By When I first heard that Joker: Folie a Deux was going to be a thing, I only had one question on my mind – why?
The original Joker, whether you liked it or not, told a pretty definitive and conclusive story. While some may argue that it was just a pastiche of Scorsese tropes and had only surface-level theming, I personally thought the movie offered a fairly compelling, and oftentimes ugly, examination of society’s treatment of people with disabilities and psychosis that is sadly very reminiscent of how marginalized groups are treated in society today. Again, you can love or hate the movie, but it said what it needed to say and went about its merry way, earning well over a billion dollars at the box office back in 2019 and earning a handful of Academy Awards.
I can’t say for certain if I remember reading an interview where Todd Phillips said he would never do a sequel to Joker, but it’s here and dividing audiences once more. While last time I came to the movie’s defense and would do so any day of the week, I don’t think I’ll be arguing in favor of its sequel anytime soon.
Joker: Folie a Deux
Director: Todd Phillips
Release Date: October 4, 2024 (Theatrical)
Rating: R
Set two years after the events of the first film, Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), is imprisoned in Arkham Hospital for the five murders he committed as the Joker. His trial is about to commence, and the state is calling for the death penalty. He’s all but receded into himself, hardly talking to anyone. Still, after a brief encounter with Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), who is in the check-in portion of the prison in a music therapy class, he begins to open up to her. However, Lee doesn’t care about Arthur. She cares about Joker and tries to have Arthur understand that the Joker is the real him and not Arthur. Thus begins a mental tug of war inside of Arthur where he tries to figure out who he really is.
Joker: Folie a Deux is a depressing movie to sit through. Not because of the content within it, since I find a lot of the moments in the first film to be far more tragic and gut-wrenching, but because it tries to get across the same points as the first film. Joker is meant to be a tragic figure, a man pushed to his breaking point and all he could do was act out in violence and murder several people. The first film made no qualms about what the Joker did. It was bad, but over the past five years, Joaquin Phoenix’s take on the character has been lionized as this rebel against society and depicted as this anarchist against a corrupt system. Or at the very least, that’s how Folie a Deux believes it was interpreted as because this sequel tries to systematically dismantle that image.
Characters will point blank say to the audience that Arthur is not the Joker and the Joker is a symptom of a much larger problem within himself. Just as many other characters will say that Joker is the real Arthur and he’s meant to be this boundary-pushing figure of anarchy and societal upheaval who is meant to be celebrated. I mean, Joker was arguably the most critically acclaimed comic-book movie of all time, so that alone was probably internalized within Folie a Deux’s narrative on how disruptive of a force the Joker can be. And yet, the Joker isn’t that. The movie ultimately concludes with the same point that it has been trying to make since back in 2019 – Arthur is a victim and needs help. He shouldn’t be lionized or celebrated. He should have our sympathy.
Copyright: Warner Bros.
I’ll give the movie this, I like the fact that the film is even having this meta-narrative discussion about its own legacy and how its audience interprets it. Can it be a bit on the nose? Yes, but I think it does help to further a few of the points from the first film. Then again, did those points need furthering? I honestly don’t think so. The commentary about the Joker as a symbol was probably one of the least interesting topics the first movie wanted to address, but at the very least, this sequel attempts to expand the discussion in a new direction.
Yet at the same time, it’s hard to deny that the film doesn’t feel a bit aimless because of it. This meta-textual examination seems to be the only thing the film wants to talk about. Because of that, it’s hyping itself up as being some radical piece of cinema simply because it’s a sequel to the first film without actually earning that distinction. It thinks it’s more important than it is, and the film believes this. It’s not pretentious though. After seeing Megalopolis I don’t think I will ever accuse another film of being pretentious. Even so, I do think that Joker: Folie a Deux has an ego and thinks it’s entitled to do what it wants because of its predecessor.
That’s the only way I can justify some of the strange directorial decisions made by the film. Sure, let’s open up with an animated sequence inspired by Looney Tunes. Why? Well because we can and it will be different! Let’s make the entire movie a musical! Does it need to be? Well no, but it can help further explain the themes that we’ve already established earlier on in the film! Each of Folie a Deux‘s decisions doesn’t come across as a need that helps elaborate the story it wants to tell, but rather does so because it makes it stand apart from the crowd. It earned a billion dollars. It has the loyal fans. It has the Oscars. It’s arrogant. It can do what it wants because it has all of that and thinks that fans will flock to it simply for existing.
Copyright: Warner Bros.
That’s probably the reason why I think Joker: Folie a Deux is getting as much hate as it is. It’s because the fans have an expectation of what they want out of a sequel to Joker and this isn’t it. It’s a musical for some reason, and while the musical numbers aren’t terrible, they aren’t great either. The most lavish ones are firmly planted within Arthur’s mind as he parades around as the Joker, saying and doing whatever he wants. The ones that are taking place in reality are much more grounded and oftentimes don’t have any accompanying music. They’re just presented as is, but audiences don’t like musicals. They don’t want to see the Joker sing and dance. They want to see the Joker blow things up and shoot Robert DeNiro in the face again.
But Joker: Folie a Deux isn’t that movie. Its ending blatantly tells people that they interpreted the first movie incorrectly and its existence alone is proof that people didn’t get the message. So the bile Joker: Folie a Deux is getting from certain people, at least from my perspective, comes at least in some small part because they realize that the movie they adored back in 2019 all along was telling them that they shouldn’t celebrate Joker and they’re the problem. In a way, Lady Gaga’s Lee Quinzel is a stand-in for a certain section of the audience, the ones who want more, more, more of the Joker but are disappointed when they realize that Joker and Joker: Folie a Deux aren’t movies about the Joker but about Arthur Fleck.
Speaking of, I don’t think Lady Gaga really adds a lot to this film. While she is in the film for a fairly decent amount, her contributions aren’t all that interesting. She serves as Arthur’s darkness, egging him on to become Joker, but the first film did that naturally through the treatment Arthur was experiencing. Making Lee the face of that feels unnecessary. Joaquin Phoenix still delivers a good performance – he did win an Oscar for this after all – but he’s not given that much material to work with. So much of his screen time is dedicated to the musical numbers, but once you’ve seen one fantasy dance number you’ve seen them all. It also means that we don’t get to have as many powerful moments throughout the film. Towards the end definitely, but not consistently.
Copyright: Warner Bros.
When I started this review, I asked why does this movie exist. Why would we get a sequel to Joker, a movie that didn’t need a sequel? And the answer, the obvious answer actually, is because it made money. The first film made a billion dollars, so let’s go at it again. Because of that, Joker: Folie a Deux can never fully escape the shadow of how obligatory it is. It recycles ideas, characters, and moments from the first film, but doesn’t know what else to say other than the same thing that the first film said. It does so more blatantly, which is definitely rubbing audiences the wrong way, and a part of me does respect the hell out of Todd Phillips for making a movie that is going to get him into hot water with audiences and critics, but the sequel doesn’t know how to escape from the first film’s shadow other than just leaning into it even more.
I wouldn’t call this film a disappointment. I would’ve had to have been looking forward to it in the first place to call it that. I also wouldn’t call it awful. Some parts work, like Phoenix’s performance, some of the scenes towards the end of the movie, and how morose the overall tone is. The thing is, that’s not saying anything I haven’t heard already in Joker. Joker: Folie a Deux is like a stand-up comic who told the same joke twice – we’ve heard it before and some people are going to be pissed the comic thinks so little of them to tell it twice, but even if the joke was hysterical, it’s not as funny the second time around.
