Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

I was one of many people who ended up enjoying Joker when it was released back in 2019. It was a divisive movie though, and many hated it. Surprising as it may seem, one of the people who seems to have hated it more than most is . . . director Todd Phillips. Well, to be more accurate, he seems to hate the character, and seems to hate how he has been held up as some icon of cool. And the people who use images of Joker and Harley Quinn to state "couple goals"? Yeah, Phillips hates you just as much, if not more so.

It's time for Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix reprising the role) to be put on trial. Having been imprisoned since the events of the last movie, Fleck has become a lightning rod for an uneasy population thinking they may have an anarchic hero to support and push forward like a giant wrecking ball. Arthur gets the attention of Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), the two sharing a love of daydreaming their way through some song and dance numbers, but this doesn't sit well with his lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener). None of this growing unrest, nor the celebrity prisoner's growing popularity, sits well with prison officer Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson), which essentially paints a large target on Arthur's back.

EVERYTHING that was good about Joker is destroyed here. Everything. And when I say destroyed I mean fully torn apart, shredded, pulped, shredded again, set on fire, and the ashes packed into a small rocket that is fired directly into the sun. Did you like the visual style? It's here again, but somehow feels like the lazy choice this time around, especially when it invaded even the scenes that should make use of some colour and light. Did you like the nihilism and misanthropy? It's here, but it's so constantly in your face that it feels like an angry toddler pulling on your ears as it screams Nietzsche quotes at you. Did you like the central character? You shouldn't, not according to Phillips anyway. Joker is a weak and pathetic victim, unexpectedly elevated to a position of power that he is absolutely unprepared for.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Phillips tries hard to make his disdain palpable in every scene. There are very few moments here that actually work in movie terms, and one of those atypical treats happens at the very beginning of the film (a bit of animation that hints at an anarchy and energy the rest of the film stubbornly refuses to revisit), and even the much-discussed musical numbers fall flat because a) Phillips refuses to commit to them, and b) they feel as if they're just present to deliberately repel anyone who enjoyed the first film. There's something slightly admirable about Phillips making use of the money and resources available to create such a huge Joker-topped pyre, but it also feels, well, just a bit rude.

At least there's a decent cast, and I don't really have any complaints about Gaga, Gleeson, Keener, Zazie Beetz, Steve Coogan, Harry Lawtey (as a rather bland Harvey Dent), and Leigh Gill. I do have complaints about Phoenix though, and the fact that he is still the main star means that his awful performance helps to damage the film in a way that I am sure Phillips actively encouraged. Phoenix is limp and lifeless throughout, except for the moments in which he deliberately chooses to overact and fool around. Everything he did so well in the first movie is alchemically transformed from gold to lead this time around.

Phillips, co-writing the screenplay once again with Scott Silver, does everything to ensure that this second film puts a handful of nails in the coffin of the main character. Both he and his leading man should be embarrassed by how bad this is, but I suspect they're already on to other projects without giving this a second thought. It's just fans who will be affected by it, fans of the Joker and/or fans of cinema. And Phillips couldn't be clearer about what he thinks of those people. Remember that the next time he works on something that he actually cares about.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Joker (2019)

Director Todd Phillips, who also co-wrote the screenplay for Joker with Scott Silver, isn't really someone you might associate with gritty and compelling psychological dramas. He sets out to change that here, and many people view it as an absolute success. I really like Joker, but there are two main points (maybe three) that drag it down slightly, which I will get to in due course.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Arthur Fleck, a man with some serious mental health issues, and a pretty poor quality of life. He wants to be a comedian, but he's not good at making people laugh. He may, however, be good at laughing while he plans to get revenge on people around him. But his fortunes may change if he gets the chance to appear on the chat show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro).

Okay, first of all, a lot of people have criticised Joker for being little more than a diluted mash-up/reworking of Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy. I'm not going to wield those reference points as weapons in any criticism of the film, because I feel that other great films can come from directors hewing close to past classics. This does go VERY close to both of those films, but there are so many worse films that Phillips could have had in his sights.

What works here, and works so well, is the performance from Phoenix. His portrayal of a man pushed further and further into the black pit of a complete mental breakdown is absolutely compelling. He's a superb Arthur Fleck. What he isn't, to me, is a superb Joker. I just don't see enough of that character in this interpretation, which is entirely to do with my own experience of the character through the years, from the comics to the TV show to the various movies. I am all for all of the praise being heaped upon Phoenix for his performance here. I just can't agree with anyone who labels him as the new gold standard for interpretations of the Joker (although nobody will ever be worse than Leto, I think that low point is safe).

There's also a good world created onscreen, a Gotham that is teeming with people who are struggling to get through their everyday lives. This is a pre-Batman Gotham. Not so much dark and full of convenient shadows, it's more like an interconnected set of glass cubes, each one oppressive and reeking of nicotine and potentially-contagious diseases.

The rest of the cast also do a great job. I'd be tempted to call them flawless if the casting of De Niro in his pivotal role didn't seem so much like an obvious stunt. He is good though, and has fun in his small amount of screentime, as is Zazie Beetz, the third point in the central triangle that the film creates. Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Shea Whigham, Marc Maron, and Douglas Hodge are on par with one another, portraying a mix of new characters and some you may be familiar with, albeit in a different guise.

These positives are enough to make this a very good movie, and it remains a very good movie, despite my three main problems with it. So bear that in mind, and let's move on to the negatives.

First up is the script. It's not terrible, by any means, but Phillips and Silver rely on the cast to elevate their words. Which the cast manage to do, seriously limiting the damage that could have been caused here.

My second and third main issues stem from the same thing so I'll just bundle them together here. This film has been hailed as an interesting departure from standard comic-book movies, it has been described as a scathing commentary on some major problems in the current climate in America. It's not. It's neither of those things, and that stems from Phillips giving himself an easier option when the opportunities arose. He made much of the fact that this was a standalone film, this Joker was different from what you'd seen before, and it didn't necessarily have to tie in to any DC movie universe. So why, WHY, even bring in the characters who make up the Wayne household? Those scenes feel like fan-service, they feel out of place, and they feel totally unearned (I know that doesn't seem like the right word, but it is, somehow). And as for the scathing commentary, I don't deny that Phillips works some very good points into the movie, and even has them at the heart of the whole thing, but he gives himself an "out" by setting it in the early 1980s. That allows him to shrug, it gives him plausible deniability, it really dulls what could have been a sharp, relevant message for people who may squirm when forced to look at the mirror being held up to modern society. Phillips decides not to commit to holding up the mirror, instead settling for a kaleidoscope. And everything looks a little better through a kaleidoscope.

There's plenty to like here, even plenty to admire, and it does feel like a more interesting film from Phillips than anything else he has done, to date. It's far from perfect though, and I think people have forgiven some mis-steps because they were impressed by the kaleidoscope.

8/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy the movie here.