Most will remember the controversies sparked by the release of “Joker” in 2019. Todd Philips’ unconventional and subversive drama gave an insightful look into the potential origin of one of the most iconic villains in history. 2019’s “Joker” was a divisive film, to say the least. Still, it was a box office success, and most people would agree that the film was at least saying something (how well that message was conveyed is up for debate). It addressed themes of mental health, abuse, neglect and systemic failures. Fans of the original were excited to see a return or perhaps an expansion of these themes in the sequel. That is–unfortunately–far from what they received.
“Joker: Folie á Deux” is a difficult film to describe. On the one hand, it shows occasional flashes of competency and on rare occasions even excellence. It is full of acting that ranges from serviceable to great, cinematography that is striking and inspired, and a handful of scenes that are both shockingly insightful and engaging. Unfortunately, these aspects of the film are overshadowed by a devastating case of tonal dissonance, abysmal pacing and a general sense of pointlessness. Several key decisions made by both Director Todd Philips, as well as the studio, have crippled any chance this movie had of living up to the heights of the original, and with a 40 million dollar global opening week, “Joker: Folie á Deux” is shaping up to be a critical as well as financial failure.
There was heated debate online when the announcement came that the anticipated sequel to the original “Joker” would be a musical. Many felt warranted in the fear that it would distract from the serious and contemplative tone of the original. Others argued that it was the perfect medium for framing the natural absurdity of a story centered around the character of the Joker. After having seen it in theaters I can say without a doubt that–although it may have worked in the hands of a more competent director–it was the worst possible direction they could have taken it. The musical numbers (scattered throughout as an indication of Arthur Fleck’s [Joaquin Phoenix] delusions) are not only bland, uninspired and frankly poorly performed, but on most occasions violently undercut the dramatic tension of any scene they happen to interrupt. Characters have an engaging or thought-provoking conversation, or go through moments of intense internal debate and begin singing without warning. Both Phoenix and–more disappointingly–Lady Gaga phone in their performances during these musical numbers, and the songs themselves–besides being offensively boring and generic–simply serve to tell the audience exactly what a character is thinking at a given moment. It treats the audience like children, dragging them along a three-minute musical number where Todd Philips points to each character and shouts “This is what they are thinking!”
I call the main character Arthur because the ending of this film confirmed what so many people already suspected: that Arthur Fleck’s Joker is not the Clown Prince of Crime, nor is he any other variation of the iconic character. He is simply a placeholder wearing the Joker’s name like a disguise. Arthur Fleck spends the entirety of the exhausting two hour and twenty minute runtime being pushed around, manipulated, lied to and abused. Unlike in the first film, where the purpose of the story was to build to his breaking point, in this film he simply continuously accepts his fate until he is unceremoniously stabbed to death in the same corridor where we began. The Joker as a tragic character worked well in the first film, where there were still glimpses of the chaotic and cathartic persona breaking through. “Joker: Folie á Deux” utterly fails at presenting Arthur Fleck as the Joker at all. This is not a film about the Joker in any conceivable interpretation. This is simply a courtroom drama about a mentally unstable man who suffers at the hands of an uncaring system and a manipulative fangirl; what’s worse is that it is a film that goes on for far too long while saying practically nothing at all. If you were to remove any connection to the DC universe at all, the plot would not change in the slightest. To be honest, there were several moments throughout the film where I would hear mentions of Gotham and Arkham and have a moment of shock when I remembered that this was supposed to be a film about the trial of the Joker, a concept so rich with potential but absolutely butchered by an incompetent director.
The pacing issues with this film are also abundant and almost impossible to justify. Multiple scenes regress the plot to a mind numbing degree, and there are entire sequences devoted to pointless musical numbers which–once again–tell us only what we can already infer from watching the movie. There is a point near the end when the trial of Joker is concluding, and a car bomb destroys half the courthouse allowing Arthur to escape. This was the only point during the back half of the film where I was hopeful that they could salvage this mess, but two scenes later he was back in Arkham, where he was quickly stabbed to death at the conclusion of the story.
I understand that the fruitlessness of Arthur’s journey is the point; that he is not the Joker and was simply using the persona as a mask. I believe that the story Philips wished to tell was one of nuance, where he could expand the character of the Joker beyond the constraints of his typical archetype. The movie is supposedly a rumination on the tragedy of the system’s failures and the character of Arthur as a whole, but it was very difficult to care at all when there was never a point that he–as a character–took action. Arthur spends the movie being passively tormented by everyone around him until it seems like he will finally snap–except unlike in the first movie, he doesn’t. There is no moment of cathartic revenge or even of surprising redemption. Nothing is solved by the ending, and the tragedy falls flat as it is simply a tragedy of circumstance rather than a tragedy of choice. He is simply Arthur Fleck, and he is killed for it. A frankly tone-deaf conclusion to a disappointing slog through almost two and a half hours of pointless musical numbers, terrible dialogue and a character masquerading as someone he isn’t.
“Joker: Folie á Deux” is by all intents and purposes the unworthy successor to a critically insightful and divisively intriguing character piece on one of the most gripping characters ever to be put to print.
A Review of Joker: “Folie á Deux” (Spoilers)
Most will remember the controversies sparked by the release of “Joker” in 2019. Todd Philips’ unconventional and subversive drama gave an insightful look into the potential origin of one of the most iconic villains in history. 2019’s “Joker” was a divisive film, to say the least. Still, it was a box office success, and most people would agree that the film was at least saying something (how well that message was conveyed is up for debate). It addressed themes of mental health, abuse, neglect and systemic failures. Fans of the original were excited to see a return or perhaps an expansion of these themes in the sequel. That is–unfortunately–far from what they received.
“Joker: Folie á Deux” is a difficult film to describe. On the one hand, it shows occasional flashes of competency and on rare occasions even excellence. It is full of acting that ranges from serviceable to great, cinematography that is striking and inspired, and a handful of scenes that are both shockingly insightful and engaging. Unfortunately, these aspects of the film are overshadowed by a devastating case of tonal dissonance, abysmal pacing and a general sense of pointlessness. Several key decisions made by both Director Todd Philips, as well as the studio, have crippled any chance this movie had of living up to the heights of the original, and with a 40 million dollar global opening week, “Joker: Folie á Deux” is shaping up to be a critical as well as financial failure.
There was heated debate online when the announcement came that the anticipated sequel to the original “Joker” would be a musical. Many felt warranted in the fear that it would distract from the serious and contemplative tone of the original. Others argued that it was the perfect medium for framing the natural absurdity of a story centered around the character of the Joker. After having seen it in theaters I can say without a doubt that–although it may have worked in the hands of a more competent director–it was the worst possible direction they could have taken it. The musical numbers (scattered throughout as an indication of Arthur Fleck’s [Joaquin Phoenix] delusions) are not only bland, uninspired and frankly poorly performed, but on most occasions violently undercut the dramatic tension of any scene they happen to interrupt. Characters have an engaging or thought-provoking conversation, or go through moments of intense internal debate and begin singing without warning. Both Phoenix and–more disappointingly–Lady Gaga phone in their performances during these musical numbers, and the songs themselves–besides being offensively boring and generic–simply serve to tell the audience exactly what a character is thinking at a given moment. It treats the audience like children, dragging them along a three-minute musical number where Todd Philips points to each character and shouts “This is what they are thinking!”
I call the main character Arthur because the ending of this film confirmed what so many people already suspected: that Arthur Fleck’s Joker is not the Clown Prince of Crime, nor is he any other variation of the iconic character. He is simply a placeholder wearing the Joker’s name like a disguise. Arthur Fleck spends the entirety of the exhausting two hour and twenty minute runtime being pushed around, manipulated, lied to and abused. Unlike in the first film, where the purpose of the story was to build to his breaking point, in this film he simply continuously accepts his fate until he is unceremoniously stabbed to death in the same corridor where we began. The Joker as a tragic character worked well in the first film, where there were still glimpses of the chaotic and cathartic persona breaking through. “Joker: Folie á Deux” utterly fails at presenting Arthur Fleck as the Joker at all. This is not a film about the Joker in any conceivable interpretation. This is simply a courtroom drama about a mentally unstable man who suffers at the hands of an uncaring system and a manipulative fangirl; what’s worse is that it is a film that goes on for far too long while saying practically nothing at all. If you were to remove any connection to the DC universe at all, the plot would not change in the slightest. To be honest, there were several moments throughout the film where I would hear mentions of Gotham and Arkham and have a moment of shock when I remembered that this was supposed to be a film about the trial of the Joker, a concept so rich with potential but absolutely butchered by an incompetent director.
The pacing issues with this film are also abundant and almost impossible to justify. Multiple scenes regress the plot to a mind numbing degree, and there are entire sequences devoted to pointless musical numbers which–once again–tell us only what we can already infer from watching the movie. There is a point near the end when the trial of Joker is concluding, and a car bomb destroys half the courthouse allowing Arthur to escape. This was the only point during the back half of the film where I was hopeful that they could salvage this mess, but two scenes later he was back in Arkham, where he was quickly stabbed to death at the conclusion of the story.
I understand that the fruitlessness of Arthur’s journey is the point; that he is not the Joker and was simply using the persona as a mask. I believe that the story Philips wished to tell was one of nuance, where he could expand the character of the Joker beyond the constraints of his typical archetype. The movie is supposedly a rumination on the tragedy of the system’s failures and the character of Arthur as a whole, but it was very difficult to care at all when there was never a point that he–as a character–took action. Arthur spends the movie being passively tormented by everyone around him until it seems like he will finally snap–except unlike in the first movie, he doesn’t. There is no moment of cathartic revenge or even of surprising redemption. Nothing is solved by the ending, and the tragedy falls flat as it is simply a tragedy of circumstance rather than a tragedy of choice. He is simply Arthur Fleck, and he is killed for it. A frankly tone-deaf conclusion to a disappointing slog through almost two and a half hours of pointless musical numbers, terrible dialogue and a character masquerading as someone he isn’t.
“Joker: Folie á Deux” is by all intents and purposes the unworthy successor to a critically insightful and divisively intriguing character piece on one of the most gripping characters ever to be put to print.