Joker: Folie à Deux: The Off-Balance Review.
Joker: Folie à Deux: The Off-Balance Review.
Send in the clown.
If you’ve been enjoying Off-Balance and haven’t yet, please do consider subscribing (for free) and becoming part of our growing community.
Additionally, if that’s not your speed, you can also do something a little more on the nose - potentially buying me a beer.
Either way? Thanks so much for reading and your continued support!
Until next time,
Ryan.
Even at their current crossroads of box office success and general creative apathy, superhero films still exist as broader cultural tentpoles. So setting out to reinvent that wheel, as it were, while fundamentally ambitious, comes with no guarantees.
With 2019’s Joker however, co-writer/director Todd Phillips and his larger team looked to (rather infamously) put their own stamp on the genre. A stripped back, human-interest origin story for the Batman villain, who, in most adaptions (including the source material) prides himself on going through each day without one.
And while Arthur Fleck’s descent from societal abandonment into criminality wasn’t lacking in impressive artistic flourish, from its score, cinematography and costuming, nor the resulting accolades (it won two Oscars, Best Original Score and Best Actor for star Joaquin Phoenix) it was, in its totality, a deeply polarizing movie.
Not a total misfire, at least on a base level but also rightfully criticized for its messaging, presentation of complex mental health issues and narrative delivery: in addition to the fact that, once you dug beyond the surface-level paint job, its framework was little more than a weak pastiche of far better movies (specifically in this case, Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy).
Yet that’s just it.
For all its billion-dollar success, divisive though it was, Joker was never intended to be franchise-starter, to have a sequel. But in our current entertainment ecosystem, no movie, no product, is made in a vacuum.
Joker’s follow-up though, Joker: Folie à Deux, which released earlier this month has seen itself besieged relentlessly: having flamed out at the box office, been panned almost universally by critics and audiences both and now, as of this writing, already looking to end its theatrical run after mere weeks, with an eye towards streaming.
The question is: is it that bad? As in, stepping back from the discourse, just enough, can one appreciate Folie à Deux on its own terms?
No, they probably can’t.
Folie à Deux picks up two years following the events of the first film, with Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) still incarcerated in Arkham, his trial date looming for his previously committed crimes.
As his lawyer (Catherine Keener) works to keep him off death row, Arthur has become something of a celebrity, both inside and outside Arkham’s walls. His Joker persona, having been elevated to figurehead status by both his fellow inmates and a vocal minority of Gothamites.
Yet routinely abused by a cohort of guards (led by Brendan Gleeson), his days, perhaps deservedly so, are bleak and unrelenting
But after meeting another Arkham inmate, Harleen “Lee” Quinnzel (Lady Gaga), he seems to discover his purpose once more - but to an end, Arthur soon learns, that is entirely unexpected.
It is a back-of-the-box setup that works well enough but as Folie à Deux‘s immediate reception can attest, it quickly becomes apparent that the movie has neither the interest nor the capability to carry such a story over its two-hour-plus running time.
Primarily, it wishes to be a meta commentary of sorts on those both within its world (of which the Joker films, to be clear, are entirely siloed from other DC projects) and a subset of its audience. Those who have propped up Arthur as some sort of martyr, a “misunderstood hero”, held back by the system.
On this count, if nothing else, it is successful (and correct). Phillips, co-writer Scott Silver and Folie à Deux as a whole, not leaving anything unsaid: he isn’t and those that think otherwise, they couldn’t be more wrong.
Though even with the movie’s third act and climax considered, where Arthur openly battles against that internal and external perception? Specifically when compared its predecessor, (controversy in that respect notwithstanding) it is as far as the movie choses to go, regarding any legitimate character work.
Rather, it is more concerned with an overall journey that lacks any substantial tissue and instead feels, at best, like a series of half-baked vignettes thrown together under various genre headings.
Yes, as widely discussed, Folie à Deux is a jukebox musical, the one proper through-line throughout. The musical segments between Arthur and Lee, some real, others imaginary, the crux of what is almost all of their shared screen time. But it is also wants to be a courtroom drama, a tense prison film and an exploratory dive into a deeply distributed man’s psyche.
It brings, however, none of those elements together, consistently, with any measure of success.
Is it a result of outsized, incorrect expectations?
Maybe.
Maybe there was the hope for some that any Joker sequel would go the (admittedly) obvious route in further building on those loose DC-canon adjacent threads the first movie put forward.
Arthur, coming to embrace his mantle as the “Clown Price of Crime” as he hurtled towards his back-and-forth destiny with The Batman.
No, that doesn’t happen here (even if Harry Lawtey’s Harvey Dent, dammed as he is, does hit his one expected note).
So you do need to give Phillips and his larger team credit, regardless, for going big, for swinging for the fences on their pure conceptual ideas, even if the end results reveal they were actively punching above their weight and come the mid-point of the move, aren’t that concerned with hiding it.
It is a lethargy that, most notably, extends to the performances.
On the supporting side, while Gleeson’s sadistic prison guard is an interesting foil to Arthur, there simply isn’t anything of substance there. The same goes for Keener’s lawyer character, Lawtey as Dent, Jacob Lofland as Ricky, an Arkham inmate or the few returning players from the first movie (Zazie Beetz and Leigh Gill).
As for the leads, while Phoenix does have a few moments worth acknowledging (Arthur, as Joker, representing himself in court is one highlight), he can’t recapture his Oscar winning form (by design, to some extent) but it also means that without the pure magnetism he previously displayed to anchor the project, its flaws, strong, if not stronger than before, become so much more apparent.
Gaga, as Lee, faces a similar dilemma in that there simply isn’t anything of note given to either her portrayal or Phillips and Silver’s writing of the character.
There is some intrigue, to be fair, in seeing the Harley/Joker dynamic be inverted from its traditional role, with Harley being the one in power, pulling the strings, the one subscribing to that “multiple choice”, origin story tactic.
It is an interpretation that is so wildly different from what Margot Robbie brought to the table in the now-defunct DCEU but Robbie, in Birds of Prey and 2021’s Suicide Squad, in particular brought so much passion and energy to her take on Harley. Specifically as a version of the character that had left Joker behind and firmly struck out on her own (as is the case both on the page and in HBO’s, Kaley Cuoco led, animated series).
Gaga’s Harley, in contrast, is a cipher.
A blank slate, without much in the way of personality or clear, understandable motives. While Gaga does have a strong presence (often, more so than Phoenix) and makes solid if unspectacular use of her somewhat limited screen time, her and Phoenix really don’t have much chemistry, a critical misstep that undermines virtually all of their shared story, in spite of itself.
To be frank, outside of the first Joker, given the fact that Phillips has built the bulk of his career on “frat house” style movies? To see him stumble repeatedly here, while it isn’t wholly surprising, even the musical segments, where Gaga specifically should be shining (you know, as one of the most celebrated pop stars on the planet, who also has an Oscar nomination on her resume) feel sterile and stilted, with weak choreography, staging and poor presentation.
Was it supposed to ironic, in a way? To a point, yeah, that argument could be believed, given the nature of the characters/story: though not for the amount of time the movie asks one to invest.
Phoenix too, who is no stranger to performing/singing on screen (albeit, almost twenty years ago now in Walk the Line) falls flat. No doubt a byproduct of his director simply operating too far out of his wheelhouse.
That though, ultimately, is something that defines the overall experience of Joker: Folie à Deux to a tee.
It is a mishmash of ideas that never come together, an aggressive, well-this-is-what-it-is approach that undermines the whole film, from beginning to end - even if the one point it clearly wanted to prove is done well.
Phillips has gone on record, saying that his time with DC and Joker has finished and given the way the movie concludes, so blunt, so tired, so disinterested in having anything more to say, this seems believable (at least creatively - millions are millions, after all).
A complete loss? Not quite no, if only by virtue of the work done by returning crew, cinematographer Lawrence Sher and composer Hildur Guðnadóttir, who bring an investment so much of the larger enterprise was lacking.
When all is said and done however, Folie à Deux seems to be the final, proper close for this era of DC movies. James Gunn’s Superman film, which is set for release next summer, will begin their new movie franchise, the DCU, in earnest (following the Creature Commandos series, which will begin streaming later this year).
But if Folie à Deux was supposed to be an appreciated curtain call, it failed, whatever the metric.
It is not an engaging character study, an enjoyable musical, an effective courtroom drama or an edge-of-your-seat prison film. It simply… is. Dour and dispirited.
Even as another counterargument to established superhero cinema?
Now there’s a joke.