape, with his pursuers hot on his heels until he returns to his apartment, where he encounters Lee. Her appearance is striking, with her hair styled like a clown and makeup applied meticulously. For a brief moment, Arthur harbors hope that he can still be someone important, perhaps even finding a sense of identity with Lee. Unfortunately for him, Lee shows no interest in Arthur Fleck. The only ones who seem to care about him are the masses who believed him to be the Joker.
What fascinates me in terms of these two Joker films is the willingness of certain audiences to immerse themselves in Arthur Fleck’s story, only when they thought he was the iconic Batman villain. When it’s revealed that he isn’t, that he’s just a miserable, tragic man and the persona was merely a foundation for the real deal, well suddenly it’s a betrayal. And I have to admit, I do find it funny that for seemingly a lot of people, it wasn’t this character study of Arthur Fleck they were interested in, but how he becomes the villain so adored. But upon reflection, it never seemed like Arthur was going to be that guy. Instead, he inspires the true Jokers, both in the form of Harleen Quinzel, who essentially becomes more Joker than Harley Quinn here, and the inmate, a nobody who can presumably become a bigger somebody, and bigger threat than Arthur’s Joker ever was. And Joker: Folie a Deux does this while also tipping the hat to the comic book mythos of Joker never having a concrete backstory.
In Arthur Fleck’s case, the idea of multiple Jokers being present isn’t new; it has previously been used in the TV series “Gotham.” There, Jerome Valeska (played by Cameron Monaghan) was the precursor to the Joker, but the true Joker turned out to be his twin brother Jeremiah (also played by Monaghan). Additionally, there’s the comic book series “Batman: The Three Jokers” written by Geoff Johns and Jason Fabok, which suggests that the Joker’s characterization changes due to three individuals – The Criminal, The Clown, and The Comedian. In essence, “Joker Folie a Deux” doesn’t introduce a concept that hasn’t been explored before, but it does so in a unique way – by being a $190 million sequel to a billion-dollar film.
Is it unfair to feel let down by the “Joker: Folie à Deux”, given that the character portrayed was not the classic comic version we’re familiar with, and you went to see a movie expecting something else? Not necessarily. It depends on what you personally expected from the Joker character. To me, it seems intriguing to explore uncharted territories with the Joker, especially in a film that stands alone without connections to a larger cinematic universe, offering an opportunity for something daring and fresh.
Perhaps the film Joker: Folie a Deux didn’t provide the punchline we were expecting, but it certainly delivered an amusing twist for a director who strayed from the comics, only to find himself entangled in them once more. Given the passionate fanbase that closely follows comic book accuracy and desires connections to characters within the established IP, it’s no surprise that this movie navigated a complex path to reach a satisfying conclusion. After all, you can’t change a character beyond recognition, and creators can’t sever ties with the source material without eventually returning to it. To me, this twist brings a delightful sense of irony and makes me smile.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-07 03:25