Mark Kermode reviews Joker: Folie à Deux - Kermode and Mayo's Take

#MarkKermode #SimonMayo #FilmReviews

Arthur Fleck is institutionalized at Arkham, awaiting trial for his crimes as Joker. While struggling with his dual identity, Arthur not only stumbles upon true love, but also finds the music that's always been inside him.

[RuddFoxx]

People who like extremely sad movies like Dancer in the Dark might like this. If you think about it, its this story about a abused mentally ill forgotten middle aged man, who just decided one day to strike back at his oppressors and then started a riot because he inspired other like minded people and it enflamed into this serious problem. The second movie says he gets arrested, sent to prison, deconstructed, further abused and then churned through a media trial because that is the reality of what happens to guys like Arthur Fleck. Mayo was right, the musical elements made the movie much sadder. In Arthurs head he lives in delusions that he is now some major league broadway celebrity star and everyone will love him and his hopes and dreams and emotions and Arthurs addiction to needing love is all in the songs. At the end he was none of that and pays the penalty.

Why people are mad is because they wanted to see the abused win over the abusers although if he had won and then became a major figure, cult leader or something like that wouldn't Arthur be just another massive abuser? Joker 2's point is to show the truth of how it would be for Arthur and how guys like this get dispensed with. The film critiques the thinking that mentally ill people have that says murdering their way out of their situation works. But it never ever works. Its like the mass shooters in the USA always think "at least I won't be forgotten" you are ALL forgotten but you hurt a lot of people. The thought Arthur had that he could murder his way out of his sadness along with Harley Quinn for believing in that ideal is the Folie a Deux the film is named for. The film is being attacked for not advancing the plot of the character. The plot advanced it just advanced to attacking what Arthur Fleck represents. Part one was "why do people go crazy and is it moral to go crazy when you are abused" part two was filmmakers taking a stand and saying "yes, even abused people should not murder others even if its understandable".

The story still had a point at the end but it also didn't indulge the people who wanted to see JOKER get to be super evil and have fun and blast through Gotham and get true revenge and success.
Joker 2 has a viewpoint and a moral and it deserves to be appreciated that way, you can still hate the movie but at least see it like that. The filmmakers were saying a) its true society creates monsters through abuse and neglect b) the monsters are still delusional if they believe they can be heroes c) what they did is still evil even if its out of revenge

I wrote all this essay and nobody will read it lol sorry I just got passionate on defending the movie after I saw it. I think I would give 8/10 realizing its deep flaws but admiring the bravery of not just giving people a soulless blockbuster where Joker and Batman fight again.

[robertpetre]

One of the only positive reviews I’ve seen for this film so far 😅

[eliotmccann]

Kermode's patented "Here's the thing" first drops at 1:29

[danielplainview]

I still don't think Joker needed a sequel.

[stevekasan]

I found the film as a companion to the first. I liked that musical numbers at times are not that good because it shouldnt. This is Arthurs way of coping with what is happening to him.

[diamonddavewonfor]

Literally the only two critics who think it's superior.

[axebeard]

I have lived a life very similar to Arthur's (minus the murdering). I suffered childhood abuse. I experienced severe trauma in the Army leading to PTSD. My PTSD and Bipolar depression were misdiagnosed for 30 and 28 years respectively. Due to the misdiagnoses, I was being fed MULTIPLE antidepressants which ACTIVELY made my bipolar depression worse. For 24 years, I was living at or below 100% the Federal Poverty Level. I spent ten years as an adult living with my ailing father who was one of my childhood abusers. I experienced folie à deux for several months. (Unlike Arthur, mine was the folie imposée subtype.) I have been an involuntary celibate due to mental illness for 27 years. In the 2000's, I lost public mental health care because of budget cuts. I see how people avoid me like I have the plague when my bipolar mania kicks in and I start talking too fast or saying too many personal things.

I can tell you from experience that Joker and Joker: folie à deux are amazing and realistic depictions of what it feels like to suffer extreme mental illness.

Arthur's experiences in the sequel are absolutely accurate to what I experienced with folie à deux. There was the exhilaration of finally finding someone who gets you, only for that to turn into manipulation and eventually rejection and betrayal.

During his closing statements in the courtroom, Arthur showed everything I felt after I was no longer under the spell of folie à deux: the shame, guilt, resignation, depression, and a desire to tell the world everything that happened. (Which I obviously haven't gotten over entirely).

The musical numbers were ABSOLUTELY critical to the film. In cinema, there are very few ways to depict complex internal emotions, and even fewer ways that are enjoyable and accessible to the general audience member. Todd Phillips took a page from the Golden Age of cinema and did it with song and dance.

The experience of folie à deux is VERY MUCH like being one of the stars in an old Hollywood musical.

These two Joker films actually share a lot in common with Megalopolis. They are all films that expect you to set aside your preconceptions when you sit down in the theater. They all expect you to pay close attention to every detail. They anticipate that you will not understand certain elements and expect you to think about and research them after the film. They all expect you to question your perception of reality, and your personal biases. And they expect that you want something more than the yummy vanilla flavored excrement that audiences have been force-fed from the anus of the Hollywood cinematic centipede.

As for Joker and Joker: folie à deux taken together:

It seems that these two films are part 1 and 2 of "what happens when society breaks a man, and what does society do to that man once he's broken."

Phillips managed to weave a tragic story about a man devastated and eventually destroyed by a society in with the lore of Batman and the Joker in an incredibly realistic and believable way.

But as with everything else, there is a Dunning-Kruger Effect in DC comics lore.

It is tragic that MANY fans of DC comics fail to realize that Todd Phillips has obviously been inspired by Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke" which gave us the "psychological horror" version of the Joker.

They are also ignorant about mental illness. And after 2019's Joker, I ALMOST find it baffling that fans of the film weren't researching the absolute crap out of Arthur Fleck's diagnoses, and how they matched up with Batman's Joker.

But I know the reason. They got their dopamine fix from the F-society of Arthur's murder spree, and didn't bother to investigate further.

I actually heard someone say "I hated this film. I was expecting Joker and Harley to rampage all over Gotham."

I am glad that everyone who went to Joker: folie à deux hoping for Joker to burn Gotham to the ground were disappointed. To paraphrase Arthur Fleck: They got what they fucking deserved.

[TonyaKaberna]

The depth of psychosis with the incorporation of singing/song choice kept me engaged. Based on my observations of individuals with serious mental illness, I accepted “Arthur’s reality”. I enjoyed trying to figure out when it was his world vs real world. It engaged my emotions much like “Phantom of the Opera”. I appreciate the ending as it completed the life of a mentally ill individual that experienced all of the traumatic societal responses, including an isolated death. I like the belief that we as the audience encouraged the “Joker” into existence, just as Lee, supporters, lawyers, prison guards, etc. did; when Arthur wanted to break free. His, and ultimately our release came with his death.

[Jonjooooo]

Completely agree, except for one thing, which is that I wouldn't call it a musical. None of the dialogue or exposition is told through song, and the music does not happen as if through the medium of magical realism. Rather it all takes place in dream sequences or within the context of Arthur's 'therapy'. Apart from that, spot on, and yes I do feel it was stronger of the two. Regarding the hate, I believe a lot of the negativity directed at this film comes from the majority of people who expected to see more of the Joker revealed at the end of the first film. They expected more murder, more violence, more one-liners. But those people are missing the 'things in the background' of this film, namely the world full of people also baying for the Joker in his most twisted guise, not least Harley, the master manipulator. In that sense, the film becomes participatory: by turning your nose up at the story of a man fighting for his life while struggling to contain his twisted alter ego, you inadvertently become part of the mob that is trying to push him to an extreme he doesn't want for himself. The film becomes much more gripping when you realise this is not the story of Joker, rather it's the story of Arthur, a lonely, depressed, pathetic man desperately seeking human connection and haunted by his shadow – a shadow that, as the ending shows, jumps from person to person, thus making the Joker immortal.

[pocketsteve]

Apparently Todd Phillips is doing the new James Bond. James Bond starts off as a regular middle-aged guy working at the checkout of a supermarket. He volunteers once a week at a youth hostel. He's recently divorced with two kids, and lives in a one bedroom apartment at the top of a 30-story block with a broken lift and intermittent lighting in the stairwell. He doesn't drink. One of his regulars at the supermarket is a Russian who's under investigation by MI6. They ask James to spy on him when he's in the supermarket. The film ends with MI6 impressed with some of the work James has done for them and they consider employing him. The sequel is a musical. Adele plays his ex-wife. MI6 decide that they don't want James to work for them after all. It ends with the Russian from the first film escaping and shooting James Bond dead. I think we can all agree that this is the version of James Bond we've all been waiting for.

[davebrowne]

Natural born umbrellas of Gotham playing havoc with the windmills of your mind!

[nathanaelsmith]

Well I have just come out of the cinema and I really loved it. I don't understand why there is so much hate online. It's like a kind of mass hysteria. Joker 2 is a brilliant film. Lots going on. I was totally absorbed and even enjoyed the music, and Im not normally one for musicals. Ignore the haters and watch it if you liked the first one. People are sheep. It's a f***ing good film even if you only have half a brain and half a heart.

[Punisher]

I want to get more interesting films even if they are bad.

[fabianhammer]

arthur just realized, that he wasnt in control, because of the persona, in the most horrific way, but the facade was already crumbling, during garys testimony- it was a culmination of events, looking back on it, arthur couldve easily thought, that he had a positive impact, by ridding the people of its oppressors, giving them, what they fucking deserve. he realized pretty late, what an effect he actually had and was horrified...which interestingly enough, also goes against the claims of the state psychiatrist, about arthurs lack of empathy- not saying hes mentally well, but he clearly has some humanity left to him and his breaking point shows that- before he was blinded by emotion, then hubris, then love and he gave up, everything he couldve had, had he kept up the facade, that shadow self, which outgrew him- some have taken his acceptance of who he is and what hes done, as giving up, as being defeated, after being raped, but to me, it showed, that there was more empathy and strength to arthur himself, than i wouldve given him credit for, even while he confesses, to murdering people. that he becomes passive in the end, is, imo, him coming to terms, that he never had the love, of either lee, or the crowd, accepting that, too and then surrendering, because he was at peace and ready to die. you can argue he was broken, though i personally didnt feel, more so than in the first, because he did something, he couldnt pull off, during the course of both movies- he came to grips with reality. and i feel one of the reasons, this gets bashed so thouroughly, is that this message may hit a little too close to home, for some, i know, it definitely reached me and i hope, that once the sting of reality, that this film about delusions possibly leaves viewers with, wears off a bit, it will have its time, to be re-evaluated, but maybe thats just me feeling, that the movie deserves it

[deanrichardson]

I have to agree. It seems that the world was expecting Phoenix to become Heath Ledger’s Joker in this movie, and that’s what has caused the backlash. I watched this expecting to be disappointed but it actually takes what happened in the first film to a thoroughly logical conclusion. Not sure many people picked up on the car scene when he’s running from the guy dressed as Joker, but I felt that was what the cartoon foreshadowed, and what the essence of the movie was. I absolutely loved the way they played with Arthur’s identity up until the big reveal in the courtroom. I don’t think people get the movie because they wanted Arthur to be a certain way, but the filmmakers wisely kept Arthur Fleck true to himself AND gave him an interesting arc. The ending was great. Brutal and creepy. I’m REALLY surprised that the critics hated it, as many of them criticised the violence and adulation that Fleck received in the first one. In this movie we see the consequences of the violence and adulation, and STILL they complained. My only criticism would be that it is very bleak, and that if the songs were going to be so ragged, they could have picked better known songs. The film is absolutley gorgeous to look at.

[fraughtUK]

100% with this. Don't get the hate. I found it brave, and full of technical mastery. The ending is FAB!!!

[gavinthegromit]

Guardian pass notes ended with 'Don’t say: “When’s Joker: Ménage à Trois coming out?”'. A tragedy that possibly the best named movie of all time probably won't be made.

[tonylarkin]

I watched it in an otherwise empty cinema and was surprised at how good it was. Granted, I went in with very low expectations, thanks to the reviews, but I thought it had something interesting to say and was well made.

[glassmonkeyface]

I loved the first film and thought this was both a great follow-up but also something very different. The continued themes of mental health and the fantasy about life that can bring, and now hero/anti-hero worship, a symbol or persona becoming more than a person, and the fascination and sensationalizing of killers (like Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, or John Gacy) to the point that we love seeing their cases and watching "TV Movies" about them or even want to "love" them, all these culminated in a great film. The musical number were a great new way to show Arthur's and now Harley's constant shift in and out of reality into how they view themselves and each other.
Unfortunately even in the 5 years since the last film, entertainment has begun to be dragged down by self-appointed expert influencers using armchair negative reviews as rage bate to get clicks and tell people every movie, show, and game that comes out is terrible. I fear because they are purposely ignoring the fact and warnings that this is not a "super villain movie" where Batman and Robin swoop in, and they can't see past the surface level plot, they will convince many not to see it.

[quntface]

Over the past few years there’s been a weaponising of reviews and a use them as some kind of stick to attack people/groups. The truth is all reviews are subjective and dependant on the individual person. It’s completely silly to get angry over some people liking something you don’t and vice-versa, as we see so often.