I was anticipating Joker: Folie à Deux as much as I was dreading it. After the tremendous success of the first film, the sequel was bound to be the talk of the town—but this time it’s for completely different reasons. From top to bottom, the film has been heavily criticized for its execution and choice of direction. Fans, too, are disappointed, with many finding it boring and not only inferior to its predecessor but downright pointless. While some aspects of these criticisms are well-founded, I’d like to take a slightly more nuanced view.
Folie à Deux begins two years after the events of the first movie, as Arthur Fleck awaits trial at Arkham State Hospital. There he meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, aka Harley Quinn, and what is love if not madness?
I admit, I was on my guard at the start. The film opens with an animated sequence and sets out the theme of the film, the figure of the double. A very risqué move that leaves the director with two choices: will he retrace his steps and give in to the whims of fans? Or will he subvert their expectations?
Fortunately for us, he chose the second option.
As in the first film, the setting grounds the spectator in reality. Todd Phillips expands on Arthur’s loneliness and the struggles of mental illness, touching on social issues like a lack of social safety, fanaticism, reactionary behaviour and police brutality. We follow the fallout of his attack in the first movie, the trial, and the impact the Joker as a figure had on the people around him. These sequences are interspersed with the Joker and Harley Quinn’s fantasies, depicted as funny little musical numbers. The production is as beautiful as the first one, the actors equally impressive, and Phillips’ meticulous attention to detail makes for a visual and auditory treat.
Many of the criticisms result from the fact that people don’t understand the intention of this film. It’s important to understand that the movie wasn’t meant to be, but it seems Phillips doesn’t like the cult that has been built around his character. Ever since his first appearance, the Joker has been turned into some sort of anti-hero and wrongfully condemned by the world because apparently, “he was kind of right.” The fervour surrounding him died down somewhat after what happened in 2012 at the Aurora theatre, but with the dawn of the manosphere in the last few years, the Joker has once again been symbolically adopted by the far right. The saying “we live in a society” is basically a cliché at this point.
Phillips’ Joker (like the others, you might say) wasn’t created to be worshiped. Joker: Folie à Deux is a response to that. It’s spiteful and reeks of pettiness, unflinching in its message and refusing to bend in front of this strange adulation. As expected, the audience didn’t like it. At all. The movie is a total box office flop, worse than Madame Web and even Morbius, which, frankly, makes me quite angry.
Granted, the film isn’t perfect; there’s no subtlety, and nothing is implied but rather screamed. Put simply, the first movie is about the Joker’s creation and evolution. In the end, after scratching the surface a little, we realize that all that remains is Arthur the Loser, who nobody cares about. The same idea applies here, but tenfold. Indeed, one of the most obvious lines in the movie is when Arthur admits, “there is no Joker.” There’s no room for interpretation.
In addition, the film verges on caricature, and if I may, sometimes appears even amateurish in the way it conveys its story. All of this makes it indeed seem redundant and lacking in depth. It’s particularly disappointing when put next to its predecessor, which expresses itself without prattling constantly. However, if media literacy is lacking, then what other choices does one have besides hammering everything in the most extravagant way possible just to get one’s point across?
Also, a lot of people criticize the fact that, even though Todd Phillips and Lady Gaga were reluctant to refer to it as such, it’s a semi-musical—or, as Wikipedia calls it, a “jukebox musical psychological thriller”. It pays homage to musicals of the 70s and 80s, notably Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy—which ironically came out in similar political circumstances. It was risky for sure (musicals aren’t the most popular of films these days, after all), but personally, I didn’t find it as out of place as some critics said. The songs are pretty good, serving a narrative purpose that blends perfectly into the aesthetic of the film.
Overall, Joker: Folie à Deux is worth the trouble. Yes, it’s kind of crude in its messaging, and sure, it may not be comparable to the first one, but it’s not as bad as people make it seem. Todd Phillips took a character that’s been perverted into a false idol of revolution and anarchy and managed to transform him into a more empathetic persona. I’ve never really liked the Joker as a character and stayed as far away as I could from the DC fandom in general (especially because of Zack Snyder) but surprisingly, I developed a certain fondness for this one; in fact, the first movie motivated me to finally watch the Dark Knight Trilogy and encouraged me to see the last Batman movie that came out in 2022.
The fact that this character has been grounded in a tangible reality and that instead of the Joker, we are confronting Arthur in all his vulnerability and pathos renders his overall persona more nuanced. Clearly not the worst film of the year, and certainly not worse than Morbius. I personally like how the movie ends and the fact that Todd Phillips closes this saga—if I can call it that—the way he does. His Joker was doomed anyway. There’s no universe in which he could have existed, and I’m glad he at last closed the curtains before its downfall.