‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ 2024: An Analysis (and why I loved it)

Ironically the poor reviews surrounding Todd Phillips’ ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ is what drew it to me even more. While I have great respect for the first film, I did not love it and found the sequel to be more engaging and interesting.

On the first film, there were elements that I liked and objectively appreciated, and Arthur’s bleak existence was masterfully portrayed by Phoenix. I was not a massive fan of the debate about Arthur’s paternity, I found it to be more akin to soap opera than serious, social commentary. It shifted the focus from Arthur to his mother and Thomas Wayne, when there was already an interesting enough story about social poverty there to work with. It was never going to be a film I would watch on repeat, and although personally I did not enjoy it, I respect it for what it tried to say.

Let’s start with the music. The film is not a musical in a conventional sense, it is a jukebox musical. This specific genre refers to a film that uses well known songs, there is no new music composed for the film. I think this worked well, especially because the music that was used was more on the retro side. And no, people are not bursting out into song and dance, a multitude of dancers in their wake. The music at times is not fully sung, it’s more spoken. It’s like speaking with rhythm, and definitely added a creepy edge. It moves the story onwards, and important plot points and emotions are conveyed through the words. It adds to the surreal feeling of the whole film and lets us into Arthur and Lee’s secret language. It strikes the balance between what the world sees, Joker, and what those in Arthur’s circle see, Lee and the audience. The songs are used to communicate intimacy between Arthur and Lee, as well as their most intimate feelings. It is very different, just as Arthur and Lee are different. It added a real surreal edge that subverts the realism of the first film.

People have noted that the sequel does not have much story – which I find quite strange. The whole film builds towards Arthur’s trial and tells the story of Arthur and Lee’s growing connection. Admittedly, there is not as much plot, twists, turns and violence that was in the first one, but I think this is why I partly I did not love it. All this stuff, plus the paternity twists did not feel that organic. This film to me, did feel organic, it allowed for a lot more breathing space than the first one did. And it does crescendo, it crescendos at the court house with the explosion. I am not sure what people expected the sequel would be about, if Arthur escaped prison and went on a killing spree, it would be too like the first film, and really, how much can you gain from that? It would just fall into the classic formula of villain causing havoc, has to be stopped. This one did have to be different, and organically followed what would come next after committing murder – prison and trial. While I believe that this is deserved, fans of the first film could argue that society is not listening or sympathising with Arthur again, and that Gotham has not learnt anything in the past five years. The film’s main problem is that it is not what the fans wanted. This sequel does not necessarily build on its predecessor, it subverts it and pulls the rug from under us, or specifically, from under fans of the first film.

Gaga’s Lee is the audience, she sycophantically worships Joker and wills his maniacal personality to break free. When Arthur goes against this, she goes against him. It’s very meta, and complex, as the film is aware of its own existence and criticises it. Should everything work to please the audience? Can we separate our own view and look at art objectively? I did note earlier that while the first film was not for me, I can appreciate it as a work of art. Objectively, if we look at Arthur, he is a murderer. Should we be supporting him?

The shock ending was foreshadowed from the very beginning. The animation of Arthur running away from his shadow, and the interchanging between shadow, Arthur and Joker speaks to Arthur’s identity struggle. He does not know who he is really, and these different personalities push and pull him. What does he want, what do other people want. We as an audience, like Lee have bought into this idea of the Joker. The first film champions him, this film goes into his mind further and tries to tell us what these multiple identities are like for him to manage. At the end of the day, the alter ego that is so beloved by the audience and Lee did some very bad things and is the one that is so revered. How does that make any sense in today’s world? Or today’s morality?

Instead of celebrating him, this film makes us realise that he is not a hero. He has brutally killed people at the end of the day. He is a person, who has done bad things. Granted, life did deal him a very cruel hand, but the decision to kill was his decision. He is not Joker, he is Arthur. This is what he confesses in court. He was never the Joker that we thought he was, the one that we think of from the comics, he is an iteration of that. The shock ending cements this, and makes a lot of sense. This Arthur is not a criminal mastermind, he is a man pushed to the point of desperation. He was never a hero; he was an unintentional cipher for the poor state that society was in. As poverty was thrust upon him, so was this reputation and martyrdom. While Arthur was active in his killings, he was passive up to this point, society acted upon him, he was used and abused by it. He never actively sought revolution. This version of Arthur does not want to be a major criminal or martyr, he just wants to be loved. Therefore, he is a Joker, but he is not THE Joker.

Like the first film it is making a statement, and the strong reaction against said statement does not mean that it is invalid. It just means that it is not what people want to hear.

My lasting thought is this: Arthur is not relevant at the end of the day, he never was. Only the Joker is. No one would care about Arthur if he was not the Joker, if he did not have that iconic make up. And that image is what endures. When Joker comes round again in whatever form, people will not remember Todd Phillips’ Arthur Fleck, they will remember Todd Phillips’ Joker.

Thanks for reading!