Man oh man there's been a lot of discourse surrounding "Joker: Folie a' Duex", and it's not the positive kind. The sequel to the 2019 phenomenon has become one of the biggest box office failures of the year and unlike it's predecessor which won 3 oscars even among it's controversies pre-release (ex: fears that it might incite real life violence), this film seems to have rubbed everyone the wrong way critics, casuals, fans of the first film, you name it. When I saw the movie last week, I hated it. But as time passed in the days of viewing it, I thought more about what the film entailed I have more nuanced thoughts on it. Oh don't get me wrong I still think this movie is bad but I find it to be one of those fascinatingly bad movies. And thus, this won't be a traditional review from me. For this I'm going to discuss some of the aspects of the film that intrigued me the most and where I think Todd Philipps missed the mark. As such "Joker: Folie a' Duex" is one of those movies that's impossible to discuss without delving into spoilers. So with that said: If you have not seen "Joker: Folie a' Duex" and wish not to be spoiled, turn away now. Also a major trigger warning as there will be mentions of sexual assault so if this makes you uncomfortable, again, turn away now. With that out of the way. Let's begin.
A Film Made Out Of Spite
The immediate opinion I formed as I walked out of the theater, is that this movie feels like Todd Phillips walked into a building, poured gasoline all over the floor, threw a match on it, and then proceeded to walk out of the now burning building with two middle fingers in the air. Whereas the original "Joker" was a love letter to Martin Scorcese films such as "Taxi Driver" and "The King Of Comedy" all the while set in the famous comic city of Gotham, this film is Phillips lashing out at the aftermath of the original. The original film was meant to be a cautionary tale on how a monster can be created from society's lack of empathy towards the less fortunate. But when it was released it created a stir because on one side you had the media trying to scaremonger by saying that it promotes incel culture or that it will cause mass shootings, which I found completely and utterly ridiculous. On the other hand you had a side of fans who completely missed the point of the film and thought that Arthur Fleck was actually a hero. And this isn't the first time something like this has happened, we often see edgy fanboys be convinced that antagonistic characters such as Homelander or Rorschach are good guys. So with both the media and fanboys making a big stink about "Joker" it all led to it becoming a phenomenon.
And with the sequel Phillips sets out to deconstruct the character the latter thought Arthur Fleck became at the end of the first film. Throughout the film we see Arthur struggle with his new Joker identity as all the wrong people have grown to idolize him. This is even foreshadowed in the animated segment at the beginning of the movie as Arthur's shadow, symbolizing his Joker identity, literally take control of his life, and by the time Arthur is back in control, he gets beat up by the cops. After seeing people he traumatized in the original testify against him in court, and what is heavily implied to be a sexual assault at the hands of the Arkham guards near the films climax, Arthur finally breaks down and renounces his Joker identity. Angering the people who idolized him, especially Harley, and ultimately leading to Arthurs death at the hands of a fellow inmate who then carves a smile into his face (an obvious reference to Heath Ledgers Joker) and is implied to become the new Joker.
I completely understand what Phillips was going for here, his ultimate goal was to show that Arthur Fleck is a Joker but he was never the Joker that we're all familiar with. Though honestly that should've been obvious since Bruce Wayne is still a child in this universe. The Joker is supposed to be a very proactive character whereas Arthur is completely reactive. The Joker (depending on the writer) is an expert hand to hand combatant whereas Arthur constantly gets beat down by the world around him both figuratively and literally. The Joker always manages to avoid the death penalty and break out of Arkham so he can fight Batman another day, whereas Arthur not only is unable to avoid the repercussions of his actions but he ultimately can't cheat death like the Clown Prince of Crime. Todd Phillips definitively shows that no, this guy was never supposed to actually be the villain we love to hate from the comics, and he was definitely never this badass anti-authority figure that fanboys both in and out of universe built him up to be in their heads. Arthur Fleck is just a sad little man who lashed out at the world after being beat down by it for so long only to be shown to be unable to handle the newfound fame thrust upon him which ultimately cost him his life. While he is sympathetic, his actions were still wrong at the end of the day and Phillips is ultimately saying that those who idolized him were wrong for doing so.
But...
While this definitely is an interesting way to continue the story of Arthur Fleck, the execution regarding how his story ends could've been a lot better. Now a common critique I've seen regarding how Arthur was written is that it feels like everything is a betrayal to how he was portrayed in the first film but I disagree, in the first film we see that Arthur is a very reactive character and he's definitely no criminal genius. Someone like him definitely wouldn't be able to handle this new fame thrust upon him after he lost his cool in the worst way on the Murray Franklin show. No, what rubs me the wrong way about Arthur in this movie is that the end of his arc was handled in a haphazard way.
First of all the catalyst for him denouncing the Joker persona was essentially a heavily implied gang rape via the guards of Arkham Asylum. I just found this to be awful and needlessly edgy. I felt the catalyst should've been Mr. Puddles testimony against Arthur in court, just think about how effective it would've been for Arthur to hear that yes, in spite of how awful the world was to him, there were people who genuinely cared for him and now they can't view him in the same way because of all that he did two years prior. Arthur is definitely not the heartless monster the Joker is usually portrayed as so it's not out of the realm of possibility that something like this would fill him with shame to the point of admitting guilt in court. Furthermore I felt that his murder at the hands of the random inmate would've had more narrative payoff if it was a character Arthur was close to in the film that did it. What about the inmate that was hanging around Arthur for most of the Arkham scenes? Or better yet why couldn't have it been Harley that killed him? Those characters would have been the perfect choices to show the audience that the Joker phenomenon was something that a person like Arthur had no chance of controlling and now it's grown to a point where it will figuratively and literally outlive him. And speaking of Harley.
Let's Talk About Lee
Lady Gaga was certainly an interesting choice to play Harley Quinn. In comic canon, Harley Quinn is portrayed as a bright young woman who was manipulated by the Joker into becoming his love interest. But later on it's revealed that the relationship is ultimately one sided as the Joker is shown to be physically, emotionally, and verbally abusive towards Harley. It's quite possibly the biggest cautionary tale about domestic abuse in mainstream comics. What set's Gaga's interpretation of Harley from previous ones is that this Harley is the one that wears the pants in the "relationship". She is the one who manipulates Arthur into leaning further into his Joker persona and I personally felt that she probably was lying about being pregnant with Arthur's baby as a way to manipulate him further. And it all culminates in her telling Arthur she wants nothing to do with him on those very same steps that he made famous by dancing on all those years ago. Ultimately she's revealed to be a bored rich person who got herself checked into Arkham because she was in love with Arthur's Joker persona rather than Arthur as a person and now that the persona is dead, she has no further reason to associate with him. This had potential to be uniquely sinister take on Harley Quinn. The keyword here being "potential".
But...
The one thing that kills Gaga's Harley Quinn for me is just how little she was utilized. You mean to tell me that she got top billing alongside Joqauin Phoenix only to get little screen time? Heck she didn't even sound that great in the musical numbers (don't worry I'll get to those later). And while I find the idea of Harley being a bad influence on Joker instead of the other way around being an interesting take on the story, the two of them don't even spend that much time together on screen for it to truly be as effective as the director wanted it to be. And remember when I said earlier that Harley tells Arthur she's pregnant with his baby? My god, the sex scene between her and Arthur has got to be the most awkward and uncomfortable thing I have ever had the displeasure of seeing on the silver screen.
What's worse, as I've stated earlier, there was a huge missed opportunity for narrative payoff for Harley's involvement in Arthur's downward spiral. Her being the one to kill Arthur would've made perfect sense since she's the main one egging him on to delve further into his Joker identity, she literally broke into Arkham to see the clown she idolized so she should've felt the most betrayed out of anyone when Arthur gives up and it would've been a tragic chef's kiss of a creative choice to have her kill Arthur on the steps he famously danced on in the previous film. Now I know the message behind the inmate carving a smile into his face at the end is that there will always be a Joker to terrorize Gotham but I believe it would've been more effective if say Harley indeed was telling the truth about being pregnant, what if after she kills Arthur she vows to raise their son to be the man his father could never be? And the film ends with the implication that their kid will become the Joker that will fight Batman, just like how the original film ended with the shot of a young Bruce Wayne standing over his parents corpses in crime alley? There are ultimately two words that can sum up Gaga's Harley Quinn: Wasted potential.
The Musical Numbers
Bar none the biggest problem people had with this film was the musical numbers. Heck, I've even spoken to some people in my personal life who've said that they refuse to see the film and when I asked them why they said it's because they heard the film will be a musical. Now I understand what Todd Phillips was going for here. The musical numbers are meant to be a colorful look into Arthur's inner psyche and in musicals, musical numbers are always meant to be a grand way of showing how characters are feeling in a certain part of the story. And in all fairness, it's perfectly in character for Joker to break out into song as we've seen him do so in projects such as "Batman: Arkham Knight" and the animated film adaptation of "The Killing Joke".
But...
The main purpose that musical numbers serve in musicals is to not only show how the characters are feeling but they also must help move the plot along. The musical numbers in "Joker: Folie a' Deux" just bring the pace of the film to a screeching halt and usually people will tolerate musical numbers in movies if the songs are pleasant to listen to. Why do you think animated Disney films such as "The Lion King" or "Frozen" are still massively popular to this day? But the songs in this film just completely fall flat on that end as well. How the hell are you going to hire someone like Lady Gaga in your movie if you're not gonna have her sound as great as she usually does? And my god, Joqaiun Phoenix's Joker sounds like a dying goose whenever he opens his mouth and sings which isn't helped by the lyrics to these songs being terrible as well. "Build us a mountain out of a little hill"? Really? I sincerely hope nobody tries to put musical numbers in comic book films for a very long time after this.
Conclusion
Todd Philipps made it clear he's never working with DC again after this and it's not hard to see why. You can tell that he hated the phenomenon the first film became. He loathed how the wrong people made out Arthur Fleck to be a hero. And thus, he took a torch the franchise and run approach for the sequel. Phillips essentially tells the audience "No, this guy is a sad little loser and you're a loser for idolizing him". The best way I can sum up "Joker: Folie a' Duex" is interesting ideas, terrible execution. I don't blame James Gunn for leaving the DC Films label off of this project, and while I have faith that he can turn DC into the cinematic juggernaut it's capable of being, that catastrophic critical and financial failure of this conclusion to Arthur Fleck's story just added more pressure to James Gunn's DCU to deliver positive results for not only Warner Bros, but the DC brand in general. Let's all hope he can stick the landing or else DC as a whole risks being a bigger laughing stock than this movie for the foreseeable future. Thank you all for reading and if you agree or disagree with my takes feel free to let me know in the comment section below. Until next time ladies and gentlemen.
Comments
Post a Comment