Directed by Todd Phillips — Screenplay by Scott Silver & Todd Phillips.
Only a select few films in recent years have had as much controversy surrounding their release, and yet still been celebrated by the industry, as Todd Phillips’ Joker, which was a massive box office success and earned its star, Joaquin Phoenix, an Oscar for his fully committed performance as the iconic DC Comics clown. When, however, Todd Phillips’ Joker: Folie à Deux, the long-awaited sequel, was released last week, it was without that same controversy, without that same concern, and without that same celebration in the industry, with critics, or audiences. Box office-wise, it landed with a thud, and fans of the original film have almost uniformly rejected the sequel. So, what gives? Well, let’s just say, it sometimes feels like Todd Phillips’ sequel is bending over backwards to distance itself from the people who championed the first film. Despite including some DC Comics references, it almost couldn’t be farther from fan service. It makes for a strange endeavor, but a very interesting film.
In Todd Phillips’ Joker: Folie à Deux, we pick back up with Arthur Fleck (played by Joaquin Phoenix) as he is now in custody at Arkham State Hospital and awaiting his TV trial for the murders he committed in the original film. The former stand-up comedian has lost his smile, and he only regains it once he is allowed to take part in a musical therapy session with Arkham patient Harleen ‘Lee’ Quinzel (played by Lady Gaga), who he has an instant connection with. Their eventual blossoming relationship changes the trajectory of his case, as his attorney, Maryanne Stewart (played by Catherine Keener), now struggles to make the mental disorder defense that she had been planning, because Lee is working against said angle and her influence on Arthur is overwhelming. As the trial to decide his fate begins, Arthur has to decide whether or not to embrace the mad and death-dealing persona of ‘Joker’ that members of the public — including Lee — celebrate for all the wrong reasons.
I started the review by, among other things, stating that there hasn’t been the same type of controversy with the sequel as there was with the first film. However, one point of contention has been whether or not the film is a musical. It sounds silly, but, in a day and age when it certainly seems like marketing material is hiding certain movies’ musical elements, being labeled to be part of a genre that doesn’t have the largest movie theater-going fanbase is a serious concern. Director Todd Phillips pushed back against the idea that Folie à Deux was a musical, cinematographer Lawrence Sher pushed back against the idea, and, not that long ago, singer-songwriter-thespian Lady Gaga even claimed the film wasn’t a musical (even though she then went on to describe the film in a way that certainly made it sound like a musical). Well, since there seems to be some confusion here, let me be clear about the fact that, yes, Joker: Folie à Deux, whether they like it or not, is a musical. It is a dark and demanding jukebox musical (i.e. a musical film featuring songs made popular elsewhere previously) and a courtroom thriller. It is a bold new direction for the sequel to go in, and it isn’t the only daring and admirable thing about the sequel, as it is also basically a character deconstruction intended to subvert expectations in ways that’ll certainly challenge its core audience.
Notably, it also stands on its own two legs, so to speak, as it, unlike the first film, is not an unoriginal carbon copy of a better film. This was a breath of fresh air, to me, as the blatant unoriginality of the first film was my major point of frustration with it. Furthermore, with this more original and bold approach to a sequel (meaning the aforementioned character deconstruction and expectation subverting narrative) — and it being a musical, no less, which is a genre that I quite like — there were a lot of elements here that, at least on paper, really appealed to me. However, it is in the execution of things that the film struggles. Although, yes, there are some really interesting new and stylish visual choices made here — like a neat Looney Tunes-esque animated opening and certain relatively well-executed musical numbers — there are way too many times when the musical numbers lack pizzazz, dynamism, originality, or creativity. Put bluntly, there are far too many moments carried or marked by their musical interest that feel unnecessary or merely restate something that previous scenes had already made obvious (or which feature painfully obvious needledrops). In addition to this, the courtroom scenes, though occasionally gripping (with Leigh Gill’s appearance being the best scene of the bunch), suffer from the fact that the outcome always seems inevitable, from thinly drawn characters, and from the fact that these scenes are basically just going over everything we knew already from the first film (there are only really one or two scenes when it feels like the chaotic Joker makes his presence known). So, while, on paper, there are a fair number of interesting choices made, the execution lacks the desired effect on far too many occasions.
As this jukebox musical courtroom film has several underwhelming music-infused scenes and uninvolving courtroom developments, it’s not exactly on steady ground. Despite there being things about those elements that I like, the fact that Phillips underwhelms in his genre execution is my biggest disappointment with the film, but, I think, for many, the bigger problem will be the way Phillips’ film goes out of its way to check all of the boxes when it comes to crafting something its target audience likely wouldn’t ever enjoy. No one will be surprised by the fact that Phillips has continued to attempt to make a social realism-inspired take on the iconic titular character that focuses on a fragile and unstable individual and his sudden, violent, and disturbing misplaced stardom. But people will be surprised (and many will be offended or appalled) by how the film renounces the first film, its fans, and the comic book character by making the film’s key character smaller and smaller (making the character more impotent and incapable with very little agency or will) and outright distancing the sequel and the character from the title epithet. I think it’s understandable to feel like the film is a betrayal of what made the 2019 hit what it was (especially given some of its bleak, brutal, dark, and nihilistic scenes), but, at the same time, I think it is also a fascinating moment of meta-filmmaking in which Todd Phillips appears to be course correcting as a direct result of the public perception to his first film. Despite its faults, on first watch, I also found it to be an interesting interrogation of the first film’s anti-hero obsession and the audience that embraced it.
Again, despite its genre execution disappointments, it should be said that, in addition to Leigh Gill’s memorable appearance, Joaquin Phoenix also impresses in the title role yet again with the same amount of physical investment and dedication as beforehand, though I doubt it’ll lead to the same industry celebration this time around. Despite having less to do than I anticipated, Lady Gaga is also fairly good as this version of Harley Quinzel. Also, even though his character is relatively one-note, Brendan Gleeson is quite good as one of the prison guards at Arkham State Hospital. On a technical level, Lawrence Sher’s cinematography is one of the film’s key highlights. So, despite the issues that the vocal majority of the internet is running with, there are legitimate things to praise about this fascinating but also deeply flawed sequel. It may end up as a costly flop, but, at the end of the day, I think the film is a lot more fascinating than the online uproar would suggest.
5.7 out of 10
– Review Written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
I'm Jeffrey Rex 