After $1 billion and 2 Oscars, ‘Joker’ is back (with songs). Our team weighs in.
The Monitor’s culture writer and its movie critic exchanged thoughts recently about the central tension in “Joker: Folie à Deux,” the sequel to the blockbuster, history-making “Joker.”
Their conversation is also a sequel of sorts. In 2019, the pair had a discussion about the original and the furor surrounding the violent antihero story. There were fears that the nihilistic movie would inspire someone to dress up as the titular character and embark on a shooting rampage at a cinema. It didn’t. Director Todd Phillips’ daring gambit became the first R-rated movie to gross over $1 billion.
Why We Wrote This
The supervillian origin story “Joker” broke box-office records in 2019 and raised questions about violence in storytelling. Five years later, with the debut of sequel “Joker: Folie à Deux,” the Monitor’s film critic and chief culture writer sit down to consider, What’s changed?
How will the sequel, which is a musical, land five years later? Our writers consider that, and how the follow-up film deals with themes of sensationalism and violence. They also discuss whether the director intended the second film as critique of the first.
“I think Todd Phillips has a great deal of reservations about fandom and the ways in which that can go wrong,” says film critic Peter Rainer, “the ways in which we can adulate celebrities, especially if they commit awful crimes.”
Superheroes have secret identities. In the sequel to “Joker,” opening this weekend, the supervillain has an identity crisis.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” once again stars Joaquin Phoenix, who won an Academy Award for the first film, as the man who becomes Batman’s nemesis. The origin story picks up where the first movie left off. Arthur Fleck, a.k.a. Joker, is in prison. The down-and-out loner has murdered people who’d made fun of him, including the host of a TV talk show. As the defendant’s court trial looms, he appears to be schizophrenic. Arthur has reverted to his earlier self – feeble, insecure, despondent. But he’s tempted to once again adopt the persona of the flamboyant villain. Especially once he falls in love with Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), a fellow inmate who is drawn to Joker’s celebrity. Yet is that his true identity?
The Monitor’s culture writer and its movie critic exchanged thoughts recently about this central tension in “Joker: Folie à Deux.” (The French subtitle translates as “Shared madness” or “Madness for two.”) Their conversation is also a sequel of sorts. In 2019, the pair had a discussion about “Joker” and the tumult surrounding the violent antihero story at the time. There were concerns that the nihilistic movie would inspire someone to dress up as the titular character and embark on a shooting rampage at a cinema. It didn’t. Director Todd Phillips’s daring gambit became the first R-rated movie to gross over $1 billion.
Why We Wrote This
The supervillian origin story “Joker” broke box-office records in 2019 and raised questions about violence in storytelling. Five years later, with the debut of sequel “Joker: Folie à Deux,” the Monitor’s film critic and chief culture writer sit down to consider, What’s changed?
How will the sequel, which is a musical, land five years later? The writers consider that, and how the followup film deals with themes of sensationalism and violence.
The following conversation and audio clips include a few spoilers, and have been edited for length and clarity.
Stephen Humphries (culture writer): I almost wondered if this movie was a response to the sensationalism that surrounded the release of “Joker” in 2019. It really was, in its own way, a media circus. There was so much furor and fear. I wondered if this movie was critiquing it in some way.
Peter Rainer (film critic): The fact that it took [the director] years to make this movie means he must have been thinking about all of that. He must have been reflecting on why the film was so successful and what that says about us and about the world. Based on the evidence of this movie, I think Todd Phillips has a great deal of reservations about fandom and the ways in which that can go wrong – the ways in which we can adulate celebrities, especially if they commit awful crimes.
And who are the people behind those crimes? They’re people. They’re not monsters. So he tries to humanize everyone in this movie, starting with Arthur. But everybody else, too, so that we’re looking at real people. We’re not looking at cartoon characters or superheroes. It’s definitely a response to the first film’s reaction by sort of doubling down on the hysteria that was created in that first film, by creating a new situation where you have these rabid fans who are calling this “the trial of the century.” The media is stirring up all of this bloodlust and wanting to see someone play out his role as the Joker – even though in many ways [Arthur] doesn’t want to do that, or doesn’t know how to do that, or doesn’t know who he is.
Stephen: I really admired that audacious choice of turning the sequel of “Joker” into a musical. And right from the get go, there are nods to classic musicals. For example, we see a movie poster for “Sweet Charity.” And there’s a strikingly beautiful overhead shot of colorful umbrellas, which is a nod to the 1960s French musical “The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.” Peter, back when we discussed the first movie, one of your criticisms of it then was that there wasn’t any countervailing lightness to the darkness of the story. So did you feel that the musical elements in the sequel offered a welcome contrast to the darker and more unsettling elements this time around?
Peter: Well, it’s interesting, Stephen, and I would say no. And because in a way you could argue, I could argue, that the musical numbers in the film only deepen the darkness because it shows you that this isn’t real. This is a fantasy. This is wish fulfillment of a happier time, of a happier life, which clearly does not exist in the world of Arthur Fleck or anyone in the movie, really. Gotham is about as dark as anything in “Blade Runner.” And I think, you have to ask yourself, why is this film a musical in the first place? I think that it’s because the director wanted to sort of leaven the darkness with some kind of spritz of at least joy.
But for me, it worked in reverse in a way, because I could definitely see what was being played out in the musical scenes, some of which are quite violent as well … and so it to me, it just was an indication of what was missing from this guy’s life, as opposed to what he aspired to and might achieve.
Stephen: Lady Gaga has considerable vocal and stylistic range. She’s the love interest in this film. At first they seem ideally suited to fall in love. They’re both loners. They both have a flair for the dramatic. Both enjoy putting on garish makeup. But as the movie progresses, we start to realize that there are substantial differences between the two of them.
Peter: We’re made to feel as totally enamored with him the first time they lock eyes. It’s a sort of classic movie moment where we know that they’re in love based on a glance. She incarcerated herself – contrary to the story she tells Arthur – in order to get close to him, in order to effect this romance. Arthur’s lawyer, played by Catherine Keener, is very intent on getting him a psychiatric discharge so that he can be put in a proper facility. She’s the one who tells Arthur that he’s being played by Lee. That she’s not who she seems. So [Lee’s] a very ambiguous character. She’s also, I think, representative of a disturbing trend that, you know, you hook onto a character in popular culture, or in politics, or wherever, because of their celebrity. And you become a rabid fan. That certainly was a part of the first film. It’s a part of this film, too, which is why Arthur’s trial is called “the trial of the century,” because so many people are attracted to his danger. I mean, he killed somebody on a talk show and yet that elevates him to superstardom. That’s saying a lot about the culture that we’re in.
Stephen: There’s a media circus in the courtroom. Everyone wants to see this clownish, larger-than-life villain. At a meta level, the audience watching “Joker 2” also wants to see that larger-than-life villain. I thought it was a very interesting critique of the public appetite for sensationalism. And the media’s willingness to provide it.
Peter: It also shows you the power of celebrity and the danger of celebrity. People want Arthur Fleck to be what, in a sense, he doesn’t want to be. He doesn’t know who he is, really. So we’re on edge the whole time, too. Is he faking it? The psychiatrist in the courtroom says he’s not schizophrenic. Or is he truly bonkers and not really aware of his identity switches? It’s unclear, also as it was in the first film, but I think perhaps less so in this movie. Is there blame to be cast as to why Arthur is the way that he is? Is it because of the world that he lives in? Is it because social services funds were cut – which was certainly true in the first film? How political is this movie? I think Todd Phillips backs away from some of those questions more so than in the first film and leaves it up to us to decide just why this man is the way he is.
Stephen: In comic books, the villains are literally cartoonish. In Batman movies, the hero is usually overshadowed by the villains, who are extravagantly flamboyant. What I found so refreshing in this movie is that it brings out the banality of evil. There’s a man behind the make up. He’s human. It made me think about how, in the real world, there’s often a fascination that people have with serial killers or with mass shooters in schools. There’s a fascination with the people who wield the knives or pull the triggers that overshadows attention to the victims.
Peter: Phoenix is a terrific actor and never once did I see him break character or wink at the audience or let on that he was playacting. I think the ambiguity of the character of Arthur Fleck is that he’s both a victim and a perpetrator. I couldn’t fall on either side of those. I certainly sympathized with his abusive upbringing and his mental illnesses. At the same time, you know, he killed people. So there’s that dichotomy where you have to sort of balance out one’s sympathies, which I think was intrinsic to the movie. If a lesser actor had played that role, I think the whole film might have fallen apart.
Stephen: I found the second half of the movie a bit of a slog. The courtroom sequences especially. Give me a classic episode of “Matlock” any day over this. That said, one of the best sequences in the movie was when Arthur Fleck, who’s now dressed up in the character of the Joker, has to confront a witness named Gary Puddles. He was someone that Arthur knew from work. Because Gary is a dwarf, people would make fun of his height. When Arthur kills two coworkers, he spares Gary’s life because Gary was one of the few people who was nice to him. But when Gary’s on the witness stand in the courtroom, he reveals that he’s terrified of Arthur now and he can’t sleep well. He can’t shake what he saw from his memory. Even though Arthur, in the guise of the Joker, cracks jokes and tries to avoid facing what is done, Gary is pointing out the horror of his acts. That raised some moral questions with Arthur having to grapple with his actions.
Peter: The problem I always have with movies that have a great deal of violence in them is not so much the violence per se, but the fact that we don’t see the consequences of the violence. At least this film is on the right side of that.
Stephen: It’s an unusual movie given that it’s a musical. And it’s not something you’d imagine would automatically appeal in some ways to a predominantly male audience that might be attracted to comic book blockbusters. But the first movie was such a huge success. Do you think that this movie will have a similar impact?
Peter: I don’t think so, only because I think in a lot of ways the first film fulfilled a lot of the expectations that its audience wanted. And we’re in a different world now. It’s years later. We have a presidential election coming up soon that’s going to suck a lot of the air out of the room. I think people may have moved on in some ways from the kind of controversies that [were] brought forward in the first film.
Stephen: I’d classify this movie as an ambitious folly. Even though it doesn’t quite work, I found the ideas in it interesting and I appreciated Todd Phillips taking a big swing and trying some unusual things. In mainstream blockbuster Hollywood, that’s something I’d love to see more of.
Peter: If one is ambitious, you can see this film on a double bill with “Megalopolis,” Francis Coppola’s film. And that would truly be a folie à deux!
