*joker 2 spoilers below
a good 90% of the negative audience reviews for joker 2 are riddled with the most incredible you wouldnt get itâ˘ď¸ irony on planet earth but seeing folks react badly to folie a deuxâs ending has been especially baffling to me considering how perfectly i think it sums up the tragic absurdity of arthurâs character
in joker 2âs final act, arthur realizes that the publicâs âloveâ for joker is not only self-interested and conditional, but also built on the undeserved destruction of the two people in his life (gary and ricky) who actually liked him for him and not for joker. this inspires a final prevailing of conscience within arthur but instead of being rewarded for it in any way, he is then brutally cut down for not being sufficiently âjokerâ enough - first by leeâs rejection, then by the arkham inmateâs knife, and finally by joker 2âs infuriated mass audience who have now loudly confirmed that they have no interest in seeing arthur fleckâs faggy showtune fantasy world unless it ends with joker blowing somebodyâs head off
yet in choosing to end folie a deux as arthurâs story instead of jokerâs, todd allows arthur to retain his last shred of humanity as a character - something you would think joker 1 fans would be appreciative of if they were at all invested in arthurâs progression as a tragic anti-hero vs jokerâs. but todd seemed to understand better than anyone that thatâs never been the case, brilliantly setting up a scene in which arthurâs attorney asks lee a series of questions which fans of joker 1 must answer in order to fully enjoy the sequel: did you actually think arthur was going to face zero repercussions for killing 6 people? did you actually think life in an early 80s mental institution would be filled with anything but abuse and misery? did you actually want to see the complete destruction of a sick manâs soul in exchange for 2 hours of vicarious violence? did you ever actually like arthur fleck at all?
the first joker was such a popular film in part because it allowed its frustrated and disenfranchised audience to experience a cathartic sense of revenge against whatever oppressive political âsystemâ it was that they saw reflected in their own lives. but the reality is that both arthur and joker have always existed outside of these conversations. as joker tells murray before propelling arthur to accidental martydom, he is not a political actor. he has no ideological goal or understanding of class warfare. he is merely a lumpen symptom of late stage capitalism who offers no solutions to its agonies. in arthurâs miserable and troubled mind, his problems are not systemic but deeply personal. he is motivated solely by revenge and humiliation. it was always the audience who projected something more.
because at his core, arthur has never been the super cunning, hyper-masculine, or thoroughly ruthless joker character either gotham or his real life fanbase has imagined him to be. he has always been a pitiful freak stuck in arrested development, a nameless victim of poverty and abuse abandoned by capitalist bureaucracy, a visibly effeminate lover of song and dance tormented by a series of posturing strongmen, a hopeless romantic desperate to be loved by anybody in any way. and yet when arthur was finally presented with the only chance heâd ever have to be âlovedâ before the world, he chose to do the one thing his own abusers never did: consider the collateral damage of his own actions and take responsibility for them. arthur effectively ends joker 2 with a conscience and, in doing so, loses both his life and his audience. to me that makes folie a deuxâs ending the greatest joke of all time.
[SPOILERS] I had to come back here after a long break to see the reactions. This is an A+ analysis, absolutely on point. They did not make Joker weak. They did not have Joker suffer an inglorious death on the floor of a filthy asylum. They did not make Harley betray Joker, because Arthur was never the Joker and if that wasn't obvious after watching the first movie, I don't understand what you were watching. My hot take is that a lot of people are mad at this movie precisely because of the point it makes about superfandom. The Harley of this movie is a superfan, the kind of woman who drools over Wade Wilson and thinks she could have fixed Ted Bundy (or been his partner in crime). When she finally obtains her heart's desire, she discovers the prize she has won is a weak, emotionally fragile beta male with no experience with women who has no grand plan and was really just trying to get home from his crappy job without getting his ass kicked yet again. As the movie progresses, Lee does her best to stuff him into the box she's created for him in her fantasies. She tries to keep that image of him going even as she sees the opposite (a particularly telling scene is the one where she insists upon painting his face like the Joker before having sex with him. It's never been Arthur that she wants!) Arthur's not opposed to being the much cooler and sexier Joker, one of life's winners instead of the loser he has always been, in fact he wants it as much as she does, and he tries to put on that confident, no fucks given face -- but ultimately he just can't do it. It's not him. The sight of his former friend who is now on the stand, terrified of him, talking about how the trauma ruined his life, breaks him. When his true self reappears, Lee completely loses interest in the same way that a superfan of any serial killer would the first time he showed weakness, farted in front of her or couldn't get it up. None of this is a message that is going to make any friends among the DC fanboys who imagine that they could transform into the traditional Joker and enjoy a life of violence, cash and Margot Robbie in booty shorts.
I am an old school Harley & Joker fan who has always been able to enjoy them for exactly what they are without ever once, for a millisecond, thinking I might want to hook up with a terrorist in real life. I don't mind this story of Harley and Arthur one bit - I enjoyed it and would even go so far as to say I'd love to see another movie with Lady Gaga's Harley. I like how dark she was. I liked it better than Margot, although I admit I may be biased against Margot at this point for her opposition to any further JxHQ content. I don't know though, it just seemed more real to me - more believable. The true crime superfan who is disappointed in the reality of the man she idolized and goes on to live the fantasy as the protagonist and villain instead of the sidekick. It would be a great story to go on to show how she meets her match in the real Joker. I believe Lady Gaga's Harley could do the things HQ has done - murdering children, torturing people. It was always a little tough to buy coming from Margot who seems a little too cotton candy even when she's technically doing bad things. I'll probably never get to see more of this Harley after these box office numbers, and I'm truly sorry about that.
