Its so amazing how even the fans of the original movie the people in real life who liked him for who they thought he was rejected Arthur when he decided he wanted to give up being Joker. The people in the real world are kicking him down just like in the movie. DAMN Todd Phillips is a genius the greatest artist of our age. Its hard to see where the movie ends and the real world begins.
So the movie is pretty much a middle finger to anyone who liked the first one. Todd Phillips really believes that we “idolized” joker? No we fucking didn’t. Everyone knew that what Arthur did in the first movie is WRONG. But we understood him because of how society just casts aside people with mental illness. THAT was the deeper meaning of the first movie. It’s a fucking character study. We care about Arthur, but the second movie literally just takes a shit on anyone who slightly cared about Arthur. I hate this movie. And I hate Todd Phillips. Pretentious wannabe film.
I believe Joker 2 is about Arthur Fleck, who wants to let the world know he's tired of wearing the mask of Joker no matter if someone else takes his place.
I respect your deconstruction and assessment of the film, however, this depiction is not as consistent with original 2019 film as you give it credit for. Arthur cannot completely disregard “Joker”, why would he go back to a state that makes him sick in the first place? It is his only escape and he makes a choice to embody that at the end of the first film. “There is no Joker - because he cannot uphold the weight of his followers’ expectations” is such a weak shift that isn’t enough to justify a change of character on such a scale.
This film is shining a spotlight on who actually paid attention to the first movie and who didnt. Its also fascinating that they are reacting exactly the way Todd Phillips had the Joker supporters act in the film. It really does show that people legitimately did not get the first film and damn sure dont get this one. It isnt as good as the first movie but this film is fucking with a lot of dumbass people that im just enjoying the chaos of it all.
So the movie is pretty much a middle finger to anyone who liked the first one. Todd Phillips really believes that we “idolized” joker? No we fucking didn’t. Everyone knew that what Arthur did in the first movie is WRONG. But we understood him because of how society just casts aside people with mental illness. THAT was the deeper meaning of the first movie. It’s a fucking character study. We care about Arthur, but the second movie literally just takes a shit on anyone who slightly cared about Arthur. I hate this movie. And I hate Todd Phillips. Pretentious wannabe film.
I have been watching alot of videos on this movie as to see what the general reception is and it's to my surprise that you are the first to not completely dog on the film. Thank you for sharing your veiw. There is a quote from an anime that I keep in my head circulating as much as possible "closed minded people will always hate what they don't understand". From this video, I see/believe that you have taken a step into the world of trying to/successfully understanding what this movie is trying to portray and it is very warming to see a take that isn't completely negative. I hope you have a wonderful day, I look forward to seeing more content from you and your open mind ❤. Take care everyone.
Damien Walter called it "radical cinema" and also gave it this positive, thoughtful review: "Many of the one-star ratings for Joker Folie Adieux are angry that Stephanie Germanotta isn't as hot as Margo Robie. Robbie's Harley Quinn is one of the all-time great sex fantasies up there with chain mail bikini Leia; super-villain as porn star. Stephanie Germanotta and her Lady Gaga Alter Ego laughs at these male sex fantasies about women; her Harley Quinn is a depiction of what the real women under the makeup of our hyper sexualized fantasies are actually like and nothing makes us angrier than having our fantasies shown up as cheap. We've been living on a diet of force-fed fantasy for 20 years or more: fantasies of muscular men in Spandex and hot babes fighting evil wearing only a swimsuit, fantasies of boy Wizards, Wars Among the Stars, Games of Thrones, post apocalypses and blue alien avatars computer-generated imagery made it possible to put our wildest fantasies on our screens and we've been gorging on fantasy ever since then along came Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix to smuggle into a superhero franchise at the heart of our fantasies a nugget of pure anti-fantasy! The Joker movies aren't realism; sadly, the fate of the mentally ill in our society is sadder even than the life of Arthur Fleck. Instead, Joker and its sequel are stories about fantasy; how fantasy holds us in a powerful grip, and the cost of living in our fantasies, and like the collision of matter and antimatter, the collision of our fantasy-soaked culture with this anti-fantasy movie is explosive: Joker isn't a Joker movie! Gen Xers and Millennials who remember vertigo Comics will know what Joker is: the Vertigo Comics imprint was where DC let its best creators mess with its IP to remake Batman, Superman and the rest of the pantheon. Vertigo was formed after the success first of Alan Moore's Watchmen 1985, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns 1986, and Alan Moore's The Killing Joke 1988. Moore, Miller, Grant, Morrison, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, and a cast of writers under editor Burger rewrote the DC Pantheon and created new characters. Many of the best Vertigo-style comics deconstructed the fantasies of superhero comics into sophisticated anti-fantasies that confronted readers with what our fantasies really are. The second group of one-star reviews for The Joker movies are fanboys of Zack Snider enraged or just confused that the Joker doesn't continue the absurd power fantasies of his reign over DC. The first Joker movie was the cinematic equivalent of a Vertigo comic; it was Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix rewriting The Joker archetype as an indie Art House homage to Scorsese's taxi driver with a superhero budget that just happens to be called Joker. It’s a movie about madness and civilization. Madness is the for false punishment of a false solution but by its own virtue it brings to light the real problem which can then be truly resolved. Madness and Civilization by Michelle Fuko is a history of how our society treats the insane. Fuko argues that madness and insanity are categories imposed by society on those at the bottom of society in an act we now commonly call othering. The power structures of civilization are predatory, Fuko's critique argues because they help us deny our own role in this predatory system; we accept a fictional narrative in which the damaged victims of the system are cast as insane. Arthur Fleck is the lowest victim of civilization: an orphan adopted and then abused; he has no status, so fantasizes being adored by a chat show audience; he is not loved so fantasizes a lover; he has no power, so fantasizes killing, which is a fantasy he then acts out. As Fuko argues, Arthur’s fantasies are a false solution that offer no help with the reality of his plight but calling the fantasies of the victim madness is also a false punishment. The first Joker movie is a carefully balanced dialectic between the forces of civilization and the victims of madness; it's deliberately uncertain whether Fleck is a victim to be pitied or a monster to be hated. Joker then goes a step further in its dialectic between madness and civilization Athur’s fantasies not only bring to light his real problems but begin to give Fleck real status and power as he adopts the fantasy persona of Joker that in the Joker sequel will also give him the fantasy of love as folie adieux dives deeper into the sick fantasies of our civilization. As Batman has become an ever-more hilarious parade of good actors putting on a silly costume and cashing a paycheck, Joker is a role that great actors actually want to play: Jack Nicholson's makeup smeared mafiosa, Mark Hamill's shrieking sociopath and of course Heath Ledger’s seminal turn in The Dark Knight, all laid the groundwork for Joaquin Phoenix, the greatest actor of our generation to make Joker into his kind of story. Phoenix is the face of the male victim; the little man broken by the world who hears the lyrics prison blues and thinks “that's me”. The Joker has become more and more the star of the Batman mythos as we've started to realize that billionaire industrialists with delusions of grandiosity might not be the heroes we're looking for (looking at you, Elon Muck) Batman has always been fighting not just crime but the criminally insane, and as we begin to deconstruct the fantasy of insanity used to other civilization's victims, Batman looks less like a hero standing against crime and more like a vigilante “hammer of justice” coming down on the weak and downtrodden and the Joker looks more and more like the rage, anger, violence and destruction of the downtrodden when they finally stand up! The third category of one-star reviews for The Joker movies are people who dismiss them as incel movies. You get the distinct impression these people haven't seen the movies but are simply repeating talking points from the many think pieces attacking the movies on this basis at a time of skyrocketing social inequality it must be comforting for some people to dismiss all the young men alienated from the system and stuck in low paid wage labor with the fantasy that they are all incels. “We have a perfect name for fantasy realized it's called nightmare.” --- Slavoj Zizek Arthur Fleck is finally allowed a moment of true heroism at the finale of Folie Adieux: Fleck's complex fantasies and his Joker persona have brought him the status and power he dreamed of, and Fleck can now see that his fantasies will bring him much much more. Fleck has encountered what the psychoanalyst Jack Lan called the symbolic order of civilization: that web of laws, institutions, status-structures and hierarchies that exist only symbolically by our communal agreement. Fleck has discovered that the symbolic order of civilization can be reshaped by his fantasy! His Joker persona strikes the symbolic order in all its weakest places and threatens to shatter it. Given a public platform at his own trial, Joker has the power to incite the revolution of the downtrodden masses that could bring the civilization of Gotham crashing down; but Fleck finds the moral courage to let go of Joker and the power his fantasy can grant him, and in that moment becomes a better human than most of those who sit in judgment over him. He admits: “It was all just a fantasy; there is no Joker.” but Arthur’s choice is also driven by the nightmare that awaits anyone unfortunate enough to actually realize their fantasy. In “the plague of fantasies” the philosopher Slavoj Zizek catalogues the nightmarish collaborative fantasy that is modern capitalist civilization. Arthur’s fantasies have manifested in what Zizek calls “The Impossible Gaze”: in the age of mass media we fantasize ourselves through the Gaze of a mediated audience: sports, reality-TV, chat shows. In becoming Joker, Arthur Fleck discovers that the crowd who cheer him turn out to be a crazed mob, the legal system that judges Joker is revealed to be just public theater, the media to be the prison and its guards. The reality of the “impossible gaze” he fantasized is a living nightmare, and the manic-pixie dream-girl that Arthur Fleck had always dreamed of finding turns out to be just another human playing out her own fantasy. She tells him: “We're not going away,Arthur; all we had was the fantasy, and you gave up.” Stephanie Germanotta might be the only actor who could go toe-to-toe with Joaquin Phoenix in the depiction of insanity and victimhood intertwined. Lady Gaga is a deconstruction of the male gaze, displaying all the symbols of the male sexual fantasy, then selectively amping them up to a repulsive absurdity. Germanotta’s Harley Quinn is a performative fantasy put on just for Arthur Fleck. When we first meet her the fantasy girl in the insane asylum is a constructed persona designed to seduce Joker the real woman behind the fantasy is by turns broken, manipulative, lost, powerful, genuinely insane, and coldly realistic. The reason men so easily accept simplified fantasies of femininity is because the real human behind them is always unknowably complex. Joker and its sequel are going to be two of the most hated superhero franchise movies for a long time to come. Audiences fat on our decades-long feast of CGI fantasies are never going to welcome the bitter taste of reality on our plate, but for anyone ready to think critically about the theme of fantasy itself, Joker and Folie Adieux are masterpieces of radical cinema and a timely warning that civilizations which cannot face the madness of our conjoined fantasies will be overwhelmed by them."
I am suprised that a possible redemption isnt mentioned. He confesses his sins, regrets them, and as he is dying sings a christian song. He gives a sort of prayer. To me, if no other movies are made, I think it could imply a salvation at the end.
Oh wow that's an amazing point which I totally should have mentioned! Not sure if that's what Todd Phillips was intending to convey, as he loves the ambiguity and I've heard quite a few people involved say that the ending is about the making of a new Joker. But I think this is really interesting point. I might do a follow up video. Thanks for your comment!
people don't mention it because they didn't get it in the first place, I mention this under another video, and I got replies like "what are you on about" it's like they only watched every other minute of the movie
I enjoyed both Joker and Folie. Rather than just remake Joker bigger with more explosions they went in a new way, with occasional brutal violence. Yes the sequel could have done with a bit of cutting, but then so did The Batman. Its ending was, for me, the only way it could have.
I like your positive, philosophical review of "Joker: Folie a' Deux!" As the director Todd Phillips intended, you interpret it as a deep deconstruction of the comic book supervillain and comics fandom in an art film. The sequel continues Arthur Fleck's sympathetic Loser Archetype portrayal. It shows the grim realities of prison life, such as his police brutality, sexual assault, and stabbing, rather than him leading a prison gang and becoming a mob boss, or permanently escaping, like in most prison or gangster movies.
Im still gonna wait to see it on streaming. I appreciate your points and I respect the movie telling Uber fans to f themselves, but I felt it could’ve been done better. I like the end idea that Arthur’s death inspired a more dangerous Joker. One who enjoys the chaos and misery…because it’s funny. Not like Arthur’s which was out of pain and retribution.
I just saw _Joker: Folie à Deux_ last night. I get why many people hate it, but the joke's on them (pun intended): THEY are the Joker's followers in the film. They read only the shallowest aspect of the first film and embraced it, completely oblivious to its deeper meanings. All they saw was the Joker; their fantasy villain coming to life from the pages of their beloved comic books. They didn't see Arthur. A quick survey of the UA-cam, anti-work commentariat shows that - like those followers in the film - they reject Arthur and want to kill him. The film is probably going to bomb, and they will dance on its grave, not comprehending that it was a devastating critique of them all along. To be fair, I did see one video that seemed to grasp this. Its conclusion was that the second film is a contradiction, that it doesn't understand its audience and hates it. But what the maker didn't get is that both films understood their audience perfectly - it's THEY who don't get it. It's a brilliant film, not without its faults, but beautifully made. You know, I watch these creators, the ones who bemoan the state of _Star Wars_ and Marvel, and I agree with them a good deal of the time. LucasFIlm and Marvel have been cranking out garbage of late - mostly because of plain old terrible writing, but also because they treat these properties like vehicles for social propoganda. But the _Joker_ films are different. They're not polemics (for either the Left or the Right). Rather, they are a masterful critique of our age, of the hollow posturing and hyperbolic rhetoric of both sides in the American culture wars. The haters would do well to shut up and listen, for once.
YES!! YES!! YES!! I thought I was the only one who got and understood these movies!! Bravo good sir!! It's not 'Arthur Fleck' on trial in the 2nd movie, it's the 1st movie itself! I'm willing to bet Todd Phillips is the first filmmaker ever to make a movie that grossed over 1 billion dollars and actually be pissed off about it, because it actually proved him right and made all that money for all the wrong reasons. Also, Phillips already knew how this movie would be received, as that too was predicted in the movie. Rejected by the 'fans', represented by Lee (who also speaks for all the 'Joker' followers in the movie) and killed by 'toxic fandom', represented by the inmate with Arthur at the end of the film. The parting shot is basically telling those 'fans', "I tried to say something to you twice, you didn't understand and you reacted just as predicted. Now f**k off and go watch Heath Ledger!" These two movies are absolute masterpieces!!
Well said! Thank goodness, someone who actually has the ability to understand serious and intelligent critical thinking and the ability to recognise nuance and subtlety - actually GETS it.....there is so much DAMN shallowness out there. Don’t drink the Koolaide......don’t be a follower. Please - start taking responsibility for your own actions and the very real consequences. This comment has redeemed my faith in the intelligence of the audience....well the critical thinking audience! I salute you! The Koolaide followers ARE Harley Quinn - rejecting the movie/ Arthur due to their own shallowness and inability to take responsibility for being a real human with real feelings. This is not cookie cutter Superhero movie, it’s a deep exploration of human suffering and the fight for authenticity
@@mandyclark6602 Here's something I think you'll really appreciate: 'Arthur Fleck' -- 'Fleck sounds a lot like 'flick'. 'Art' is short for 'Arthur'....'Art flick'. 🤫😀 Arthur Fleck/'Art Flick' is masquerading as a comic book character/movie for the purpose of getting attention. 🤨
No . . . I would agree with you on the meaning if Todd was actually interested in snapping the super fans out of their delusion, but he is only interested in making fun of them. There would be more of a divide than just a few people getting it and the rest hating it (it's ranking in the low 30s right now on the review sites.) One UA-cam critic dug up an interview of Phillips for The Joker and he only made a Joker film because the studio wanted a Joker film and he wanted to make a movie about someone like Arthur Fleck, but couldn't sell it because Hollywood doesn't like to take chances on something that might not work at all. There was a way to do this that would have fleshed it out for people who needed to be sold on the argument that they shouldn't hero worship someone who isn't a hero. Fleck or Joker . . . both are and will always be villians. . . . and they wanted to be villians. Ok . . . BUT Phillips wrote the script for Joker in the traditional sense, Deux was put together in pieces. They would (Phoenix and Phillips) would write what they were going to shoot for the next few scenes, they would shoot it, and then they would work on the next part of the script- rinse, repeat. I'm sure your dive of the movie was intentional because you picked it up, but if you're going to let down an audience, be careful how you do it and what you're hoping for- you just might get it. I was okay with The Joker, and maybe if I watch Deux a couple of more times, maybe I'll be ok with it too. Right now, as someone who likes to write, I would never intentionally write an 'f*#% you' story for people just 'cause you know- 'f*#% you' (let's not deny it- that's how a lot of moviegoers felt like when watching this sequel.) I simply just wouldn't write a sequel to begin with.
I thought the first one was definitely better. But people overlook the deeper theme of you reap what you sow. As the phrase goes: when fighting monsters do not become a monster.
@@NeterRafi77 deserve what exactly? a fantasy of a poor little man rising to power as this big bad mastermind of crime in Gotham with Harley by his side? the thing is though, that's exactly what the movie is trying to criticize. in the movie, it's either be the Joker we want you to be or be a disappointment and die. in real life, it's either be the movie we want you to be or be a disappointment and get low scores. that's what the movie is trying to tell us: turns out we were never Joker, we were Harley Quin. fanboys (you know who I'm talking about) were never interested in the first movie because of what it was trying to tell us, they were only interested in the power fantasy. it is as Harley puts it "all we had was the fantasy, and you gave up". now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't criticize the movie as it is vastly inferior to the original, and neither am I saying that power fantasy is a bad thing, some of my favorite movies are power fantasies. all I'm saying is that if people hate it because Arthur wasn't the Joker they want him to be, then you're all playing into the movies hands.
Wow! The best analysis of this movie! I thought I was alone. Thank you. Before watching it I heard only bad reactions and got ready for something awful. But I was so surprised by what I saw. For me Joker 2 wasn't boring. I understood the message and idea behind it. The more I think about the meaning, the more I'm fascinated by the movie. It's not perfect. It has flaws. But there are so many great, unique elements in it. Some music numbers weren't necessary, but some were integral to the story. I loved the solo song by Lee, when she is applying the make up. It has a great transition. Arthur is beaten down, suffering in the prison cell and the next scene is Lee singing cheerfully, celebrating her success. For her it's a game, that she loves. It makes her feel alive. She doesn't care about Arthur, she cares only about being in the spotlight with The Joker. There's a sense of threat coming from Lee. when she is singing to Arthur. She is like a deadly siren hypnotising him, enabling his delusion. It"s so apparent in the scene where Lee came to visit Arthur in prison. I really hope, that more people will come around this movie. It's a cautionary tale. It's a realistic approach to a character of Arthur. We have two movies about him and not the Joker - the genius mastermind. Arthur is a weak and sick person, who no one cared about. He was unseen, until he put on clown make up and killed somebody on TV. People put Joker on a pedestal as their symbol of freedom, but even then no one saw the man behind the mask. - Knock, knock. - Who is there? - Arthur Fleck. - Who?
I see both sides of the coin with J2. Some of the scenes were just plain annoying and unnecessary. I don't think there should have been as many musical elements in it. But if you can get past that, it's where a logical sequel would end. I found it very depressing at times (in a good way). Don't think Harvey Dent needed to be in it tbh (unless he ends up having son called Harvey Dent Jr later on). The ending is the fly in the ointment. If we are led to believe that Fleck's killer is Heath Ledger's Joker, then it doesn't explain how he's barely aged in the Dark Knight, baring in mind J2 took place in the early-mid 1980's. Either way though, it clearly has created a division, with far more people hating it than liking it. I don't like musical films (apart from Wizzard of Oz). So a fair few scenes were cringeworthy for me. JP was again the stand out performance but Gaga did OK too. J1 was a better film overall. J2 felt like an unnecessary tragic gamble.
The Joker is a Dionysian figure while Batman is Apollonian. Jack Nicholson's Joker played Prince's Partyman while disfiguring paintings. The ending is an homage. It's not meant to be Heath Ledger's Joker. It can be viewed as meaning that the Joker persona is not tied to one person. Or it's an answer to people who said, "Arthur is 30 years older than Bruce, how are they going to fight?"
Maybe. But it’s hard to ignore the similarities Heath and the young man in the final scene shared, bearing in mind nearly everyone knows the Joker from dark knight. They could’ve hire any young male for the role. They could’ve scrapped the face cutting in the background and they could’ve told him to laugh differently. But they didn’t. So it kinda sh!ts on 2 films for the price of one in a lot of DC fan’s eyes. Not an avid DC fan myself but can understand any frustration of continuity such fans would have… and unfortunately people are now jumping on the hate bandwagon, which I don’t think the film deserves at all. I was more moved by J2 than I was J1. The mirror held up to society this time showed the consequences of such fantasies carried out in the first movie. Whether they are truly real world consequences remains debatable, as not all punishments are the same around the world. I would assume it’s feasible for a mentally ill person charged with multiple murders could be put on death row? (not the case in western Europe anymore). J2 was a film about the tragic downfall of Arthur Fleck. That’s why it hurts. It’s why ultimately it’s a clever movie. It just needed a few tweaks to make it a perfect antidote to J1 though imo. Doesn’t deserve the amount of hate it’s getting tbh.
So basically this is an elaborated and smart f*** you to the fans of the first movie. Makes the insult even more egregious and the fail even more deserving.
To be honest, I've always thought it was incredibly stupid when creators got upset because "the audience didn't understand their work the way they, the creators, THINK we, the audience, should understand it." The truth is that every work of art, once exposed to the world, ceases to be the property of the creator, takes on a life of its own and receives interpretations from the audience that often differ from those of the creator of the work (something that is natural, since different people have different perspectives). C'est la vie. Therefore, getting upset about this is whining and, in the case of people who want to indoctrinate the public, it also indicates a lack of character.
I mean, yes? The title made me think there was going to be some further read than the text of the film. Yes, this what the film is about. Yep. You spelled it out, but it’s like spelling out the word CAT. You got it, chief. That is the point of the film 👍
Describing the world is a thing even a child can do but to understand why the city is as described that’s a start of an intellect and a thinker I suggest and recommend you start on that journey
Unnecessary sequel but I felt it was a logical conclusion to Arthur Fleck's sad and tragic life. I like the film's themes about sensationalism. People wanted a Joker movie but got an Arthur Fleck movie and I think that was the point. Great video and great comments.
The joker is a MKULTRA project. ( Funded by Wayne industries). Arthur was groomed to potentially become "the joker"... Arthur wasn't up for the task so they found another candidate (fake Heath) to take up that joker role... Lee (wealthy family) is Arthur's HANDLER. Brought in to active that joker inside Arthur's trauma. Music cues are triggers. ... She dangled love in front of Arthur if only he becomes this agent of chaos... Choosing Arthur as candidate #1 is a total failure... Not even bombing the courthouse and allowing him to escape works. (Who bombed the court house?) Random joker fans ? Or professional contractors. (Wayne industries contractors?) Arthur to far gone into the incel world so they chose a rrun of the mill psychopath (fake Heath) ... I'm conclusion: joker is a MKULTRA program. Funded by Wayne industries and friends. Why? Destabilize Gotham. Private prison, private police contracts .... Eventually mr. Wayne becomes a victim to this program. (Program PAL).... IRONICALLY the same friends that worked on the joker program created the necce
So Thomas Wayne is an anarcho-capitalist. Makes sense why his son goes around beating up the mentally insane instead of running for office and improving things. He has enough money to be completely independant.
I agree. I think in a couple of years it will find its audience on streaming. The people who would enjoy it are staying away for, ironically, the same reason that the haters are: they don't know what it's really about. Once they find out, I think they'll give it the attention it deserves. The irony of this whole thing is that the people who assume it's criticizing them are outing themselves by...assuming it's criticizing them.If you're truly a fan of the original film for deeper reasons, you wouldn't think it's about you. You'd know better. There are legitimate reasons for not liking _Joker: Folie à Deux,_ such as simply wanting a film that's truer to the original material. I could understand that. But this level of vitriol and the reason for it is just insane.
If this is what they are going for Batman no kill rule can mean more for once. I do only have one problem with this movie which I wish it did more like the first movie show don't tell. Still movie is great and makes Batman this Jesus like figure who is willing to save people from darkness no matter how hopeless it is
Nope, views my own haha! I don't tend to weigh in on whether the films are good/bad, I just get into what I think are the deeper themes. I think many of the critiques of this new movie are very valid, but I did find it to be a thought provoking piece
Any MOVIE is already a "blending of fantasy and reality" and you don't need a musical to do that, and here is where you are probably seeing something which is not there. Perhaps the sequel is a musical simply because Lady Gaga is there. Quite a silly sequel, by the way.
This comment is hilariously stupid and completely missed the point. Youre equating it to OUR reality when he is talking about the film's reality vs Arthur's fantasies. If Arthur's fantasies are that of a musical, then it makes sense that they be musicals. This was done even in the first film so how is he reaching at something that wasn't there when he is literally giving you examples showing that it was there?
Bro the first movie literally shows Arthur lean on the comedy, entertainment aesthetic in his mind, now that he met Harley she sowed the music aesthetic in him, please chillax
Thankyou for actually dissecting its themes rather than calling it crap like most others. After seeing it in the cinema I couldn’t help but think there’s was something bigger I was missing and I really appreciate this take on its themes. I wasn’t happy to accept that the director went from such a clear vision in the first movie to “making a shit film” the next. I figured it was more likely something that I was failing to see
Sorry guys but after watching once more the first film after watching the second I have to say facts are facts and you are in all your right to have your own opinion about the film and what all meant and what was really Phillips doing. But the fact is if you watch the first film again in detail (which you can tell Phillips didn’t do before writing the new one because if he did he would never had done the movie he end up doing) during the film joker Arthur starts to embrace his new persona , to the point that is not a persona or alter ego but it is in fact his real self. He even tells his mother before killing her “you know that condition they always said I had is not a condition is really who I am , is the real me”, even before killing the clown work mate he says for the first time in my life I feel good and my real self. And even before coming out in the show he ask Murray to calling joker because as he said “that’s how you call me didn’t you? A joker….” He is understanding finally who he really is and all this things that happen to him all over his life and during the film help him to finally found him self and for the first time embrace it , so during the joker film the script and the film we watch is clearly explicitly showing us that joker is not a alter ego or a mask of Arthur but his real self his real being and the real mask was Arthur , only when he was finally available to take out that mask he has live all his life thru he was available to be his real self , the monster inside, joker. So the second film to start with the fact that joker is just a mask and Arthur was the real identity is to contradict everything that was showing to us during the first film, not only that but makes the character of joker completely act without consistency or continuity, I mean he literally said he enjoy killing does guys, that he though it was funny and was tired of pretending it was not, he went from thinking and saying that to regretting killing does three guys and wishing he never did it. That is completely paradoxical and inconsistent with the character we meet and got to know a hole movie before. Actually at the beginning of this one is like he just reset and there was nobody there until he meets Harley, that is also a inconsistency, at the end of the first movie he did learn to be him self by his own, to no depend on no one , no more in his mother, in his love interest fantasy, his friends (the people he tries to earn their friendship and love during the film like his coworker) instead he rejects all to be him self and care only about him self. To throw all that character development thru the window just for the sake of this love story make sense in the beginning is absurd. At the end of the first movie what did give pure joy and happiness to him self and his life for the first time was to be him self “joker” and to see the chaos it cause at the end in the city, the guy was literally smiling for the first time pure real smile that flow from the circumstances of him watching all the madness his way of being had cause to all the city and its civilians. Instead they throw that for now his only way to be happy is being with Harley , a woman that he barley knows. This is pure bullsh”t and a crime to the writing as the nature of what made the character special in the first place and first film that was made with the intention to end like that and to be like that. The perfect example is like Michael Corlione in the second godfather film before his son getting baptized he regrets everything he has done and regrets as he r rejects who he has become and will be. It will have being a crime to what the character represented as the arc he went in the first film. Basically this kind of villains or anti heroes once they turn that line and pass it there is not turning back, they have to commit to the evil they have embrace. Another things is to make a third film like the godfather did to show the consequences of taking that life, there is no redemption but there are consequences and that could have being cool , that in a third film you see joker dealing with the consequences of what he is and of what it means to be him self , the cost of being him self. That is a cool arc and movie but instead we got this film that for more interesting and good (which I have to admit I was enjoying it before the rape scene came out of nowhere and from there on what comes on screen destroys the legacy of both films and everything we where told and show the last 3 hours and a half) the last 20 minutes destroys everything this character and the last film stand for and everything that made this films special and made it worth, the moment he rejects being joker is the moment he rejects to be him self and to accept the mask Arthur was, the moment he says he regrets killing does people makes no sense with the guy from the last movie, that guy did give a damn about does killings actually he enjoy it that is what makes it evil and he did it because he felt like, because he choose to and not because society make him society only did push him to become him self and he knew it the fact he now is reve ting joker just because he doesn’t want to live to an image makes no sense, the joker we knew would have find a way to punish and make his revenge on the guards that abuse him and kill his friend, the fact that he is just going to take it as he said in the movie before “like good little boys” is a out of character behavior and reaction. Basically the arc Arthur went in is erase and reboot to start exactly where he started, depress, rape by society and even worst without a life because it is talking by what he inspire. So sorry mates but this is not a smart, very a head of its time film that will become a cult movie and that his director is way smarter than he looks to be. This was just and interesting beautiful miss leading and miss calculation of a film made by a director that is far from perfect that has prove that he can make bad films (specially sequels “looking at you hangover 3”) ad he can make good films but in this case he just had to much ego to let him see that he was just getting way out of the road he had build and drive in the first place and now he is just justifying it as the fans that like this film as a simple “am smarter and unpredictable than you think”. It’s a bummer but here is a lesson to learn from Hollywood, if a film is made with the inception from the begging to stand own it’s own for the test of time for viewers to discuss then let that film be and make a new sh”t, at least the movie is made with sequels in mind from the beginning and inception of it like the first Star Wars, back to the future, Harry Potter, planet of the apes or lord of the rings where made. Is like making a sequel to “Inception” just because it made a billion dollars, once you do that it destroys the hole point of the ending of the first one.
I appreciate your attempt at polishing a turd, but in the end it is still a turd...it really doesn't matter if a movie has some deeper meaning if it doesn’t entertain the audience....
Considering that most of the audience are just stupid and want the same popcorn flick garbage all the time, this isn't really a great point you're making. There have always been films that have been made to challenge audiences and get them to think instead of solely just being there to entertain. Some of the greatest movies ever made have done this. Its honestly not surprising that people don't like this film because they honestly don't fucking get it and they didn't get the first film.......audiences are just pissed because they didn't understand either movie to begin with.
Excellent, poignant and summed up the movie well. While many have written it off, perhaps down the line people can reappraise it and realize how much this film has to say about human nature.
Bad movie sequels are often caused by one-shot beginning films, poor planning, illogical plots, and filming without enough of the original cast and film crew. That's what killed the Schumacher Batman movies, the Howling series, and the Jaws series. Good sequels start with the first movie intended as a series and are filmed simultaneously with the first film, so all the cast, crew, and sets are together and are logically caused by the events of the original movie. This is how the Star Wars series, Marvel movies, and Bond films have worked for decades!
Let me ask you: did Arthur deserved to be graped? Did he deserved how his mother treated him? Did he deserved the mental sickness he had? oh but he is a villain YOU said he deserves to be graped. Your self righteousness and holy than thou attitude is what makes me despis3 all religions.
Not true, he really was the son of Thomas Wayne. The photo of Penny has a flirty letter written by him saying I love your smile and signed by Wayne. So Thomas really was flirting or even fucking with her and use some problems to use his power to make her look bad
Interesting, it seems there's some debate about this! Your interpretation does seem to fit with a lot of the evidence. I like how much ambiguity there is in the first film
i'd like to quote something i read from someone and thats stuck into my head cuz its realy the best i read about the movie "It's ironic that this movie's main message has been completely proven true by how many people disliked it. Many people wanted to see the Joker villain from the Batman movies, but instead they got poor Arthur Fleck. But isn't that exactly what Arthur was complaining about his whole life? That no one ever cared about him, who he really is. But the moment he became the Joker, then they paid attention to his alter ego. But the real Arthur is killed instead, the same way the critics killed this movie. Too bad. This movie is genius."
I remember Fight Club and American Psycho (a D nonetheless). Both now classics. I enjoyed them very much in theaters and could not understand the mob mentality of all the initial negativity. Anarchy, destruction, unnecessary violence, do not make this world a better place. That was the shared message. Comic book fans are mostly brain dead. They can’t think outside the box. They want to see a Joker that never realizes that crime does not pay. I really love the deconstruction of the character in the 2 Joker movies. I rewatched The Dark Knight (2008), and oh boy, that movie is bad. Nothing that happens there makes any sense whatsoever. Has no real deep meaning. It’s not even a good screenplay. For me the positive of this movie being trashed like this, means, the Blu-ray will be in my collection sooner rather than later.
@@ScienceDashHe didn't want to make the film that audiences wanted him to make. That's the difference. So he made the film he wanted. It's audiences who are pissed off because they didn't get what they imagined they were getting
@@rubbygm It's fair to expect some action in an R-rated superhero movie about two homicidal supervillains. The first movie did not inspire incel copycat crimes, because Arthur Fleck was avenging his firing, child abuse, and public humiliation on TV, not single women rejecting him on dates. It was also set in the '80s before the Internet and the Manosphere was common in geek culture.
How is it childlike? People like you like to take the high moral ground: I am good you are not attitude. The majority has spoken: story is a waste of time and 200 million dollars to make it? That must be money laundering right there
I believe the genius in this will be recognized as time goes on
I really hope it ends up getting the recognition it deserves. This was an amazing film
Am hoping that too
Its so amazing how even the fans of the original movie the people in real life who liked him for who they thought he was rejected Arthur when he decided he wanted to give up being Joker. The people in the real world are kicking him down just like in the movie. DAMN Todd Phillips is a genius the greatest artist of our age. Its hard to see where the movie ends and the real world begins.
What?
agreed! ...the haters should stick to simple marvel films. amazing how many people really didn't understand the first film AT ALL!
Movie is trash. Why grape Arthur? Why embrace victimhood as what defines you????
So how the same people like the first one?😂😂😂 He did the same thing in the first one. They sould have like this one as well
So the movie is pretty much a middle finger to anyone who liked the first one.
Todd Phillips really believes that we “idolized” joker? No we fucking didn’t. Everyone knew that what Arthur did in the first movie is WRONG. But we understood him because of how society just casts aside people with mental illness.
THAT was the deeper meaning of the first movie. It’s a fucking character study. We care about Arthur, but the second movie literally just takes a shit on anyone who slightly cared about Arthur.
I hate this movie. And I hate Todd Phillips. Pretentious wannabe film.
“I just hope my death makes more sense than my life”
CENTS
I believe Joker 2 is about Arthur Fleck, who wants to let the world know he's tired of wearing the mask of Joker no matter if someone else takes his place.
Then it really sucked at telling that story
I respect your deconstruction and assessment of the film, however, this depiction is not as consistent with original 2019 film as you give it credit for.
Arthur cannot completely disregard “Joker”, why would he go back to a state that makes him sick in the first place? It is his only escape and he makes a choice to embody that at the end of the first film.
“There is no Joker - because he cannot uphold the weight of his followers’ expectations” is such a weak shift that isn’t enough to justify a change of character on such a scale.
This film will be reassessed soon, like Babylon and a ton others. Great work on this!
This film is shining a spotlight on who actually paid attention to the first movie and who didnt. Its also fascinating that they are reacting exactly the way Todd Phillips had the Joker supporters act in the film. It really does show that people legitimately did not get the first film and damn sure dont get this one.
It isnt as good as the first movie but this film is fucking with a lot of dumbass people that im just enjoying the chaos of it all.
This....true art brings out the truth....
The movie was piss poor. But oh well, you tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.
What kind of dumb business is that?
So the movie is pretty much a middle finger to anyone who liked the first one.
Todd Phillips really believes that we “idolized” joker? No we fucking didn’t. Everyone knew that what Arthur did in the first movie is WRONG. But we understood him because of how society just casts aside people with mental illness.
THAT was the deeper meaning of the first movie. It’s a fucking character study. We care about Arthur, but the second movie literally just takes a shit on anyone who slightly cared about Arthur.
I hate this movie. And I hate Todd Phillips. Pretentious wannabe film.
I have been watching alot of videos on this movie as to see what the general reception is and it's to my surprise that you are the first to not completely dog on the film. Thank you for sharing your veiw.
There is a quote from an anime that I keep in my head circulating as much as possible "closed minded people will always hate what they don't understand". From this video, I see/believe that you have taken a step into the world of trying to/successfully understanding what this movie is trying to portray and it is very warming to see a take that isn't completely negative.
I hope you have a wonderful day, I look forward to seeing more content from you and your open mind ❤.
Take care everyone.
Damien Walter called it "radical cinema" and also gave it this positive, thoughtful review: "Many of the one-star ratings for Joker
Folie Adieux are angry that Stephanie
Germanotta isn't as hot as Margo Robie.
Robbie's Harley Quinn is one of the
all-time great sex fantasies up there
with chain mail bikini Leia; super-villain as porn star. Stephanie Germanotta and
her Lady Gaga Alter Ego laughs at these
male sex fantasies about women; her
Harley Quinn is a depiction of what the
real women under the makeup of our hyper
sexualized fantasies are actually like
and nothing makes us angrier than having
our fantasies shown up as
cheap. We've been living on a diet of
force-fed fantasy for 20 years or more:
fantasies of muscular men in Spandex and
hot babes fighting evil wearing only a
swimsuit, fantasies of boy Wizards, Wars
Among the Stars, Games of Thrones, post
apocalypses and blue alien avatars
computer-generated imagery made it
possible to put our wildest fantasies on
our screens and we've been gorging on
fantasy ever since then along came Todd
Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix to smuggle
into a superhero franchise at the heart
of our fantasies a nugget of pure anti-fantasy! The Joker movies aren't realism;
sadly, the fate of the mentally ill in
our society is sadder even than the life
of Arthur Fleck. Instead, Joker and its
sequel are stories about fantasy; how
fantasy holds us in a powerful grip, and
the cost of living in our fantasies, and
like the collision of matter and
antimatter, the collision of our fantasy-soaked culture with this anti-fantasy
movie is explosive: Joker isn't a Joker
movie! Gen Xers and Millennials who
remember vertigo Comics will know what
Joker is: the Vertigo Comics imprint was
where DC let its best creators mess with
its IP to remake Batman, Superman and
the rest of the pantheon. Vertigo was
formed after the success first of Alan
Moore's Watchmen 1985, Frank Miller's The
Dark Knight Returns 1986, and Alan
Moore's The Killing Joke 1988. Moore,
Miller, Grant, Morrison, Neil Gaiman,
Warren Ellis, and a cast of writers
under editor Burger rewrote the DC
Pantheon and created new characters. Many
of the best Vertigo-style comics
deconstructed the fantasies of superhero
comics into sophisticated anti-fantasies
that confronted readers with what our
fantasies really
are. The second group of one-star reviews
for The Joker movies are fanboys of Zack
Snider enraged or just confused that the
Joker doesn't continue the absurd power
fantasies of his reign over DC. The first
Joker movie was the cinematic equivalent
of a Vertigo comic; it was Todd Phillips
and Joaquin Phoenix rewriting The Joker
archetype as an indie Art House homage
to Scorsese's taxi driver with a superhero
budget that just happens to be called
Joker. It’s a movie about madness and
civilization. Madness is the for false
punishment of a false solution but by
its own virtue it brings to light the
real problem which can then be truly
resolved. Madness and Civilization by
Michelle Fuko is a history of how our
society treats the insane. Fuko argues
that madness and insanity are categories
imposed by society on those at the
bottom of society in an act we now
commonly call othering. The power
structures of civilization are predatory,
Fuko's critique argues because they help
us deny our own role in this predatory
system; we accept a fictional narrative
in which the damaged victims of the
system are cast as insane. Arthur Fleck is
the lowest victim of civilization: an
orphan adopted and then abused; he has no
status, so fantasizes being adored by a
chat show audience; he is not loved so
fantasizes a lover; he has no power, so
fantasizes killing, which is a fantasy he then
acts out. As Fuko argues, Arthur’s
fantasies are a false solution that
offer no help with the reality of his
plight but calling the fantasies of the
victim madness is also a false
punishment. The first Joker movie is a
carefully balanced dialectic between the
forces of civilization and the victims
of madness; it's deliberately uncertain
whether Fleck is a victim to be pitied or
a monster to be hated. Joker then goes a
step further in its dialectic between
madness and civilization Athur’s fantasies
not only bring to light his real
problems but begin to give Fleck real
status and power as he adopts the
fantasy persona of Joker that in the
Joker sequel will also give him the
fantasy of love as folie adieux dives
deeper into the sick fantasies of our
civilization. As Batman has become an
ever-more hilarious parade of good
actors putting on a silly costume
and cashing a paycheck, Joker is
a role that great actors actually want to
play: Jack Nicholson's makeup smeared
mafiosa, Mark Hamill's shrieking sociopath
and of course Heath Ledger’s seminal turn
in The Dark Knight, all laid the
groundwork for Joaquin Phoenix, the
greatest actor of our generation to make
Joker into his kind of story. Phoenix is
the face of the male victim; the little
man broken by the world who hears the
lyrics prison blues and
thinks “that's me”. The Joker has become
more and more the star of the Batman
mythos as we've started to realize that
billionaire industrialists with
delusions of grandiosity might not be
the heroes we're looking for (looking at you, Elon Muck) Batman has
always been fighting not just crime but
the criminally insane, and as we begin to
deconstruct the fantasy of insanity used
to other civilization's victims, Batman
looks less like a hero standing against
crime and more like a vigilante “hammer
of justice” coming down on the weak and
downtrodden and the Joker looks more and
more like the rage, anger, violence and
destruction of the downtrodden when they
finally stand up! The third category of
one-star reviews for The Joker movies are
people who dismiss them as incel movies.
You get the distinct impression these
people haven't seen the movies but are
simply repeating talking points from the
many think pieces attacking the movies
on this basis at a time of skyrocketing
social inequality it must be comforting
for some people to dismiss all the young
men alienated from the system and stuck
in low paid wage labor with the fantasy
that they are all incels.
“We have a perfect name for fantasy
realized it's called nightmare.” --- Slavoj Zizek
Arthur Fleck is finally allowed a moment of
true heroism at the finale of Folie Adieux:
Fleck's complex fantasies and his Joker
persona have brought him the status and
power he dreamed of, and Fleck can now
see that his fantasies will bring him
much much more. Fleck has encountered
what the psychoanalyst Jack Lan called
the symbolic order of civilization: that
web of laws, institutions, status-structures and hierarchies that exist only symbolically by our communal agreement. Fleck has discovered that the symbolic order of civilization can
be reshaped by his fantasy! His Joker
persona strikes the symbolic order in
all its weakest places and threatens to
shatter it. Given a public platform at
his own trial, Joker has the power to
incite the revolution of the downtrodden
masses that could bring the civilization
of Gotham crashing down; but Fleck finds
the moral courage to let go of Joker and
the power his fantasy can grant him, and
in that moment becomes a better human
than most of those who sit in judgment
over him. He admits: “It was all just a
fantasy; there is no Joker.” but Arthur’s choice is also driven by the nightmare that awaits anyone unfortunate enough to actually realize their fantasy. In “the plague of fantasies” the
philosopher Slavoj Zizek catalogues the
nightmarish collaborative fantasy that
is modern capitalist civilization. Arthur’s fantasies have manifested in what Zizek
calls “The Impossible Gaze”: in the age of
mass media we fantasize ourselves
through the Gaze of a mediated audience:
sports, reality-TV, chat shows. In becoming
Joker, Arthur Fleck discovers that the crowd
who cheer him turn out to be a crazed
mob, the legal system that judges Joker
is revealed to be just public theater,
the media to be the prison and its guards. The
reality of the “impossible gaze” he
fantasized is a living nightmare, and the
manic-pixie dream-girl that Arthur Fleck
had always dreamed of finding turns out
to be just another human playing out her
own fantasy. She tells him: “We're not going away,Arthur; all we had was the fantasy, and
you gave up.” Stephanie Germanotta might be the only actor who could go toe-to-toe with
Joaquin Phoenix in the depiction of
insanity and victimhood intertwined. Lady
Gaga is a deconstruction of the male
gaze, displaying all the symbols of the male
sexual fantasy, then selectively amping
them up to a repulsive absurdity. Germanotta’s Harley Quinn is a performative
fantasy put on just for Arthur Fleck. When we first meet her the fantasy girl in the insane asylum is a constructed persona designed to seduce Joker the real woman behind the fantasy is by turns broken, manipulative, lost,
powerful, genuinely insane, and coldly
realistic. The reason men so easily
accept simplified fantasies of
femininity is because the real human
behind them is always unknowably complex.
Joker and its sequel are going to be two of the most hated superhero franchise movies for a long time to come. Audiences fat on our
decades-long feast of CGI fantasies are
never going to welcome the bitter taste
of reality on our plate, but for anyone
ready to think critically about the
theme of fantasy itself, Joker and Folie
Adieux are masterpieces of radical cinema
and a timely warning that civilizations
which cannot face the madness of our
conjoined fantasies will be overwhelmed
by them."
"Closed minded people will always hate what the dont understand and afraid what they dont know"
@@niva9090 I have never heard of that extension to the quote though it seems to work alongside it. Thank you for sharing and have a great day!
I wonder if that quote applies to the general hatred of the former potus
arthur fleck is todd philips
the joker is plagiarizing scorcese. without the mask he can’t make a movie
I am suprised that a possible redemption isnt mentioned. He confesses his sins, regrets them, and as he is dying sings a christian song. He gives a sort of prayer. To me, if no other movies are made, I think it could imply a salvation at the end.
Oh wow that's an amazing point which I totally should have mentioned! Not sure if that's what Todd Phillips was intending to convey, as he loves the ambiguity and I've heard quite a few people involved say that the ending is about the making of a new Joker. But I think this is really interesting point. I might do a follow up video. Thanks for your comment!
people don't mention it because they didn't get it in the first place,
I mention this under another video, and I got replies like "what are you on about" it's like they only watched every other minute of the movie
I enjoyed both Joker and Folie. Rather than just remake Joker bigger with more explosions they went in a new way, with occasional brutal violence. Yes the sequel could have done with a bit of cutting, but then so did The Batman. Its ending was, for me, the only way it could have.
I like your positive, philosophical review of "Joker: Folie a' Deux!" As the director Todd Phillips intended, you interpret it as a deep deconstruction of the comic book supervillain and comics fandom in an art film. The sequel continues Arthur Fleck's sympathetic Loser Archetype portrayal. It shows the grim realities of prison life, such as his police brutality, sexual assault, and stabbing, rather than him leading a prison gang and becoming a mob boss, or permanently escaping, like in most prison or gangster movies.
Im still gonna wait to see it on streaming. I appreciate your points and I respect the movie telling Uber fans to f themselves, but I felt it could’ve been done better.
I like the end idea that Arthur’s death inspired a more dangerous Joker. One who enjoys the chaos and misery…because it’s funny. Not like Arthur’s which was out of pain and retribution.
Go see it in the theater, if you want to see it!
I, personally ,find "waiting for streaming" really disrespectful to the creator.
I watched so many reviews of this movie since it came out and your breakdown has got to be one of the best ones I’ve seen!
That patient that killed Authur, killed The Wayne’s at the end of the first movie. The true Joker
I just saw _Joker: Folie à Deux_ last night. I get why many people hate it, but the joke's on them (pun intended): THEY are the Joker's followers in the film. They read only the shallowest aspect of the first film and embraced it, completely oblivious to its deeper meanings. All they saw was the Joker; their fantasy villain coming to life from the pages of their beloved comic books. They didn't see Arthur. A quick survey of the UA-cam, anti-work commentariat shows that - like those followers in the film - they reject Arthur and want to kill him. The film is probably going to bomb, and they will dance on its grave, not comprehending that it was a devastating critique of them all along.
To be fair, I did see one video that seemed to grasp this. Its conclusion was that the second film is a contradiction, that it doesn't understand its audience and hates it. But what the maker didn't get is that both films understood their audience perfectly - it's THEY who don't get it.
It's a brilliant film, not without its faults, but beautifully made.
You know, I watch these creators, the ones who bemoan the state of _Star Wars_ and Marvel, and I agree with them a good deal of the time. LucasFIlm and Marvel have been cranking out garbage of late - mostly because of plain old terrible writing, but also because they treat these properties like vehicles for social propoganda.
But the _Joker_ films are different. They're not polemics (for either the Left or the Right). Rather, they are a masterful critique of our age, of the hollow posturing and hyperbolic rhetoric of both sides in the American culture wars. The haters would do well to shut up and listen, for once.
The box office doesn't lie.
YES!! YES!! YES!! I thought I was the only one who got and understood these movies!! Bravo good sir!! It's not 'Arthur Fleck' on trial in the 2nd movie, it's the 1st movie itself! I'm willing to bet Todd Phillips is the first filmmaker ever to make a movie that grossed over 1 billion dollars and actually be pissed off about it, because it actually proved him right and made all that money for all the wrong reasons.
Also, Phillips already knew how this movie would be received, as that too was predicted in the movie. Rejected by the 'fans', represented by Lee (who also speaks for all the 'Joker' followers in the movie) and killed by 'toxic fandom', represented by the inmate with Arthur at the end of the film. The parting shot is basically telling those 'fans', "I tried to say something to you twice, you didn't understand and you reacted just as predicted. Now f**k off and go watch Heath Ledger!"
These two movies are absolute masterpieces!!
Well said! Thank goodness, someone who actually has the ability to understand serious and intelligent critical thinking and the ability to recognise nuance and subtlety - actually GETS it.....there is so much DAMN shallowness out there. Don’t drink the Koolaide......don’t be a follower. Please - start taking responsibility for your own actions and the very real consequences. This comment has redeemed my faith in the intelligence of the audience....well the critical thinking audience! I salute you! The Koolaide followers ARE Harley Quinn - rejecting the movie/ Arthur due to their own shallowness and inability to take responsibility for being a real human with real feelings. This is not cookie cutter Superhero movie, it’s a deep exploration of human suffering and the fight for authenticity
Stop drinking pal.
@@mandyclark6602 Here's something I think you'll really appreciate:
'Arthur Fleck' -- 'Fleck sounds a lot like 'flick'. 'Art' is short for 'Arthur'....'Art flick'. 🤫😀
Arthur Fleck/'Art Flick' is masquerading as a comic book character/movie for the purpose of getting attention. 🤨
I feel imposter syndrome is a big undertone for Arthur, coming to terms with the persona of Joker
Persona? Joker?
Is this all one big persona 5 reference 🤔
I think imposter syndrome is what the director had here
No . . . I would agree with you on the meaning if Todd was actually interested in snapping the super fans out of their delusion, but he is only interested in making fun of them. There would be more of a divide than just a few people getting it and the rest hating it (it's ranking in the low 30s right now on the review sites.) One UA-cam critic dug up an interview of Phillips for The Joker and he only made a Joker film because the studio wanted a Joker film and he wanted to make a movie about someone like Arthur Fleck, but couldn't sell it because Hollywood doesn't like to take chances on something that might not work at all. There was a way to do this that would have fleshed it out for people who needed to be sold on the argument that they shouldn't hero worship someone who isn't a hero. Fleck or Joker . . . both are and will always be villians. . . . and they wanted to be villians. Ok . . . BUT Phillips wrote the script for Joker in the traditional sense, Deux was put together in pieces. They would (Phoenix and Phillips) would write what they were going to shoot for the next few scenes, they would shoot it, and then they would work on the next part of the script- rinse, repeat. I'm sure your dive of the movie was intentional because you picked it up, but if you're going to let down an audience, be careful how you do it and what you're hoping for- you just might get it. I was okay with The Joker, and maybe if I watch Deux a couple of more times, maybe I'll be ok with it too. Right now, as someone who likes to write, I would never intentionally write an 'f*#% you' story for people just 'cause you know- 'f*#% you' (let's not deny it- that's how a lot of moviegoers felt like when watching this sequel.) I simply just wouldn't write a sequel to begin with.
I love your video, its not the usual rant to the movie but provides more context about it, great job!
Todd framed joker fans perfectly, act like the joker or f*ck off! Not allowed any depth for this character.
They proved him right 😅
Who in their right mind would like to be like the Joker? A serial killer?
Yeah, I'm not down with these posers. They'd want Arthur to get the electric chair irl.
movie sucked dude
I thought the first one was definitely better. But people overlook the deeper theme of you reap what you sow.
As the phrase goes: when fighting monsters do not become a monster.
Finaly youtube feed threw me one... just one decent review of these two masterpieces. A lot more could be said... but good work sir👏
Chocolate can be good spaghetti can be good but they can not be good mixed together the same is true with comic book movies and musicals.
This movie reminded me of Neitzche's Birth of a tragedy
you could say both movies were a big joke, and the joke was on Harley Quins this entire time
Or the audience! This evil director is making fun of all of us. 200 million dollars to make a trash movie. The audience DESERVES BETTER.
@@NeterRafi77 deserve what exactly? a fantasy of a poor little man rising to power as this big bad mastermind of crime in Gotham with Harley by his side?
the thing is though, that's exactly what the movie is trying to criticize. in the movie, it's either be the Joker we want you to be or be a disappointment and die. in real life, it's either be the movie we want you to be or be a disappointment and get low scores. that's what the movie is trying to tell us: turns out we were never Joker, we were Harley Quin.
fanboys (you know who I'm talking about) were never interested in the first movie because of what it was trying to tell us, they were only interested in the power fantasy. it is as Harley puts it "all we had was the fantasy, and you gave up".
now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't criticize the movie as it is vastly inferior to the original, and neither am I saying that power fantasy is a bad thing, some of my favorite movies are power fantasies. all I'm saying is that if people hate it because Arthur wasn't the Joker they want him to be, then you're all playing into the movies hands.
Wow! The best analysis of this movie! I thought I was alone. Thank you.
Before watching it I heard only bad reactions and got ready for something awful. But I was so surprised by what I saw. For me Joker 2 wasn't boring. I understood the message and idea behind it. The more I think about the meaning, the more I'm fascinated by the movie. It's not perfect. It has flaws. But there are so many great, unique elements in it.
Some music numbers weren't necessary, but some were integral to the story. I loved the solo song by Lee, when she is applying the make up. It has a great transition. Arthur is beaten down, suffering in the prison cell and the next scene is Lee singing cheerfully, celebrating her success. For her it's a game, that she loves. It makes her feel alive. She doesn't care about Arthur, she cares only about being in the spotlight with The Joker.
There's a sense of threat coming from Lee. when she is singing to Arthur. She is like a deadly siren hypnotising him, enabling his delusion. It"s so apparent in the scene where Lee came to visit Arthur in prison.
I really hope, that more people will come around this movie. It's a cautionary tale. It's a realistic approach to a character of Arthur. We have two movies about him and not the Joker - the genius mastermind. Arthur is a weak and sick person, who no one cared about. He was unseen, until he put on clown make up and killed somebody on TV. People put Joker on a pedestal as their symbol of freedom, but even then no one saw the man behind the mask.
- Knock, knock.
- Who is there?
- Arthur Fleck.
- Who?
How people loved the first one if they cannot love this?!😂😂
I see both sides of the coin with J2. Some of the scenes were just plain annoying and unnecessary. I don't think there should have been as many musical elements in it. But if you can get past that, it's where a logical sequel would end. I found it very depressing at times (in a good way).
Don't think Harvey Dent needed to be in it tbh (unless he ends up having son called Harvey Dent Jr later on).
The ending is the fly in the ointment. If we are led to believe that Fleck's killer is Heath Ledger's Joker, then it doesn't explain how he's barely aged in the Dark Knight, baring in mind J2 took place in the early-mid 1980's.
Either way though, it clearly has created a division, with far more people hating it than liking it.
I don't like musical films (apart from Wizzard of Oz). So a fair few scenes were cringeworthy for me. JP was again the stand out performance but Gaga did OK too.
J1 was a better film overall. J2 felt like an unnecessary tragic gamble.
The Joker is a Dionysian figure while Batman is Apollonian. Jack Nicholson's Joker played Prince's Partyman while disfiguring paintings. The ending is an homage. It's not meant to be Heath Ledger's Joker. It can be viewed as meaning that the Joker persona is not tied to one person. Or it's an answer to people who said, "Arthur is 30 years older than Bruce, how are they going to fight?"
Maybe. But it’s hard to ignore the similarities Heath and the young man in the final scene shared, bearing in mind nearly everyone knows the Joker from dark knight. They could’ve hire any young male for the role. They could’ve scrapped the face cutting in the background and they could’ve told him to laugh differently. But they didn’t. So it kinda sh!ts on 2 films for the price of one in a lot of DC fan’s eyes. Not an avid DC fan myself but can understand any frustration of continuity such fans would have… and unfortunately people are now jumping on the hate bandwagon, which I don’t think the film deserves at all. I was more moved by J2 than I was J1. The mirror held up to society this time showed the consequences of such fantasies carried out in the first movie. Whether they are truly real world consequences remains debatable, as not all punishments are the same around the world. I would assume it’s feasible for a mentally ill person charged with multiple murders could be put on death row? (not the case in western Europe anymore).
J2 was a film about the tragic downfall of Arthur Fleck. That’s why it hurts. It’s why ultimately it’s a clever movie. It just needed a few tweaks to make it a perfect antidote to J1 though imo. Doesn’t deserve the amount of hate it’s getting tbh.
So basically this is an elaborated and smart f*** you to the fans of the first movie. Makes the insult even more egregious and the fail even more deserving.
To be honest, I've always thought it was incredibly stupid when creators got upset because "the audience didn't understand their work the way they, the creators, THINK we, the audience, should understand it."
The truth is that every work of art, once exposed to the world, ceases to be the property of the creator, takes on a life of its own and receives interpretations from the audience that often differ from those of the creator of the work (something that is natural, since different people have different perspectives).
C'est la vie. Therefore, getting upset about this is whining and, in the case of people who want to indoctrinate the public, it also indicates a lack of character.
I mean, yes? The title made me think there was going to be some further read than the text of the film. Yes, this what the film is about. Yep. You spelled it out, but it’s like spelling out the word CAT. You got it, chief. That is the point of the film 👍
Dang 😂
Describing the world is a thing even a child can do but to understand why the city is as described that’s a start of an intellect and a thinker I suggest and recommend you start on that journey
Unnecessary sequel but I felt it was a logical conclusion to Arthur Fleck's sad and tragic life. I like the film's themes about sensationalism. People wanted a Joker movie but got an Arthur Fleck movie and I think that was the point. Great video and great comments.
The joker is a MKULTRA project. ( Funded by Wayne industries). Arthur was groomed to potentially become "the joker"... Arthur wasn't up for the task so they found another candidate (fake Heath) to take up that joker role... Lee (wealthy family) is Arthur's HANDLER. Brought in to active that joker inside Arthur's trauma. Music cues are triggers. ... She dangled love in front of Arthur if only he becomes this agent of chaos... Choosing Arthur as candidate #1 is a total failure... Not even bombing the courthouse and allowing him to escape works. (Who bombed the court house?) Random joker fans ? Or professional contractors. (Wayne industries contractors?) Arthur to far gone into the incel world so they chose a rrun of the mill psychopath (fake Heath) ... I'm conclusion: joker is a MKULTRA program. Funded by Wayne industries and friends. Why? Destabilize Gotham. Private prison, private police contracts .... Eventually mr. Wayne becomes a victim to this program. (Program PAL).... IRONICALLY the same friends that worked on the joker program created the necce
Lol. Dude, take your meds!!!
Now this is a better story!
So Thomas Wayne is an anarcho-capitalist. Makes sense why his son goes around beating up the mentally insane instead of running for office and improving things. He has enough money to be completely independant.
Cult Classic
I agree. I think in a couple of years it will find its audience on streaming. The people who would enjoy it are staying away for, ironically, the same reason that the haters are: they don't know what it's really about. Once they find out, I think they'll give it the attention it deserves.
The irony of this whole thing is that the people who assume it's criticizing them are outing themselves by...assuming it's criticizing them.If you're truly a fan of the original film for deeper reasons, you wouldn't think it's about you. You'd know better.
There are legitimate reasons for not liking _Joker: Folie à Deux,_ such as simply wanting a film that's truer to the original material. I could understand that. But this level of vitriol and the reason for it is just insane.
If this is what they are going for Batman no kill rule can mean more for once. I do only have one problem with this movie which I wish it did more like the first movie show don't tell. Still movie is great and makes Batman this Jesus like figure who is willing to save people from darkness no matter how hopeless it is
The film wasn't terrible but compared to the first one, which was amazing. I feel like it wasted alot of potential.
Did you get paid for this review?
Nope, views my own haha! I don't tend to weigh in on whether the films are good/bad, I just get into what I think are the deeper themes. I think many of the critiques of this new movie are very valid, but I did find it to be a thought provoking piece
Any MOVIE is already a "blending of fantasy and reality" and you don't need a musical to do that, and here is where you are probably seeing something which is not there. Perhaps the sequel is a musical simply because Lady Gaga is there. Quite a silly sequel, by the way.
This comment is hilariously stupid and completely missed the point. Youre equating it to OUR reality when he is talking about the film's reality vs Arthur's fantasies. If Arthur's fantasies are that of a musical, then it makes sense that they be musicals. This was done even in the first film so how is he reaching at something that wasn't there when he is literally giving you examples showing that it was there?
Bro the first movie literally shows Arthur lean on the comedy, entertainment aesthetic in his mind, now that he met Harley she sowed the music aesthetic in him, please chillax
Thankyou for actually dissecting its themes rather than calling it crap like most others. After seeing it in the cinema I couldn’t help but think there’s was something bigger I was missing and I really appreciate this take on its themes. I wasn’t happy to accept that the director went from such a clear vision in the first movie to “making a shit film” the next. I figured it was more likely something that I was failing to see
excellent, well done
No contrarian navel gazing is going to save this unwanted sequel.
Sorry guys but after watching once more the first film after watching the second I have to say facts are facts and you are in all your right to have your own opinion about the film and what all meant and what was really Phillips doing. But the fact is if you watch the first film again in detail (which you can tell Phillips didn’t do before writing the new one because if he did he would never had done the movie he end up doing) during the film joker Arthur starts to embrace his new persona , to the point that is not a persona or alter ego but it is in fact his real self. He even tells his mother before killing her “you know that condition they always said I had is not a condition is really who I am , is the real me”, even before killing the clown work mate he says for the first time in my life I feel good and my real self. And even before coming out in the show he ask Murray to calling joker because as he said “that’s how you call me didn’t you? A joker….” He is understanding finally who he really is and all this things that happen to him all over his life and during the film help him to finally found him self and for the first time embrace it , so during the joker film the script and the film we watch is clearly explicitly showing us that joker is not a alter ego or a mask of Arthur but his real self his real being and the real mask was Arthur , only when he was finally available to take out that mask he has live all his life thru he was available to be his real self , the monster inside, joker. So the second film to start with the fact that joker is just a mask and Arthur was the real identity is to contradict everything that was showing to us during the first film, not only that but makes the character of joker completely act without consistency or continuity, I mean he literally said he enjoy killing does guys, that he though it was funny and was tired of pretending it was not, he went from thinking and saying that to regretting killing does three guys and wishing he never did it. That is completely paradoxical and inconsistent with the character we meet and got to know a hole movie before. Actually at the beginning of this one is like he just reset and there was nobody there until he meets Harley, that is also a inconsistency, at the end of the first movie he did learn to be him self by his own, to no depend on no one , no more in his mother, in his love interest fantasy, his friends (the people he tries to earn their friendship and love during the film like his coworker) instead he rejects all to be him self and care only about him self. To throw all that character development thru the window just for the sake of this love story make sense in the beginning is absurd. At the end of the first movie what did give pure joy and happiness to him self and his life for the first time was to be him self “joker” and to see the chaos it cause at the end in the city, the guy was literally smiling for the first time pure real smile that flow from the circumstances of him watching all the madness his way of being had cause to all the city and its civilians. Instead they throw that for now his only way to be happy is being with Harley , a woman that he barley knows. This is pure bullsh”t and a crime to the writing as the nature of what made the character special in the first place and first film that was made with the intention to end like that and to be like that. The perfect example is like Michael Corlione in the second godfather film before his son getting baptized he regrets everything he has done and regrets as he r rejects who he has become and will be. It will have being a crime to what the character represented as the arc he went in the first film. Basically this kind of villains or anti heroes once they turn that line and pass it there is not turning back, they have to commit to the evil they have embrace. Another things is to make a third film like the godfather did to show the consequences of taking that life, there is no redemption but there are consequences and that could have being cool , that in a third film you see joker dealing with the consequences of what he is and of what it means to be him self , the cost of being him self. That is a cool arc and movie but instead we got this film that for more interesting and good (which I have to admit I was enjoying it before the rape scene came out of nowhere and from there on what comes on screen destroys the legacy of both films and everything we where told and show the last 3 hours and a half) the last 20 minutes destroys everything this character and the last film stand for and everything that made this films special and made it worth, the moment he rejects being joker is the moment he rejects to be him self and to accept the mask Arthur was, the moment he says he regrets killing does people makes no sense with the guy from the last movie, that guy did give a damn about does killings actually he enjoy it that is what makes it evil and he did it because he felt like, because he choose to and not because society make him society only did push him to become him self and he knew it the fact he now is reve ting joker just because he doesn’t want to live to an image makes no sense, the joker we knew would have find a way to punish and make his revenge on the guards that abuse him and kill his friend, the fact that he is just going to take it as he said in the movie before “like good little boys” is a out of character behavior and reaction. Basically the arc Arthur went in is erase and reboot to start exactly where he started, depress, rape by society and even worst without a life because it is talking by what he inspire. So sorry mates but this is not a smart, very a head of its time film that will become a cult movie and that his director is way smarter than he looks to be. This was just and interesting beautiful miss leading and miss calculation of a film made by a director that is far from perfect that has prove that he can make bad films (specially sequels “looking at you hangover 3”) ad he can make good films but in this case he just had to much ego to let him see that he was just getting way out of the road he had build and drive in the first place and now he is just justifying it as the fans that like this film as a simple “am smarter and unpredictable than you think”. It’s a bummer but here is a lesson to learn from Hollywood, if a film is made with the inception from the begging to stand own it’s own for the test of time for viewers to discuss then let that film be and make a new sh”t, at least the movie is made with sequels in mind from the beginning and inception of it like the first Star Wars, back to the future, Harry Potter, planet of the apes or lord of the rings where made. Is like making a sequel to “Inception” just because it made a billion dollars, once you do that it destroys the hole point of the ending of the first one.
I appreciate your attempt at polishing a turd, but in the end it is still a turd...it really doesn't matter if a movie has some deeper meaning if it doesn’t entertain the audience....
Considering that most of the audience are just stupid and want the same popcorn flick garbage all the time, this isn't really a great point you're making.
There have always been films that have been made to challenge audiences and get them to think instead of solely just being there to entertain. Some of the greatest movies ever made have done this.
Its honestly not surprising that people don't like this film because they honestly don't fucking get it and they didn't get the first film.......audiences are just pissed because they didn't understand either movie to begin with.
Maybe that's the point lol. You just proved the movie right. You and everyone that are hating on it are the Harleys to the movie's Joker.
I agree with the review for a lot with some differences. My take is on my channel
Excellent, poignant and summed up the movie well.
While many have written it off, perhaps down the line people can reappraise it and realize how much this film has to say about human nature.
Ah thank you!
I like the commentary that the movie is presenting
this sequel is what happens when you get easy money and backing to make a sequel 😂. It was garbage.
Bad movie sequels are often caused by one-shot beginning films, poor planning, illogical plots, and filming without enough of the original cast and film crew. That's what killed the Schumacher Batman movies, the Howling series, and the Jaws series. Good sequels start with the first movie intended as a series and are filmed simultaneously with the first film, so all the cast, crew, and sets are together and are logically caused by the events of the original movie. This is how the Star Wars series, Marvel movies, and Bond films have worked for decades!
Nah he didn't wanna do it. He purposely did it so he wouldn't have to create more of the first. It's why he stated he wouldn't be touching DC anymore
,,This is how it happened , this is how the Joker died.''
Let me ask you: did Arthur deserved to be graped? Did he deserved how his mother treated him? Did he deserved the mental sickness he had? oh but he is a villain YOU said he deserves to be graped. Your self righteousness and holy than thou attitude is what makes me despis3 all religions.
Not true, he really was the son of Thomas Wayne. The photo of Penny has a flirty letter written by him saying I love your smile and signed by Wayne.
So Thomas really was flirting or even fucking with her and use some problems to use his power to make her look bad
Interesting, it seems there's some debate about this! Your interpretation does seem to fit with a lot of the evidence. I like how much ambiguity there is in the first film
Didn't Arthur's mother adopt Arthur?
I mean isn't that what his file showed? The mother's boyfriend beat him and she allowed it at the time, no?
you gotta be kidding me, this Movie was utterly insulting...
Insulting to who? A bunch of fanboys and girls who didn't get the Joker/Harley slaughterfest that they wanted?
@@crater044 no, you dull knob.
This could be one of the greatest sequels ever made
Without a doubt the greatest complete with an incredible musical rendition. Looks like Oscar is knocking on the door.
No shit
What are you smoking? Look at the box office...
Genuinely loved the film
@@Xisk77box office doesn’t define greatness
i'd like to quote something i read from someone and thats stuck into my head cuz its realy the best i read about the movie
"It's ironic that this movie's main message has been completely proven true by how many people disliked it. Many people wanted to see the Joker villain from the Batman movies, but instead they got poor Arthur Fleck. But isn't that exactly what Arthur was complaining about his whole life? That no one ever cared about him, who he really is. But the moment he became the Joker, then they paid attention to his alter ego. But the real Arthur is killed instead, the same way the critics killed this movie. Too bad. This movie is genius."
Great in depth analysis of this Joker sequel perfect comparisons at 5:20 6:50 and 7:28 perfect person to tell this story
Please do “Strange Darling” and “The Wasp”!!! I’d love to hear your takes on those!!
Ooh good suggestions, thanks!
I saw Arthur I knew thee more to it I loved the sequel it was disturbing and sad tale in the end
Would have been better as a short film but instead it tried to hard to express its message and ultimately failed
Thank you for this, great way of explaining this film. I’m one of the few that actually enjoyed this movie
I remember Fight Club and American Psycho (a D nonetheless).
Both now classics. I enjoyed them very much in theaters and could not understand the mob mentality of all the initial negativity. Anarchy, destruction, unnecessary violence, do not make this world a better place. That was the shared message.
Comic book fans are mostly brain dead. They can’t think outside the box. They want to see a Joker that never realizes that crime does not pay. I really love the deconstruction of the character in the 2 Joker movies.
I rewatched The Dark Knight (2008), and oh boy, that movie is bad. Nothing that happens there makes any sense whatsoever. Has no real deep meaning. It’s not even a good screenplay. For me the positive of this movie being trashed like this, means, the Blu-ray will be in my collection sooner rather than later.
This movie was boring garbage
For superhero/villain fans it is, they just llike trashy action and feel different when they are sooo basic ,a bunch of incels wanting EdGy ThInGs
The movie was admittedly bad because Todd Phillips didn't want to make it.
@@ScienceDashHe didn't want to make the film that audiences wanted him to make. That's the difference. So he made the film he wanted. It's audiences who are pissed off because they didn't get what they imagined they were getting
@@rubbygm It's fair to expect some action in an R-rated superhero movie about two homicidal supervillains. The first movie did not inspire incel copycat crimes, because Arthur Fleck was avenging his firing, child abuse, and public humiliation on TV, not single women rejecting him on dates. It was also set in the '80s before the Internet and the Manosphere was common in geek culture.
Mad Love episode is way better than this trash story
Joker 2 sucks.
It really is an excellent sequel. I’m glad to see a balanced intelligent view in your video and not just aggressive childlike distaste.
How is it childlike? People like you like to take the high moral ground: I am good you are not attitude. The majority has spoken: story is a waste of time and 200 million dollars to make it? That must be money laundering right there