Joker: Folie a Deux

I still can’t quite get to grips with what my thoughts are on Joker: Folie a Deux.

The sensationalism and wildly contrasting opinions make clear what was always going to be the case: that this is a hugely divisive film.

The undertaking in itself was unexpected and arguably unnecessary. I remember writing in a review of the first film that it ‘felt worryingly like a one off’ but sometimes you should be careful what you wish for and sometimes that scarcity and that open ended nature gives an extra layer to an experience.

Earlier this year, Furiosa managed to achieve the impossible and was a worthy follow up to Mad Max: Fury Road. Prior to this, Blade Runner 2049 and T2: Trainspotting also followed up ‘unfollowable’ movies.

Folie a Deux, for all its good and bad, simply does not stack up to these examples as a follow up to the first film in any way you cut it.

Now, there are plenty of badly made superhero movies and let’s be very clear: this is not one of them.

It is far too beautiful and filled with iconic moments to mark it out as any sort of dud in a purely cinematic sense. It is also incredibly brave and, frankly, it’s mad that DC even allowed its release at all. This is to their credit by the way given their current reputation.

Having said that, I’m not really sure what the point of it all is. It’s all over the place and never settles on what it wants to be.

The first film had a clear directive, a clear purpose and a clear message. It was a wildly bold take on an iconic character and, whilst helped by the cultural moment it was released into, captured imaginations and sparked wild debate. It was the right film at the right time and still stands as a comic book movie masterpiece.

Todd Phillips doesn’t know what this film and what this character is now meant to say in 2024. Is it a ‘screw you’ to the mass audience who took the first film to a billion-dollar box office? Is it some sort of treatise on how the media will bottle up and sell anything to you, the public? Is it a messy rug pull designed to provoke fans?

It’s just all too easy to pick apart. Arthur Fleck is now a moping, medicated inmate of Arkham who is manipulated into turning back into the Joker for his impending criminal trial by Harley Quinn.

This is the bones of what should be an inspiring middle part of a trilogy but, instead, we watch, over the course of nearly two and a half hours, Harley get pushed further and further to the edges of the story, Harvey Dent be introduced to no effect, Arthur find his inner Joker to no effect, a media circus and band of ‘followers’ subtext which goes nowhere and an ending which is simply insulting to any fan of this character.

The musical elements which have been some of the largest sticks with which to beat the film are actually some of the best moments.

The ‘dream’ sequences and bigger numbers are easily the movie’s highlights and are filled with stunning imagery and hair raising scenes. They articulate Arthur’s inner thoughts well and really stand out in the history of comic book movies.

There’s something of the animated series Joker here (aided by the superb animated sequence which opens the film) and it takes this pairing of films further away from Heath Ledger’s version of the character. Some of it works brilliantly, recalling some of Mark Hamill’s best moments in the role, and does feel on occasion like a very good ‘Joker’ movie.

However, giving so much of the film to song does scupper any sense of momentum. Don’t get me wrong, the film hardly gets itself anywhere but there are points where it seems like Harley can’t just read a line and has to burst into song every time the camera pans to her. This has a noticeable effect on the cinema audience and may be better realised in a second watch from home.

There’s a great version of the character somewhere in here. Lady Gaga does so much right with the role but she is let down by a film that can’t decide what to do with her. Given the elements of the trailer not present in the finished article, perhaps another version of the film exists that does better by her.

Likewise, Joaquin Phoenix is again imperious in the title role. His first sequel and off the back of an Oscar for the first, he can again do so much with a look and can flip a scene on a dime from funny to tragic to heart-breaking but he is let down by a story that doesn’t decide what to do with Arthur and doesn’t take him out of the prison or the courtroom for nearly enough time.

So yes it is incredibly brave. Yes, bringing something different to the genre, the character and the cinema is to be appreciated and there is absolutely nothing wrong with causing debate or extreme opinions.

However, when your two and a half hour sequel to one of the best received, starkly bold, tightly-honed and prescient film can’t decide what it wants to be. When its ending goes beyond ‘debatable’ to just upsetting. When the film can look so good but feel long and confusing and unsure of itself then something is wrong.

Whether down to the boardroom, the edit, the writing, the idea, the fans, the backlash, the pressure, the expectation or the name Joker (but the music is way down the bottom of that list) something is not right with Joker: Folie a Deux. In five years’ time, we might be looking at a lost classic remembered for its bravery or a punchline on one of the best cinematic legacies of them all.

In the moment, there is only unresolved feelings.

⭐️⭐️⭐️ or ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (ask me in five years)