Rating: R
Runtime: 2 hours, 18 minutes
Director: Todd Phillips
Quick Impressions:
Remember back when it was fun to be a Batman villain? Watching various film and TV projects, I always came away with the sense that in Gotham, the villains emerged from their confining origins like a butterfly bursting from its chrysalis. They became themselves by embracing evil, and then they finally started to live. Once you follow a character to the point of a mental breakdown and murder spree, there are really only two choices for where that character can go next, either 1) out of the box, off the rails, amoral extreme or 2) nowhere.
This movie chooses to pursue the second route which makes it not bad (because it makes sense), just disappointing (because it’s no fun). It frustrates not only audience expectations but also audience hopes and longings. You can’t come back from the kind of breakdown Arthur Fleck has in Joker and continue your normal life as if nothing has happened. In this kind of set up, you either become a supervillain or you just give up and die. This movie would be more fun if Arthur embraced his dark side and, you know, actually did something. Instead he again retreats into fantasy and ultimately can’t bear to wear the crown he’s created for his uneasy head. It’s realistic and true to the character presented in the first (and far stronger) Joker film. But it’s hardly a thrill ride for the audience.
Now I realize that an argument can be made that mental illness is not fun, (it’s certainly not!) that depicting it as a zany thrill ride is dishonest and irresponsible. I still think this Joker sequel gives us too much reality because reality for someone both impoverished and mentally ill is often depressing and demoralizing. Time and again, this sequel undermines its own potential by presenting an artistic vision with too much consistency and coherence. This is a plausible presentation of how Arthur Fleck’s adventures would continue, but given the grim realities facing him, did we really need a second film?
Folie à Deux is less bad than frustrating because given the strength of its cast and premise, it could have given us so much more. If you take a Best Picture nominated (and Best Actor winning) film about an iconic character and create a sequel by adding “colon Fascinating Psychological Phenomenon” and Lady Gaga as another iconic character, you’re promising the audience something awfully grand and profound that ultimately this film can’t quite pull off. It’s going to have its fans, though. For one thing, if you like Lady Gaga as an actress, you can only watch her in the movies she’s in, whether they’re hits or flops. Also, Joaquin Phoenix plays the character just like he did in the first film, and his compelling performance goes a long way toward saving the movie.
Joker: Folie à Deux might prove useful for students writing about Chicago or Heavenly Creatures and looking for related material to analyze in a footnote. That’s what I kept thinking as I watched. By the time my daughter and I got a chance to go, bad reviews and poor word of mouth already dominated the conversation about the movie. We went, anyway. Why let bad reviews keep me from a film I’ve been anticipating? Plus, we both love Lady Gaga. For a while, she dominated all my daughter’s playlists. Lately, she’s more into Hozier and Chappell Roan, but Gaga is still a sentimental favorite. I also enjoyed Phoenix’s performance in the first Joker enough to watch any time he reprises the character. Few titles this year have made me regret not being able to go to as many movies, but this one I did want to see, and we enjoyed watching. I see why audiences aren’t embracing this film, though.
At the end, I whispered to my daughter, “It’s a sad time we live in, when even the villains are too demoralized to break free of society’s shackles.”
And she whispered back her favorite refrain, “You don’t build mountains.” (Screenings would be enhanced by a game where you drink every time Lady Gaga talks about building a mountain.) Unless you’re Walt Disney, my daughter is right. You don’t build mountains. In this film, Joker and Harley don’t build much of anything, not even a case for his defense. It’s realistic. You think, Hmm what would happen if someone mentally ill represented himself at a murder trial? What happens here seems about right, though I must reiterate that it’s no fun.
The Good:
Folie à Deux is not without strengths. Phoenix’s performance is just as good as in the first film (despite material that seems much thinner). Small moments make a big impression. In one, the character sits for an interview, and Arthur peeks over at the camera in a way that only Phoenix’s Joker would. Watching him react to the painful testimony he hears in court is also a pleasure. And he performs well in the song and dance numbers, too.
Of course, Lady Gaga has a great voice and performs her songs well. She’s disappointing as Harley Quinn because the material lets her down. My daughter noted, “She just seems like Lady Gaga,” and we decided the film might be better titled Joker Meets Lady Gaga. (As we waited for a non-existent post credits scene, my daughter joked, “Lady Gaga Will Return.”)
Her character is underwritten (at moments I even thought poorly written). Harley needs more development, better dialogue, and (if nothing else) fewer lines about building a mountain. Despite the way the film is marketed, Harley doesn’t feel like a fully realized character standing alongside the Joker. She’s more like one aspect of his largely imagined interior world. Like many people, I love Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn. By comparison, this one feels flat. I don’t think it’s Lady Gaga’s fault, although if some unknown had played the role, I don’t think the results would be quite as disappointing. In some ways, Gaga seems like a natural fit for the character, but she’s criminally under-utilized, almost as if the director doesn’t know what to do with her as an actress. (At least she gets to sing.). Perhaps she is not the same caliber of actor as Phoenix, but Gaga is a good actress and has massive screen presence, and Harley Quinn is such a big character. None of that is coming across here, except possibly during the musical numbers. Gaga and Phoenix do have wonderful chemistry as they perform together, exchanging glances charged with meaning.
As a prison guard, Brendan Gleeson arguably has a better, meatier role than Gaga. (I joked, “I’m not sure why they did that. I don’t remember a character named Guardy Quinn.”) Gleeson’s turn as the guard does add some much needed heft to the scenes in Arkham. Frustratingly, I think the guard’s relationship with Fleck is deeper and richer, more ripe for analysis than the titular connection between Joker and Harley.
As in the first movie, Hildur Guonadottir’s score is compelling, though in this film it’s not as often heard and sometimes does not seem to mesh perfectly with all of the musical numbers. Overall, Lawrence Sher’s cinematography is strong, featuring many visual moments that make a strong impression.
Best Musical Number:
The fantasy musical sequence that takes place in the courtroom and concludes with Joker beating the judge with his gavel is incredibly strong. As a standalone work, it would be outstanding. Part of me wished that this bit were the movie.
I was also hoping that at this point the Joker’s dark fantasies would begin to become a twisted reality as he became a true criminal. That doesn’t happen, though, creating a deviation from genre expectations. (In fairness to the film, I will admit that maybe I was wrong to expect such things, given the grim realism of the first movie.)
Best Scene:
I truly enjoyed the entire trial, particularly because it lets us see the events of the first film from the points of view of the other characters involved. I especially liked his tense encounter with Larry Puddles (Leigh Gill).
Best Scene Visually:
The cartoon that begins the film is a lot of fun and is especially effective when juxtaposed with the bleak opening scenes at the correctional facility which follow. We also get a memorable image when Harley smears her lipstick into the shape of a smile on the glass of the visitation booth, and Arthur leans into the smile.
The Negatives:
1) You don’t build mountains. Batman movies already have some notoriously ridiculous lines (e.g. “Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it…”), so I guess this one is in good company. But all Harley ever gets to talk about is building a mountain. At one point, even an extra is like, “What is she talking about?” Possibly this lack of defined personal identity and goals is meant to be an accurate depiction of someone caught in a folie à deux relationship. But it’s still baffling and frustrating.
We just don’t learn enough about Harley’s character or about folie à deux. I was hoping for something more like Glenn Close’s portrayal of someone with borderline personality disorder in Fatal Attraction. Even movies like Rope or Heavenly Creatures get more energy from their disordered relationships than this film.
One thing I wanted was a match of Phoenix’s energy from Gaga, and I only felt I got that during their songs together. Now maybe that’s because the Harley of his imagination is more substantial than the flesh and blood woman. If that’s true then it’s another case of the film’s efficacy being undercut by its adherence to its own purity of vision. As a piece of art, it makes a coherent statement. But it would be more fun to watch if it deviated from its grim reality.
I know Gaga is capable of bringing the kind of energy I was looking for to the screen. I’ve seen her in A Star is Born and House of Gucci. And I see flashes of that kind of spark in her non-verbal moments in this film. Maybe it’s the dialogue that’s letting her down, or maybe, in part, the creative vision that Harley should be most “real” in the fantasy sequences. I get the point, but it’s not necessarily fun to watch.
Also some plot elements don’t quite make sense. I won’t call them plot holes, exactly, just large chunks of unexplained events (that seem to have potentially fascinating explanations being arbitrarily withheld from us.) How is Harley able to move about so freely all the time doing whatever she wants? Is it just that she’s rich? Her ability to open doors seems a bit hard to believe. And why does the judge keep saying, “Okay, I’ll allow it,” to each new ridiculous twist in the trial proceedings? I’m truly astonished that Catherine Keener’s character is the only one able to see that Arthur is very disturbed. The judge makes some pretty sketchy calls. If he doesn’t want his courtroom to turn into a circus, surely he could take some measures to prevent it.
I also wanted a bit more resolution with Gleeson’s guard. He’s a more interesting character than Harley, but the film might benefit from pushing a little harder on his development. I’m also not sure why Harvey Dent is in the movie except to remind us that we are in Gotham.
My daughter’s big complaint (other than the vague goofiness of Gaga’s obsession with building a mountain) is that the film seemed to be meticulously setting up an explosive second half that never arrived.
Overall:
My daughter and I enjoyed watching Joker: Folie à Deux, and I’m glad we went, but the movie does seem a bit like a misfire despite the talent involved and the conspicuously carefully crafted cohesion of its central character and message.
Thanks largely to our kids’ jam-packed schedules, we rarely have time to go to the movies these days, but I’m not sorry I saw this one despite its weaknesses. I’m not sure how many movies I’ll see this year, but I recently read Nightbitch, Conclave, and Nickel Boys, so hopefully I’ll be able to make it to those. If you like Phoenix’s take on Joker, you will see the character again. But if you’re a fan of Harley Quinn (as played by Margot Robbie), then this film will probably disappoint you. You may be better served by devoting the time to something else (unless your back-up plan is building a mountain. If you’re obsessed with that idea, then is this ever the movie for you!).