Joker: Folie à Deux

Because adding French to stuff makes it sound hotter.

DISCLAIMER: This piece contains spoilers for Joker: Folie à Deux.

In honor of Halloween approaching, I recently went to see the second Joker movie with two friends, and I have to say, I don’t think I hated it as much as everyone else did.

Don’t get me wrong— a sequel is never better than the original. I don’t know why Hollywood keeps insisting on sequels and live-action remakes when they 1) consistently end up mediocre and 2) never do as well as the first. There are 2 ways, in my opinion, in which sequels/a saga will become successful.

1: The movie is based on a book series (e.g., Harry Potter, The Hunger Games)

2. Because a) each movie following the first was simply, objectively a good movie (e.g., Lord of The Rings, I think— I’m going off of ratings/reviews) or b) they were produced in the mid-to-late 20th century, before every single movie got a sequel (e.g., Indiana Jones, Star Wars)

But now, as we can see, Hollywood is interested in cash-grabs rather than original stories. God forbid an actually original movie gets released, it stars the same five actors with whom directors like to play hot potato. It is my understanding that we, as consumers, crave new releases that are not sequels or live-action remakes. Regardless, they continue to flood theaters and streaming services.

I believe that was a lot of people’s initial grievance with the second Joker movie before it even came out. Hearing that a sequel is coming out scares a lot of us, especially when the first one is already good. They say not to fix what isn’t broken.

That said, without further ado, I’m going to delve into some of my takeaways from the film. Props to me for only taking this much time to get to actually write about what the title says.

For the sake of time, my dwindling patience, and because accenting letters on a Macbook is a royal pain, I’m going to refer to this movie as JFAD. If anyone has an issue with me calling the movie by a different title, I’m not actively trying to diss the French. Take it up with me in DMs. Actually, don’t. Casse toi.

Firstly, I’d like to address one of the most controversial features of this movie: Lady Gaga.

I think she is a fine actress. That said, Margot Robbie is a better fit, as we saw in Suicide Squad. They added Lady Gaga because she can sing, which brings me to my next point I don’t think the music was entirely necessary. The story would have carried on fine in its absence, and I believe it adds runtime that does not need to be added. I found most of the songs a bit repetitive, though the breakaway musical scenes were an artful touch.

Adding instrumental music to the soundtrack would have been a fitting choice. We see this used skillfully in the first Joker, in the bathroom scene (improvised!) and the iconic stairs scene.

One use of lyrical music in this film stuck out to me: the repeated use of “When the Saints Go Marching In". It confused me when I saw the movie, and thus I looked up potential reasoning for it. A few people explained it better than I can here. Isn’t it beautiful that the Internet has an answer for your every question? I never thought of the symbolism— it is a Christian hymn about marching into heaven, and therefore simultaneously twisted-ly (?) humorous and pitiful that it plays multiple times in a movie surrounding such a sinful titular character, as well as his equally unrighteous companions in the mental hospital. The inmates sing it during a riot, which is… an ironic choice. I fear that none of you will witness the graces of the pearly gates.

Another quick unrelated note: I liked the Looney Toons-esque style intro. I thought it was an interesting and unexpected way to start such a dark movie. That said, it also slightly confused me, i.e., how did it relate to the rest of the story? Or was it not supposed to? Arthur Fleck’s Joker started as a party clown, so maybe this cartoon bit was a bit of creepy, old-timey slapstick humor to tie that back in from the first movie.

I thought the court room proceedings were a bit slow, but I did like that they brought back Gary as a witness. As a matter of fact, I liked that they kept a lot from the original movie. They kept Arthur’s uncontrollable laughing disorder, which I believe added a layer of unsettledness, maybe even sympathy.

Another thing that caught me off guard was when courthouse declared that the case was the state of New York v. Arthur Fleck, but hey, what do I know? I always imagined Gotham was supposed to be a fictional place. Or maybe it was, until this movie. Is Gotham, like, a borough inside New York City? This is an area of concern when something takes place in a made up location within a real, geographical place.

The car bomb in the courthouse confused me heavily at first, but for logic purposes, I am going to assume that it was set off by one of Fleck’s fanatics. That’s another thing they kept from the first movie, which I appreciate. Without the presence of his supporters, I believe his original standpoint would have been lost on us in this movie— that being, pro-anarchy and to hell with all forms of government and authority.

I like that this movie explores more of his mental state, rather than just throwing at us, “Yeah, this guy’s just crazy” like most other Jokers we’ve seen thus far.We see Arthur in Arkham State Hospital in the 1980s— whether it is 1983 or 1985, I’m not positive. Mental illness in this time, I’m sure, was far more stigmatized back then as opposed to now, which explains the guards’ unnecessary harshness and violence toward Arthur and the other inmates. That was an unsettling part of the film for me. A lot of us struggle with our mental health, and getting a glimpse of how it was viewed back then is a bit off-putting, to say the least. That said, it may be dramatized for film purposes.

My last few points worth noting are below, and I will offer one more warning here, as this is the part where I am actually spoiling the ending.

So, one of my biggest problems with movies is when the ending is intentionally unclear. I know it is an active choice and takes intelligence from multiple points (director, screenwriter, etc) to pull it off well, but as an impatient person, it frustrates me. That said, as much as I loved the first Joker, the ending was ambiguous. Here’s the ending scene for anyone curious.

Seeing Arthur in the mental hospital made me wonder a couple of things:

1. Did the events of the movie really happen, and thus landed him in a mental asylum?

2. Did the events of the movie not happen because he imagined everything, and was in the asylum the whole time?

3. Regardless of which of these is canon, does he still actually murder the psychiatrist after saying “You wouldn’t get it”?

I am glad that JFAD cleared this up. The answer is the former- he really did kill Murray Franklin, his mother, Randall, and the three guys in the subway. And possibly the psychiatrist— we don’t quite find out whether that was canon. But he really did amass followers for his beliefs. I have to say I am relieved that it was not the latter. I believe we left that trope in 1939, no?

All of that said, the timeline still confuses me. In Joker, Bruce Wayne is a child when his parents are killed, and Joker (Phoenix) is an adult. In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne, aka Batman (spoiler!) is an adult when he fights Joker (Ledger). In JFAD, do we see Bruce Wayne? No, we don’t. But you know who we do see? Joker.

What?

The real Joker. The Batman Joker. Heath Ledger’s Joker.

Ohhh.

In case you’re not following, because I sure as hell wasn’t at first, Arthur Fleck is not the Joker whom Batman fights. Arthur Fleck is the blueprint. The man who murders him at the end in Arkham State Hospital is a young version of Ledger’s Joker. Like an obsessed fan sitaution… I think. I actually like this ending. It clears a lot up.

But there’s one thing that’s still left unclear.

Harley Quinn. Aka Dr. Harleen Quinzel.

Firstly, I don’t like that Lady Gaga’s Harley Quinn breaks up with Fleck in JFAD because 1) It doesn’t really make sense, considering what they went through together earlier in the movie and 2) Poor Arthur. He can’t win. I kinda just want the guy to be happy.

Jared Leto and Joaquin Phoenix each had their own Harley. But considering that Phoenix’s and Ledger’s Jokers are two separate people, I think Leto’s Joker is a third different person. That said, Leto and Phoenix each have their own Harley. Is this a plot hole? Does Ledger score his own Harley off-screen later on? If Leto and Phoenix both have a Harley Quinn in their adulthood, and Ledger’s Joker is clearly an adult in The Dark Knight, why doesn’t he have a Harley Quinn? It has me wondering whether although each Joker is a different person, it’s some weird, ambiguous Jack Torrence situation where they all live the same life in different incarnations.

In any case, I did enjoy picking apart different elements of the movie. I think Arthur or Fleck would have been a better title, but now I’m just being nit-picky. I don’t think it was a necessary thing to create in the first place, but I do not think it is as bad as others are saying. And brownie points for having “That’s Life” in both movies. Stamped with the Lindsay Gottlieb seal of approval.

Most sequels don’t live up to their predecessor, and regardless of saga, sequel, or some third thing, most movies have flaws in one form or another.

Except Clue (1985). Clue is perfect. Objectively.