Joker vs Joker
Don’t mind me, just stopping by to drop a few words about the talk of this weekend, Joker: Folie à Deux.
But first, 2019’s Joker:
To its critics - those who believe it flipped a crazy-switch in some people’s heads, or those who claim it instigated violence, or those who simply think the film was trash - the rest of this post isn’t for you.
To those who are in danger of letting this weekend’s rampant (and in many, many ways justified) criticism of Joker: Folie à Deux tarnish their perception of the 2019 film, or even those who are in two minds about revisiting the movie, let me say this: I’ve spent my life consuming, analysing, and emotionally investing in films, and 2019’s Joker is one of my most overwhelmingly moving cinematic experiences to date. We rewatched it a few days ago in preparation for the sequel, and it may have moved me more than ever before - and I’ve attended a screening with live orchestral accompaniment. But this is just a foreword to the meat of this post; if there’s interest, I can dive deeper into the almost-unparalleled genius of 2019’s Joker. But for now, onto the main event.
Spoilers will somewhat abound.
Joker: Folie à Deux attempts and achieves far more than its harshest critics recognise, but what it achieves is based on false conclusions, a bitterness towards the staggering financial success of the original, and a disdain for the subject matter - and audience.
FALSE CONCLUSIONS:
Phillips has hinted in interviews that he agrees with the largely sensationalist and outlandish outrage at the time of Joker’s release that the character was being worshipped by unhinged ‘incels’, and that the film’s protagonist had become a poster child for bitter outsiders for whom the film would be just the prod they need to emerge from their pits and wreak havoc and violence upon the world.
Indeed, havoc reigned soon after this film’s release, but it had nothing to do with a comic book clown.
Did his acknowledgement of such criticism inform Folie à Deux? Considering the entire film backtracks the protagonist’s journey in the original, erases the bulk of his development, and goes to some lengths not to demonstrate the immorality of Joker himself, but to demonstrate the immorality of any fascination with such psychological breakdown, I’d wager it does indeed inform this sequel.
BITTERNESS TOWARDS THE ORIGINAL’S SUCCESS:
Why else deconstruct Arthur Fleck’s arc? The original paved a clear trajectory for the character’s journey to becoming the clown prince of crime. It was a beautiful, textured, tragic interpretation of the birth of one of the most celebrated fictional antagonists ever created.
Anyone that believed its sequel would detail his battles with the Bat were misguided, but they were justified in looking forward to further exploring of this version of Joker.
Instead, the events of the film show Fleck denouncing his Jokerness in what amounts to a series of humiliation rituals, separating himself from the arc he completed in the first film, and dying a death that clearly represents him not, and never having been, the Joker.
DISDAIN FOR THE SUBJECT MATTER AND AUDIENCE:
Joker can’t be allowed to exist without revision, and certainly can’t be allowed to be celebrated, even though the claims of Fleck becoming an idol for the dreaded ‘incels’ is nothing more than bleating hysteria.
And the audience? I agree with the interpretation that Quinn was intended as a stand-in for us, the viewers, obsessed with Joker until he stopped being Joker, at which point she (and we) discard him like a used plaything.
I contend that the original was so successful because they constructed an intricately woven, deeply emotional, horrifyingly tragic interpretation of a comic book villain that fascinates like no other. It played out perfectly as its own, unique story, but equally well as part of a larger Batman mythos.
People went to see its sequel to see - would you believe it? - the Joker being the Joker doing Jokery things. And we’re told (through Quinn’s character) that we’re somehow in the wrong for paying to see a film about a character YOU decided to make a film about? 2019’s Joker didn’t HAVE to be called Joker. It could just have easily been a disconnected character study, but the filmmakers tied it to Batman lore, and the film soared as a result.
Now, when the same people you made the original for come back for more (responding simply to quite clear marketing material) the film turns the light on them, displeased that anyone would get so excited for more of what you yourself gave them the first time round.
Audiences have been frothing at the mouth over stories that describe the psychological downfall of protagonists for hundreds, likely thousands of years before even Shakespeare. Get over it.
Having said all that, Joker: Folie à Deux is nearly as stunningly shot as the original, with stellar performances all round. In fact, it ticks nearly every box. But the writing - the INTENTION of a film - and by extension the story, are more important than any of that. And in those areas this film works too hard to address concerns for the original that don’t merit addressing, and seems to wag its finger at people who - no - didn’t misinterpret your original effort, but are merely back for more of the magic you conjured the first time round.
You’ll be surprised to read that I don’t conclude this rant by labelling Joker: Folie à Deux a ‘BAD’ film. In truth, I suspect it might be more dense and heavy than it appears on first viewing, and a second watch will be required to decipher exactly what’s going on.
The original was just too big a deal to shrug off its sequel without careful consideration, but I fear that shrug off may still be the final verdict.
I would simply advise anyone who feels as strongly about the original as I do to ignore the sequel and pretend 2019’s masterpiece exists in solitude.
Folie à Deux doesn’t come within a thousand clowns of 2019’s Joker.
Indeed, nothing does.
Thanks for reading, and please consider subscribing!
You’re always welcome back in…
Search past posts by keyword, subject, or…anything!
