I'm enjoying the section on potential. It chimes with an idea have. Many philosophers have pondered the issue of what is the correct age to set your children free, so to speak. I'm getting very close to the conclusion that the issue is not when we stop limiting their freedoms, but when we begin. We [wrongly, I feel] assume that the new born child is helpless... Correction, the new born child might be helpless, but it is not in any real immediate danger, as long as it is healthy. Therefore I suggest we pause for a minute or two, before we dive in to rescue the new born child from non existent threats. Not only would this allow the new born child to familiarise itself with their new world, it would encourage them to express themselves, thus forming a much stronger foundation for the self to develop from. When they cry for help, is the time to offer help.
There are two steps that lead to Arthur rejecting and shedding the Joker persona / "soul armor": 1) He ethically rejects the Joker persona when he realizes that it didn't only attack those who "fucking deserve it" but also people close to him.
People are angry that Arthur isn’t The Joker. It’s called “joker”, he is A joker. If you removed the “Arkham” sign and any reference to Gotham, there’s nothing that makes this the DC Joker. He’s an abused kid grown up into a mentally ill man in a terrible city. Anything else is projecting our expectation of The Joker onto him. (Har)Lee’s reaction to him later in the film is the audiences’ misunderstanding of the movie and the character. She wanted the Joker and he was only ever Arthur (just like the critics) Speaking of the music… the reason for the music? He first saw Lee in music therapy and she sang to him. If it was art therapy, Arthur would have been dancing through paintings to woo her in his hallucinations. Lee’s love language is music. She was a privileged upper East sider. She probably had music, voice, dance lessons as the girl of rich parents. This isn’t a musical, it’s the fever dream of a lovestruck, obsessive mental patient. He’s mentally ill, not a mastermind anarchist. Can anyone honestly say that you could see Arthur from Joker1 planning the downfall of Gotham? Outsmarting any of the batmans we’ve seen (Pattinson’s?!). Do you see him making penguin or the riddler bend the knee? Would Bane freeze at the sight of him?See him walk into a room full of mob bosses and walk out unscathed? Manufacture timed explosives, p0is0n gas, fight Batman hand to hand? He was full of swagger as joker, but he wasn’t smarter; he didn’t demonstrate any greater competency, he had no skills other than a good strut. Even his court skills were true to the story; his defense was so incompetent.. exactly what an uneducated person would be able to do. It’s like the arguments you hear in traffic court by people defending themselves. Heck, this was even shown in the 1st movie. Joker’s super moment on the stairs is shown as him just dancing like an idiot (lots of pelvic thrusts) hearing his own music. He was never The Joker. Even at the end of Joker1 we see him in police custody with no sign of a fight. He probably just sat down on the couch and waited for the police. Remember his plan was self h@rm, not murd3r. He didn’t know what to do next. Then he gets rescued by his followers and he stands on top of the car (again, just a strut) Then we see him hunched over, laughing his painful Arthur laugh smoking a cigarette with another counselor in Arkham. He was caught again. The audience wanted to see him powerful, so it did, but he was still Arthur just playing more roles for atttention and love. They wanted Hannibal Lechter but he was always Buffalo Bill
Great comment. I remember seeing the first movie and thinking, that was a really good movie, though it's not really the joker of a batman's world, but I guess this movie is just it's own thing. but the 2nd movie continued the story in a way where you DO clearly get a batman world set up be the end of it. poor Arthur get's killed and abandoned by this mob of joker followers, who go on to birth a new, more traditional joker, who can be a mastermind villain capable of all the things you listed. in 20 years time, Gotham will be a city full of deranged killers inspired by Arthur's theatrical joker persona. Which will lead to bruce Wayne fighting them as batman. I don't get fans who say this movie leaned further away from the batman mythos then even the first one did, I think it ties WAY more into the DC world then the first joker
If you rewatch the first movie, when he was dancing around, pick that, in the second movie they put all of us inside of his head, the musical pieces is the world he is creating. The scenes of the girl of the elevator in the first movie were some confusing, with music in the second one they could separate well the reality from his mind
*Spoiler warning* The part where Arthur admits there is no Joker, just him, to me feels like the climax of the film. It was all leading up to that. Arthur tries so hard to live up to the image of Joker but during the film you can see the cracks forming in some moments. Particularly when Gary tells him of the trauma Arthur caused. Arthur feels guilt over that but tries to mask it. Then back at the prison when the guards assault him, it breaks him. Arthur's body and mind can't keep up the charade. When Harley rejects him, that breaks his heart. His heart, mind and body have been broken.
Its so much like kafkas "the trial" and i love the similarities. A confusing world where the main character struggles with his place, and is eventually killed in a nonsensical way after a trial that ultimately doesnt even matter
@@DaPark3 Absolutely! Arthur is desperate to prove his insanity, after a lifetime of psyche drugs, on account of his insanity. Against the State, who prescribed said medication, on account of their diagnosis of his insanity, trying to prove he's not insane.
I think that's what doesn't sit right with me. The scene with Gary was easily the best moment in the film. Trying to talk like a grandiose lawyer whilst Gary just cuts through to the heart of Arthur. It's brilliant. It hints at possible growth. Then they abruptly put him through SA...I get the idea but I really don't like that being the thing to break down his walls. I find it horrible
I very much enjoyed Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Joker and the writing for the character as well. I genuinely found his portrayal intimidating with how realistic it was in portraying someone who is not mentally well and can be danger because of it. (Disclaimer* Not saying that mental illness automatically makes someone dangerous) The first film wasn't exactly subtle in it's themes either, but some of the best stories do thrive in contradiction; they say give your character agency so they are not just a paper boat being pulled along by the plot but when the plot is about the character being disenfranchised and without much agency it can be a tightrope walk. Where I think stories that do this well succeed is that they make that lack of agency the conflict rather than the whole plot. For example Arthur Fleck and Katniss Everdeen have parallels in that they never sought to be the figurehead of a revolution or riot, they were trying survive in a system where they had little to no agency and the story is their struggle to assert it. The fact that they both became a symbol to a wider public, for very different reasons, was an unforeseen ripple effect.
The public in the movie wanted joker and the public in real life wanted joker. This film refuses this as much as it can. It gives us arthur. And I think it not being a good movie is almost part of that. It's a movie about someone who no one wants to see a movie about because we want the Joker, not some guy who is stuck in prison and can't do anything. He wants to give us that movie we want at some parts, but can't and at the end he admits it.
6:18 The legal jeopardy IS NOT the primary stake in this film. Arthur's sanity is the primary stake. Or to use one of my all-time favorite lines from a film: the stakes were Arthur's ability to finally realize that "feeling screwed up, in a screwed up time, in a screwed up place, does not necessarily mean that you are screwed up." The one thing Arthur NEVER heard was that "it is okay to feel screwed up. Feeling screwed up is not the problem. The problem is WHAT is making you feel screwed up, and how should you deal with it."
3:23 The film IS making a critique of the legal system. It is just not being blunt about it. Notice that there is a false dichotomy in the options presented to Arthur. He is either guilty, or he is not guilty due to schizophrenia. In the United States, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is VERY problematic. And a clue to the problem is right there in the title: "Statistical". Clinical work and statistical work are in some ways at cross purposes. In clinical work, you want to ensure that patients don't "fall through the cracks". But in statistical work, it is required that patients fall through the cracks. Useful statistics requires the unambiguous data. Patients must clearly have a specific disorder for the data to be useful. So, diagnostic criteria are created where the rate of false positives is lower than the rate of false negatives. But in clinical work, those same criteria create situations where patients are easily misdiagnosed. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that prescribing medication, NOT TESTING, is how most mental health disorders are truly "diagnosed" in the US. If any testing is to be done, it will usually be something short like the PC-PTSD-5, a 5-question screening tool for PTSD. This is further exacerbated by the fact that insurance companies require a diagnostic code before they will pay a claim for services. This puts pressure on the clinician to find a diagnostic code as soon as possible so they can get paid. The problem with the legal system in this film is that NO ONE, not the prosecution, and CERTAINLY not the defense, are interested in who Arthur really is. They are only concerned about finding a diagnosis that will give them what they want. (I don't know if this is a problem in other countries, as I'm not as familiar with the ICD as I am the DSM.)
7:28 The point of both films is that they were character studies. The first film is often compared to Taxi Driver (I think largely due to the visual tone), but I believe Fight Club, American Psycho, and the tv shows Mr. Robot and Hannibal are better comparisons.
Finally! Someone else who feels the way I do about this film! Regarding what causes Arthur to give up his defence, I think the scene with Gary was a key moment as well as Arthur overhearing the murder of his fellow inmate because of the rebellion he encouraged. The way I read the films, it’s not about the joker, famous DC comic character, rather, it’s using the imagery of Joker as a way to tell a story about radicalisation. Arthur created the joker persona as a way to kick back against the world, inspiring others to adopt it, but Fole a Deux is about Arthur- like many adopters of extremist ideologies -realising that his beliefs are destroying him and his actions have genuine consequences, both on himself as it only causes him to be beaten down more than he was originally, and for the few people around him who actually showed him kindness. He’s brought face to face with the realities of his actions and it’s because of that that he realises he can’t do it anymore. Lee and the other clown mask people can go on cheering because they haven’t actually done the stuff that Arthur has, they’re like people who post online endlessly about how extreme they are when in reality their beliefs are little more than a costume they wear. The ones who do act will probably have their own moment like that later on. I agree with you about the ending, though, I feel like there needed to be a moment, even if it was just a private moment for Arthur that no one else ever heard, where he got to express once and for all what was struggling to get out for all those years. There should have been some form of mercy in the narrative, even if the overall plot stayed the same.
The question as to weather or not Arthur has multiple personality disorder wasn't meant to be a big conflict of the film. I think it was simply his lawyer trying to win Arthur the case. It also holds implications of how the world views, and is ignorant to, mental disorders. In the movie, it's either used as a get out of jail card, or a tool to justify trading on the downtrodden, to make freaks out of them. This is largely what the cartoon at the beginning was about, the difference between Arthur, and the "Joker" anarchist his fans want him to be.
Yeah I agree with that, it one of the most interesting things about this film, that I wish it had explored further for a deeper critique: Arthur as he is is totally unacceptable for the legal system, he has to pretend he's someone else
The court case is, in a nutshell: Arthur, who has been heavily medicated his entire life, due to his insanity, desperate to prove his insanity Vs The state. Who prescribed Arthurs medication, on account of their diagnosis of his insanity, trying to prove he is not insane.
Yes. At one point I thought it was a hybrid of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' and 'New York, New York', but I wasn't confident in my memory of NY, NY, so I settled on 'Chicago'.
I found it more than coincidental how he proclaims he isn’t Joker anymore the very next day after having been brutally assaulted by the guards whilst he’s dressed as Joker. They rip his famous red suit from him and scrub the makeup from his face, all whilst being mocked that “he thinks he’s a somebody because of his fancy suit and the muck on his face” and then they tell him he’s wrong and he’s still a nobody. Also afterwards, the young prisoner sees them dragging him back to his cell and yells at the guards, demanding to know what they did. They then proceed to kill the other inmate in a fit of temper, and Arthur hears it all happening. I think the trauma of all of that is what prompted him into announcing to the court and the world that he’s just “plain old Arthur Fleck”
Omg thank you! I thought I was the only one who realized that. What I'd like to add is that not only was that Humiliation and Assault Traumatizing by itself, I think it is also RE-Traumatizing for Arthur because of the SA he had suffered as a kid. At least when I watched the Film and this scene played out + The absolute horror expressed on his face when he's been thrown back into his cell like a piece of meat seemed to me to be clearly indicating that the guards did also SA Arthur after violently ripping his clothes off. I mean- that was just my interpretation, ofc idk if others also perceived it that way or if that was the intended indication-
The movie moved me deeply. Honestly I enjoyed it more than part 1, which that one was overwhelmingly sad and horrifying. The musical moments added so much sincere room to breathe and levity. The movie is just as sad as the first one but not that nihilistic, a little more hopeful (I know-the ending, but the songs really brought a lot of genuine warmth, love). There is a lot more I could say about this movie.
@@Lewis_Clark I thought it was excellent. Surprised to find that i haven’t found even one RU-vid reviewer who didn’t dislike or halve mixed feelings on it.
Great analysis! I only watched it once but I think the turning point for Arthur was Gary's testimony, then his assault by the guards, and then the murder of Ricky. After those events we "flashback" to the first film in the bathroom and instead of dancing like he was supposed to, Arthur washes the Joker makeup off in the sink. It was kind of a sudden change to us but it was a really long day and night for him.
Honestly the backlash to this movie is one of the most baffling things I've seen for a long time. This is honestly one of the best movies I've seen, shoot me. I think the main issue is that people were expecting something else out of the movie, and got something they weren't expecting and/or didn't understand, and are left thinking the movie didn't deliver in an objective sense, just because it didn't deliver on your expectations. Joker: Folie á Deux is a good movie, and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
I also quite enjoyed the film and was pretty surprised at the negative feedback. I thought it did a good job of subverting audience expectations and exploring how figures can lose control of the movements they inspire.
I kinda liked it too, though I haven't gotten around to seeing the first film. The film seems largely based around the idea of performance, how everything in it was an act - the grand romance, the songs, Lee's stories about herself, the show trial, the clearly false defense and, ultimately, in the end, Joker himself. It was all about him trying to present himself as some larger than life figure with this crazy beautiful woman with an impossible showbiz future, as, as you say, this avatar of fun and unrestrained mad happiness, but back in prison, being beaten, his friend killed, and most of all Mr Puddles' testimony showing him that he really hurt actual people, not "society" brings him back to reality.
From the first movie's behind the scenes, Todd Philips said this: "The ego is Arthur, the ego is the thing that is trying to control this wild course that is Joker but Joker is pure Id so we just thought, well what happens when you go through your life wearing a mask which a lot of people do, you’re wearing a mask and you’re pretending to be a certain way and Arthur is very kind of controlled but there are these glimpses of who he is underneath, and what happens when you take the mask off which is kind of a weird flip, because actually Joker wears a mask, but the idea is - what happens when you stop living that life and live as the shadow." From what I understand this means that Arthur is the mask and Joker is what is hiding underneath, but if that's the case doesn't the second movie completely contradicts this? Or did Todd just abandon this idea?
I would say this film is a perfect evolution of that idea. Joker felt true and real and was a cathartic release for everyone that was repressed...but then it's still not ALL of him. Arthur is still all of the other things, too. He is both. Arthur finishing the film stating "there is no joker" doesn't mean Joker's mask was fake, it means "it's not separate from the rest of me. I am both Arthur and Joker in one." He finishes this film uniting the split, which is a great idea for the character to grow... it just happens out of nowhere
Well, yes. Arthur is a state issued mask, that e is forced to where until his identity cannot exist without the mask. Once they remove his mask, in the shape of stopping his medication, He is like a new born child, in a grown man's body.
I really enjoyed this movie. My favorite scene was when Sophie Dunba was giving her testimony in court. She referred to the movie that was made about Arthur as awful and Arthur turns around to ask Harley, "it was awful? then Harley answers shaking her head and saying, "No"☺🙂🙃🙃 A strong 6.75.
My favourite is the Sonny and Cher scene. Arthur's understanding of love is clearly influenced by pop culture, and particularly his relationship with Lee, is very much a "I've got you babe" situation. The fact they sing about "If I ain't got you" is perfect. We all know what happened with Sonny and Cher, and so does Arthur.
Joker 2 is not as good as the first one, but I liked it, even if it was very different from expectations. Avoided everything but the first trailer, so I thought it would be a movie about two equally broken people in Arthur and Harley pushing each other to break more and go darker rather than the typical romance heals two broken people but it pushes their darker side that grows increasingly darker to the surface, even as they instead try to move past their brokenness. Arthur's character was perfect and well done. Intro sequence was one of the better creative decisions I have seen a movie include. The ending was perfect- I know people want to connect it to the Heath Ledger Joker, which yeah- but the carving a smile was less saying he's this specific Joker, and more just making it clear to viewers that he is "A Joker" in a way that all would recognize (that the laugh doesn't necessarily do). The Joker is always more of a symbol than a person, so it makes sense that someone else steps into the faceless mantle, the moment he rejects it. No one cares about the man behind the makeup. Arthur is the origin story of a symbol, nothing more, and in time, no one will remember Arthur Fleck ever existed, just the legacy he despised. My biggest complaint is honestly with Lee. She was a decent character, but labeling her as "Harleen Quinzel" and making her character so not what the origin of Harley Quinn was.... it was frustrating. Some of the reimagining ideas for her were good, but follow-up was sloppy and left them feeling very un-Harley. Would have been better if she just was Lee and Harley was a nickname or something, but unattached to the original Harley. Also wish we had spent more time in Lee's head- and possibly even got some hallucinations of her own to illustrate her perception of the Joker versus Arthur and how much those differentiated from each other. The car bomb also felt silly. He had his catharsis already in court. Give him a phone call with Lee or something, the entire escape sequence felt unnecessary and over the top. Other than that... I think I really liked it? Very different vibe form the first movie, and I wish there was more hallucinations that weren't so obviously fake, but it was a compelling story despite your lead having so little agency for 80% of the movie.
Cockeyed optimist view: Arthur actually did have a visitor: young Bruce Wayne, who was impressed by Arthur's rejection of an image, and who goes on to be, not a Batman, but a Philip Marlowe. After all, "mean streets" wasn't a phrase original to Scorsese...
None of the hallucinations were fake. Other than that nice review. I, personally don't have a problem with the Lee character, but I've never really invested in her, before. I loved her in the Batman games, and I think this origin story fits that character.
I thought Arthur "let go" because of Ricky. And Mr. Puddles. These might be the only ppl who actually like Arthur and he realizes he's screwed it all up with them pursuing Joker.
One thing ive come to think is that arthur may have osdd? His disassociating and deralization is to the point where he goes into delusions and have his alter self joker. In osdd there doesnt to ve a full blown alter but depersinalation to where he feels he isnt himself fully. And there isn't full amnesia but maybe gaps in judgement and time/ what was real. But the way they wrote it is weird. Arthur is very stagnant in the movie.
Interesting take. My headcannon on J2FáD is that Todd Philips created a purely nihilistic version of the Clown Prince of Crime by deconstructing him as a concept. As such, the concept functions sociologically as a mental property that can be transmitted via language, communication, and culture. Basically, this is what a meme is. With this movie, Philips has brought us personally inside the deranged but beautiful and artistic mind of Arthur Fleck, the insignificant and all-too-human of a man who unwittingly -- a fool? -- starts a social movement and the beginning of a series of maniacal copycats, all bringing their own personal spin on the Clown Prince of Crime.
Warning Spoilers I honestly really respect the direction this film tried to take, i’m just disappointed that it failed to fully explore itself, personally I think the main thing this film needed was multiple perspectives, especially on Arthur’s effects on society, I love how they used his followers, showing how they tried to controlled and manipulated Arthur to stay as there symbol of chaos, with Lady Gaga supposed to be embodying his whole audience, but limiting his following through just the embodiment of one person isn’t enough, there is a scene where she’s sucking the cigarette smoke out of Arthur’s mouth which I interpreted as her trying to take the human out of Joker as she only cares about the symbol and not the person underneath, and I actually kind of like the ending of how the fans that admired him completely abandoned him after Arthur wanted to be better, stabbing him and leaving him to die whilst in the background carving a smile onto their own face showing how he has started a movement that is now out of his control and will live even after his death, they never cared about Arthur they just liked the excuse he gave them for chaos, But this film absolutely missed an opportunity for multiple perspectives and exploring more surrealist scenes as he delves into madness, and I don’t like how much handholding this sequel does, completely eliminating ambiguity and openness for interpretation, so I think although Joker Folie à Deux had a good idea in mind it just felt like it was never complete, it wasn’t explored to its full potential (in my personal opinion) so I would give it a 2.8 out of 5, not great but not awful either. 26:40 I think the turning point for Arthur was after overhearing the guards brutally beating up one of his followers in a nearby cell, seeing the damage his symbol is causing and deciding it wasn’t right.
I think the lack of the joker mob's perspective works. I don't think we need to specifically know what joker means to this mob of people, because the story is about how Arthur feels and thinks, and Arthur doesn't understand the mob's love for joker. He just knows they love him, and by extension, that's all we, the audience, are shown.
"He let go of his Identity of 'Joker', because he was Brutalized by the Guards, and thereafter felt Wesk and Poweless, and to Furrher Add Injury to Terrible Insult, he was Murdered by a 'Wannabe ... Joker'... "
THANK YOU for liking it and for giving it a fair shot. I thought this movie was brilliant and it was the ONLY natural progression from the first. It's a character study, not a comic book action hero movie. There's no other way it could go or end and still make thematic sense. My opinion is that everyone that hates it just did not understand the first movie. The whole reason the message is "overt" and "labored" in this one is because people clearly missed it the first time around. The movie is called "Folie a deux" for crying out loud XD "The folly of two" not only means Lee and Joker but also the folly of having to make two movies to get the message out XD You're not wrong about the message and point of this movie almost being a rehash of the first. To me, I felt there was almost more of an option of "rehabilitation" -- part of me really wanted him to take the *actual* helping hands offered him, like the lawyer, to "learn a lesson". Which, he sort of kind of did but also didn't. @23:23 the "Turning Point" - I agree I felt it wasn't very obvious but to my partner he felt it land really well. He agreed there was no "epiphany" moment like I think most normal audiences (myself included) are used to, but rather it was the long slow build up of Arthur actually seeing the consequences of his actions and how "Joker" really did hurt people, and that continuing in that facade was just making things worse. Again, thanks for the very fair review even with negatives I appreciate that you can see what the movie was trying to do and give it a fair shot. Thank you for not being part of the social media hate-algorithm XD
Personally, as a fan of the first movie, I felt a bit insulted by the criticism the sequel levvies against its fans. As you rightly point out, the fans are represented in a very one-note and shallow manner. When I watched the first Joker, I felt true compassion for Arthur Fleck, but at the SAME TIME I was disgusted by his actions. And I think the movie wants you to feel both emotions at once. It's a fantastically nuanced feeling. Yes, the system in which Arthur exists is bound to fail people like him. Yes, there are many like him who will use that failure of the system as an excuse for their own failures. In the scene where he stands on the Police car and turns to face the cheering crowd, the music is very sad, and honestly I felt sad at this moment too. You're witnessing the birth of the Joker but also the de@th of Arthur, the man you've come to empathise with. It's a brilliant moment. Now, I am aware that a lot of people did not fully embrace that nuance, and did in fact see the tragedy of his character as a justifaction for his actions. However, I'd argue that those people would use ANY sort of validation as justification for their own cynicism and lack of empathy. If someone truly wishes to believe that they are entitled to act in a socially unacceptable way, they will find any excuse, or interpret any shred of validation you give them, to mean they are right. And honestly, they will also block out any attempt to criticise them, no matter how correct you might be (hence the intense backlash the movie is currently getting). And those of us who don't feel that way, and came out of the first movie feeling empathetic but ultimately disgusted by Arthur's crimes, feel un-represented by the sequel. I honestly came out of it feeling as though I'd been sternly told off for something I didn't actually do.
I think we've ascribed so much power of the art over the shaping of reality (a different version of "videogames make kids gay/satanists/dangerous, only now it's also racists, sexists, conspiracy theorists,etc) that we've forgotten the basic function of art as exploration in a safe space (THE safest space, imho, inside our own heads) of a myriad scenarios or experiences we wouldn't truly want to live out. When you have all the details as you're seeing him from a more or less objective vantage point, you can sympathize with a criminal. You can even vent by cheering on when he goes against authority, since you know irl you wouldn't ever do it, or even support it. Then you turn the movie off and you go about your day, a little enriched in the way you read the context of some things, perhaps, having gained a little more insight and sympathy for some people, but still basically the same person you were before. But they can't fathom that you can sympathize with the portrayal of a totally lost and pathetic man simply for his human misery, without celebrating his actions.
Fav video yet about the movie. Very balanced perspective that actually delves into the pros and cons of the vision for the movie instead of completely discarding it. Thankyou!❤
I'm not even remotely interested in watching these films but I HAVE found the backlash interesting and was low key hoping for a video like this one to come along and give me some context without needing to actually go see it. Great stuff as always! And congrats!!!
7:15 The conflict in the sequel is Arthur's struggle to find himself while everyone else wants him to be who THEY believe he is. I think this is what tripped up so many "fans". They went to the theater expecting Arthur to be who THEY expected him to be. Which was foolish. One should NEVER have expectations when watching a NEW film, even if it is a sequel. Those expectations get in the way of understanding and enjoying the film.
Feel like the movie finally, briefly lives up to its premise in the scene where Arthur cross-examines Gary. Both actors sell the heartbreaking tragedy of Joker’s rise, Arthur face to face with the only person in his life who actually liked him for him, still clearly believing he can become better but traumatized by his retribution and only hurt further by their speaking. I think the movie needed to get to Joker in Court faster, have more of it, and replace that baffling turning point where the guards… make Arthur stop wanting to be the Joker. They could have replaced that with anything, maybe a meaningful tie in to his Gary conversation and how he clearly had to force himself not to feel affected by it. …I also saw someone on twitter suggest that you could have him see the TV movie of himself and realize through that just how unsatisfying it is to be a symbol. We only hear that one person liked it and another didn’t, after all… though I think anything that challenges his relationship to being a symbol would do, funny as that idea is. Overall, my big complaint with the movie is that it can’t decide if Arthur is sympathetic, contemptible, or ridiculous, and different parts of the movie seem only to focus on one of these. Compare the Scorsese movies Joker 1 was an homage to, and even how he’s treated in that one: Travis Bickle is all three at once and treated as such, different scenes highlighting one or another but the movie never forgetting the rest. Overall, I am glad this movie was made even if I find it quite bad, and I fear Warner will take the wrong lessons from its failure and take it as a reason to shy away from bold, risky movies in an era where they’re already scrapping gems left and right and trying to commit to a decade+ of a Harry Potter streaming remake.
3:41 There are different kinds of "agency" a character can portray. The first film shows Arthur evolving from no agency whatsoever to externalized agency. The second film shows Arthur delving into internalized agency. Internalized agency is a core component of cognitive behavior therapy, and of the Greco-Roman stoicism which inspired it. Although internalized agency is likely difficult to portray in film, there ARE are several times where Arthur questions the logic of the situation. During the courtroom scene, when Arthur is sitting on the stool admitting that he is Joker, and that he did murder those people, he has reached a critical goal in CBT and stoicism: to understand the truth of a situation. Sadly, it is understandable that most people would fail to understand Arthur's internalized agency. The world is unmistakably full of people who rely on emotional thinking devoid of logic.
Although Joker 2 disappointed me as a movie audience, I liked the idea of casting Lady Gaga to sing in most of the scenes thinking about a musical like Dancer in the Dark, starring Bjork. As a result, they ruined the first Joker on purpose because Joker didn't need a sequel.
I think the problem is that no one seems to understand the ending at all. There are a few theories: 1. The entire thing is still a fantasy in his head (this includes his relationship with Leigh). The moment that Arthur starts to detach from reality is when she shows up and when Puddles pulls him back to reality (by tugging at the little empathy he still has left), she starts to pull away and lose interest in him. The film is about the eternal battle he seems to be having with his "shadow" Joker. He's not able to fully immerse himself into this because he still has empathy for people. The murders he commits in the original film were not done out of a lack of empathy. He was pushed to the brink to kill by the cruel abuse he suffered and the lack of acknowledged he received from the world around him. Without Leigh and his attachment to people, he's finally able to let this go and kill Arthur Fleck for good. 2. The man who actually kills Arthur is a fabrication in his mind. The end of the first movie is still the ending of the second movie. Only they show us how he got from point A (A mentally ill man who killed because he was pushed to his limits) to point B (a vicious psychopath who murders an innocent social worker for no reason). The "visitor" at the end was the social worker in the finale of the first film and after killing his ego (Arthur Fleck), he finally has the capacity to become Joker (a psychopath who harms innocent people). 3. He's not the real Joker and the man who killed him was inspired to become The "real" Joker. There are so many ways to think about this film and I feel like fans have become so invested in this character that they've actually become the Folie a Deux. The joke really is on the audience as it was in the first movie. Your attachment to Arthur is what drives him to exist. The reality is that you can project anything you want onto this movie and onto Arthur. The film is what you derive from it, which was similar to how the first movie was perceived. People loved the original Joker because of what they projected onto it. There are so many great embellishes to this film. I love how the man who kills him carves a smile into his face like Heath Ledger's Joker had. It's a wonderful touch, a funny joke, and a homage to our cultural perceptions of this character. This is a film that requires its audience to think in a more complex manner and most people just don't want to do that. That's fine, but people don't have to call it a "dumb" or "bad" movie because you didn't like it.
I completely agree with you. Particularly that they should have gone farther getting lost in the music and madness of it all. This movie has sapped me out.
I liked it and I think it's objectively pretty good. joker fans who hate this film behave similarly to his fans in the film, i wonder if that was intentional by the creators. It wasn't subtle, but i kind of like it. I didn't like gaga or lee much,although her reactions made sense for the character. I wish we got to meet her a bit deeper. Most of the songs were dull and that's a pity, because i like that they made the fantasies into a musical. I believe he decided he couldn't go on after the beating because he realised he was still small and powerless, regardless of the great persona. Wonderful video as always
5:54 I somewhat agree with you on this point, but I think it is important to understand what actually happened. 1. Lee's relationship with Arthur seems to start as a parasocial one. However, I believe this is incorrect. IMO, it was folie à deux via film and social media. (Folie à deux has several sub-types. One of them is "folie impose'e", where a person with delusions transfers those delusions to someone else.) 2. When they meet in person, the relationship evolves into a different subtype of folie à deux: "folie induite", where a psychotic person develops a new delusion while under the influence of another psychotic person. 3. When Arthur fails to meet Lee's expectations, the relationship develops a more manipulative tone. 4. Arthur is finally betrayed after he refuses to follow Lee's plan. The problem is that this is A LOT to pick up on in a relatively short period of time. Which is exacerbated by the fact that most people likely didn't bother to learn what folie à deux is before seeing the film. I caught it in the cinema, but that was in large part because I the "advantage" of having lived through a very similar situation.
I feel the main problem with Joker & Joker 2 is that most parts of the audience desperately wanted to watch them as movies about literally THE JOKER ™ such as these stories have been told over and over again before, and what they got instead were movies about Arthur Fleck, movies which merely toyed with certain elements from DC's The Batman lore, playing them partly for parallels, partly for contrast, partly for red herrings, partly for moral ambivalence and partly for narrative ambivalence (blurring lines between imagination and reality). First and foremost, both movies had Arthur Fleck not as hero, villain nor antihero, but as a tragic protagonist, who is dealt a bad set of cards and makes the worst of it - with certain intentions and under certain circumstances, both of which he himself never fully grasps until it is too late. In a way, Arthur Fleck isn't more of a protagonist than the City of Gotham itself, as it is the interplay of Gotham's ruthlessness towards him, at least just as much as Arthur's own agency, together with the chance encounters he makes, that contributes to his downfall. It is indeed a very tragic one, the entire story of Arthur Fleck as it plays out over the course of Joker and Joker 2. The way I see it, these movies are only in part about Arthur Fleck's ultimate demise, but even more so about the ultimate triumph of Gotham City's heart of darkness within its citizens' souls: All of them (as far as we can see, with only four exceptions of minor characters, a toddler Bruce Wayne, a man mocked for dwarfism, a single mother we barely get to see, and a defense lawyer) take advantage of Arthur in one way or another. Joker/Joker 2 is the first ever Gotham City tale - that I know of - told not from the perspective of a hero, villain, or anti-hero, but straight from the bottom, from the point of view of an average person born into outsider circumstances. And then, after much of a struggle, for good as much as for being seen, Gotham City grinds him down, makes him spiteful, become a criminal, and even when he tries to accept what he had coming, exploits him further, desperately tries to play him for fortune or fame, to paint him either as a supervillain or as its own twisted version of a stand-in hero, denies to see him as what he really is, and ultimately kills him for standing up for himself, for owning his life, his history and deeds, his mistakes and also his lifelong illusions which he has finally decided to shed once and for good, for all to see. That's a depressing tale to tell, but a daring one. Because THIS Gotham City tale is holding up a mirror to our own society, by cutting away larger-than-life stand-in figures of authority and responsibility such as Bruce Wayne / The Batman or any larger-than-life supervillains to push the blame onto for everything that is wrong in society. And when you peel that back, the question remains: Is our society so much different from Gotham's, and either way what is our own role in shaping society that way?
This is the one DC story that dares to go that far, the one where escapism doesn't triumph in the end, the one that takes the society of its own world to a more consistent and realistic conclusion. To me, it is a great depiction of Gotham City up from the bottom rather than from high above out of its manors, penthouses, skyscrapers and spires. With the first movie, it was possible for parts of the audience to not get what it was about (a movie about Gotham City rather than THE Joker, a movie that tells us that in a city like Gotham the evolution of a Joker-like character is not a break away from the norm, but that staying innocent and pure would be a break from the norm - and ultimately lead to a life of exploitation, misery and pain) but rather to interpret it as an origin story of THE Joker. Joker as a movie was a tragedy dressed up as a comedy, with just one highly ironic and tragicomic punchline: Fleck thought that a veil fell from his eyes and he had finally realized that his life was not a tragedy but a comedy - right when he made it into even more of a tragedy. Joker wasn't a movie about The Joker being triumphant over his surroundings, but a movie about Gotham City being triumphant over Arthur Fleck. The second movie sort of tells the same story (namely, that only the Joker role could raise people's interest in Fleck, either as an "evil twin in control of him" or as "his true evil self", for no one cared what Arthur himself went through to have him arrive at his murders, outside of wearing the makeup of a madman), but this time it hammers home the point more heavily, leaving no way out of interpreting it as a movie about Gotham City and Arthur Fleck - not about THE Joker. Both films are films about a society which is not only interested in but appreciates a Joker™, ANY Joker™ more than it appreciates an Arthur Fleck, more than a person who is kind to outsiders (be it on the job as in Joker, or in prison as in Joker 2). As things stand now, I assume that the first Joker movie was not well received for what it was going for, but rather for its misinterpretation; Joker 2, however, is not disliked for failing to achieve what it set out to do, but for driving home its theme even more so than the first one did; by drawing more attention to people outside of Arthur Fleck's immediate circle, to the media circus evolving around him, to people's self-interests projected onto him, to even the people being closest to him (mother, Lee, doctors, wardens) never trying to actually see and get to know him outside of how his image or role have a function in fulfilling their own self-interest. If you can get out of the rut of expecting a bland DC villain origin story as told a gazillion times before in comics and movies, and if you are willing to settle instead for an extended tale of how Gotham City treats outsiders who are neither normies nor supergifted, then Joker & Joker 2 might work very well for you, actually; with part 1 focusing more on the abandonment by society and on cruelties dealt out on a personal level, and with part 2 focusing more on cruelties dealt out by institutions such as the prison system and the media, and on the abandonment and betrayal experienced on a more personal level.
It wasn't a dramatic u-turn that he let go of the Joker. The infamous albeit suggested grape scene involving the prison guards in the shower room was the death of his joker. The whole thing of the guards washing his makeup off and forcing him to re-live the abuse he received as a child completely destroyed his joker persona. stripped him of the one thing that truly provided him with some armour against a cruel world. The Joker above all represented that fighting spirit that he lacked through his life. The persona of Joker was born of consequence of a very damaged individual and in a sense out of necessity rather than by design. What followed however was very much of his own making, hence in the conclusion, the need for Arthur to take responsibility (to take control) instead of passing the buck as he did with Murray at the end of the first movie. Society wanted to believe it was his colourful persona who he actually was because Joker was more exciting and more impressive. No one wants to sit through two plus hours with Arthur Fleck because that would make for a dull experience and that's pretty much what we got, hence the wails that Phillips hates his fans. No one wanted Arthur Fleck and that's what made the whole sequel brilliant, boring and tragic all at the same time. Joker 2 goes to show that what looks good on paper isn't necessarily going to make a great movie.
This film does exactly what it says on the tin, its kind of a joke, it explores the madness of being a sequel, and the lonely dimimished mental/emotional state of its main character A Fleck. Tne butthurt fanboys just don't get it, nor do the liberals screaming incel, nor the comic book/musical people talking to box office; all off point. This is a wonderfully human film about empathy. Time will remember it well.
first, I am no philistine. went into this movie psychologically prepared, buttressed against disappointment with foreknowledge regarding the nature of sequels, not to mention the director's history prior to 'deux'. I left the film adhering to my dedication to remain open-minded, vowing to delay judgement in the light of day. I TRULY WANTED TO AT LEAST LIKE THIS FILM. as a musician, I have for many years made it a practice to find the good in any piece of music, esp. that which I don't personally connect with. and this certainly applies to Gaga's independent work, which was notably absent in large part in this film as she was primarily covering old standards without accompaniment. where she did stand out, her performance has a promiscuous quality imo, amounting to pantomiming traditional American gospel. but this is not offered nor intended as a critique of Gaga. it is strange, almost unheard of in fact, to find myself in the MAJORITY of public opinion on anything, and hence, amazingly so with regards to this film. as a result, I have done much soul-searching and continued reflection (explaining my attention to this reviewers' work). one major event during the film leads me back to my original CONCLUSION; this is a poorly rendered film. the major event was that, around three-quarter through, I CHECKED MY WATCH. I never do this. I had blocked out the time in my schedule, so there were no constraints motivating said time-check. I was simply BORED by more than one-too-many musical numbers and the thinly veiled agenda masquerading as a screenplay. that DEEPLY HONEST BOREDOM is the kiss of death for any would-be art. it should have at least made me angry or disgusted. instead I just didn't much care. the film is perhaps mediocre only given J.P.'s acting ability to lift all ships. otherwise it would have been truly terrible. finally, the soul-searching I mentioned, led me to several reviews like this one which present a positive take. in this particular, he (?pronoun?) cunningly adds a few loosely relevant references to the work of a recently re-popularized and resurrected philosopher and his disciple (and, imo, misguidedly so). this would lend the impression of intellectual integrity, esp. to the under-informed, along the same lines as the director's assumption that his audience is too ignorant to see through the political precedence given to the film's post-production manipulation, this done at the expense of entertainment, artistic integrity, etc. I believe it is this same intellectual hubris that leads the archetype in question (director/reviewer/gatekeeper) to believe they can then use a variation on the same device to state; "THE AUDIENCE IS TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THIS FILM!" it is also my belief that reviews like this are parroting another phenomenon put in use by the director; placing personal/political agenda above the imperative to create something meaningful and of lasting cultural and artistic value as is so obviously the case with Joker. even if you hated that film, it is undeniable that it meant something. by contrast, 'deux' is destined to be forgotten as anything more than a failed sequel, much like those of the 'Hangover' series' ilk. the self-centered parasitism on display by Phillips, the studio execs., and imo even in microcosm by d.g.walter and others like him (again, ?pronoun?), are valuable for one reason; they exemplify the apparently unavoidable decadence prescribed in Republic and witnessed throughout modern history. hopefully, for art's sake, we are merely at an ebbing in human cultural achievement. but I fear as a newly digitized species, we may be in danger of running dry for all foreseeable.
still need to see this,, gonna probably not be going in totally without spoilers. but um, i like the idea of bleak films. so that appeals to me. but i am nervous that it will be unpleasant cause so many ptople don't seem to like it. It sounds like if it were changed a bit it could have been much better though. I do also like to hear that they made it a bit different, and so at least there's that as well. I am okay with musicals, but I do think it sounds like the tone will be far off the mark. Then again musicals about the fracturing mind are very hard to get the right tone for. There is the super dark The Wall, but then that doesn't seem light enough for 'escaping reality,' aspect. And the opposite type from Dancer in the Dark. But that would definitely maybe feel already done if it was too close to that one? so idk.
8:17 I am inclined to take the Director's word that this is not a "meta" statement about audiences. If you go back and CAREFULLY watch the first film, I believe you will see that the sequel is a natural progression of the ARTHUR'S story. IMO, a lot of people are confusing allegory and applicability. I don't see any hidden "alegorical" messages in either film. Although various characters have various beliefs about what is right and wrong, neither film seems to pick sides. However, both films ooze with applicability. They ooze with things that can, and often do, happen in the real world.
I don't do emojis but I've noticed there is a thumbs up, and it got me wondering "is there a middle finger emoji?" Surely it's as ubiquitous as the thumbs? Not the place to ask, I'm sure.
I didnt like the movie, but i had to give myself time to calm down before looking at stuff that defend it in some way. I appreciate that people see the possible meanings of the movie, even if it wasn't that great imo. I understood, but couldn't find the words. I just wish there was more going on in the movie. The theme of the movie was very in the face for me, but is it enough?
Personally, I was impressed with the level of intention that went into this film. Not as good as the first. Could have been shorter, but I applaud the effort and the result. Didn’t hate it.
Offtopic: I know it's not a new movie, but can you please review Happy Go-Lucky? I really NEED to talk about that movie. 😀 It's maybe the most polarizing movie ever made (I hyperbolize, but only a little). Some people get lifted by the ever so cheerful protagonist. Some - including me - are completely appalled. I experienced her as detached, alsmot never connecting to anybody who isn't as cheerful as her, and the most unintentionally irritating character ever. She takes almost nothing seriously, even when everybody else around her does. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I was truly astounded how many liked this character. ...thanks for listening.
It may be a good movie about Arthur, but It’s not a good Joker movie. Calling it Joker carries certain baggage and expectations with it since now you have linked it with the comic book character which has a long rich history. Because of that the movie fails.
If he didn't have DID, and it was just a case of the False Self, what were the reasons for his hallucinations in both movies, especially when he was off meds?
I kind liked it too, but I kinda didn't like Joker 1 so I feel pressured to not be contrarian. that being said, Joker 2 did have a lot of boring moments and very illogical... uuhm... functions? Things that happen in the plot that defy the suspension of disbelief.
spoilers: in the most literature-student interpretation I have ever made, I think Joker 2 is, among perhaps too many other things, a film about the character rejecting their role in the narrative. Arthur Fleck is the protagonist, and the film is called The Joker, so one must assume that he is said Joker. Many characters pressure him into that role: Lee, the prison guards, the lawyer. He kind of keeps rejecting that role, with the exception of two scenes in the court room. He runs away from the plot, refuses to engage with what the audience would assume to be a natural result of the events. When he escapes, becomes free, he just gets captured again. When he represents himself in court, he fucks up badly. Mister Puddles rightly forces him to accept the hurt he caused to his supposed friends. In a similar sense, he is a clown in rebellion. He is designed to be the butt the joke, and when he starts rejecting his role as the protagonist to whom bad things happen, he finds that that only makes things worse. The only way for him to fully escape the destiny of the fool, is by being docile and passive, accepting the world. In the end, one of his fans Ricky, who might represent the fans of the previous film then, stabs him to death. It seems like he gets killed for rejecting the Joker persona. He is removed from the narrative after the rejects his role. It reminds me a bit of Willem Elsschots Het Dwaallicht, where there are constantly startings of a narrative that never come into fruition. It also feels like a film about a man learning to accept the mistakes of his past. Lee, who is undeniably a horrible influence on him, who is and deeply toxic, manipulative and egocentric, tries to make him take pride in his past. It also seems to be about media, glorifying serial killers, the obsessive fans and sometimes women that fall in love with them. They all see The Joker and have no use for Arthur Fleck. That could even be metatextual: where we, the audience, are criticised for only caring about the Joker when he commits crimes and causes drama. This might tie in with a theme I noticed of characters leeching of his personality, parasitically. That is just a difficult theme to analyse because it's very hard to understand where his influence comes from. I saw the film last night with my girlfriend and I feel the need to write my ideas out to structure them and get a grip on what I think of the film. I don't want to be contrarian for its own sake, but I might have enjoyed the film somewhat.
Oh and I also got the feeling that it thematically engaged with the issues of classism in romance. There was a sketch that somehow got recommended to a lot of people by the algorithm ''ugly people have sex too'' and this film did make me realise that there is a strong stigma against losers. Guys who don't dress well, have ugly beards, walk with their mouth open and head bend forwards. We allow ourselves to judge them harshly when we see them on the bus, but being a loser shouldn't be a blank cheque to get bullied. It's a hard phenomenon to properly express in english, which lacks the exact connotated words I require
JOKER was one of the only films I walked out of. I paid to watch a double feature, and I just wasn't even interested in finishing the movie. Its sequel, as one might expect, did not interest me at all, so it says a lot about my opinion of you that I would be down to hear what you have to say about it despite us clearly feeling quite differently about it. You do a good job.
People, in part, don't listen to criminals because criminals overwhelmingly lie and manipulate. Here we had the opportunity to see some "truth",as objective observers, and yet indeed, in the end of the movie I felt we didn't know Arthur at all. Making a movie about how the world only wants to see a performance by its outcasts diregarding the person behind the persona, under the name of a character whose whole schtick is being a persona, who was never a downtrodden person to begin with, and ending up with the character dying meaninglessly only to be the stepping stone for the "real" performer, the one whose name was used to sell the film.....yeah, I don't think it's exactly the own Philips intended it to be. Phoenix's performance is sorely missing a director like Paul Schrader or, hot take, David Cronenberg. I'd want to know, as a professiona, how do you read his SA by the guards in the context of what we're supposed to take from the movie? What role does it play, because I can't see it playing any role other than shock value/added grittiness, and it's giving me the icks.
"I Feel that Since 'Joker' STOLE the Plots of 'Taxi Driver' and 'King of Comedy', ... Scorsese, should have gotten at least half of the Profits Made in the 2019 Film ... Secondly, the Sequel Did Not Need Gaga, at ... All !"
This movie 🍿🎥 was a HARD NO , for me. ACROSS the board. While this is a different type of Joker and Harley; and not comparing it to other versions....I couldn't get into it. Just glad it was over.
There is no manic pixie dream girl in this movie, only a borderline-psychotic narcissistic manipulator. Arthur in his delusion merely mistakes the latter for the former.
It was an execution of everything the first movie was. Forget about the music aspect. It is a bad film. I get some people might like it and if it wernt a seqal sure. But people like bad things all the time. You can say its subjective but bad story telling is bad storytelling.
