Folly and Boo

Joker left me with many negative feelings. It’s not only the last movie I saw with my late-Zaidy, it’s also one of the last movies I saw in theatres before the pandemic hit. Additionally, it was a mega-phenomenon despite not being that good, even earning Joaquin Phoenix an Oscar win. So now that its sequel has a trailer, I have to wonder if people understand what they’re in for. Especially given how confusing said trailer is.

I don’t hate anyone for being excited. I’ve been excited about plenty of movies other people weren’t, and I was on-board with Joker before I discovered what it was about. If Joker: Folie à Deux’s up your alley, that’s your prerogative. My goal’s to give a take on a sequel to something that not only didn’t impress me, but actively infuriated me. Okay? Good.

To start, let’s talk about Joker. Despite being annoyed, I enjoyed Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of Arthur. I thought the material he had was garbage, but Phoenix is one of those actors who can make trash work. Every line, down to the mind-numbingly awful ones, was given believability because of him, and even scenes he improvised, like his slow dance following the murders on the subway, have enough poise to distract from everything else. If all else, Phoenix made this movie.

That said, Arthur’s an awfully-written character. I know the conceit is to show how society stigmatizes mental illnesses, but some of the decisions Arthur makes are embarrassing. At one point he states that he’s “stopped taking his meds”, saying he’s “never felt better”. As someone who briefly went off his meds in university, I guarantee you that the increase in appetite and brief bursts in energy weren’t worth the self-loathing and aggression that followed. Not since childhood had I been that vicious and nasty, and I fail to see how this movie romanticizing such a decision curries Arthur’s sympathies.

Additionally, Arthur’s…scary. And not in a sympathetic or clever way. I know he has an uncontrollable laugh, and that life hates him, but the difference between being miserable and controlling what you can is what creates sympathy. I know people, some personally, who’ve had plenty of awful thrown their way, giving them every excuse to be curmudgeons, and have taken this as an opportunity for growth. Perhaps they were blessed with excellent supports, but-wait, no. Even people I know who’ve taken their lives had tried being positive until the end, and this is despite their support circles. Having mental illness is an unfortunate problem, but being a monster is a choice.

Arthur fails to take control of his life, using each misgiving as an opportunity for revenge. When the businessmen mock him on the subway, he shoots them. When his colleague demeans him at work, he later kills him by stabbing him and ramming his head against a wall. Even Murray, the late-night host who mocks Arthur on TV, gets shot on air. The one person Arthur shows compassion to, a dwarf colleague, is infantilized. Arthur might be mentally-ill, but he’s not sympathetic.

When I initially ripped Joker apart, a lot of people misunderstood my intentions. It remains one of my more-popular pieces on The Whitly-Verse, right up there with my rant about Korrasami. I want to set the record straight: I dislike Joker vehemently. It’s a sloppily-written mess with a crappy lead, even if Phoenix elevates the material. It’s also insulting to people with mental health issues, and it’s an exercise in making me feel angry and guilty for feeling angry simultaneously. It’s not the worst movie I’ve seen, as it’s also uninteresting, but that doesn’t make me less annoyed.

I’m, therefore, not looking forward to Joker: Folie à Deux, as it looks to be doubling down on what I disliked about the original: a mentally-ill protagonist using their lot in life as a violence vehicle? Check. A love interest who exploits that? Check. A movie masking its lack of worthwhile commentary with ill-timed musical numbers? Double check.

Seriously, why’s this a musical? It’s possible there was mis-marketing with the trailer, but I’m not convinced Joker: Folie à Deux would benefit from being a musical any more than the first movie benefitted from being set in the 1980’s. Especially when the song choices shown so far are low-grade cover numbers from better movies. I’m sure Todd Phillips has something in mind with this, but I’m not sold. But there’s always the possibility of me being proven wrong…

Even the one aspect sure to get people talking, Lady Gaga, has me raising eyebrows. And look, no disrespect to Lady Gaga. She’s a talented singer and, going by A Star Is Born, a decent actress. I also think this material suits her. But the one aspect that’d work in this movie’s favour, having her manipulate Arthur in a subversion of the relationship between Joker and Harley, doesn’t seem like it’ll be fully-realized since it’s too sophisticated and clever for this franchise. Again, I could be proven wrong.

I’m not sure Joker: Folie à Deux even understands what made the original a phenomenon: the origins of one of DC’s greatest supervillains. I’m not against this in theory either, similarly to how I wasn’t against Joker in theory. But if you’re going to double down on the ideas of the original, awful as they were, you need to go full-on. You also need to have teeth with bite, something I doubt this movie will. That’s what I’m concerned about.

Again, I don’t want to diminish the anticipation of those looking forward to Joker: Folie à Deux. The world’s dark and scary at times, and movies, even awful ones, provide escapism. Considering The US is also in the middle of preparing for a major election, one with real stakes, a brief distraction from that isn’t unwarranted. But that doesn’t mean that I have to be excited. Because I’m not, and it’s important that people not misconstrue that…even if there’s a chance it’ll happen anyway.