“Joker: Folie à Deux” Review
Lady Gaga (Left) and Joaquin Phoenix star in "Joker: Folie à Deux" as Harley Quinn and the titular clown prince of crime in this long-awaited sequel to the 2019 blockbuster.
One of my all-time favorite musical films is the 1979 Bob Fosse classic “All That Jazz”. Heavily based on Fosse’s own experiences, particularly with his attempts to balance the editing of his film “Lenny” with the direction of the musical “Chicago”, the film is a hellish musical depiction of a man working himself to death, partly out of a dedication to his art and partly out of a mad quest to destroy himself. It’s a fascinating look into the psyche of a damaged artist that culminates with an eight-minute musical finale “Bye Bye Life” which is as close to magnificently dark as a musical can get.
Watching “Joker: Folie à Deux”, the sequel to the massively successful 2019 comic book adaptation of Batman’s most famous foe, gave me an experience that I found very similar to “All That Jazz” and that elated me as a fan of musicals, comic book films and investing character studies. While the film has, understandably, polarized critics and audiences alike, I find myself in the minority of people who love this sequel for the chances it takes and for the way it tells its disturbing and darkly comical story.
Set two years after the previous film in 1983 Gotham City, Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is being held in Arkham State Hospital to await trial for his crimes which include shooting a talk show host dead on live television while dressed as a killer clown simply called “Joker.” With his main defense being that he has a split personality and that he should not be found guilty by reason of insanity, Arthur appears to be non-responsive to his surroundings. However, all of that changes when he encounters another patient named Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga) with the pair becoming romantically involved, attracting even more media attention on his already well-publicized trial. Along with a series of imaginary musical sequences, Arthur must defend himself and decide whether he truly wants to embrace the Joker persona that made him an infamous icon.
It really is remarkable how the first “Joker” film seemed to take over the world. Despite being based on a famous comic book character and being released at a time when a comic book film became the highest grossing film of all time, very few people expected an R-rated Batman villain origin story that was not set in any cinematic universe and didn’t even have Batman in it to be a largely successful film. However, because everyone was underestimating it, writer/director Todd Phillips and writer Scott Silver made a deeply engrossing and terrifying tale that really left an impact with audiences to the point where it became the highest grossing R-rated film of all time for five years (recently being surpassed by “Deadpool & Wolverine”) as well as won Academy Awards for Best Actor (Joaquin Phoenix) and Best Original Score (Hildur Guðnadóttir).
The film’s themes of mental illness, violence and society’s failures with healthcare and social safety nets all sparked a lot of conversations and garnered many fans, some of which probably took the wrong message from the film by heavily identifying with Arthur Fleck and his crimes. While the film does a remarkable job with making you understand Arthur’s behavior, walking away from the film with a sense of admiration for its protagonist is probably not the healthiest outlook to have on life.
Initially, I was apprehensive about the idea of a sequel to this film when studio heads and Todd Phillips started considering the idea in 2019. It just seemed pointless since “Joker” was a pretty self-contained story. However, when I heard it would be a musical film with the song sequences all in the head of the psychotic protagonist, that’s when my tune started to change, especially when I saw a teaser image that referenced the French classic “The Umbrellas of Cherbourg”. Good or bad, “Joker: Folie à Deux” was going to take some big swings.
Since the film revolves around the court case, most of the story is set in Arkham or a courtroom. However, Phillips and returning cinematographer Lawrence Sher keep things visually interesting for the characters while also going full blast with the creative musical sequences that showcase Lady Gaga’s immense musical talent and Phoenix's return to music after playing Johnny Cash in “Walk The Line”. While both of these performers do have to hold back some of their vocal range for the sake of their characters (it would be weird if Lady Gaga’s Harley Quinn could sing as well as in “A Star is Born” and if Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck had jaw-dropping musical chops), their singing and especially their choreography still managed to win me over.
Some critics of this film have said that the musical sequences, largely based on already existing songs, don’t further the story and make the film feel disjointed but I would argue that they not only provide Arthur with a sense of escape (in the same way that dazzling musical sequences like “Broadway Melody” from “Singin’ in the Rain” did) but they also can be disjointed since the character isn’t mentally well. After all, the Joker has come out of nowhere with disturbing musical numbers before in past stories, including one of his most famous storylines with “The Killing Joke”. Some fans might be put off by the idea of this being a musical but is it that big of a stretch? In the first film, we saw Arthur dance multiple times to Guðnadóttir’s score and songs by Gary Glitter (who’s still more disgusting than a mass murderer like The Joker) and Frank Sinatra so why can’t he sing too?
Several of these musical numbers are insanely memorable with notable standouts including a tap dance number set to “Gonna Build a Mountain” and a particularly twisted rendition of “Close to You”. These sequences ultimately made the film work by not only giving us a different side of Arthur’s mind but also in giving this sequel an identity all its own. Of course, while not as prominent as her Academy Award winning score from the first film, Hildur Guðnadóttir’s score still elicited chills from me during the sequences set in the realm of reality.
Even without the musical sequences, “Joker: Folie à Deux” still captivates with an impressive reprisal by Phoenix who continues to astonish in this role. While Joker made him an icon amongst the downtrodden and disillusioned working class, Arthur spends the whole film contemplating if this clown persona is really what he wants. It’s almost as if he’s being torn between two sides of himself although not in a literal manner like his legal defender is suggesting. Arthur Fleck’s crimes can be described in many ways but not the work of a split personality. That would better be left to Harvey Dent (Harry Lawtey) who has a role in the film as the prosecutor in Fleck’s trial. This struggle is one of pure emotion and placing a shot of adrenaline into that fight is Lady Gaga’s excellent turn as Harley Quinn, a name she only has during Arthur’s musical fantasies.
With crazy levels of chemistry (both in their pairing and their psychotic tendencies), Gaga and Phoenix breathe new life into two of the most iconic characters in comic book history.
After delivering a solid performance in the somewhat underwhelming “House of Gucci”, Lady Gaga returns to cinematic acting in a killer performance. While there has been some criticism that Gaga was underutilized in the film, I think that she’s in the film for just the right amount of time without overshadowing the Joker. While there have been plenty of stories where Harley Quinn takes the lead (including all three of her cinematic appearances where she’s played by Margot Robbie in the DCEU), it’s important to know that the character started off as the Joker’s love interest and henchwoman in “Batman: The Animated Series” and that’s what her role is in this film. She’s the catalyst, the spark that brings the Joker back out. She’s the human version of the chemical bath that we all know so well from comic book lore. But that doesn’t mean that Gaga doesn’t have her own agency. She absolutely does with a multitude of scenes that sent chills down my spine. Despite not having the suit, accent and other notable trademarks of the character, Gaga brings this gritty version of Harley Quinn to full force with a committed obsession and a series of character twists that were shocking.
Since this sequel is centered around the consequences of Arthur’s actions, it would be too easy to have the film just retread what the audience already knows but this material is approached quite well because of how effective those consequences actually are. There are a couple of characters from the first film who return to deliver testimony and one of them, Arthur’s former coworker Gary (Leigh Gill), delivers a brief performance that is so effective that it had me completely transfixed with his emotional range. Throughout the film, there are numerous scenes that had me covering my mouth with how well they were handled. If the first film was about how a monster is created, this film deals with how we love to exploit these people with their publicized trials, tell-all books and various television specials and interviews. “Joker: Folie à Deux” not only points the finger at the audience for getting a sick enjoyment from this spectacle but also for how this scenario doesn’t help people like Arthur, it only makes them more detached from reality.
While the musical sequences and slow pacing (which I felt was on par with the original) might be factors in the polarized reception of the film, it’s the explosive third act that will really make the difference for people. Despite having an overwhelmingly positive opinion of “Joker: Folie à Deux”, I do have to concede to the film’s current Rotten Tomatoes score of 33%. I really only think that a third of the audience will like this film due to its ending but here is why I enjoyed it. The way the ending is structured not only makes sense to me from a character standpoint but it also feels like a joke. A sick, dark, twisted joke that only The Joker could come up with. But all of Joker’s gags need an audience and someone who is the victim of his action. In this case, the joke is on the audience. Without giving anything away, we have spent the last five years searching for meaning in Arthur’s crimes the same way the people of Gotham in these films have. Some of us have idolized Joker, others have become repulsed by him but we all are drawn to the reasons for his behavior and if they have a deeper meaning. What the ending of “Folie à Deux” has done is take all of our expectations and completely subvert them while still being true to the chaotic nature of this character. This is a joke on the audience and, truth be told, I found it funny. When I left my screening, some of my audience members had looks of confusion, others disgust and some seemed satisfied. I had to hide my smile so that no one would think I was a complete lunatic. I got the joke.
However, I can still understand why fans of the first film would object to this ending and it’s not because they’re all psychotic incels who have a bizarre obsession with this character. Most people who like “Joker” like it for the same reasons I do: its disturbing character study, the brilliant visuals and the fact that it made “The King of Comedy”, one of its chief influences, popular. Seriously, I can’t even say that “The King of Comedy” is Martin Scorsese’s most underrated film because of how popular it’s become in the last five years. The ball’s now in the court of “After Hours”. But strangely, the more people are confused or angered by the ending, the more I enjoy it and find it funny. It’s like a chilling version of Andy Kaufman’s “Mighty Mouse Theme” bit. Which is more funny? The actual routine in its brilliant execution or the fact that half the audience is confused about what’s supposed to be funny?
While I can’t say this is a superior sequel, I found that I loved “Joker: Folie à Deux” for the reasons I thought I would as well as a few fascinating qualities that made me consider the whole series. I had to remind myself at various points that this was even a comic book film. Not because it’s ashamed to be an adaptation of a supervillain but because it just takes such a different turn that you normally wouldn’t expect from a $200 million film based on a DC Comics character. It’s polarizing and won’t win everyone over but it has a fan in me and I would recommend that fans of the first film take the risk and see if they find the overall joke, as horrifying as it may be, just the slightest bit funny.
