Here I go again! Watching and reviewing a movie with a near-unanimous audience opinion, and throwing in a contrarian view just to feel like I’m a unique, special boy! This time, it’s with Joker: Folie à Deux, a movie so bad it was forgettable.
A Swing and Amiss
One of the most jarring parts of Joker: Folie à Deux, which will now be cited as J2, is that the director, Todd Phillips, leaned so far into the musical themes of the first film that J2 turns into a full-blown musical. Where Joker boasted an incredible soundtrack that framed the disturbing and complex emotional changes and turmoil within Joker, this film decided to do something different.
I’m not opposed to the idea. I just don’t think this idea was well-informed. See, they went the Bollywood route with this movie. Yep. Joker: Folie à Deux is actually an English-languaged Bollywood movie.
Bollywood movies are, 90% of the time, a musical. Regardless of the genre, there will be at least one song where people sing and dance their emotions, usually when they’re falling in love or feeling some sort of emotional change. The reason why Indian movies all have song and dance in them is not relevant and far too broad for this review, but, in short, Bollywood movies are musicals because Bollywood movies are all about entertainment. The more pop-culture relevant, the more widely accessible, the more bereft of thematic complications, the more likely it is for a movie to have the protagonist do a little jig. On the other hand, if the film is serious, realistic, complicated, or otherwise a true narrative effort, the film will rarely, if ever, throw in a dance number. Entertainment slop? Dance monkey. High brow and thoughtful? Google “dance antonym”.
So when J2 thought wanted to try something new, something new for Hollywood, something routine for Bollywood, the dude didn’t really do his fucking homework, did he? It’s fine to take a swing, but it’s not fine to take a swing without knowing what you’re doing. And if Phillips had realized that his little innovative experiment had been done by Brown people since the 60s, he may have realized that a movie about murder, mental illness, prison violence, loneliness, delusion, and symbols that impact society was not a good fit for a little song and dance.
In fact, it’s goddamn lazy to shortcut emotional development by having Joker sing about his feelings. It’s obvious. On the nose. In-key, yes, but lacks any subtly or realism. It’s an absolute clash of tone and a misunderstanding of what made the first Joker and the film’s relationship to dance and music so unique.
What a waste of Hildur Guðnadóttir.
A Snotty Contrarian Opinion
Ok, here it is. Here’s where I say, “guys you were wrong or stupid and I am right and smart”. Ready? Here goes.
Ok I’m just fucking with you, I don’t really have a contrarian view. The movie sucks in so many ways. Aside from being an uninformed musical, I really disliked this movie as a continuation from the first Joker.
The predecessor film was an incredible film that managed to weave together Arthur’s feelings of loneliness and delusion, his struggle with finding a meaning to his life and existence, a Gotham that was so abjectly miserable and dirty, a society (hehe) with extreme and visually clear wealth disparity, and how Joker’s actions catalyzed the poor and unfortunate. The narrative itself was so muted and intricate, the plot points so ambiguous, that as a viewer you get drawn into the hazy delusion of Arthur’s transformation into the Joker.
From both a comic book and narrative perspective, the film is fucking magnificent. Add to that Hildur’s incredible score, and Joaquin Phoenix’s incredible acting, and the movie earns its dance scenes. And that’s what Phillips probably got caught up on. Yeah, I’m sure he’s like, “uhm akschually, Joker was also a musical because Joker danced to music only he heard, and we uhm just took that concept and cranked it to 11 in Joker 2”.
It’s a damn shame that J2 misses the scope of the first film. Mostly contained within Arkham Asylum, Joker has reverted to Arthur, and he’s just cowering in a corner, waiting for his conviction. It’s pathetic. Maybe that’s the point. Then Harley Quinn shows up, he gets a little more crazy, and there’s some courtroom drama. But it’s not like, a lawyer asks questions that lead hostile witnesses to say something supporting. It’s not that clever. The courtroom scenes are just a rehash of the first movie. There’s nothing new to any of those discussions. No new revelations, no new feelings, no new perspectives. On top of that, the smaller scale of the film meant that Joker’s impact on the outside world is relegated to lazy TV news excerpts and a finale where Arthur fully rejects the Joker, but succumbs to his delusions, and then dies back at Arkham.
I don’t necessarily think that the ending, the very ending, conceptually, was wrong. I don’t think it’s too far-fetched that Arthur is killed by an unnamed psychopath who steals the moniker of Joker. It actually makes a lot of sense, in the context of the first Joker movie, that “The Joker” is just an idea, an idea that, like “The Batman”, takes a life of its own in the hearts and minds of people. That Arthur never really controlled the impact of the Joker on the people, and when the time was right, he was disposed of a vessel for the idea.
In fact, I don’t really even hate the idea that Arthur himself rejects the Joker. I just don’t think that the rest of the movie had anything to say. It was a meandering, uninspired, and self-indulgent cacophony.
Conclusion
Given the rest of Todd Phillips’ filmography, I think the guy had lightning in a bottle with Joker and should never, ever be taken seriously again. The man has no idea what he’s doing and just got lucky this one time. I rate Joker: Folie à Deux
BAD
I watched Joker: Folie à Deux on HBO.
Leave a Reply