Arthur ends the movie rejecting everyone who tried to use his mental illness to manipulate him. He rejects the guards feeding off his celebrity, he rejects the psychologist need to use him to raise awareness, he rejects Ley using him as a partner to make her life interesting, he rejects the guys who break him out of jail to lead their movement. Most of all he rejects the audiences need to indulge in their revenge for the powerless and downtrodden fantasy. He accepts his wrongs and refuses to be used anymore and then they don't need him any more so he's killed.
I listened to psychologists talk about the first movie in podcast and it was very interesting. The movie seems to hit the nail on the head when it comes to mental illness. The movie does a very good job of not blaming his mental illnesses for his killing spree. If anything he seems to kill because it’s the first time he’s gotten recognition in his life. The second movie hits that point even harder by pointing out that no one cares about Arthur. They care about the joker.
Not to forget the passing mention of the sexual assault when talking about his abusive mother. I was shocked how NO ONE mention this and the rape by the security guards.
@@4thcutiemarkcrusader Somehow the fact they revealed his sexual assault on the same scene they basically said before an audience he was a virgin (before Lee), and then he gets Sa'd for no obvious reason, and the movie never addresses that other than making it seem it's what leads him to "own up" about not being the Joker....can't unpack it rn, but it makes me profoundly uncomfortable and should be talked about more
it's crazy seeing so many different interpretations of this movie. at it's core, it's honestly really about exposing humans inability to ACTUALLY empathize with someone, without the need to force a sensational identity solely to comfort themselves. This is precisely why Todd went with this spin on a character as revered as Joker. people do this a lot if you really think about it. this is what we'd probably describe as "tragedy porn" or "doomscrolling", etc. Joker 2 is a critique on how we treat others as spectacles in a transactional sense, and not as actual people. the riots in the 1st movie perfectly represent this. nobody in the 1st movie even knew exactly why Arthur acted the way he did, they just assumed he wanted to wreak havoc to "fight back the system".
Well said. People today (of all ages and sexes) seem to lack empathy with their fellow human beings. Unless we are a 'worthy' person such as the in vogue comedian, actor, musician or athlete, etc, then we are not given the time of the day (you are considered dull, and unlovable for who you are). This is why, I believe, people resonated with Arthur Fleck in The Joker movie, because he represented this painful feeling of deep alienation that is very present today, whereby we seriously struggle to connect with one another on a truly deep and meaningful level. We are very pre judgemental of each other based on insignificant details like clothes, looks or status etc. I even notice today how people with disabilities are supposed to run a marathon or be funny or somehow special, to be considered worthy of dignity and respect, which i find rather sad because they dont. We all need to do better and try to be more compassionate, helpful and loving. Love thy neighbour.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - a quote used to apply to the Joker's case to justify burning down the system rather than to more justifiably show compassion to those that aren't getting it
Is it justifying it or explaining it? For example, if I were to say "the crippling and humiliating effects of the Versailles treaty upon 1930s Germany created the conditions that led to the rise of public support for fascism" I would not be justifying the policies of a certain authoritarian nationalist and genocidal political party; I would merely be citing a GCSE Modern History explanation of the circumstances leading to that chapter that is a little more intelligent than the devil did it and insufficient censorship caused it!
it's explaining it. it's more a matter with what someone does with that knowledge I'm moreso arguing that people USE this quote to justify/explain their own burning of the village rather than more productively shed compassion to the child, which is more the point showing compassion for the little guy rather than promoting burning the village in reliation for not receiving warmth
@@umanuu But who is "burning the village"? Who are the "burners of the village" here? Firstly, there were no Joker copycats regarding the Joaquin Phoenix Joker. Secondly, the alleged Joker copycat associated with Heath Ledger's Joker, who does not have a sympathetic back story*, and yet even here, the key word is alleged because the link between the Aurora shooting and The Joker is a media invention - he did not dress like the Joker, he merely had dyed hair - not dyed green; dyed carrot coloured! At the screening of a film that didn't even have the Joker in it, because it was the third film in the trilogy. Are we going to say all the blue-haired people are Joker fans too? And by the way what is the point in showing compassion to victims of a broken system if you plan to not do anything to change the system? It's as hollow as "I am sorry that happened to you" and "hopes and prayers". There is nothing wrong with saying this system is turning men into monsters so maybe it is a broken system that needs fixing. (* Footnote: although he does make cogent sociopolitical observations, as does The Riddler in "The Batman" or Killmonger in "Black Panther" and that has never been uncommon for realistically drawn villains for them to make valid points for as long as I have been alive I have seen films or tv adventure serials where the villain flummoxes the hero by making a valid argument the hero can't argue with and therefore the villain's flaw is they have subscribed to an "ends justify the means" philosophy. For example I grew up watching Doctor Who and there are a couple of stories in the mid-seventies where the villains are eco-terrorists at a time when the producer was an environmentalist and one of the writers was a communist so they certainly weren't disagreeing with their villainous creations on their assessment of a problem but on how they choose to address it.)
9:13 I disagree entirely with your point here, you're talking about the scene where Lee sings "Close to You", I think that's one of the best scenes in the film because we have Arthur at a very low point questioning whether or not he should even trust Lee, and when she notices that she's starting to lose him to lose Joker, which is all she really cares about, she tells him she's pregnant and sings this uplifting love song to him as a deliberate way to emotionally manipulate him back onto her side, which is why the scene ends with the lipstick on the glass shot were Arthur aligns himself with it to reaffirm that he is still Joker and is willing to continue to be for her and this supposed baby they're having.
Well said, music is the guiding force for Arthur to identify the method to the madness of the world. Harley with her background in psychology knows this and takes advantage whenever she can.
This is one of the reasons why a lot of people hates this movie. Music is not original, so its meaning its pretty much open. Is people actuallly singing or its an hallucination? It's not very clear. In the first movie, arthur was an unreliable narrator, so it would make you doubt what is real and what is not, you are forced into the perspective of a crazy person. But this musicals dont do that. They are just musicals of already existing songs which are non-diegetic.
@@gastonmedici1029You do realize that the musical aspects are just like the hallucinations in the first movie right? And that the first movie clearly showed that it wasn't this giant hallucination, only certain aspects? Arthur singing in front of the TV (the first song) is in his head......this is literally shown (hence why when the number ends, hes just sitting there). The musical numbers are all in his head. Lee sings to and with him to manipulate him. The songs not being original also has a point because Arthur is singing songs he knows from his past. Arthur is still an unreliable narrator but this time around, he's being pulled around and told what to feel and believe, playing into his fantasies and madness. This is all the point of the film. I don't know how you didn't understand this.
@@crater044 So when Lee sings, its fake or not? Is he being manipulated by his own hallucination? Also, whats the point in manipulating him? Arthur is an unreliable narrator, but not in the same way of the first film. The first film established a grounded world and it would make you question everything that happened, not this one. His madness here is used for inserting shitty karaoke songs that wouldnt have place in a story like this one. You could also interpret the musicals as nondiagetic bs. No, theres no point to singing songs he previosly knew, which he knew by heart, because it wasnt established in the first movie. He wanted to be a comedian, not a singer. It's the Joker, not the singer. There were musical elements in the first film, but not singing. They put songs in it, because Phoenix had a dream about it and because they hired Lady Gaga. PS: Do you know why Arthur had hallucinations in the first film? Because it was ripped off from the king of comedy. Both movies arent as deep as you think they are.
That's my biggest issue with the criticism of the movie. It's almost as if people lack the self awareness to understand what the hell the film is saying.
Yes, its the "this is about me specifically". Idek why these supposed feminists would even want to take down the first movie. I never took it as talking about "men's" mental health, rather just how society treats the mentally ill. But ofc, if its about them specifically, then, surely, the movie is focusing on all the attributes that describe them
You just earned yourself a subscriber. You nailed every point I took from this film. I would like to share my interpretation of the ending. I think the Glasgow smile was a nod to Ledger, not in that it was meant to be the same character but in that the ideology Arthur created will live on beyond him and be adopted by more radical individuals which will in time lead to the more traditional version of the character audiences expected Arthur to become. The joker followers see Arthur as a weak disappointment due to his rejection of the Joker persona so someone else steps in to finish the job. ( This city deserves a better class of criminal and I'm going to give it to them.) It's essentially the inverse of Batman in the dark knight trilogy. Joker has become more than just a man. He's become an idea, a symbol for people to rally behind. That was my take away. I loved the video. Looking forward to exploring future content.
Ngl i never thought people would feel anything but terror watching that scene. I remember being in theaters and felt the fear in my gut as the gun went off.
Yeah kind of a bizarre reaction.. it's not supposed to be a triumphant moment by any stretch. Our screening was dead silent, it just felt so visceral and real.
you are so smart and i love you for speaking up about all of this!!!! I ALWAYS saw the stair scene as tragic. it felt like an almost 180 of the rocky scene, in every way, i though originally or meant his decent after going off medication and how sometimes with psychosis and debilitating mental illness, medication is a constant struggle because when it works you forget why you ever needed it. but with the second film, I also think in a way its almost a complete representation of not only author fleck’s life but also, just life in general, we are born with the most potential we will ever have in our lives, and everything is a walk downward.
You're definitely a lone voice screaming in the wilderness here but I really appreciate this take. I left the film feeling really deflated and disheartened and wondered what the point of it all was. But letting it marinate in my head a while I can see it ultimately as a tragic and meta deconstruction of Arthur/Joker and how life has kind of imitated art with it's reception. I know "subverting expectations" is kind of a loaded phrase these days but it did. Could the execution have been better? Sure, but I do appreciate it what it did. Joker was always a cautionary tale and I never thought Arthur would fully embrace the chaotic madness of his Joker persona. It's ultimately a tradegy about an abused, mentally ill loner who by circumstance accidently birthed a Frankenstein's monster he couldn't control or fully understand. As someone said we all wanted Joker, but we got Arthur.
@@jesustyronechrist2330 Oh I agree and since TLJ's fan backlash especially it's almost become a sin to do anything remotely out of left field, but that's for another discussion. You still want a balance between not pandering to your audience completely and challenging them to rethink certain things and the expectations that come with that. Folie a Deux I think strikes that balance nicely IMO.
People today (of all ages and sexes) seem to lack empathy with their fellow human beings. Unless we are a 'worthy' person such as the in vogue comedian, actor, musician or athlete, etc, then we are not given the time of the day (you are considered dull, and unlovable for who you are). This is why, I believe, people resonated with Arthur Fleck in The Joker movie, because he represented this painful feeling of deep alienation that is very present today, whereby we seriously struggle to connect with one another on a truly deep and meaningful level. We are very pre judgemental of each other based on insignificant details like clothes, looks or status etc. I even notice today how people with disabilities are supposed to run a marathon or be funny or somehow special, to be considered worthy of dignity and respect, which i find rather sad because they dont. We all need to do better and try to be more compassionate, helpful and loving. Love thy neighbour.
I believe people were anticipating the rise of the Arthur/Joker in this movie, where we witnessed the fall of the man but the emergence of the icon Joker as an abstract idea, a idea that now can be represented by anyone, and that was really powerful.
I enjoyed the movie. I have my own take, that I've not heard anyone else mention yet. Joker 1 and 2 remind me so much of Kill Bill 1 and 2. They are two parts of one whole. They bookend the story of the main character. Both movies differ stylistically to each other but still remain true to the characters, worldbuilding and overall journey of the protagonist. Both directors Phillips and Tarantino took inspiration from things they loved and admired and created something new from the pieces. There was a clear vision and story to be told. A beginning, middle and end. This is the story of Arthur Fleck. The sad thing is all the audience wanted was The Joker. Not 'A Joker Interpretation' but The Joker. This is exactly what the movie spells out and real life has now imitated art by the mass negative reviews.
Thank you! Its beyond refreshing hearing someone that actually UNDERSTANDS the movie talk about it. The first movie was NEVER the DC comics and they have always been very clear about that. Same with the sequel. The fan boys really are all just telling on themselves for not understanding the "deep deep" movie they praise.
But you still need to remember that Joker is actually a brand. If you remove all Batman references... how much people would have shown up to watch it? If you don't want to deal with the fans create your own IP.
@@gastonmedici1029 personally, i feel like that's the fault of fans for attaching too much to ip's. i love a lot of ip's, but if someone's take on it is, in my eyes, super far off, well, i'll be sad that i didn't get more content i enjoyed, but i won't take it as an offense to muh sacred ip or something, i'll just keep watching/reading the takes i do like, they haven't been erased. You think i liked any atla live action version? NO lol. but they weren't for me in the first place, and i can always rewatch the original for the 100th time
On top of being a courtroom drama it's also an homage to the Great American Songbook. Americans only prove they have become detached from their artistic heritage with the way they receive this film. BTW it's not just the guards, what makes Arthur repent is the fact that Saints Go Marching In guy dies because of his devotion to him.
That AND his "cross examination" of Gary Puddles was another breaking point, he realized in his whole fruitless Joker act how much he hurt and alienated quite literally the only person who showed him kindness and friendliness. Gary treated Arthur like a human being, everyone else treated him horribly OR only gave a damn about him once he became the Joker.
Really appreciate a proper analysis of this film, i think it was excellent and probably better than the first, one thing that stood out to me in this film was just how much arthur is pushed around for most of the film, hes being led around by the guards, the lawyer, harley, even the guys who tried to rescue him at the end, he starts at his most vulnerable point and is being literally shoved around and the only autonomous decision he can make is to let the joker come out to regain some sense of control, even though hes being manipulated into that as well. They make it so clear how hes made by his curcumstances, a much better exploration of the typical "we live in a society" thing but also firmly shows he is responsible for his actions
I agree with everything except for his lawyer. She is the only one who cares for arthur, she gives him her coat, she wipes the dirt from his face like a mother(!!), she confronts Lee that she is harmful for Arthur. And ironically Arthur sends her away, thinking she is not good for him, but in fact being the only one that really is.
I did the same thing about being angry for the iconic aproach of the audience for the Joker. I loved this sequence. I think the audience feels entitled to demand what they want because they are paying and crying all over the internet because they had a different idea than the fucking creator. Saying that the director 'destroyed' a figure, but he did not. That figure was already broken in so many pieces and just limited people couldn't see it.
Facts, I really enjoyed both Joker and Joker 2 while understanding why masses didn't like the sequel. People are focuses on the small things instead of the big picture which does prove the wrong people got the wrong message from the first film, but they're valid yet I wish they'd open their minds to the 3rd person view of The Joker that is discusses in this film.
I think the joker movie is targetet at an audience that has experienced mental illness before. I completely feel the whole movie and to me every single detail makes perfect sense.
i kinda interpreted in the way that arthurs narrative is MEANT to show "woe is me society treats me bad and i was GIVEN this gun and now i lost my job its all everyone elses fault i feel so bad" etc but the audience gets to see both his delusional pov as well as just a rational onlookers pov. thats why i loved the first movie as someone who struggles a lot with mental illness. it showed the same situation but told it in two separate realities. to ppl who arent struggling with this sort of thing it shows the flawed pov of someone so deep in their delusion and how its "making sense" to them and then on the other hand it shows mentally ill ppl how onlookers kinda perceive them and more importantly what life objectively might look like in reality in comparison to their own flawed and subjective pov.
i definitely agree about the ending. I feel like the guy who kills Arthur in the movie is supposed to symbolize use the viewer and our unwavering idea of what the joker is supposed to be. Most people won’t admit it but deep down just want to see heath ledgers joker again (nothing wrong with that) and that’s what they wanted Arthur be. They wanted controlled chaos instead of a deeper exploration of jokers own duality. I really liked this movie
so this movie is about how people want to see Joker and not Arthur and the fans don't like Joker 2 because they want to see Joker and not Arthur, i think this movie predicted its own reputation
people forget to mention that Arthur not only suffered from mental health issues, but was IMPOVERISHED, it doesn’t sit right with me how everyone completely looks over the fact that these mental health issues are enhanced by poverty.
Thank you so much for your analysis! I agree with everything you said. Personally i loved the first Joker! I was blown away by acting, music and cinematography. I got the message. Joker is not somebody to idolize. And I guess that's why i really liked the second part. It gave us a very realistic, cruel contanuation. Crime and punishment. It wasnt boring to me. It had such a poetic, tragic vibe. Lee is like a deadly siren that enables Arthur's delusion. Todd risked it all with this movie. People wanted to see Joker but got Arthur. The irony of it all.
Absolutely agree! Joker 2 is just the logical, coherent continuation of the story told in the first movie. Did people really expect Arthur Fleck to become the dangerous and smart agent of chaos? lol.
They’re both movies made for the art of filmmaking and the creativity behind it. Not box office. The first movie was seen in a positive way and the second one was seen in a negative way.
I think the scene where Lee claims she is pregnant, is her manipulating Joker. It's like her siren call, but it's also like she's singing a lullaby. Given that Joker is less than a year old, it works a treat.
Thank you! The same reasons that I enjoyed this movie too. I quite liked Joker (2019), but I really appreciated this dark meta commentary approach the sequel took.
I love court room thrillers as well, but what was good about this one? (Besides the interview of Mr Puddles) And why introduce Harley Quinn in it? If not to talk about domestic abuse in a relationship? They didn't really explore any of the two things they were offfering : - The Harley Qhuinn character - The court room thriller It's just meh, and it's too bad cause the photographgy is gorgeous...
Honestly I see it being more appreciated/gaining a cult status in a few years, similiar to how Rob Zombies Halloween 2 was universally panned and hated and then years later it slowly got more appreciation for being it’s own thing.
Tbh I don't think that is possible in today's media landscape. After people make a million videos about how terrible it is nobody revisits it. It's a shame because I think it's a really good movie, but this kinda thing doesn't happen anymore.
I think the movie(s) is a good one, just not a good Joker movie. Joker is not a blank slate character, just because he's not got a set past. His lack of a set past and the inexistence of any logical reason to what he does is the basis of the character. If this had been 1. one movie instead of two and 2. an original story, it would have been great. Like, I can't write a story about a guy trading in illegal antiquities to fund his underground anarcho-communist group and create an uprising to topple the existing structure and make it an Indiana Jones movie because "oh, it's just a different iteration of the character".
1000% agree, most of the backlash is because the fans are mad Arthur Fleck isn’t the joker, but he was only “Joker” in name only the first time around. I honestly would’ve liked Joker 2019 had it not been connected to DC (idc if it’s only by name)
The version of the Joker youre talking about with a non existent past was popularized by Alan Moore in the 80s when he was writing one off "elsewhere" style alternate universe stories about comic characters. Joker was Jack Napier in the 60s. There were 3 jokers running around in the main comic line recently.
@@notanimportantperson This one wasn't Jack Napier, though. The most well-known iterations, especially outside comics, have certain set characteristics and that's how they caught on. It's not that Arthur Fleck couldn't be the Joker because he's a new character, it's that the way they treated the story is antithetical to the themes all Joker incarnations share so the character ends up having nothing in common but the clown theme. Which again, could be salvaged, only they weren't honest about that either. What I'm getting is, they were interested in making an Arthur Fleck story, the Joker was just window-dressing.
@@slashfan091 What? Most of the backlash is NOT because of that. It's because the movie sucks. Or maybe at best, that it's a musical and people didn't realize. I'm guessing you are assuming that what you see on Twitter reflects real life, right?
Really nice to see positive reviews for this movie especially one as in depth as this. I do think it is troubling that no one has whispered a word of the real issues with this film, the normalizing of smoking indoors, running in the street and unsafe sex. 👉🏻👌 Seriously though some thing that im not sure was intentional, but was really refreshing was a curveball in the form of a scene I was anticipating from the trailer. It’s too often I see something in the trailer that gives away a suspenseful moment in the movie, say a character is implied to be dead, but you know there’s a scene in the trailer where that character is alive and it’s not a flashback. So you know they’re OK. in the trailer there’s a scene where Lee and Arthur are dancing together on the steps triumphantly and she is giving the “suck it” gesture… The shit was hitting the fan for Arthur at the end of the movie I was convinced that something was going to happen to turn things around where him and Lee would ride off into the sunset and have their stairway scene. So when he had his “visitor” in that last scene. I was sure this was going to be the big turnaround! You can imagine my surprise as the true ending unfolded 🤡 The joke was on me. I honestly think this magnified Gravity of the rug kind of getting pulled out from underneath me and it was so refreshing. I don’t know if Todd intended that by intentionally adding that bait and switch to the trailer, but I kind of hope he did
I agree with you in regards to how most people sensationalized Joker in the first film. I still haven’t seen the 2nd because a reviewer I’ve been watching for a while now decided to share the ending of the film in their “spoilers” bit and I hate watching films that are predictable. Just based on the marketing of this film, including the trailer featuring the court house stairs routine being excluded from the film, and from the way people are bashing this for being musical when they literally said it was going to be at least a year ago, I feel like it’s fallen victim to the same fate as The Mean Girls musical. I didn’t love that film but I didn’t think it was bad, either, it was updated a little bit to make more relevant to 2023/2024, but the inclusion of ads and some changes to the plot forced me to compare. I feel like that’s what happening with this film, comparing the first to the second and disliking it because it tried to do something different. People don’t want to have real conversations about mental health, they want an excuse to fantasize about murder and revenge like the Purge did.
I wouldn’t let knowledge of the ending stop you if it’s a movie you wanted to see. I used to think movies were about finding out the ending, but have since realized they are more about the storytelling and experience. A good story doesn’t get old after hearing it a few times. I usually find my 2nd viewing of a movie my favorite viewing.
No one explained it like you have thank you so much for making me understand what this movie is about and now i can watch it in a whole different light no i can watch joker 2 i discovered yer channel in my feed i am now a fan
I wish the musical elements were more developed, maybe to the point of some real original numbers and choreographed sent pieces. But that's what keeps it from being a really good movie. It's really an okay interrogation of a films own existence using two genres the superhero genre has snuffed out: the musical and courtroom drama
@@elpeluca7780 Alright, man. Explain how it's poorly done. Like objectively. And the "not being Joker" argument is stupid because the first movie was also not about the "Joker". It was about "Arthur Fleck". Sure, this one has flaws. Even the first one had.
All your thoughts and disertations were just on point. Glad do hear more and more good point of views of this movies (which is btw soooooo much better than the first one imo as well). I took this film interpretation in a different way. At the very first minute, when they show us that animation, it was pretty clear to me what would be the whole idea of the movie. You have Arthur turning into Joker than you have his shadow stealing the Joker mask. And the shadow of Arthur now has the mask that turns it into Joker. To sum up, the movie is a circus house of mirros. You never know if you are watching a scene tru Arthur pov, or Lee perception of Arthur shadow, or the guard perspective of Joker alter ego leftovers at Arthur, and so on. This movie gets even better and even more depth when you realize that Harlequin never ever existed. It was just Lee at the very firt appearence of her. All the other Lee's or Harley that we see in the movie was just Arthur imagination. And it changes depending of the pov I was talking about. At the courtroom its pretty clear. She gets close to him and more fancy dress as far as he "climb" to his victory on his deffence. But when he just give up and left only Arthur speaks for himself, she's not even there. You know why you can take this "pure imagination Lee" as a fact? When Arthur saw her singing for the first time, she looked at him and he felt blown away for some sort of feeling. He made some steps and suddenly she's on the next room, doing that fake gun shot scene. How? How she went there? She telleported? And all the other scenes where theyre together, theres no one around. Of course its just how I interpretated the movie and it felt great. Everything fits perfectly and left not even a single second of boredom as we can see exploding all over the internet about the movie. Sad. Its a movie that gives you endless ways to process and interpretate but the majority took the low road of "oh gosh its a musical bla bla (copy/paste)". Well, this post its getting too big XD. But thank you much for you time, your dedication on putting out such a awesome review. Amazing. Best regards xoxoxo
Fantastic analysis. I really enjoyed this movie. The part where the bomb goes off is a call back to the previous movie where he almost gets off scot free but this time he's afraid. I really enjoyed the ending but i really wish this movie had more dialogue. I think its sad that alot of people kinda miss the larger plot of a guy who is the victim of social nets being abandonded. The scene with Gary Puddles was perfect, i really think that it really forced Arthur to ask what he did to those he cared about and i think it also forced the audience to ask is there still empathy underneath the makeup. Also shoutout to the musical numbers, all that jazz + interpretive dance. That time of arthouse stuff is why i went to study film.
Haven't fully watched the vid yet but i LOVE to see this perspective. When i watched the movie, i enjoyed every second of it and i am usually easily bored by movies especially when they are this long. I was busy trying to connect dots and feeling all the emotions and just being so invested in the acting and trying to find my own interpretations of the scenes etc. I was and still am so shocked that so many ppl seemingly hate this movie so much (especially after the first one, which i think already set the tone for this one)
Hi Marshall... Thank you so much for this video! I have heard sooo many negative critical comments about Joker 2. I went to see it and absolutely LOVED it!! It's not as dark as the original Joker, but it's such an awesome follow-up, storyline, acting, cinematography... all great! I did get a bit more out of the mental health aspect than you did with the original, maybe something in my past just related to it, who knows. I just related to the loneliness of his character. And I am totally with you about the fandom... it's weird that people were cheering somebody who is on the edge of being a sociopath killing people. But for the negative reviews concerning Folie A Deux? I just don't understand it. Gaga is brilliant paired up with Jacquin. They make a really good couple and gave Arthur more of an understanding. I hope all this makes sense. I think maybe the majority were just waiting for Batman to appear at the end... just stupid. Great review mate. And the musical numbers (playing inside Aethur's head as a means of escapism) were awesome!!!
if not blackpill lo, such a grim ending for arthur really. but feminist?????? really???? that says more about the people making the accusations than the movie itself
I feel like both movies are a mirror image of the same ethos: We Live In A Society. Except the first movie looks inwards, at a fictional society based on real life. Whereas the sequel looks outwards, at our real society that has been inspired by a fictional one.
I would have thought that Arthur's assault at the hands of the guards would have had the opposite effect: further fueling Arthur's self-pitying outrage and pushing him deeper into his rebellious Joker persona. I was honestly surprised when he suddenly turned remorseful. There's no denying one fact, though - that villains are cool. To establish a character as evil, you have to show him/her doing evil things, and evil deeds are always inherently fascinating. And, if they're particularly daring, they're cool. Of course there were going to be hordes of people in Joker costumes for Halloween.
I like both films. They may not be great films, but they do have perfect politics. It's hilarious seeing that lunatic raging about "Parasite" completely missing that both of these films have the same perfect politics. The stairway scene in the first one is a moment of pure dysfunction. The best review of the first one came from Chapo Trap House. Their episode "Sympathy for the Joker" is essential listening.
I agree with most of what you said, especially about the lawyer 'manipulating' him into thinking he has a personality disorder. For me it was a clever and subtle message about how some would use vulnerable people for their own gain, and I do not think a lot of people gets that. Perhaps, if they deliver the court scene better and focus more on the banters, it would sell better.
That would ring true if it was demonstrated in the film that she doesn’t genuinely think that. You are quite literally projecting onto this film because the film itself has no substance. You liked it because you’re dim
I hate it when some stupid incels collectively decide that a movie is bad, because it’s woke/feminist??? Like wtf does this even supposed to mean? ‘ Woke as a movement is so negatively connoted that people who were praising the first movie don’t even realise that it (by definition) was woke to begin with. I mean, drawing attention to how badly society treats people with mental illnesses is literally so woke. Thank you for making this video!! Btw, can you make a video about Arcane, please? I know you don’t really talk about animated shows, but it’s honestly soo good and season 2 is airing, I believe, in november :))
Your opinion is invalid when you use the term "incel" unironically in 2024. Besides, if you say that "incels" think the movie is bad, does that mean the majority of the population are incels? I mean people and critics hate it...
It’s even worse when “normal” people who take on roles as armchair film critics say movies are bad, their videos garner millions of views from a title like “Joker 2 Trash” and a million more parrot that headline to try and leech a bit of that “success”.
@@holyarmadillo3424 I like how my comment got shadowbanned "some stupid incels" Quite strong words there buddy. If it was "some" then why is it that critics and public hates it? Maybe you're exactly the example of what the first movie is talking about...
@@PieroMinayaRojas Okay, but what is your point? You're so hung up on the word incel, instead you could say what you disagree on. To me your comment has no substance, but only that you're offended by the word incel. If you're not an incel, nor someone who's criticising this movie simply "because it's woke", then there's no reason for you be offended like that buddy Edit: And just because the majority agreed to something does not necessarily mean that it's correct. So no, your point isn't valid. Try again.
This movie made me super disappointed when I saw it. I was really excited for the concepts of Harley Quinn and Musical arts explaining the first movie. But it overdid everything and it felt highly saturated and forced. I really want to love this movie and listen to others who currently do so I can come back in a couple years and enjoy it as intended.
I dunno. People are calling it the new Ishtar / Waterworld. I'm just happy Joker 2 is taking some of the heat away from Megalopolis. Which I loved and makes me happy and hopeful everything I think about it.
That’s a interesting perspective on it, but for Arthur none of his jokes were towards other people. Even IRL when Joaquin Phoenix went on Jimmy Kimmel live, Jimmy made underhanded mocking remarks about the actor’s real world interest in interpretive dance. Obviously shooting someone over either isn’t the right move though lol
That's reductive. The "system" wasn't some institution, the government, or anything you would think as "the system". Murray and his show was the system. The system was what it all represented. The system was how people perceived Arthur and how they treated him. The system was a stigma. Arthur fought the stigma. He didn't take it down tho. In fact, he enforced it. The enforced the system. And THAT'S exactly what we see in this movie-- Arthur has enforced the system and now it can fully take him down.
Let's be real out here, if you know who the character of joker is, they should have just used the normal mentally ill person who killed some people because he feels betrayed by society instead of using joker's name, what do you expect joker will fan thinks, the comment is exactly what you're getting.
I loved the first one and while I haven't seen the second one, I have seen breakdowns of this movie and I think I'm going to love the second one too. While Arthur could have osdd which is not full blown did it could explain his dissociative states and the split into the joker persona. But all I'm hearing, to be honest, is that people don't enjoy musicals and blatantly glossed over alot of things. Like his full on R scene. And that ofcourse Arthur's singing would be bad in universe. Like alot of the first movie him disassociating into these dream scenes are full blown here. Not full on d.i.d but it could really be osdd. And just teetering on that journey of how realistically we wouldn't know. Arthur fully had horrible mental health services. I genuinely am going to watch this movie just to see for myself. Ps. I never got why people loved the death scenes in the the first one. Like all the movie is tragic not triumphant
the critique this movie is receiving is so interesting because it really comes down to whining men (mostly) who created a hero after the events of the first movie, related to him and didn't see him succeed. I really love the classic accusations of "the world" suppressing their voices and ruining everything with "propaganda" I was laughing every time another screenshot of those "misunderstood" men (mostly, I think) appeared. don't think it was added for comedic value, but it really made my day
But don't you think there are also those fans who felt Arthur was never heroic. But an extreme product of our woefully inadequate mental health system. So when he says, naaa, I was just pretending to be mentally ill all along. Then that promotes the idea that mental illness is just people making up excuses for their poor choices and behaviors. And undercuts all socially redeeming qualities from Joker 1 and the need to take mental health care more seriously.
@@Alyboba I feel like a lot of that male fanbase has mental health challenges of their own. Don't know how to get the help they need. And therefore, feel highly misunderstood cuz society just makes matters worse for them (in their eyes). Which is why Arthur Fleck becomes a type of hero for them.
my guess is that the inmate at the end cuts his face instead of using blood is to show that he is more committed to being Joker than Arthur. cause while blood and makeup can be washed away, cuts can't.
Arthur was more than committed to become the Joker in the first movie. He embraced Joker. He made a smile with his blood and smiled at his crowd. That ending was him finally turning into Joker and a start to being the Joker. And with the first movie's ending he might have just escaped from jail, we don't see whether or not the guard caught him. He could have escaped and started to cause mayhem and meeting and creating Harley Quinn and maybe even facing off against Batman. That's the beauty of the first movie. It has an ending that ends the way it did that satisfied most of the people that watched it because it ended the right and justified way. The sequel wasn't needed. Also, some versions of the Joker, including this one, didn't fall inside the chemicals and got that permanent Joker make-up. And that crazy as sh*t inmate when he stabbed him, he clearly wanted to state that he was a joke and the way he killed Murray with that punch line was an utter joke. I wonder why did it fail if it was right to convey and portray Arthur/Joker the way it did. Also, why did the first movie have a cultural impact and make a billion while the second movie won't probably win oscars/nominations and most certainly as we all know didn't even hit the 400 million dollar mark? Despicable treatment of the character.
@@PreciousHuddle no he didn't. he only "embraced" it because he was finally being given praise and attention. he never cared about breaking the system, he was just a love-starved man who lashed out at specific people.
New subscriber! I didn’t get what they were going for fully with that ending, I had loved everything else but hated the ending and the way you called attention to the parallels between Arthur killing Murray/arthurs death made the lightbulb go off for me and I audibly yelled “YOOO WTF” 😂 Great vid! 🎉
I'm of a minority demographic who loves clowns, Batman, queer culture, Lady Gaga, and (some) musicals, and had a lot of ideas about what this could have been. have my own problems with the movie that for the most part people haven't touched on. Namely I would've liked more stuff like Joker by Anthony Newly, in the court scene you talked about in the video, which I also really enjoyed. I think you make some really valid and thought provoking points and I agree with a lot of it. The one solace I've taken with my disappointment is a certain kind of person hated this movie for all the (in my opinion) VERY wrong reasons, are very upset by it. I appreciated what they did for what it was and left the theater singing. In the days following I've had to sort of try to figure out why I also hated a lot of the narratives, attitudes, and backwards morals of this movie. Like how they just embarrass and hurt him the whole time under the guise of it being his consequence for the bad behavior while not addressing the WHY of it all, and no one who did anything bad got punished, and all the well meaning people did. Arthur's real crime seemed like it was backing off the crazy because he just let all the bad people win until he got shanked. To the point of the S/A for example I took it as something juvenile that was done on the part of filmmakers to try to embarrass, and emasculate him, and detach certain kinds of people from idolizing the character and the way it effected me personally was they I felt like it was akin to some immature xbox live kid bashing on incels by using gay slurs, like ok you're wrong in what you're saying too. It felt like a wrong minded way of trying to take someone's power away. Like you like the joker, you would get r-worded and stabbed in prison.. like ok that's not the proper or healthy mindset to take with conveying the message that he isn't meant to be idolized. I could have taken that the wrong way but it kinda upset me. This is coming from someone who's number one problem was not enough Gaga, pageantry, fun costumes, ballet inspired themes, and campy fun, so I'll just say maybe I'm over sensitive to that subject matter in a different way. I felt like it was meant to use homosexual abuse to hurt people who would be particularly offended by it for the wrong reasons, which is backwardly homophopbic in it's own way. We should learn not to accidently use gay as an insult when we're talking about people who are or potentially are anti-gay. I know that wasn't gay, it was abuse, but it's still a technically homosexual S/A. Like that was really suppose to show those alt righter who looked up to him. I hoped this movie would be a palate cleanser but luckily for me I have Gaga's beautiful "Harlequin" album to help me through that.
I also noticed that this movie had those couple of moments where it clearly tried to use "gay" as something you should be disgusted at. Which is... Very interesting.
@@jesustyronechrist2330 yeah I didn’t like that. The first time I sorta chuckled a little like ok he doesn’t give a damn and the guards are using him almost like a clown or a fool to entertain themselves by doing something that he’s kinda to confident too care about and he gets a cigarette. Like a prison jester which made sense. After the second scene and everything else it felt like I was caught in the crossfire being kinda hurt by them using the wrong ‘language’ to basically say this kinda person isn’t the big man in prison, he’s the bitch, so don’t go being like him little incels.
i think it's part of "jail" culture though? people always joke about the soap....and the universe arthur is in, yeah, he would get more than just a beating for complaining, for sure..... And he wasn't really well meaning. he was a victim, and we all subconciously tend to root for the underdog, or someone who's been wronged, but he was creepy as all hell too, even violent, you just looked at it from his eyes that weren't self critical or self aware enough. He was creepy as hell to her neighbor, stalking her like that? fuck! that's the type of guy i'm scared to walk by at night! entering like that to her house at random? GEEZ i would have called the police!!!!! killing his own mother? yeah, she was absolutely crazy and enabled abuse from his stepfather, but leave your house and cut contact!!!! you don't go on to kill her!!! you don't go to someone else's house uninvited and demand hugs from someone who is a literal stranger to you!!! you don't agresively demand their attention at a public restroom! at best you leave your number and hope to talk in a more proper context! you don't talk to their child and get that unconfortably close fitting your fingers in their mouth! you don't blame it all on an unsuspecting tv host who by all means accepted all of your requests and didn't straight up punched you in the face the moment he found out what you did! etc etc etc etc HE was an absolute creep and an asshole, one with a VERY unfortunate life for sure. but he wasn't the only one! that city clearly sucked for at least half the people involved, very clearly so. he didn't have to act the way he did. And would the grape scene have felt different for you if it were female guards????? i really don't buy that gay issue. and the point wasn't that he deserved to be graped, it's literally the opposite, there were things he did have a right to complain about, like getting his meds cut, or getting treated badly in jail, but his own actions + the shittiness of the system really made him zero favours, they only amplified each other and brought onto him into an unrelenting spiral of misery. he didn't deserve to be graped, but his victims didn't deserve to die either. He didn't even stop to consider how he traumatized mr puddles, on the first movie he even treats it as a nice guy moment to let him leave! Movies, or at least not all of them, aren't super black and white stories with a hero getting his way and a villain losing. arthur was both a criminal and a victim, and seeing him hurt should be unconfortable, reality is unconfortable! why should film stay away from it? worse things happen every day irl
@@magical571 so I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. No I didn’t mean Arthur was well meaning at all!!! Definitely not and his bad behavior was rewarded by the writing of the first story as a narrative. He was loved by the movement for all of his misdeeds. What I mean by well meaning people were his lawyer, the sweet guy that gets strangled, and puddles gets humiliated and mocked openly, and where Arthur comes in, by second one and throughout he’s backing off the persona, he feels guilty which is human, and they make a point to highlight all his trauma and abuse as if it’s a point of emasculation instead of understanding or contextualizing what he did. It’s a story and as an art piece I think it has the opportunity to make a point a real court case doesn’t have any responsibility or priority to make. They had a chance to say something and they kinda didn’t. The more he leans in to the Joker persona the more backlash he gets, but the more he backs off the evil persona the worse it gets. Then everyone who does bad things to him gets off Scott free. I’m not talking about that not having a purpose in the story, I’m saying I don’t like the morals of the narrative. I think they took a character put him on a stage and embarrassed him over and over for who he represented in real life more than anything else, and I wanted Gaga in big costumes doing fun dances. If they wanted to make people who liked the first one abandon the character they could have made it fun and camp. I think they had to much pretentious presumption that they had some big responsibility to police how people feel and I felt like I fell into the crossfire by having to suffer relating to a version of the character that was separate from all the incel and alt right garbage. I just felt like it was like listening to some kid make fun of some guy calling him an incel and he should get butt r*ed and I’m like ok whatever then. I do take some solace in the fact that there’s a kind of person who relates to Arthur/Joker who got the shit end of the stick on this one but it’s not gonna change anything backwards those people think about society or women or themselves. It’s just gonna make them angrier and hate “new world order queer Hollywood” even more not too mention the villain is a “manipulative woman who lies and doesn’t care about him” and I didn’t get camp. I wanted camp.
@@magical571 it’s like under the guise of punishment but then it’s like all the other bad people are justified, they make him a martyr after embarrassing him, and Lee is like not a hero for women, she’s a really negative representation of what those kinda people already think by the end. It’s sorta her fault for encouraging him and then she hates him when he wants to do the right thing and she was lying the whole way through. There’s a different edit of this movie that could exist where she’s a badass and I love her for being the actual big bad but I just don’t think they did it right.
Excellent review. I loved the film, and I think it's just as good as the first one, and definitely more original and daring. I'm not saying that the first one wasn't, especially for a mainstream blockbuster, but this one goes to places the audience didn't expect and I love it for that. My only 2 complaints are that we didn't get to know Lee's (damaged) perspective a bit better. She's a spoiled rich psychiatrist who wants to be Bonnie to Joker's Clyde, but I wish we saw why she's like that? Does she see him as a thesis is psychiatry? Is she a psychopath or has some other cluster B disorder? Was she abused and sees Joker as her way to power and/or fame? The other thing I didn't like were most of the songs. I like that it's a Chicago style musical and it's very fitting, but I've got an impression that they used the the songs when they didn't know how to develop a scene in dialogue and actions. Yes i agree, the joker fans who complain about the film are like his fans in the movie. I wonder if that was intentionally done, and kinda I like that.
THANK YOU i thought i was the only one who saw it like that, i didnt like the movie, but i got what they were going for and liked some of it, i said "is it nesscary how much they had to back peddle" but than i saw all the hate and i thought "well what was i expecting", and after i saw all the hate i saw how its a much more brillant message, rather than "arthur spirals into the joker and creates a movement seqeual", to it really aligns as a great sequel "arther never wanted this he tried to stop it at alot of points" and it connects great. to "it has spiraled, it spiraled much further, arthur super doesnt want it, and its still happening anyway",
Arthur was more than committed to become the Joker in the first movie. He embraced Joker. He made a smile with his blood and smiled at his crowd. That ending was him finally turning into Joker and a start to being the Joker. And with the first movie's ending he might have just escaped from jail, we don't see whether or not the guard caught him. He could have escaped and started to cause mayhem and meeting and creating Harley Quinn and maybe even facing off against Batman. That's the beauty of the first movie. It has an ending that ends the way it did that satisfied most of the people that watched it because it ended the right and justified way. The sequel wasn't needed. Also, some versions of the Joker, including this one, didn't fall inside the chemicals and got that permanent Joker make-up. And that crazy as sh*t inmate when he stabbed him, he clearly wanted to state that he was a joke and the way he killed Murray with that punch line was an utter joke. I wonder why did it fail if it was right to convey and portray Arthur/Joker the way it did. Also, why did the first movie have a cultural impact and make a billion while the second movie won't probably win oscars/nominations and most certainly as we all know didn't even hit the 400 million dollar mark? Despicable treatment of the character.
5:51 Wait... so there are actually people out there that honestly believed there should have been no prison scenes, no trial, no courtroom? Just Joker causing mayhem? Like... how? Did they not watch the end of the last movie?
I don't think that is true. I think some people clearly wanted a Bonnie and Clyde type movie that would involve a break out, and a more widespread opinion appears to be that being limited to these two settings means there is no further exploration of the society. You know, strawmanning is a standard rhetorical tactic and unless somebody is presenting tangible evidence of the opinions of their opponents I would assume the opinions they are ascribing to their opponents is inaccurate particularly if they don't identify the source.
absolutely agree with everything you said!!!! the lack of nuance or even objectivity in so many reviews is so weird to me, so many critiques sound like they watched a completely different film. also, followed u on letterboxd!!
The triggered reactions this movie are weird and telling, but I do think the execution of this movie is flawed, especially in its pacing. It could have shown Arthur's mental fugue with having the audience experience it too.
I didn't like the first one because I felt that it was trying to say more than it actually did. Is ironic to me that the people who over idealized the first movie are a reflection of the fans Joker got in this one. They loved the concept of fighting for the mentally ill until the character proves to really just be a sad sick man and they turned their back on it. I really enjoyed this second one because it feels more daring and unique. People want to see a movie about someone with weird delusions but don't want a movie that goes away from regular filmmaking (the musical aspect). My main criticism of the first one was that if it wasn't for name dropping Bruce this would just be a movie about a random clown, and well!
I have to echo everyone else on here, but thank you. Everyone, including several of the FEW critics whom opinions i respect, are trashing this movie, and their arguments make zero sense to me, and I guess I'm just now realizing that most everyone didn't understand the first film. This film is a masterpiece, it builds off of the first film, and makes the first film better. With all these alternate universes and "what-if"s everyone is talking about, people can't comprehend that this story is it's own story, in its own gotham, and tells a wonderfully tragic and cautionary tale. What even makes the film even better, is that on a meta level, the movie BECOMES Arthur, getting turned into something it didn't want to be and when it tried to take its identity back, it gets killed by those who never understood. I swear, I don't want to heap too much praise on the director of the hangover movies, but he had to at least have an idea of what the reception was going to be, and that those choices are intentional, to hold the mirror up to the audience, to society, in real time. Your review is excellent, I'm not eloquent enough to convey everything this movie made me feel, but you pretty much nailed it. I found myself saying "exactly!" out loud several times. This is a beautiful, tragic film, all of the hate directed towards it is misplaced.
Yeah, i definitely think the second movie is a clarification of the original's message. And _that_ is what the anti-conscious, anti-awareness people have been so quick to attack it. Not necessary that they _get_ what it's doing, but that they at least feel resentment at having their assumptions challenged. Arthur, no matter what pseudonym he may go by, is a pathetic figure. A victim who lashed out and made more victims. And yet he's still vulnerable to the manipulations and coercions of others. Because, realistically, a mentally ill person is far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator. And most important of all, his actions didn't change anything. The societal systems are still in place. Those in need still are not served. And the people who had a riot have not done anything, either. They're mostly disappeared. There's no community because it was just a bit of a tantrum that spun itself out. Also, in the two movies we see a world that actually hews pretty close to our own -- far closer than any other comic book movie. A mentally ill person snapped, had a very violent episode, and then has lost all his agency to be kept in a prison that only hurts him more and has no chance of actually helping him get better. Batman doesn't fit in that world. But if he did show up, he'd be a villain calling himself a hero. A guy who dresses up to physically attack and harass a clearly ill person and has hoarded wealth that could have gone to the people _or_ been put into functional mental health facilities and rehab facilities.
the whole let's unravel the first movie direction, comes from the meddling of WB and Nolan on the first one ,-not some conspiracy about the fans They wanted to give Arthur a permanent smile by having him cut it on his face at the end of the first movie, but Nolan didn't like that as he thought it was ripping of "the dark knight" and WB bent over backwards for him. the physical deformation is the final step in any joker origin but Arthur as a joker was born with only a painted smile. thus his underlying persona is not dead, and in the 2nd movie it resurfaces and brakes under the joker persona thus the direction of the 2nd movie is a direct result of the interference on the first.
I thought joker 2 was a great film. Defo no masterpiece like the first one,but it was much darker and i felt more fr Arthur in this. Poor bloke couldn't wait to die, his whole bloody life was hell. And when he thought he had a beam of light with Lee, that tw@t just dumps him. The only thing I wish, was joker or another inmate killed Jackie or one of the other gaurds. They were real nasty monsters. I didn't like them and i really was hoping one at least, would have been killed... poor Ricky, he was a young lad who didn't deserve to be strangled.
People want a Joker wreaking havoc around Gotham like the half end of Joker 1, or Nolan's Joker, and that people are represented by the inmates, the followers, and especially the character of Harley Quinn. They want Arthur keep living in his fantasy. They don't want a human joker struggle with mental illness, drugged in the prison, screaming for help, taking responsibility for his murder. They have it at the end, a new Joker is born when killing Arthur, the new Joker tearing his mouth in madness.
I personally really enjoyed both Joker movies, second one more than the first. I think Todd Phillips realized that he made a messed up movie with Joker 1 and wanted to solve the problem, but couldn't, the only way was to burn it to the ground. Joker 2 isn't a "good film" but it does what it wanted to do VERY well.
THANK YOU! HOLY SHIT! You mirror my thoughts and feelings EXACTLY. The hate for this movie is insane. Made me feel like I was crazy. Love love love this video and your thoughtful analysis, you've got a new subscriber. Also, sidenote... describing the sex scene as "horrific". Quite apt.
It's a really important and bold movie. It's trolling us. That's really why it's called Joker. The "deux" is not only referring to Lee, it's reffering to us, the audience.
So I think your entire perspective is influenced by the "extremes" and your response to distance yourself from those reactions as much as possible, leading you to view the first movie and this one from an improper standpoint AND perhaps even having you adopt a contrarian viewpoint to make sure you distance yourself from those you dislike. I agree with the first movie being meh and definitely not the grand exploration of mental health as people touted it as. I never saw Arthur as a tragic anti-hero, just a guy who was pushed to the edge. His iconic dancing scene was like seeing someone dance to their suicide, and when he doesn't die, he just goes along with the joke. Hu ha ha ha. But the movie also seems to expose a lot of things. Even in this comment section you got a person who is afraid and downright fear-mongering that "people cheering in the audience" is disturbing. Insinuating that if these people cheer at the Joker getting at the system and getting personal justice, then... What else are they going to do? And that's the weird thing the media did with the first movie. They painted it as dangerous incels watching it and going to start shootings at cinemas. But nothing happened. Because of course it wouldn't. That's what I really appreciated about the first movie: It exposed this extremely irrational fear of some boogiemen extremists just waiting to explode... Just like the Joker. It exposed the Murray's. If you are afraid that incels will go commit hate crimes because they "look up" to the Joker... You are Murray. You are the one making fun of the mentally ill person. You are the society that keeps him down. You are the one lacking empathy because you are too afraid to see the person. And you don't care to see the person because they're mentally ill. Just like incels are. You would be afraid of Arthur. You would treat Arthur like shit. You are Murray. And that's why you are afraid. Because you think the same thing that happened to Murray will happen to you. But all of that genius was just accidental. This comes from Todd Philips. He didn't mean to do that. He actually doesn't respect or care about the character, saying stuff like "sneaking in a real movie" in the superhero genre. So what does this second movie do? It doubles down on the fear. But instead of having a "good" ending, or a "good" message, it's message ends up being "If you go against the powers that be, you will die for it, you pathetic loser." That's it. Arthur is made as pathetic as possible, he is fully oppressed-- no-- compressed by the systems he fought against. All of that power and confidence he felt he had, was taken and he was reminded that he never had it. And then he gets SA'd and killed because that's people who go against the system effing deserve... Not to mention how much the movie sucks otherwise. The music sucks, just mostly shitty covers. The courtroom drama is dogshit and only "cool" if you don't know how a real court works. It doesn't do the character of Joker or Harley Quin any justice, completely flipping their existing comic dynamic around just to rip any power or real menace from Arthur other than "insane guy pushed too far". I was hoping the sequel would insert more "comic Joker" into this mess, but naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, Todd Philips just wants to make his arthouse fanfiction... And worst of all: It's sooooooo boring. This movie is almost like a Litmus test. To see if you truly are Murray or not. If you are willing to stigmatize and keep up the system because you are afraid.
Anyone who watched joker 1 and thought it was some ground breaking exploration of how a sick society gets the criminals that they deserve didn't watch any of the movies that it borrowed HEAVILY from before slapping a DC logo on. Anyone that saw it as a heroic origin must have watched with their fingers in their ears. The music alone during the murray franklin scene basically screams to the viewer that this is supposed to feel more like watching Texas chainsaw massacre than batman begins.
Arthur ends the movie rejecting everyone who tried to use his mental illness to manipulate him. He rejects the guards feeding off his celebrity, he rejects the psychologist need to use him to raise awareness, he rejects Ley using him as a partner to make her life interesting, he rejects the guys who break him out of jail to lead their movement. Most of all he rejects the audiences need to indulge in their revenge for the powerless and downtrodden fantasy. He accepts his wrongs and refuses to be used anymore and then they don't need him any more so he's killed.
I listened to psychologists talk about the first movie in podcast and it was very interesting. The movie seems to hit the nail on the head when it comes to mental illness. The movie does a very good job of not blaming his mental illnesses for his killing spree. If anything he seems to kill because it’s the first time he’s gotten recognition in his life. The second movie hits that point even harder by pointing out that no one cares about Arthur. They care about the joker.
Not to forget the passing mention of the sexual assault when talking about his abusive mother. I was shocked how NO ONE mention this and the rape by the security guards.
Oh, and you're a gay, liberal cuck. Thanks for the reminder.
Yeah good point about the mum I was meaning to mention but slipped my brain, big things lots of movies don’t explore
It’s just like the movie in a way, everyone just puts those things Arthur went thru aside sadly
It was so mean spirited and pointless
@@4thcutiemarkcrusader Somehow the fact they revealed his sexual assault on the same scene they basically said before an audience he was a virgin (before Lee), and then he gets Sa'd for no obvious reason, and the movie never addresses that other than making it seem it's what leads him to "own up" about not being the Joker....can't unpack it rn, but it makes me profoundly uncomfortable and should be talked about more
Am I the only one that actually jams to music in this movie?
No
I listen to Joaquin's For Once In My Life rendition from time to time
it's crazy seeing so many different interpretations of this movie. at it's core, it's honestly really about exposing humans inability to ACTUALLY empathize with someone, without the need to force a sensational identity solely to comfort themselves.
This is precisely why Todd went with this spin on a character as revered as Joker.
people do this a lot if you really think about it. this is what we'd probably describe as "tragedy porn" or "doomscrolling", etc. Joker 2 is a critique on how we treat others as spectacles in a transactional sense, and not as actual people.
the riots in the 1st movie perfectly represent this. nobody in the 1st movie even knew exactly why Arthur acted the way he did, they just assumed he wanted to wreak havoc to "fight back the system".
Well said. People today (of all ages and sexes) seem to lack empathy with their fellow human beings. Unless we are a 'worthy' person such as the in vogue comedian, actor, musician or athlete, etc, then we are not given the time of the day (you are considered dull, and unlovable for who you are). This is why, I believe, people resonated with Arthur Fleck in The Joker movie, because he represented this painful feeling of deep alienation that is very present today, whereby we seriously struggle to connect with one another on a truly deep and meaningful level. We are very pre judgemental of each other based on insignificant details like clothes, looks or status etc. I even notice today how people with disabilities are supposed to run a marathon or be funny or somehow special, to be considered worthy of dignity and respect, which i find rather sad because they dont. We all need to do better and try to be more compassionate, helpful and loving. Love thy neighbour.
EFAP destroyed this point lol.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - a quote used to apply to the Joker's case to justify burning down the system rather than to more justifiably show compassion to those that aren't getting it
Is it justifying it or explaining it?
For example, if I were to say "the crippling and humiliating effects of the Versailles treaty upon 1930s Germany created the conditions that led to the rise of public support for fascism" I would not be justifying the policies of a certain authoritarian nationalist and genocidal political party; I would merely be citing a GCSE Modern History explanation of the circumstances leading to that chapter that is a little more intelligent than the devil did it and insufficient censorship caused it!
it's explaining it. it's more a matter with what someone does with that knowledge
I'm moreso arguing that people USE this quote to justify/explain their own burning of the village rather than more productively shed compassion to the child, which is more the point
showing compassion for the little guy rather than promoting burning the village in reliation for not receiving warmth
@@umanuu
But who is "burning the village"? Who are the "burners of the village" here? Firstly, there were no Joker copycats regarding the Joaquin Phoenix Joker. Secondly, the alleged Joker copycat associated with Heath Ledger's Joker, who does not have a sympathetic back story*, and yet even here, the key word is alleged because the link between the Aurora shooting and The Joker is a media invention - he did not dress like the Joker, he merely had dyed hair - not dyed green; dyed carrot coloured! At the screening of a film that didn't even have the Joker in it, because it was the third film in the trilogy. Are we going to say all the blue-haired people are Joker fans too?
And by the way what is the point in showing compassion to victims of a broken system if you plan to not do anything to change the system? It's as hollow as "I am sorry that happened to you" and "hopes and prayers". There is nothing wrong with saying this system is turning men into monsters so maybe it is a broken system that needs fixing.
(* Footnote: although he does make cogent sociopolitical observations, as does The Riddler in "The Batman" or Killmonger in "Black Panther" and that has never been uncommon for realistically drawn villains for them to make valid points for as long as I have been alive I have seen films or tv adventure serials where the villain flummoxes the hero by making a valid argument the hero can't argue with and therefore the villain's flaw is they have subscribed to an "ends justify the means" philosophy. For example I grew up watching Doctor Who and there are a couple of stories in the mid-seventies where the villains are eco-terrorists at a time when the producer was an environmentalist and one of the writers was a communist so they certainly weren't disagreeing with their villainous creations on their assessment of a problem but on how they choose to address it.)
@@markpostgate2551 not reading that essay
9:13 I disagree entirely with your point here, you're talking about the scene where Lee sings "Close to You", I think that's one of the best scenes in the film because we have Arthur at a very low point questioning whether or not he should even trust Lee, and when she notices that she's starting to lose him to lose Joker, which is all she really cares about, she tells him she's pregnant and sings this uplifting love song to him as a deliberate way to emotionally manipulate him back onto her side, which is why the scene ends with the lipstick on the glass shot were Arthur aligns himself with it to reaffirm that he is still Joker and is willing to continue to be for her and this supposed baby they're having.
Well said, music is the guiding force for Arthur to identify the method to the madness of the world. Harley with her background in psychology knows this and takes advantage whenever she can.
This is one of the reasons why a lot of people hates this movie. Music is not original, so its meaning its pretty much open. Is people actuallly singing or its an hallucination? It's not very clear. In the first movie, arthur was an unreliable narrator, so it would make you doubt what is real and what is not, you are forced into the perspective of a crazy person. But this musicals dont do that. They are just musicals of already existing songs which are non-diegetic.
@@gastonmedici1029You do realize that the musical aspects are just like the hallucinations in the first movie right? And that the first movie clearly showed that it wasn't this giant hallucination, only certain aspects?
Arthur singing in front of the TV (the first song) is in his head......this is literally shown (hence why when the number ends, hes just sitting there). The musical numbers are all in his head. Lee sings to and with him to manipulate him. The songs not being original also has a point because Arthur is singing songs he knows from his past.
Arthur is still an unreliable narrator but this time around, he's being pulled around and told what to feel and believe, playing into his fantasies and madness.
This is all the point of the film. I don't know how you didn't understand this.
@@crater044 So when Lee sings, its fake or not? Is he being manipulated by his own hallucination? Also, whats the point in manipulating him?
Arthur is an unreliable narrator, but not in the same way of the first film. The first film established a grounded world and it would make you question everything that happened, not this one. His madness here is used for inserting shitty karaoke songs that wouldnt have place in a story like this one. You could also interpret the musicals as nondiagetic bs.
No, theres no point to singing songs he previosly knew, which he knew by heart, because it wasnt established in the first movie. He wanted to be a comedian, not a singer. It's the Joker, not the singer. There were musical elements in the first film, but not singing. They put songs in it, because Phoenix had a dream about it and because they hired Lady Gaga.
PS: Do you know why Arthur had hallucinations in the first film? Because it was ripped off from the king of comedy. Both movies arent as deep as you think they are.
Thank you so much for making this. I couldn’t believe the reception this film got, I felt like I was losing my mind
I kinda hate when people watch a film and think it’s all about them
That's my biggest issue with the criticism of the movie. It's almost as if people lack the self awareness to understand what the hell the film is saying.
Yes, its the "this is about me specifically". Idek why these supposed feminists would even want to take down the first movie. I never took it as talking about "men's" mental health, rather just how society treats the mentally ill. But ofc, if its about them specifically, then, surely, the movie is focusing on all the attributes that describe them
100% THIS!!!
@@aiaikawa4012 I'm sure that those viewers that thought the film was all about them were not feminists in the slightest.
You just earned yourself a subscriber. You nailed every point I took from this film. I would like to share my interpretation of the ending. I think the Glasgow smile was a nod to Ledger, not in that it was meant to be the same character but in that the ideology Arthur created will live on beyond him and be adopted by more radical individuals which will in time lead to the more traditional version of the character audiences expected Arthur to become. The joker followers see Arthur as a weak disappointment due to his rejection of the Joker persona so someone else steps in to finish the job. ( This city deserves a better class of criminal and I'm going to give it to them.) It's essentially the inverse of Batman in the dark knight trilogy. Joker has become more than just a man. He's become an idea, a symbol for people to rally behind. That was my take away. I loved the video. Looking forward to exploring future content.
The clip with people cheering in the theatre is really disturbing.
Ngl i never thought people would feel anything but terror watching that scene. I remember being in theaters and felt the fear in my gut as the gun went off.
Yeah kind of a bizarre reaction.. it's not supposed to be a triumphant moment by any stretch. Our screening was dead silent, it just felt so visceral and real.
For Joker 2? Yeah.
I'm not one for Musicals so I was presently surprised to find this out. also Ignore the critics and reviews and make up our own mind 9/10 for me
you are so smart and i love you for speaking up about all of this!!!! I ALWAYS saw the stair scene as tragic. it felt like an almost 180 of the rocky scene, in every way,
i though originally or meant his decent after going off medication and how sometimes with psychosis and debilitating mental illness, medication is a constant struggle because when it works you forget why you ever needed it.
but with the second film, I also think in a way its almost a complete representation of not only author fleck’s life but also, just life in general, we are born with the most potential we will ever have in our lives, and everything is a walk downward.
You're definitely a lone voice screaming in the wilderness here but I really appreciate this take. I left the film feeling really deflated and disheartened and wondered what the point of it all was. But letting it marinate in my head a while I can see it ultimately as a tragic and meta deconstruction of Arthur/Joker and how life has kind of imitated art with it's reception.
I know "subverting expectations" is kind of a loaded phrase these days but it did. Could the execution have been better? Sure, but I do appreciate it what it did. Joker was always a cautionary tale and I never thought Arthur would fully embrace the chaotic madness of his Joker persona. It's ultimately a tradegy about an abused, mentally ill loner who by circumstance accidently birthed a Frankenstein's monster he couldn't control or fully understand. As someone said we all wanted Joker, but we got Arthur.
I hate the modern trend of "subverting expectations" and that is already an expectation that requires subverting..
@@jesustyronechrist2330 Oh I agree and since TLJ's fan backlash especially it's almost become a sin to do anything remotely out of left field, but that's for another discussion. You still want a balance between not pandering to your audience completely and challenging them to rethink certain things and the expectations that come with that. Folie a Deux I think strikes that balance nicely IMO.
"Wilderness" not that's just the objective opinion lol.
@@HonkHonkler "objective opinion" is a self contradictory phrase
@@wariowarecomix No it's not lol. Also Trump won lol.
People today (of all ages and sexes) seem to lack empathy with their fellow human beings. Unless we are a 'worthy' person such as the in vogue comedian, actor, musician or athlete, etc, then we are not given the time of the day (you are considered dull, and unlovable for who you are). This is why, I believe, people resonated with Arthur Fleck in The Joker movie, because he represented this painful feeling of deep alienation that is very present today, whereby we seriously struggle to connect with one another on a truly deep and meaningful level. We are very pre judgemental of each other based on insignificant details like clothes, looks or status etc. I even notice today how people with disabilities are supposed to run a marathon or be funny or somehow special, to be considered worthy of dignity and respect, which i find rather sad because they dont. We all need to do better and try to be more compassionate, helpful and loving. Love thy neighbour.
I believe people were anticipating the rise of the Arthur/Joker in this movie, where we witnessed the fall of the man but the emergence of the icon Joker as an abstract idea, a idea that now can be represented by anyone, and that was really powerful.
I enjoyed the movie. I have my own take, that I've not heard anyone else mention yet.
Joker 1 and 2 remind me so much of Kill Bill 1 and 2. They are two parts of one whole. They bookend the story of the main character. Both movies differ stylistically to each other but still remain true to the characters, worldbuilding and overall journey of the protagonist.
Both directors Phillips and Tarantino took inspiration from things they loved and admired and created something new from the pieces. There was a clear vision and story to be told. A beginning, middle and end.
This is the story of Arthur Fleck.
The sad thing is all the audience wanted was The Joker. Not 'A Joker Interpretation' but The Joker. This is exactly what the movie spells out and real life has now imitated art by the mass negative reviews.
Thank you! Its beyond refreshing hearing someone that actually UNDERSTANDS the movie talk about it. The first movie was NEVER the DC comics and they have always been very clear about that. Same with the sequel. The fan boys really are all just telling on themselves for not understanding the "deep deep" movie they praise.
Well said!
People can understand this movie and dislike it. It's not the genius level content you're making it out to be.
But you still need to remember that Joker is actually a brand. If you remove all Batman references... how much people would have shown up to watch it? If you don't want to deal with the fans create your own IP.
@@marshallstannus cancer
@@gastonmedici1029 personally, i feel like that's the fault of fans for attaching too much to ip's. i love a lot of ip's, but if someone's take on it is, in my eyes, super far off, well, i'll be sad that i didn't get more content i enjoyed, but i won't take it as an offense to muh sacred ip or something, i'll just keep watching/reading the takes i do like, they haven't been erased.
You think i liked any atla live action version? NO lol. but they weren't for me in the first place, and i can always rewatch the original for the 100th time
On top of being a courtroom drama it's also an homage to the Great American Songbook. Americans only prove they have become detached from their artistic heritage with the way they receive this film. BTW it's not just the guards, what makes Arthur repent is the fact that Saints Go Marching In guy dies because of his devotion to him.
That AND his "cross examination" of Gary Puddles was another breaking point, he realized in his whole fruitless Joker act how much he hurt and alienated quite literally the only person who showed him kindness and friendliness. Gary treated Arthur like a human being, everyone else treated him horribly OR only gave a damn about him once he became the Joker.
@@jacknorton8363 no Arthur treated Gary kindly. He realised how being Joker was burying the decency in him.
@enminghee2926 Yes! That's a great point I wish I articulated, totally on the money.
Really appreciate a proper analysis of this film, i think it was excellent and probably better than the first, one thing that stood out to me in this film was just how much arthur is pushed around for most of the film, hes being led around by the guards, the lawyer, harley, even the guys who tried to rescue him at the end, he starts at his most vulnerable point and is being literally shoved around and the only autonomous decision he can make is to let the joker come out to regain some sense of control, even though hes being manipulated into that as well. They make it so clear how hes made by his curcumstances, a much better exploration of the typical "we live in a society" thing but also firmly shows he is responsible for his actions
I agree with everything except for his lawyer. She is the only one who cares for arthur, she gives him her coat, she wipes the dirt from his face like a mother(!!), she confronts Lee that she is harmful for Arthur. And ironically Arthur sends her away, thinking she is not good for him, but in fact being the only one that really is.
I did the same thing about being angry for the iconic aproach of the audience for the Joker. I loved this sequence. I think the audience feels entitled to demand what they want because they are paying and crying all over the internet because they had a different idea than the fucking creator. Saying that the director 'destroyed' a figure, but he did not. That figure was already broken in so many pieces and just limited people couldn't see it.
And 881 likes just of one comment of the conspiracy theorie shit. It's just insane.
And it flopped lol. Cry more lol.
Facts, I really enjoyed both Joker and Joker 2 while understanding why masses didn't like the sequel. People are focuses on the small things instead of the big picture which does prove the wrong people got the wrong message from the first film, but they're valid yet I wish they'd open their minds to the 3rd person view of The Joker that is discusses in this film.
I think the joker movie is targetet at an audience that has experienced mental illness before.
I completely feel the whole movie and to me every single detail makes perfect sense.
i kinda interpreted in the way that arthurs narrative is MEANT to show "woe is me society treats me bad and i was GIVEN this gun and now i lost my job its all everyone elses fault i feel so bad" etc but the audience gets to see both his delusional pov as well as just a rational onlookers pov.
thats why i loved the first movie as someone who struggles a lot with mental illness.
it showed the same situation but told it in two separate realities.
to ppl who arent struggling with this sort of thing it shows the flawed pov of someone so deep in their delusion and how its "making sense" to them
and then on the other hand it shows mentally ill ppl how onlookers kinda perceive them and more importantly what life objectively might look like in reality in comparison to their own flawed and subjective pov.
anyways just finished the video. really great arguments and ideas here!
I really like this point, makes me re think my issues with the first tbh
i definitely agree about the ending. I feel like the guy who kills Arthur in the movie is supposed to symbolize use the viewer and our unwavering idea of what the joker is supposed to be. Most people won’t admit it but deep down just want to see heath ledgers joker again (nothing wrong with that) and that’s what they wanted Arthur be. They wanted controlled chaos instead of a deeper exploration of jokers own duality. I really liked this movie
very nice analysis! it's refreshing to see this type of insight and not just "this was poo poo ARGGGG!"
so this movie is about how people want to see Joker and not Arthur and the fans don't like Joker 2 because they want to see Joker and not Arthur, i think this movie predicted its own reputation
people forget to mention that Arthur not only suffered from mental health issues, but was IMPOVERISHED, it doesn’t sit right with me how everyone completely looks over the fact that these mental health issues are enhanced by poverty.
Thank you so much for your analysis! I agree with everything you said. Personally i loved the first Joker! I was blown away by acting, music and cinematography. I got the message. Joker is not somebody to idolize. And I guess that's why i really liked the second part. It gave us a very realistic, cruel contanuation. Crime and punishment. It wasnt boring to me. It had such a poetic, tragic vibe. Lee is like a deadly siren that enables Arthur's delusion. Todd risked it all with this movie. People wanted to see Joker but got Arthur. The irony of it all.
Absolutely agree! Joker 2 is just the logical, coherent continuation of the story told in the first movie.
Did people really expect Arthur Fleck to become the dangerous and smart agent of chaos? lol.
And he failed... Sooo...
Absolutely loved this film. Both movies are fantastic.
They’re both movies made for the art of filmmaking and the creativity behind it. Not box office. The first movie was seen in a positive way and the second one was seen in a negative way.
I think the scene where Lee claims she is pregnant, is her manipulating Joker. It's like her siren call, but it's also like she's singing a lullaby. Given that Joker is less than a year old, it works a treat.
Thank you! The same reasons that I enjoyed this movie too. I quite liked Joker (2019), but I really appreciated this dark meta commentary approach the sequel took.
I love court room thrillers as well, but what was good about this one? (Besides the interview of Mr Puddles) And why introduce Harley Quinn in it? If not to talk about domestic abuse in a relationship? They didn't really explore any of the two things they were offfering :
- The Harley Qhuinn character
- The court room thriller
It's just meh, and it's too bad cause the photographgy is gorgeous...
Honestly I see it being more appreciated/gaining a cult status in a few years, similiar to how Rob Zombies Halloween 2 was universally panned and hated and then years later it slowly got more appreciation for being it’s own thing.
the directors cut did change halloween 2 significantly
Please do not compare this to that actual garbage movie
@@creepypastacraftfacts PLEASE H2 was horrible
I disagree with that prediction, lol
Tbh I don't think that is possible in today's media landscape. After people make a million videos about how terrible it is nobody revisits it. It's a shame because I think it's a really good movie, but this kinda thing doesn't happen anymore.
I feel like Arthur was afraid of the gun, and didn't want to let it out of his sight.
I’m happy you enjoyed it, I had a bit of enjoyment but not enough to like it
I think the movie(s) is a good one, just not a good Joker movie. Joker is not a blank slate character, just because he's not got a set past. His lack of a set past and the inexistence of any logical reason to what he does is the basis of the character. If this had been 1. one movie instead of two and 2. an original story, it would have been great. Like, I can't write a story about a guy trading in illegal antiquities to fund his underground anarcho-communist group and create an uprising to topple the existing structure and make it an Indiana Jones movie because "oh, it's just a different iteration of the character".
1000% agree, most of the backlash is because the fans are mad Arthur Fleck isn’t the joker, but he was only “Joker” in name only the first time around. I honestly would’ve liked Joker 2019 had it not been connected to DC (idc if it’s only by name)
The version of the Joker youre talking about with a non existent past was popularized by Alan Moore in the 80s when he was writing one off "elsewhere" style alternate universe stories about comic characters. Joker was Jack Napier in the 60s. There were 3 jokers running around in the main comic line recently.
@@notanimportantperson This one wasn't Jack Napier, though. The most well-known iterations, especially outside comics, have certain set characteristics and that's how they caught on. It's not that Arthur Fleck couldn't be the Joker because he's a new character, it's that the way they treated the story is antithetical to the themes all Joker incarnations share so the character ends up having nothing in common but the clown theme. Which again, could be salvaged, only they weren't honest about that either. What I'm getting is, they were interested in making an Arthur Fleck story, the Joker was just window-dressing.
@@slashfan091 What? Most of the backlash is NOT because of that. It's because the movie sucks. Or maybe at best, that it's a musical and people didn't realize.
I'm guessing you are assuming that what you see on Twitter reflects real life, right?
@@jesustyronechrist2330 unlike you fruitpops crying about a movie, I don’t got Twitter
Really nice to see positive reviews for this movie especially one as in depth as this. I do think it is troubling that no one has whispered a word of the real issues with this film, the normalizing of smoking indoors, running in the street and unsafe sex. 👉🏻👌
Seriously though some thing that im not sure was intentional, but was really refreshing was a curveball in the form of a scene I was anticipating from the trailer. It’s too often I see something in the trailer that gives away a suspenseful moment in the movie, say a character is implied to be dead, but you know there’s a scene in the trailer where that character is alive and it’s not a flashback. So you know they’re OK. in the trailer there’s a scene where Lee and Arthur are dancing together on the steps triumphantly and she is giving the “suck it” gesture… The shit was hitting the fan for Arthur at the end of the movie I was convinced that something was going to happen to turn things around where him and Lee would ride off into the sunset and have their stairway scene. So when he had his “visitor” in that last scene. I was sure this was going to be the big turnaround! You can imagine my surprise as the true ending unfolded 🤡
The joke was on me. I honestly think this magnified Gravity of the rug kind of getting pulled out from underneath me and it was so refreshing. I don’t know if Todd intended that by intentionally adding that bait and switch to the trailer, but I kind of hope he did
I agree with you in regards to how most people sensationalized Joker in the first film. I still haven’t seen the 2nd because a reviewer I’ve been watching for a while now decided to share the ending of the film in their “spoilers” bit and I hate watching films that are predictable. Just based on the marketing of this film, including the trailer featuring the court house stairs routine being excluded from the film, and from the way people are bashing this for being musical when they literally said it was going to be at least a year ago, I feel like it’s fallen victim to the same fate as The Mean Girls musical. I didn’t love that film but I didn’t think it was bad, either, it was updated a little bit to make more relevant to 2023/2024, but the inclusion of ads and some changes to the plot forced me to compare. I feel like that’s what happening with this film, comparing the first to the second and disliking it because it tried to do something different. People don’t want to have real conversations about mental health, they want an excuse to fantasize about murder and revenge like the Purge did.
The Mean Girls musical movie, I meant to write 😅
I wouldn’t let knowledge of the ending stop you if it’s a movie you wanted to see. I used to think movies were about finding out the ending, but have since realized they are more about the storytelling and experience. A good story doesn’t get old after hearing it a few times. I usually find my 2nd viewing of a movie my favorite viewing.
This was an absolutely spot on analysis...and I wish more people would see this. Well done my friend.
No one explained it like you have thank you so much for making me understand what this movie is about and now i can watch it in a whole different light no i can watch joker 2 i discovered yer channel in my feed i am now a fan
I wish the musical elements were more developed, maybe to the point of some real original numbers and choreographed sent pieces. But that's what keeps it from being a really good movie. It's really an okay interrogation of a films own existence using two genres the superhero genre has snuffed out: the musical and courtroom drama
This is gonna be like American phyco and fight club they did horrible at the box office and no one understood the meaning behind it. Trust me
I understood the meaning lmao it was just poorly done imo
@@elpeluca7780How so? If you understood it that is?
@@elpeluca7780 Alright, man. Explain how it's poorly done. Like objectively. And the "not being Joker" argument is stupid because the first movie was also not about the "Joker". It was about "Arthur Fleck". Sure, this one has flaws. Even the first one had.
All your thoughts and disertations were just on point. Glad do hear more and more good point of views of this movies (which is btw soooooo much better than the first one imo as well).
I took this film interpretation in a different way. At the very first minute, when they show us that animation, it was pretty clear to me what would be the whole idea of the movie.
You have Arthur turning into Joker than you have his shadow stealing the Joker mask. And the shadow of Arthur now has the mask that turns it into Joker.
To sum up, the movie is a circus house of mirros. You never know if you are watching a scene tru Arthur pov, or Lee perception of Arthur shadow, or the guard perspective of Joker alter ego leftovers at Arthur, and so on.
This movie gets even better and even more depth when you realize that Harlequin never ever existed. It was just Lee at the very firt appearence of her. All the other Lee's or Harley that we see in the movie was just Arthur imagination. And it changes depending of the pov I was talking about. At the courtroom its pretty clear. She gets close to him and more fancy dress as far as he "climb" to his victory on his deffence. But when he just give up and left only Arthur speaks for himself, she's not even there.
You know why you can take this "pure imagination Lee" as a fact? When Arthur saw her singing for the first time, she looked at him and he felt blown away for some sort of feeling. He made some steps and suddenly she's on the next room, doing that fake gun shot scene. How? How she went there? She telleported?
And all the other scenes where theyre together, theres no one around.
Of course its just how I interpretated the movie and it felt great. Everything fits perfectly and left not even a single second of boredom as we can see exploding all over the internet about the movie. Sad. Its a movie that gives you endless ways to process and interpretate but the majority took the low road of "oh gosh its a musical bla bla (copy/paste)".
Well, this post its getting too big XD. But thank you much for you time, your dedication on putting out such a awesome review. Amazing.
Best regards xoxoxo
My conclusion was: This didnt need to be a Joker movie, never let them cook again🙏🏿
nice to hear a person that actualy gets this movie , it was amazing , go se it in a teatre :)
You're video is the best one on this movie I've seen. Finally someone who actually gets it. Fantastic video dude. Thank you for doing this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
"Everyone who dislikes the movie I like is just too dumb to get it" Sure.
Hmmm... Bravo. Best analysis of both films I've heard.
Fantastic analysis. I really enjoyed this movie. The part where the bomb goes off is a call back to the previous movie where he almost gets off scot free but this time he's afraid. I really enjoyed the ending but i really wish this movie had more dialogue. I think its sad that alot of people kinda miss the larger plot of a guy who is the victim of social nets being abandonded. The scene with Gary Puddles was perfect, i really think that it really forced Arthur to ask what he did to those he cared about and i think it also forced the audience to ask is there still empathy underneath the makeup. Also shoutout to the musical numbers, all that jazz + interpretive dance. That time of arthouse stuff is why i went to study film.
Haven't fully watched the vid yet but i LOVE to see this perspective. When i watched the movie, i enjoyed every second of it and i am usually easily bored by movies especially when they are this long. I was busy trying to connect dots and feeling all the emotions and just being so invested in the acting and trying to find my own interpretations of the scenes etc. I was and still am so shocked that so many ppl seemingly hate this movie so much (especially after the first one, which i think already set the tone for this one)
Me and my GF watched it today waiting for it to take a nose dive in quality and enjoyed the film the entire time.
Hi Marshall... Thank you so much for this video! I have heard sooo many negative critical comments about Joker 2. I went to see it and absolutely LOVED it!! It's not as dark as the original Joker, but it's such an awesome follow-up, storyline, acting, cinematography... all great! I did get a bit more out of the mental health aspect than you did with the original, maybe something in my past just related to it, who knows. I just related to the loneliness of his character. And I am totally with you about the fandom... it's weird that people were cheering somebody who is on the edge of being a sociopath killing people.
But for the negative reviews concerning Folie A Deux? I just don't understand it. Gaga is brilliant paired up with Jacquin. They make a really good couple and gave Arthur more of an understanding. I hope all this makes sense.
I think maybe the majority were just waiting for Batman to appear at the end... just stupid. Great review mate. And the musical numbers (playing inside Aethur's head as a means of escapism) were awesome!!!
I’m glad you brought up this being a red pill movie with Harley. I was thinking the same thing, this is a red pill plot.
if not blackpill lo, such a grim ending for arthur really. but feminist?????? really???? that says more about the people making the accusations than the movie itself
@@magical571 I used to be on the joker hype. Then I turned trauma into goals and now I try to be more like Batman.
I feel like both movies are a mirror image of the same ethos: We Live In A Society.
Except the first movie looks inwards, at a fictional society based on real life. Whereas the sequel looks outwards, at our real society that has been inspired by a fictional one.
Also side note, Diddy dressed as Joker for Halloween and it was chilling then, absolutely horrifying now.
I would have thought that Arthur's assault at the hands of the guards would have had the opposite effect: further fueling Arthur's self-pitying outrage and pushing him deeper into his rebellious Joker persona. I was honestly surprised when he suddenly turned remorseful.
There's no denying one fact, though - that villains are cool. To establish a character as evil, you have to show him/her doing evil things, and evil deeds are always inherently fascinating. And, if they're particularly daring, they're cool. Of course there were going to be hordes of people in Joker costumes for Halloween.
I like both films. They may not be great films, but they do have perfect politics. It's hilarious seeing that lunatic raging about "Parasite" completely missing that both of these films have the same perfect politics.
The stairway scene in the first one is a moment of pure dysfunction.
The best review of the first one came from Chapo Trap House. Their episode "Sympathy for the Joker" is essential listening.
I agree with most of what you said, especially about the lawyer 'manipulating' him into thinking he has a personality disorder. For me it was a clever and subtle message about how some would use vulnerable people for their own gain, and I do not think a lot of people gets that. Perhaps, if they deliver the court scene better and focus more on the banters, it would sell better.
That would ring true if it was demonstrated in the film that she doesn’t genuinely think that. You are quite literally projecting onto this film because the film itself has no substance. You liked it because you’re dim
I hate it when some stupid incels collectively decide that a movie is bad, because it’s woke/feminist??? Like wtf does this even supposed to mean? ‘
Woke as a movement is so negatively connoted that people who were praising the first movie don’t even realise that it (by definition) was woke to begin with. I mean, drawing attention to how badly society treats people with mental illnesses is literally so woke. Thank you for making this video!!
Btw, can you make a video about Arcane, please? I know you don’t really talk about animated shows, but it’s honestly soo good and season 2 is airing, I believe, in november :))
Your opinion is invalid when you use the term "incel" unironically in 2024.
Besides, if you say that "incels" think the movie is bad, does that mean the majority of the population are incels? I mean people and critics hate it...
It’s even worse when “normal” people who take on roles as armchair film critics say movies are bad, their videos garner millions of views from a title like “Joker 2 Trash” and a million more parrot that headline to try and leech a bit of that “success”.
It's even funnier when people cry about people who say woke, then call everyone collectively a incel. Ironic.
@@holyarmadillo3424 I like how my comment got shadowbanned
"some stupid incels"
Quite strong words there buddy. If it was "some" then why is it that critics and public hates it? Maybe you're exactly the example of what the first movie is talking about...
@@PieroMinayaRojas Okay, but what is your point? You're so hung up on the word incel, instead you could say what you disagree on. To me your comment has no substance, but only that you're offended by the word incel. If you're not an incel, nor someone who's criticising this movie simply "because it's woke", then there's no reason for you be offended like that buddy
Edit: And just because the majority agreed to something does not necessarily mean that it's correct. So no, your point isn't valid. Try again.
Thanks for this summary, great stuff
The joker is me was cool and funny. I also like it when he says I don't wanna sing anymore!!!
You want me to say if I have negative reviews. All I have are negative reviews.
Since Taxi Driver doesn't have a sequel, someone at Warner should have made Todd watch Bonnie & Clyde... THAT would have avoided all the problems.
This movie made me super disappointed when I saw it. I was really excited for the concepts of Harley Quinn and Musical arts explaining the first movie. But it overdid everything and it felt highly saturated and forced. I really want to love this movie and listen to others who currently do so I can come back in a couple years and enjoy it as intended.
It was kinda camp definitely not the worst movie ever made apparently contrary to popular belief …
I dunno. People are calling it the new Ishtar / Waterworld. I'm just happy Joker 2 is taking some of the heat away from Megalopolis. Which I loved and makes me happy and hopeful everything I think about it.
Right the truth is as a movie itself it was ok but as a " Joker " movie it was terrible.
In the first film, Arthur wasn’t “taking on the system” for shooting Murray. He shot a fellow comedian in the face for making a joke about him.
That’s a interesting perspective on it, but for Arthur none of his jokes were towards other people. Even IRL when Joaquin Phoenix went on Jimmy Kimmel live, Jimmy made underhanded mocking remarks about the actor’s real world interest in interpretive dance. Obviously shooting someone over either isn’t the right move though lol
That's reductive. The "system" wasn't some institution, the government, or anything you would think as "the system". Murray and his show was the system. The system was what it all represented. The system was how people perceived Arthur and how they treated him.
The system was a stigma. Arthur fought the stigma. He didn't take it down tho. In fact, he enforced it. The enforced the system. And THAT'S exactly what we see in this movie-- Arthur has enforced the system and now it can fully take him down.
Let's be real out here, if you know who the character of joker is, they should have just used the normal mentally ill person who killed some people because he feels betrayed by society instead of using joker's name, what do you expect joker will fan thinks, the comment is exactly what you're getting.
Foreal
You actually look like heath ledger haha
I love both joker films including Joker 2. I dont understand why people are so hateful towards it. Its amazing. Their loss.
Braindead comment lol.
@@HonkHonkler braindead is not thinking critically like you
@@HonkHonkler bit offensive
@@nathanaelsmith3553 I know.
@@HonkHonkler and inaccurate
I loved the first one and while I haven't seen the second one, I have seen breakdowns of this movie and I think I'm going to love the second one too. While Arthur could have osdd which is not full blown did it could explain his dissociative states and the split into the joker persona. But all I'm hearing, to be honest, is that people don't enjoy musicals and blatantly glossed over alot of things. Like his full on R scene. And that ofcourse Arthur's singing would be bad in universe. Like alot of the first movie him disassociating into these dream scenes are full blown here. Not full on d.i.d but it could really be osdd. And just teetering on that journey of how realistically we wouldn't know. Arthur fully had horrible mental health services. I genuinely am going to watch this movie just to see for myself.
Ps. I never got why people loved the death scenes in the the first one. Like all the movie is tragic not triumphant
This is a thoughtful rebuttal to the stream of reviewers who couldn't stomach the film.
the critique this movie is receiving is so interesting because it really comes down to whining men (mostly) who created a hero after the events of the first movie, related to him and didn't see him succeed. I really love the classic accusations of "the world" suppressing their voices and ruining everything with "propaganda"
I was laughing every time another screenshot of those "misunderstood" men (mostly, I think) appeared. don't think it was added for comedic value, but it really made my day
This is exactly it. This movie upset its male fanbase and it’s paying the consequences.
But don't you think there are also those fans who felt Arthur was never heroic. But an extreme product of our woefully inadequate mental health system.
So when he says, naaa, I was just pretending to be mentally ill all along. Then that promotes the idea that mental illness is just people making up excuses for their poor choices and behaviors. And undercuts all socially redeeming qualities from Joker 1 and the need to take mental health care more seriously.
@@Alyboba I feel like a lot of that male fanbase has mental health challenges of their own. Don't know how to get the help they need. And therefore, feel highly misunderstood cuz society just makes matters worse for them (in their eyes). Which is why Arthur Fleck becomes a type of hero for them.
@@Stress-Free-KWow you perfectly described the movie Taxi Driver which the first Joker movie ripped off.
So you think you're above people...
my guess is that the inmate at the end cuts his face instead of using blood is to show that he is more committed to being Joker than Arthur. cause while blood and makeup can be washed away, cuts can't.
Arthur was more than committed to become the Joker in the first movie. He embraced Joker. He made a smile with his blood and smiled at his crowd. That ending was him finally turning into Joker and a start to being the Joker. And with the first movie's ending he might have just escaped from jail, we don't see whether or not the guard caught him. He could have escaped and started to cause mayhem and meeting and creating Harley Quinn and maybe even facing off against Batman. That's the beauty of the first movie. It has an ending that ends the way it did that satisfied most of the people that watched it because it ended the right and justified way. The sequel wasn't needed. Also, some versions of the Joker, including this one, didn't fall inside the chemicals and got that permanent Joker make-up. And that crazy as sh*t inmate when he stabbed him, he clearly wanted to state that he was a joke and the way he killed Murray with that punch line was an utter joke. I wonder why did it fail if it was right to convey and portray Arthur/Joker the way it did. Also, why did the first movie have a cultural impact and make a billion while the second movie won't probably win oscars/nominations and most certainly as we all know didn't even hit the 400 million dollar mark? Despicable treatment of the character.
@@PreciousHuddle no he didn't. he only "embraced" it because he was finally being given praise and attention. he never cared about breaking the system, he was just a love-starved man who lashed out at specific people.
New subscriber!
I didn’t get what they were going for fully with that ending, I had loved everything else but hated the ending and the way you called attention to the parallels between Arthur killing Murray/arthurs death made the lightbulb go off for me and I audibly yelled “YOOO WTF” 😂
Great vid! 🎉
I'm of a minority demographic who loves clowns, Batman, queer culture, Lady Gaga, and (some) musicals, and had a lot of ideas about what this could have been. have my own problems with the movie that for the most part people haven't touched on. Namely I would've liked more stuff like Joker by Anthony Newly, in the court scene you talked about in the video, which I also really enjoyed. I think you make some really valid and thought provoking points and I agree with a lot of it. The one solace I've taken with my disappointment is a certain kind of person hated this movie for all the (in my opinion) VERY wrong reasons, are very upset by it. I appreciated what they did for what it was and left the theater singing. In the days following I've had to sort of try to figure out why I also hated a lot of the narratives, attitudes, and backwards morals of this movie. Like how they just embarrass and hurt him the whole time under the guise of it being his consequence for the bad behavior while not addressing the WHY of it all, and no one who did anything bad got punished, and all the well meaning people did. Arthur's real crime seemed like it was backing off the crazy because he just let all the bad people win until he got shanked. To the point of the S/A for example I took it as something juvenile that was done on the part of filmmakers to try to embarrass, and emasculate him, and detach certain kinds of people from idolizing the character and the way it effected me personally was they I felt like it was akin to some immature xbox live kid bashing on incels by using gay slurs, like ok you're wrong in what you're saying too. It felt like a wrong minded way of trying to take someone's power away. Like you like the joker, you would get r-worded and stabbed in prison.. like ok that's not the proper or healthy mindset to take with conveying the message that he isn't meant to be idolized. I could have taken that the wrong way but it kinda upset me. This is coming from someone who's number one problem was not enough Gaga, pageantry, fun costumes, ballet inspired themes, and campy fun, so I'll just say maybe I'm over sensitive to that subject matter in a different way. I felt like it was meant to use homosexual abuse to hurt people who would be particularly offended by it for the wrong reasons, which is backwardly homophopbic in it's own way. We should learn not to accidently use gay as an insult when we're talking about people who are or potentially are anti-gay. I know that wasn't gay, it was abuse, but it's still a technically homosexual S/A. Like that was really suppose to show those alt righter who looked up to him. I hoped this movie would be a palate cleanser but luckily for me I have Gaga's beautiful "Harlequin" album to help me through that.
I also noticed that this movie had those couple of moments where it clearly tried to use "gay" as something you should be disgusted at.
Which is... Very interesting.
@@jesustyronechrist2330 yeah I didn’t like that. The first time I sorta chuckled a little like ok he doesn’t give a damn and the guards are using him almost like a clown or a fool to entertain themselves by doing something that he’s kinda to confident too care about and he gets a cigarette. Like a prison jester which made sense. After the second scene and everything else it felt like I was caught in the crossfire being kinda hurt by them using the wrong ‘language’ to basically say this kinda person isn’t the big man in prison, he’s the bitch, so don’t go being like him little incels.
i think it's part of "jail" culture though? people always joke about the soap....and the universe arthur is in, yeah, he would get more than just a beating for complaining, for sure.....
And he wasn't really well meaning. he was a victim, and we all subconciously tend to root for the underdog, or someone who's been wronged, but he was creepy as all hell too, even violent, you just looked at it from his eyes that weren't self critical or self aware enough.
He was creepy as hell to her neighbor, stalking her like that? fuck! that's the type of guy i'm scared to walk by at night! entering like that to her house at random? GEEZ i would have called the police!!!!! killing his own mother? yeah, she was absolutely crazy and enabled abuse from his stepfather, but leave your house and cut contact!!!! you don't go on to kill her!!! you don't go to someone else's house uninvited and demand hugs from someone who is a literal stranger to you!!! you don't agresively demand their attention at a public restroom! at best you leave your number and hope to talk in a more proper context! you don't talk to their child and get that unconfortably close fitting your fingers in their mouth! you don't blame it all on an unsuspecting tv host who by all means accepted all of your requests and didn't straight up punched you in the face the moment he found out what you did! etc etc etc etc
HE was an absolute creep and an asshole, one with a VERY unfortunate life for sure. but he wasn't the only one! that city clearly sucked for at least half the people involved, very clearly so. he didn't have to act the way he did.
And would the grape scene have felt different for you if it were female guards????? i really don't buy that gay issue. and the point wasn't that he deserved to be graped, it's literally the opposite, there were things he did have a right to complain about, like getting his meds cut, or getting treated badly in jail, but his own actions + the shittiness of the system really made him zero favours, they only amplified each other and brought onto him into an unrelenting spiral of misery. he didn't deserve to be graped, but his victims didn't deserve to die either. He didn't even stop to consider how he traumatized mr puddles, on the first movie he even treats it as a nice guy moment to let him leave! Movies, or at least not all of them, aren't super black and white stories with a hero getting his way and a villain losing. arthur was both a criminal and a victim, and seeing him hurt should be unconfortable, reality is unconfortable! why should film stay away from it? worse things happen every day irl
@@magical571 so I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. No I didn’t mean Arthur was well meaning at all!!! Definitely not and his bad behavior was rewarded by the writing of the first story as a narrative. He was loved by the movement for all of his misdeeds. What I mean by well meaning people were his lawyer, the sweet guy that gets strangled, and puddles gets humiliated and mocked openly, and where Arthur comes in, by second one and throughout he’s backing off the persona, he feels guilty which is human, and they make a point to highlight all his trauma and abuse as if it’s a point of emasculation instead of understanding or contextualizing what he did. It’s a story and as an art piece I think it has the opportunity to make a point a real court case doesn’t have any responsibility or priority to make. They had a chance to say something and they kinda didn’t. The more he leans in to the Joker persona the more backlash he gets, but the more he backs off the evil persona the worse it gets. Then everyone who does bad things to him gets off Scott free. I’m not talking about that not having a purpose in the story, I’m saying I don’t like the morals of the narrative. I think they took a character put him on a stage and embarrassed him over and over for who he represented in real life more than anything else, and I wanted Gaga in big costumes doing fun dances. If they wanted to make people who liked the first one abandon the character they could have made it fun and camp. I think they had to much pretentious presumption that they had some big responsibility to police how people feel and I felt like I fell into the crossfire by having to suffer relating to a version of the character that was separate from all the incel and alt right garbage. I just felt like it was like listening to some kid make fun of some guy calling him an incel and he should get butt r*ed and I’m like ok whatever then. I do take some solace in the fact that there’s a kind of person who relates to Arthur/Joker who got the shit end of the stick on this one but it’s not gonna change anything backwards those people think about society or women or themselves. It’s just gonna make them angrier and hate “new world order queer Hollywood” even more not too mention the villain is a “manipulative woman who lies and doesn’t care about him” and I didn’t get camp. I wanted camp.
@@magical571 it’s like under the guise of punishment but then it’s like all the other bad people are justified, they make him a martyr after embarrassing him, and Lee is like not a hero for women, she’s a really negative representation of what those kinda people already think by the end. It’s sorta her fault for encouraging him and then she hates him when he wants to do the right thing and she was lying the whole way through. There’s a different edit of this movie that could exist where she’s a badass and I love her for being the actual big bad but I just don’t think they did it right.
Excellent review. I loved the film, and I think it's just as good as the first one, and definitely more original and daring. I'm not saying that the first one wasn't, especially for a mainstream blockbuster, but this one goes to places the audience didn't expect and I love it for that.
My only 2 complaints are that we didn't get to know Lee's (damaged) perspective a bit better. She's a spoiled rich psychiatrist who wants to be Bonnie to Joker's Clyde, but I wish we saw why she's like that? Does she see him as a thesis is psychiatry? Is she a psychopath or has some other cluster B disorder? Was she abused and sees Joker as her way to power and/or fame?
The other thing I didn't like were most of the songs. I like that it's a Chicago style musical and it's very fitting, but I've got an impression that they used the the songs when they didn't know how to develop a scene in dialogue and actions.
Yes i agree, the joker fans who complain about the film are like his fans in the movie. I wonder if that was intentionally done, and kinda I like that.
THANK YOU i thought i was the only one who saw it like that, i didnt like the movie, but i got what they were going for and liked some of it, i said "is it nesscary how much they had to back peddle" but than i saw all the hate and i thought "well what was i expecting", and after i saw all the hate i saw how its a much more brillant message, rather than "arthur spirals into the joker and creates a movement seqeual", to it really aligns as a great sequel "arther never wanted this he tried to stop it at alot of points" and it connects great. to "it has spiraled, it spiraled much further, arthur super doesnt want it, and its still happening anyway",
it was good i like both joker 2019 and the sequel the same the musical elements fit really well IMO
Arthur was more than committed to become the Joker in the first movie. He embraced Joker. He made a smile with his blood and smiled at his crowd. That ending was him finally turning into Joker and a start to being the Joker. And with the first movie's ending he might have just escaped from jail, we don't see whether or not the guard caught him. He could have escaped and started to cause mayhem and meeting and creating Harley Quinn and maybe even facing off against Batman. That's the beauty of the first movie. It has an ending that ends the way it did that satisfied most of the people that watched it because it ended the right and justified way. The sequel wasn't needed. Also, some versions of the Joker, including this one, didn't fall inside the chemicals and got that permanent Joker make-up. And that crazy as sh*t inmate when he stabbed him, he clearly wanted to state that he was a joke and the way he killed Murray with that punch line was an utter joke. I wonder why did it fail if it was right to convey and portray Arthur/Joker the way it did. Also, why did the first movie have a cultural impact and make a billion while the second movie won't probably win oscars/nominations and most certainly as we all know didn't even hit the 400 million dollar mark? Despicable treatment of the character.
5:51 Wait... so there are actually people out there that honestly believed there should have been no prison scenes, no trial, no courtroom? Just Joker causing mayhem? Like... how? Did they not watch the end of the last movie?
I don't think that is true. I think some people clearly wanted a Bonnie and Clyde type movie that would involve a break out, and a more widespread opinion appears to be that being limited to these two settings means there is no further exploration of the society.
You know, strawmanning is a standard rhetorical tactic and unless somebody is presenting tangible evidence of the opinions of their opponents I would assume the opinions they are ascribing to their opponents is inaccurate particularly if they don't identify the source.
They made this movie thinking we'd all only go so deep, they didn't go deep enough. This movie could have been much more in the same runtime
absolutely agree with everything you said!!!! the lack of nuance or even objectivity in so many reviews is so weird to me, so many critiques sound like they watched a completely different film. also, followed u on letterboxd!!
The triggered reactions this movie are weird and telling, but I do think the execution of this movie is flawed, especially in its pacing. It could have shown Arthur's mental fugue with having the audience experience it too.
*without
i instantly loved it every time I got into it I was like this is better then the first
I didn't like the first one because I felt that it was trying to say more than it actually did. Is ironic to me that the people who over idealized the first movie are a reflection of the fans Joker got in this one. They loved the concept of fighting for the mentally ill until the character proves to really just be a sad sick man and they turned their back on it. I really enjoyed this second one because it feels more daring and unique. People want to see a movie about someone with weird delusions but don't want a movie that goes away from regular filmmaking (the musical aspect). My main criticism of the first one was that if it wasn't for name dropping Bruce this would just be a movie about a random clown, and well!
I have to echo everyone else on here, but thank you. Everyone, including several of the FEW critics whom opinions i respect, are trashing this movie, and their arguments make zero sense to me, and I guess I'm just now realizing that most everyone didn't understand the first film. This film is a masterpiece, it builds off of the first film, and makes the first film better. With all these alternate universes and "what-if"s everyone is talking about, people can't comprehend that this story is it's own story, in its own gotham, and tells a wonderfully tragic and cautionary tale. What even makes the film even better, is that on a meta level, the movie BECOMES Arthur, getting turned into something it didn't want to be and when it tried to take its identity back, it gets killed by those who never understood. I swear, I don't want to heap too much praise on the director of the hangover movies, but he had to at least have an idea of what the reception was going to be, and that those choices are intentional, to hold the mirror up to the audience, to society, in real time. Your review is excellent, I'm not eloquent enough to convey everything this movie made me feel, but you pretty much nailed it. I found myself saying "exactly!" out loud several times. This is a beautiful, tragic film, all of the hate directed towards it is misplaced.
You make Folie à Deux sound like Cabaret-characters clinging to fantasy to avoid a harrowing reality until they sing very poorly.
That's kind of what it is. Gotham is a fucking shithole in these films. I'd cling onto any fantasy as well to escape the reality of it.
Yeah, i definitely think the second movie is a clarification of the original's message. And _that_ is what the anti-conscious, anti-awareness people have been so quick to attack it. Not necessary that they _get_ what it's doing, but that they at least feel resentment at having their assumptions challenged.
Arthur, no matter what pseudonym he may go by, is a pathetic figure. A victim who lashed out and made more victims. And yet he's still vulnerable to the manipulations and coercions of others. Because, realistically, a mentally ill person is far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator. And most important of all, his actions didn't change anything.
The societal systems are still in place. Those in need still are not served. And the people who had a riot have not done anything, either. They're mostly disappeared. There's no community because it was just a bit of a tantrum that spun itself out.
Also, in the two movies we see a world that actually hews pretty close to our own -- far closer than any other comic book movie. A mentally ill person snapped, had a very violent episode, and then has lost all his agency to be kept in a prison that only hurts him more and has no chance of actually helping him get better. Batman doesn't fit in that world. But if he did show up, he'd be a villain calling himself a hero. A guy who dresses up to physically attack and harass a clearly ill person and has hoarded wealth that could have gone to the people _or_ been put into functional mental health facilities and rehab facilities.
the whole let's unravel the first movie direction, comes from the meddling of WB and Nolan on the first one ,-not some conspiracy about the fans
They wanted to give Arthur a permanent smile by having him cut it on his face at the end of the first movie,
but Nolan didn't like that as he thought it was ripping of "the dark knight" and WB bent over backwards for him.
the physical deformation is the final step in any joker origin but Arthur as a joker was born with only a painted smile.
thus his underlying persona is not dead, and in the 2nd movie it resurfaces and brakes under the joker persona
thus the direction of the 2nd movie is a direct result of the interference on the first.
The movie is good and clever. It reminds me of The People v. OJ or the Menendez brothers Case.
This was made to separate the real fans vs “the bandwagoners”…
( Don’t Believe It Or Not )
People think the Joker movies are original never seen the Martin Scorsese movies Todd Phillips ripped off.
I thought joker 2 was a great film. Defo no masterpiece like the first one,but it was much darker and i felt more fr Arthur in this. Poor bloke couldn't wait to die, his whole bloody life was hell. And when he thought he had a beam of light with Lee, that tw@t just dumps him. The only thing I wish, was joker or another inmate killed Jackie or one of the other gaurds. They were real nasty monsters. I didn't like them and i really was hoping one at least, would have been killed... poor Ricky, he was a young lad who didn't deserve to be strangled.
People want a Joker wreaking havoc around Gotham like the half end of Joker 1, or Nolan's Joker, and that people are represented by the inmates, the followers, and especially the character of Harley Quinn.
They want Arthur keep living in his fantasy. They don't want a human joker struggle with mental illness, drugged in the prison, screaming for help, taking responsibility for his murder.
They have it at the end, a new Joker is born when killing Arthur, the new Joker tearing his mouth in madness.
I personally really enjoyed both Joker movies, second one more than the first. I think Todd Phillips realized that he made a messed up movie with Joker 1 and wanted to solve the problem, but couldn't, the only way was to burn it to the ground. Joker 2 isn't a "good film" but it does what it wanted to do VERY well.
THANK YOU! HOLY SHIT! You mirror my thoughts and feelings EXACTLY. The hate for this movie is insane. Made me feel like I was crazy. Love love love this video and your thoughtful analysis, you've got a new subscriber.
Also, sidenote... describing the sex scene as "horrific". Quite apt.
You ARE crazy lol.
Thank you for this, I agree with everything you said. It's so exhausting to try discussing this (and the first) movie online. Subscribed.
It's a really important and bold movie. It's trolling us. That's really why it's called Joker. The "deux" is not only referring to Lee, it's reffering to us, the audience.
So I think your entire perspective is influenced by the "extremes" and your response to distance yourself from those reactions as much as possible, leading you to view the first movie and this one from an improper standpoint AND perhaps even having you adopt a contrarian viewpoint to make sure you distance yourself from those you dislike.
I agree with the first movie being meh and definitely not the grand exploration of mental health as people touted it as. I never saw Arthur as a tragic anti-hero, just a guy who was pushed to the edge. His iconic dancing scene was like seeing someone dance to their suicide, and when he doesn't die, he just goes along with the joke. Hu ha ha ha. But the movie also seems to expose a lot of things. Even in this comment section you got a person who is afraid and downright fear-mongering that "people cheering in the audience" is disturbing. Insinuating that if these people cheer at the Joker getting at the system and getting personal justice, then... What else are they going to do?
And that's the weird thing the media did with the first movie. They painted it as dangerous incels watching it and going to start shootings at cinemas. But nothing happened. Because of course it wouldn't. That's what I really appreciated about the first movie: It exposed this extremely irrational fear of some boogiemen extremists just waiting to explode... Just like the Joker. It exposed the Murray's. If you are afraid that incels will go commit hate crimes because they "look up" to the Joker... You are Murray. You are the one making fun of the mentally ill person. You are the society that keeps him down. You are the one lacking empathy because you are too afraid to see the person. And you don't care to see the person because they're mentally ill. Just like incels are. You would be afraid of Arthur. You would treat Arthur like shit. You are Murray. And that's why you are afraid. Because you think the same thing that happened to Murray will happen to you.
But all of that genius was just accidental. This comes from Todd Philips. He didn't mean to do that. He actually doesn't respect or care about the character, saying stuff like "sneaking in a real movie" in the superhero genre.
So what does this second movie do?
It doubles down on the fear. But instead of having a "good" ending, or a "good" message, it's message ends up being "If you go against the powers that be, you will die for it, you pathetic loser." That's it. Arthur is made as pathetic as possible, he is fully oppressed-- no-- compressed by the systems he fought against. All of that power and confidence he felt he had, was taken and he was reminded that he never had it. And then he gets SA'd and killed because that's people who go against the system effing deserve...
Not to mention how much the movie sucks otherwise. The music sucks, just mostly shitty covers. The courtroom drama is dogshit and only "cool" if you don't know how a real court works. It doesn't do the character of Joker or Harley Quin any justice, completely flipping their existing comic dynamic around just to rip any power or real menace from Arthur other than "insane guy pushed too far". I was hoping the sequel would insert more "comic Joker" into this mess, but naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, Todd Philips just wants to make his arthouse fanfiction... And worst of all: It's sooooooo boring.
This movie is almost like a Litmus test. To see if you truly are Murray or not. If you are willing to stigmatize and keep up the system because you are afraid.
Anyone who watched joker 1 and thought it was some ground breaking exploration of how a sick society gets the criminals that they deserve didn't watch any of the movies that it borrowed HEAVILY from before slapping a DC logo on. Anyone that saw it as a heroic origin must have watched with their fingers in their ears. The music alone during the murray franklin scene basically screams to the viewer that this is supposed to feel more like watching Texas chainsaw massacre than batman begins.
8.7 it's great I loved it. (I was a hater before seeing it)
Glad im not the only one!!!
"There are so many good movies coming out all the time."
YES. Thank God someone else is saying it.