Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

[Gotham Knight]

I feel like the audience response is very similar, almost the same in fact, to the response toward Glass. What's baffling in both cases is we have a series that is an unconventional foray into the world of comics-- very unconventional. The series and its creator are very upfront about that and that's actually (one of the reasons) why people love it, but when the series sticks to that instead of embracing convention in its final act, which is what Joker 2 is, the audience turns on it. This counts double because the Batman fandom is especially horrible. Now J2 is stuck with a rabid and toxic fan base that is furious because it stuck to the intentions laid out for it, and also because it interrogates the first movie, and that pisses off the 'Joker is Right' people. In fact, that's the best thing it does as the first film makes up its mind early and fails precisely because it allows Joker to be right in the absence of rebuttal.

For my money, I don't love Joker 2. I think, like the first film, it is a deeply flawed film that only ever manages very baseline observations, but is a masterpiece of technical aspects that celebrates the indulgent but passionate Hollywood of yesteryear. That's why despite being a C+ movie, Joker 1 captivated. It got shots, not 'coverage.' It's a movie, not content. However, J2 also suffers because it plays like one giant anticlimactic final act and cannot capture tension and flow like the first film and thus is a far more ponderous experience.

Joker 2 is okay, but you cannot make YouTube videos with titles like that. It either has to be a masterpiece or an abomination, and with Batman fans involved you can't engage without getting filthy in the cesspool. A happy Batman fan is one who limits how much they engage with the fan base. If you can do that, you'll find something here. 

[Slash Man]

I had my issues with the first film, so to see a follow-up that has similar contempt for comic books as a medium fall short is nothing I'm going to lose sleep over. The odd trend of "supervillain movies without their accompanying superheroes" that was perfected by Sony seems to be drawing to a close.

Why was Tim Burton treated so harshly over not having a background in comic books? Over him giving the Joker a name and backstory? Over his Joker killing the Waynes? The first Joker movie was somehow shielded from any criticism of neglecting the source material, and even the sequel doesn't seem to get criticism in that department.

[The Joker]

It's a testament to you as a big fan of the character you can see the intent of what's going on: that Arthur can't match his shadow. I think the hard backlash is because viewers really do love the Joker as a character and see Folie A Deux as severely disrespecting him. I get that passion.

Right on. I appreciate that. I think most people are open to different interpretations, but at the same time, want the Joker character to be interpreted with parameters in mind. That's not a criticism either. Just the way it goes. I grew up reading numerous elseworlds stories that interpreted the Joker very differently than what the then-status quo was offering. Such as stories like the Joker being the good detective, where Batman & Catwoman were Bonnie & Clyde type criminals, or one such 2-part Showcase '94 story (The Great Pretender/King Joker) where some guy name "Joe" is convinced he's the Joker. Later, kills his wife, paints his face with Joker makeup, and as the story goes, descends into a hellish realm where other characters are being imprisoned and starved (Tim Drake is starving and emanicated, I think Bane commits suicide by hanging and the book notes a stench is beginning to form), where "Joe" eventually encounters a demonic Hellraiser-ish "king Joker" that rules over this realm. "Joe"succeeds in supplanting this Joker, and he congratulates himself by digging into his face until he's left with the grotesque visage of a bloody skeleton face ala Poltergeist. I think this 2-parter even included two babies in a cribbage infected with Joker venom, and all of this wasn't even under DC's Vertigo imprint as it was featured in DC Showcase. Which makes it even more wild. I could go on and on, but that one, in my memory, veered way off the then-standard depiction, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. These days, I would probably consider it too edgy, but in '94, I was all about edgy. haha

When Lee stands up and leaves the room that's exactly what we're seeing in real life with the negative feedback. Total abandonment of Arthur and rushing to elevate what Joker typically stands for. Comic Joker is complete bulletproof confidence and an ability to escape at will. That's not the case here.

Just to add to this, I also like how the sequel brings everything full circle. Arthur's original intention in going on the Murray Franklin Show, was to publicly commit suicide. That was the plan. It's not until Murray becomes increasingly contrarian to Arthur's worldview, that Arthur decides to publicly kill Murray instead. With the sequel, when Arthur decides to discontinue his Joker persona as he slowly begins to crack, he's essentially met with the same disappointment Arthur once had with Murray Franklin. culminating with one of the Joker's most ardent supporters being given the opportunity by the guards to murder Arthur, and reciting the very same line "Joker" famously said to Murray Franklin, "You get what you f**king deserve.

The guards liked Arthur, but the inmates liked Joker. He had to straddle that line and eventually he chose to be Arthur. No choice has good outcomes, as the film depicts. It literally causes his death with the shanking in terms of the other prisoners, and it pushes Lee and his followers away. But he's the one being raped in there.

Exactly. Comic book films generally are very bombastic and glamorous in many respect. "Folie à Deux", outside of the musical sequences, is anything but. Even more indicative when we first see Arthur and how he's been essentially just merely existing for the past two years (if you want to even call it that).

He had to listen to his friend being killed. Those guards were God. I imagine Arthur came to see how being Joker (as recently as the courtroom appearance) became more about pleasing others compared to his original gripe that drove him to murder in the first place. Acting as a comic book character has its limits on real people.

Right. Lee was not dissimilar to particular women who wind up having a thing for serial killers (probably even more so if they are fairly 'high profile'). As there is assuredly an element of infamous illustriousness that they find attractive given the reputation. I doubt Lee in this universe ever really did anything interesting with her life, but she was able to pull strings and get close to Arthur in the hopes of getting a "show". Much like the Joker followers in the film. Arthur, as "Joker" was a willing participant in being the showman, until the fantasy was no longer gratifying any longer. And that's all they really had. The fantasy. 

[The Dark Knight]

Just to add to this, I also like how the sequel brings everything full circle. Arthur's original intention in going on the Murray Franklin Show, was to publicly commit suicide. That was the plan. It's not until Murray becomes increasingly contrarian to Arthur's worldview, that Arthur decides to publicly kill Murray instead. With the sequel, when Arthur decides to discontinue his Joker persona as he slowly begins to crack, he's essentially met with the same disappointment Arthur once had with Murray Franklin. culminating with one of the Joker's most ardent supporters being given the opportunity by the guards to murder Arthur, and reciting the very same line "Joker" famously said to Murray Franklin, "You get what you f**king deserve.

Yep. There's disappointment and confusion circulating about who the 'real Joker' is. Some viewers are adamant the inmate who stabs Arthur was actually the Joker all this time because he begins laughing and carves his own face. To me that's nothing more than Arthur's legacy, which wasn't originally intended - he was acting independently in the first movie, as he says "do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement?" To me, The Joker of this series is both a real man and an idea. Arthur took on the title, abandoned it, then the followers sought to preserve the spirit of Arthur's original appearance on Murray Franklin. Arthur did take on the moniker first. He put on makeup and dyed his hair green. He had various traits of the comic character, namely suicidal ideation, off color jokes, extreme thinness, killing people on television, etc. He had his own version of Harley albeit with a twist to their relationship. The point is that NOBODY can live up to the shadow of what it all stands for, not even Arthur's killer who carved himself a smile. In this more real setting he's staying locked up in jail and probably getting a death sentence too. A point is that people only see the anarchy and not the mentally troubled man behind it all.

Right. Lee was not dissimilar to particular women who wind up having a thing for serial killers (probably even more so if they are fairly 'high profile'). As there is assuredly an element of infamous illustriousness that they find attractive given the reputation. I doubt Lee in this universe ever really did anything interesting with her life, but she was able to pull strings and get close to Arthur in the hopes of getting a "show". Much like the Joker followers in the film. Arthur, as "Joker" was a willing participant in being the showman, until the fantasy was no longer gratifying any longer. And that's all they really had. The fantasy. 

Interesting comparisons to Ted Bundy in the movie too. He got rid of his defence team, represented himself and had a delusional female (Carole) strongly fighting his case. The difference is that she believed Ted was innocent. Lee liked Arthur for his killing. When Bundy admitted to being a murderer in his last days (mainly as a last ditch tactic) Carole stopped talking and wanted nothing to do with him. Her delusion was over. In contrast, Lee walked away too but her warped mindset continued. They both loved the man on the stands for who they thought them to be.

[The Joker]

Yep. There's disappointment and confusion circulating about who the 'real Joker' is. Some viewers are adamant the inmate who stabs Arthur was actually the Joker all this time because he begins laughing and carves his own face. To me that's nothing more than Arthur's legacy, which wasn't originally intended - he was acting independently in the first movie, as he says "do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement?" To me, The Joker of this series is both a real man and an idea. Arthur took on the title, abandoned it, then the followers sought to preserve the spirit of Arthur's original appearance on Murray Franklin. Arthur did take on the moniker first. He put on makeup and dyed his hair green. He had various traits of the comic character, namely suicidal ideation, off color jokes, extreme thinness, killing people on television, etc. He had his own version of Harley albeit with a twist to their relationship. The point is that NOBODY can live up to the shadow of what it all stands for, not even Arthur's killer who carved himself a smile. In this more real setting he's staying locked up in jail and probably getting a death sentence too. A point is that people only see the anarchy and not the mentally troubled man behind it all.

That's exactly how I see it as well. I've seen videos and read theories about the guy being the *real* Joker, or even Ledger's Joker (which I can't wrap my brain around, but I also remember people thinking "Batman Begins" was a prequel to "Batman 1989", and I just never understood how that possibly works or even makes sense?), but nah. In this iteration, Fleck is the original and defacto Joker. It's just his persona/shadow eventually swallows up the man behind the Joker alter ego, and who's 'shadow' simply looms large, and will continue to loom large, long past the innovator himself.   

Interesting comparisons to Ted Bundy in the movie too. He got rid of his defence team, represented himself and had a delusional female (Carole) strongly fighting his case. The difference is that she believed Ted was innocent. Lee liked Arthur for his killing. When Bundy admitted to being a murderer in his last days (mainly as a last ditch tactic) Carole stopped talking and wanted nothing to do with him. Her delusion was over. In contrast, Lee walked away too but her warped mindset continued. They both loved the man on the stands for who they thought them to be.

QFT. We already are aware of the Gacy/Pogo connections with Phillips' iteration of the Joker, and I also have no problem envisioning there being a blatant Ted Bundy influence. Especially considering Bundy is probably considered one of the more charismatic when considering high profile serial killers.

[thecolorsblend]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the spoiler thread. So, I don't really see much of a point in masking spoiler info. If you're trying to avoid that, go someplace else.

It's a real deal sequel and a good one. It's undeserving of the strong hate and it seems a lot of people are buying into that without actually seeing it themselves. Or not approaching it from the right perspective when they do. They are way too hung up on 'who is the real Joker' and the ending. The crux of the movie is the cult of celebrity worship and the pressure of expectation.

IMO Arthur is absolutely the Joker of this universe regardless if we want to take that road, it's just that the legend outgrew him and took on a life of its own. I don't think he wanted to create a movement but he nonetheless was at the centre of it. Joker is mostly a construct in Arthur's mind for escapism, and a fantasy the followers fell in love with. It took too much of a toll on the real man behind it. When he gave them what they wanted he took the full brunt, especially away from the cameras. It didn't benefit him personally in the long term.

Philips and Phoenix should be getting praise - segments of the audience rejecting Arthur is proving the film's point. I love this movie the more I think about it. It's a different look at the character and I'm glad it exists.

Once more, I never needed this film to exist. I was perfectly content for the original JOKER to be a one-and-done triumph. But a $1 billion box office has a funny way of making people reconsider the idea of sequels that seemed unnecessary.

No, this movie does not stack up to the original. Not for me anyway.

But having said that, I do like the idea of the Joker struggling to live up to his own legend. I do see that as a reasonable interpretation of the character. Hell, post-A Death In The Family, there was an arc in the comics where the Joker truly was afraid of himself.

Plus, my interpretation of the Joker is that deep down inside, he knows he's a wannabe showman who isn't as funny or as clever as he pretends. There's a reason his trademark is murder rather than punchlines.

On that basis JFAD shows us a Joker who is living that struggle out a lot more openly. Is he Arthur, the loser? Or the Joker, the icon?

Depending on how you want to bend the spoons, you could see Arthur's struggle in the film, esp the pivotal "it was me" moment in the courtroom as his Come To Jesus moment, his last attempt to be accepted for who he truly sees himself to be rather than the monster he has occasionally transformed into.

Sadly, even the only "true love" he's ever experienced wants nothing to do with Arthur The Man and everything to do with Joker The Murdering Celebrity. Lee doesn't actually care about Arthur the man.

And in a way, Arthur really only has himself to blame. His attorney laid it all out for him. She told him exactly what Lee's agenda is. But Arthur made the wrong choice anyway.

It wouldn't have changed the jury's verdict, of course. But at least Arthur would've been found guilty of being a murderer rather than being found guilty for trying and failing to be something other than himself.

If I didn't need a second film, I certainly don't need a third one. But if a third one does somehow get made, then a film where Arthur finally learns his lesson and becomes the Joker as much because it's own dark side as well as because it's only refuge could be fascinating.

A third film seems highly unlikely at this point. Especially if you take the final shot of the movie purely at face value. Still, I don't think this was entirely a waste of time. Granted, I've only seen the movie once. But it looks like the creators all had their hearts in the right place and the fandom menace contingent are overreacting.

Or maybe I'm underreacting?

Time will tell.

[The Joker]

Unfortunately, I don't really foresee that many people changing their minds about Joker 2.

I can understand someone's viewpoint in that this sequel didn't really need to exist, but at the same time, I seem to recall that very same opinion often being reciprocated when it was initially announced that a Joker "Origin" movie was green lighted many years ago. Same holds true with the notion of a solo "Venom" movie as well. The sequel didn't need to exist, and apparently the 1st film didn't need to exist either. Until it was seen/successful.

In some ways, I was admittedly kinda surprised that "Joker (2019)" received such a warm reception since it was primarily dealing with elaborating on the Joker character and having a background and origin. Especially given that Post-The Dark Knight in 2008, the parroting of the The Killing Joke quote; "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" was constantly referred to ad nauseam. Especially in comparing Ledger to previous cinematic incarnations. However, "The Killing Joke" was published in 1988. At that point, the Joker character had existed for nearly 50 years. So what was his background? He was a mysterious criminal mastermind known as "The Red Hood" who dove into a vat of chemicals to evade capture, and emerged disfigured with chalk white skin, and his hair bleached green. As per co-creator Bill Finger. As far as I know, this had no push back from subsequent writers/editors throughout the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, and to Alan Moore's credit, he also didn't really want to tamper with too much when writing "The Killing Joke" as the Red Hood criminal mastermind background for the Joker was accepted and understood. Personally, I like "The Killing Joke" as much as the next guy, but I think it's undoubtedly lifted up by Brian Bolland's amazing artwork than the story itself to be perfectly honest.

"Joker (2019)" certainly had it's share of influences from TKJ, but I could never really and truly see Arthur ever becoming a live action facsimile of the comic book Joker given the influences from TKJ failed comedian background choice with the depiction (I still have nitpicks with the failed comedian background and being bullied into the Red Hood guise that TKJ highlighted but whatever), and realism the film was going for. There's nothing wrong with that either, and Phoenix proved to be a very worthwhile addition to outstanding cinematic Jokers that we've seen thus far.

Personally, my latitude with the sequel that seemingly everyone hates (except for myself, TDK, and perhaps a handful of other people! haha), is that there was never a franchise here. I am not really a fan of "subverting expectations" or taking big wild swings when it concerns formulaic franchises with entrenched fan expectations, but with Joker 2? I had none. It wasn't envisioned as a franchise, and it wasn't going to continue on as one either (atypical these days). Under that context, the news of it being something of a "musical", and statements from both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix of wanting to do something that also brought the fear of failing in order to make it interesting, pretty much gave a intuitive indication that we were not going to get a by-the-numbers follow up.

I get the hate/dissatisfaction that Joker 2 has received, but at the same time, I'm very glad it exists.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Personally, my latitude with the sequel that seemingly everyone hates (except for myself, TDK, and perhaps a handful of other people! haha), is that there was never a franchise here. I am not really a fan of "subverting expectations" or taking big wild swings when it concerns formulaic franchises with entrenched fan expectations, but with Joker 2? I had none. It wasn't envisioned as a franchise, and it wasn't going to continue on as one either (atypical these days). Under that context, the news of it being something of a "musical", and statements from both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix of wanting to do something that also brought the fear of failing in order to make it interesting, pretty much gave a intuitive indication that we were not going to get a by-the-numbers follow up.

I get the hate/dissatisfaction that Joker 2 has received, but at the same time, I'm very glad it exists.

 

I'm glad it exists too. The critical and financial response is disappointing of course, but that overwhelming negativity doesn't embarrass me to comply with the established narrative. Thinking more about it, I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world. What happened after the events of the first movie is perfectly logical from that perspective. He killed, he was jailed, he went to court and then died. The movie people wanted (Joker breaking out, killing more people, eluding capture) was never going to happen in this construct. Arthur's life was always a tragedy. The way it ends up rings true to me. It feels nice and contained, and full circle.

[The Joker]

I'm glad it exists too. The critical and financial response is disappointing of course, but that overwhelming negativity doesn't embarrass me to comply with the established narrative. Thinking more about it, I think Folie A Deux has a lot in common with the spirit of Last Action Hero. A fictional character stepping out of the big screen and into the real world. What happened after the events of the first movie is perfectly logical from that perspective. He killed, he was jailed, he went to court and then died. The movie people wanted (Joker breaking out, killing more people, eluding capture) was never going to happen in this construct. Arthur's life was always a tragedy. The way it ends up rings true to me. It feels nice and contained, and full circle.

I like that juxtaposition, and I believe it's a very adept observation with how Phillips and Phoenix approached the notion of a sequel. Where the comic book Joker could be perfectly sane but is just simply pleading insane, while playing the "role" of the Joker as a smokescreen of sorts. Leaving people to assume that he is, in fact, insane. Thus, in the grand scheme, making a absolute mockery of the justice system ("Case Study" by Paul Dini and Alex Ross ... highly recommended for anyone unfamiliar with this story).

I know, not particularly difficult to do these days.

Arthur on the other hand, as depicted in Joker 1 and 2, clearly falls under the umbrella of someone who suffers from mental illness and does need help, but is not afforded that same luxury. Nope. He's tried in court, and is harshly sentenced to the electric chair. He attempts to try the Joker persona as a smokescreen for his followers who want a show, but ultimately Arthur gets tapped out having to perform by several factors (the testimony from his former colleague Gary Puddles being a major one), and he's reduced to being a 'disappointment' by those that revered him just as it played out between Arthur and Murray Franklin.

There's a symmetry in the storytelling of Joker 1 and 2 that goes beyond the click bait narrative of, "It was made to just own the chudsz! Dur-Hur-Hur!!1!".

But, it is what it is.