After his imprisonment in Arkham Asylum, still struggling with his dual personality, Arthur Fleck meets Harley Quinn, falls in love and goes to trial for the crimes he committed.
A superb masterpiece that rightfully disappoints the iconic villain’s fans. There is a ton of information to read online about how this film was made, the influences behind it, and how certain creative decisions were made. I will only focus on the creative choices that made Joker: Folie à Deux, that masterpiece that, ultimately, disappoints.
Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener and the rest of the cast are amazing. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s music is amazing. Lawrence Sher’s photography is amazing. Jeff Groth’s editing is amazing. Mark Friedberg’s production design is amazing. Lastly, Scott Silver’s script is amazing. This leaves us with director Todd Philips.
Philips created an audiovisual masterpiece, and both Jokers will be discussed personally, professionally, and academically in the coming years. Joker: Folie à Deux is stunning. I would dare to call it flawless, but there is this one flaw that damaged it irreparably, financially and critically. Ostensibly, you may think it’s the fact that he turned it into a musical, and you would be partially right. But I’ll be a tad more specific.
The musical parts would be unique in understanding what is happening in Fleck’s mind. You see sequences where, while singing and dancing, he commits atrocities while expressing his love for Quinn at the same time. That speaks volumes about his mental state and the way he perceives the world – the differences between reality and fantasy and the blurry lines that hardly distinguish them. I find that notion particularly challenging and intriguing – the way the performance and non-performance worlds combine and synthesise Fleck’s/Joker’s version of reality. Now, here’s the catch…
Philips turned the whole film into a musical, singing and dancing in both reality and fantasy, not separating the two. That was uncalled for. Questions such as “Who gave him the right to create that version? Why spend three times the budget of the original movie? What audience was he trying to attract?” filled up the internet. And then there was the ending… “He tricked the audience. In an attempt to go for the Oscars, he ruined the villain and made a film for himself and the main cast.” and so much more.
I have debated academically the question of who the filmmaker makes a film for. Is it the audience? Themselves? The film festivals? The distribution companies? I believe that’s a question worth answering before the filming stage. In this case? A film for the audience was not made for it. This is where Philips and Warner Bros paid the price. And, consequently, the audience for paying the ticket, only to see their favourite villain become an Oscar-bait product.
Depending on your expectations and where you stand, you will love it or loathe it. If you are a Joker fan, you will disappointed. If you are a musical fan, you will thoroughly enjoy it. But the question remains: Why did they do that to Joker?
P.S. I am a Joker fan.
Thank you for reading!
Please, don’t forget to share and subscribe. If you enjoy my work and dedication to films, please feel free to support me on https://www.patreon.com/kaygazpro. Any contribution is much appreciated and valued.
Solidarity for all the innocent lives who suffer the atrocities of war!
Stay safe!
