Joker 2 is too complex for its critics

[@verigumetin4291]

I think the reason most people hate this second movie as opposed to only some hating the first, is because this one is not as entertaining. Sure, journalist/critics may say and write entire essays on why the movie is to be hated, but I think the masses dislike it simply because it's not as cathartic as the first one. That's it. I think. As always, beautiful explanation on what this art piece is trying to convey. Thank you for this 12 minutes lecture. I am afraid, however, that the masses do not watch art pieces, they watch movies. They do this not because they are stupid or uncultured, but because they have other more important things to worry about. This is their pleasure time, and an art piece rarely panders to the pleasure center of the brain. Storytelling is a zero sum game. If one focuses on one, they must inevitably sacrifice the other. One could argue this is something that can be overcome with enough mastery of the craft, yet I find that some stories, simply demand too much to be made pleasurable. They demand a price to come into existence. I am afraid this piece is one of those.

[@erdelegy]

Yes, that's exactly his point: this radical cinema doesn't feed their expectations, their fantasies, etc., which is one definition of "entertain".

[@don-eb3fj]

​@@erdelegyIt also rings their cognitive dissonance like a bell by bitch-slapping them with a reality no longer sheathed in a threadbare velvet glove, a discordant lesson that calls out the lie they would rather continue living - they WILL pay for them both, whether they see it or not.

[@mfversluis]

I agree on the whole with your assessment. But you may wonder why they'd make a wannabe arthouse movie with a $200m budget of a blockbuster, which also doesn't live up to the expectations of the 1st installment (or at least is very different). That's not a "Joker prank on the audience", or even a "middle finger to society". That's professional suicide.

[@verigumetin4291]

@@mfversluis /you are correct. Financially, this movie is beyond stupid. The director was unwilling to give people what they wanted I think, or something that would satisfy them in any case, and so we ended up with this Joker 2. It is a bad decision in my opinion, because the director knew this movie would flop if he made it this way, but he still did it. I don't respect people that waste other people's money and time. That being said, i think the story is pretty good critically.

[@aesop1451]

"The masses do not watch art pieces, they watch movies." Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, John Carpenter's The Thing, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, David Fincher's Fight Club, and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now are all films that received mixed reviews at the time they came out and then were recognized as masterpieces.

[@agarthastudio6005]

I'm considering checking this movie out because of your videos...but your comments about the sex fantasy & people giving the movie low ratings because they don't find Lady Gaga attractive are completely off from what I've seen. I'm pretty sure that every reviewer I've watched or listened to so far has praised her performance as Harley, in spite of their dislike of the movie overall. Your claiming this makes me distrust your analysis.

[@newdivide9882]

Same here. All I’ve heard is praise for her and Phoenix even though people hated the plot they were working with. Not once have I seen anyone anywhere say what he claims at the beginning. Maybe someone out there is, but that’s not what ANYONE I’ve seen so far on social media say. The inclusion of that at the beginning (even if some of those people exist) does feel dishonest

[@elpeluca7780]

All the discourse around this movie, from those who liked it and those who hated, is absolute brainrot.

[@makcity7850]

The film would actually have been better if they had her version of Harley as the main focus of the film, seeing the trial through her lens. Instead we got a film the director admitted he didn't want to make and boy, does it show.

[@ChewsCarefully]

I've said it before & I'll say it again, sexist though it sounds: women care about what the male actors look like _WAY_ more than men do. *They're* the ones who won't go watch a movie unless there's a face they would want to stare at on a poster for hours. Yeah, if you find an actress that's *repulsive* it might turn men away. But if Barbara Streisand could be in more than one film *as the main character* & that usually there's no one more attractive _than_ the main character in movies that should tell people that for men, beauty isn't required.

[@harper277]

The clue is in the title Folie a Deux means shared delusion.

[@Travisaurus]

Shared madness or madness for two

[@harper277]

@@Travisaurus it’s an old psychiatric term, I once saw it in two twins, yes deux refers to two.

[@thisismyname3928]

[@julian3bk]

Yes the film should really be interpreted with this concept in mind. I think a lot of the criticism comes from people not realizing this

[@guidobolke5618]

Love?

[@happinesstan]

Arthur's trial in a nutshell: Arthur who has been on medication, due to his insanity, for a lifetime, desperately tries to prove his insanity. Vs. The State, who prescribed said medication, due to their diagnosis of his insanity, try to prove he is not insane.

[@DamienWalter]

Yes.

[@twintyro]

THANK YOU. Every court scene has me itching.

[@hal8437]

well said 👍

[@JCIce007]

@@happinesstan insanity is a legal term, it's not was he was on medication for in Joker 1. Even somone with bipolar schizoprhrenia isn't automatically "insane". And most of never murder anyone.

[@joywagner979]

Then he fires his lawyer and shows up to represent himself in a phony accent whilst wearing full clown makeup. Nothing about that screams "insane" -- no, sir!

[@erdelegy]

10:15 "We're not going away Arthur; all we had was the fantasy, and you gave up." --- my wife spit this venom at me in the form of "You're not strong enough!" She was 51/50'd by her next partner, involuntarily committed to a mental ward, and diagnosed bipolar, severely mentally-ill. "She was broken," her partner told me. Explains a lot. This movie hits close to home.

[@manuelplatino1926]

Finally a sane review of Joker 2 that is not complaining about being "w0k3". Thanks! Even though I never liked hed music, since she started her acting career, my respect for Lady Gaga grows every day

[@erinburke9711]

I haven't heard anyone say it's woke, just that it sucks and is misguided

[@markpostgate2551]

None of the reviews even from the most strongly anti-woke commentators have accused the film of being woke, and they have almost always had nothing but praise for the performance of the two leads. All criticisms have been directed at artistic choices and the only apportioning of blame to author's beliefs have been the inferred or speculated attitudes to fandom.

[@narendrasomawat5978]

​@@markpostgate2551I think this dude himself is a woke.

[@markpostgate2551]

@@narendrasomawat5978 I wrote a massive elquoent reply to you which the censors immediately destroyed: I feel like a mother who has spent nine months growing a child to watch a midwife bludgeon it to death in mere seconds! LOL. That is what a censor is.

[@jamesholland8057]

She has a great voice.

[@gusclash4562]

How have you only got 52K subscribers? You really take the reviews to a deeper level; educating and provoking.

[@new_memeplex]

Gratuitous comment agreeing with you. Shows ‘engagement’ and helps in the Algorithm.

[@VolkerHett]

one more now :)

[@erdelegy]

bell-curve

[@mattgilbert7347]

+1

[@peteradrian9466]

​@@new_memeplexexcellent idea, don't mind if I do!

[@PaulVanderKlay]

This was very helpful. I always learn a lot from your reviews. Thanks.

[@DamienWalter]

Thanks for watching Paul

[@narendrasomawat5978]

​@@DamienWalter Between man are being fantasy of woman and woman are being fantasy of man we have common shared understanding between man and woman. Don't see everything through Marxist oppressor/oppressed narrative.

[@narendrasomawat5978]

​@@DamienWalterU use a lots of word sallad to prove this movie is a masterpiece. And Michel Foucault doesn't have any credibility to anyone mad. He himself was pedophile that's he hated objective morality because if objective morality exists he would have been in jail.

[@2CSteev]

I'm really glad you came around to making a video despite the algorithm. You indeed had something important to say.

[@Itisjustasaganow]

Too complex or somebody is doing mental gymnastics, well I'll watch it then I'll have a verdict

[@dolev2945]

its relative, i highly doubt 6+7 is complex for you, but i think for a 3 year old that would be "mental gymnastics"

[@mattgilbert7347]

He is doing mental gymnastics and/or imagining stuff not in the film. I like Damien but he is just wrong about this one.

[@dolev2945]

@@mattgilbert7347as if everything you perceive isn’t affected by your mind an thoughts

[@dolev2945]

@ meaning is always something you imagine, it’s not inherent in objects or perceptions

[@RapsandRiffs]

I feel media literacy has gotten worse because movies like this aren’t made enough. Clockwork orange, and Bronson have endings like this but audiences/critics didn’t want to be spoon fed crowd pleasing stuff. Great video, subscribed

[@tomphillpotts]

Clockwork Orange was highly controversial in it's time.

[@the21tinker]

I was not going to see this movie, but thankfully I listened to your critique. Now I have plans for the weekend. 😊

[@jmalmsten]

Introduce a character who is lonely and depressed. Present a power fantasy. Show that the fantasy is hollow, no matter what you do outwards, you are stuck with problems within. Even dangle a love interest, dangerous and exciting. Someone you can dance and sync with. Then reveal that the love interest is just as messed up as you are and the only way forward is to fully engage with your psychological problems and fight to get out a better, more fully rounded human. Not hiding anymore behind larger than life personas. Engaging with reality instead of indulging in fantasies. Now he lies there looking out over a bloodred sea. The dreamgirl rejecting him. Omedetou, Arthur Fleck. Omedetou. Of course it will divide the fanbase. :D

[@DamienWalter]

Also, my 20s

[@TheIardis]

I have not seen the movie and this is the very first positive reaction I have perceived as of now. What I can say though is that it certainly has not 'divided' the audience as much as not... found one at all, has it? I mean besides single individuals who might have liked it. I guess I will give it a go after this review, after all.

[@jamespuleo3269]

@@TheIardis I've never seen this presenter's work before. My first reaction was "Finally, a *positive* review of Joker:FaD" Second reaction: "Wow this guy has really put some thought into this, and provides reference points for his views." I had written off this one as not worth my time. Perhaps The audience for this has to "develop" ~~~

[@fabianhammer2864]

@@DamienWalter everyone whos been through a messy breakup, may know what im getting at, when i say the whole film felt live an inevitable breakup. it was flawed, had missed opportunities, the wish fullfillment, the brutal power fantasy (the prison rape seemed really out of line, until i viewed it, as one more commentary, of what was expected of a joker sequel) and finally acceptance. in sheer emotional impact, i put this above the first, its basically its mirror image, its shadow, if you will. i really get being put off, by the choices, the film made, especially in the third act, as a fan myself, but that being the popular take right now, is kind of baffling, to me- neither the argument that this movie exists only to spite people (it was joaquins first oscar win and his first sequel and he wouldnt have done it, if he hadnt known about the risk), as a cynical cash grab, its simply too big of an outlier and the claim, that the character of arthur ends, exactly where he started, really makes me question if i watched the same movie. but lets just agree to disagree, on this one- only time will tell, if this will become a curious footnote, or a cult classic- i happen to love it.

[@johnclifton2820]

Beautiful way of saying it

[@EerieV23]

Todd Phillips just confirmed everything that Damien said is true to his vision of this movie in his interview with Entertainment Weekly.

[@tomenza]

Thank you for this. I'm now not just a subscriber, but a fan of your perspective.

[@mattgilbert7347]

The ultimate Joker move is to burn $200m on a film designed to anger all the fans of Joker and also annoy all the people who hate Joker.

[@DamienWalter]

"fans"

[@georgecisneros5281]

Yeah. That’s why the Joker is the bad guy.🤷🏻

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@georgecisneros5281 "bad guy"

[@patmann9363]

​@@mattgilbert7347I don't think it is .

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@patmann9363 You don't think The Joker would burn $200m to make a film that would annoy those groups of people?

[@cosmoissleeping]

Vertigo also allowed creator owned adult stuff. Before that aspect was destroyed, it was the greatest imprint in comics history

[@Waverley116]

The crowds wanted a fantasy😅 and instead got a mirror that shows reality that they don't like. Anti fantasy, very true and interesting, how the reactions are. Thank you Damien.

[@raymond_sycamore]

mirror my ass. The first one was the mirror on you normies

[@JCIce007]

The first Joker movie was Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy redone with clown makeup and Gotham names. Take away the IP references and it's a gritty paychological/crime drama about a guy named Arthur. For the sequel, Todd Phillips (who has never made a good sequel to his own stuff) didn't have Scorcese movies as a blueprint. From the trailers it looked like he might be doing Chicago meets One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest which mifht have worked, but the final film doesn't feel much like either.

[@Waverley116]

Did you even watch the video essay?

[@JCIce007]

@@Waverley116 yes, I think it's interesting, but I don't agree with its thesis. Joker Deux isn't being misunderstood, by and large. Some movies just don't work.

[@Waverley116]

@JCIce007 people who worship heroes in the end will be deceived and betrayed. As far as the movie working or not for entertainment and making millions for whom ever doesn't matter to me. Like dune messiah the hero will not be the savior that you want. However I respect your opinion even though I disagree.

[@TakumProti]

Weak and downtrodden?! Most of Batman’s villains are nothing of the sort! Many of them are just as rich, cultured and well-educated as Bruce is. Ra’s al-Ghul is a gentleman eco-terrorist and elite assassin His daughter Talia al-Ghul is just a female version of him They don’t call the Joker the Clown Prince of Crime for nothing Two-Face was Gotham City’s District Attorney Clayface was a Hollywood Star Don Carmine Falcone is the main Mafia Boss in Gotham Black Mask is also a powerful crime boss The Penguin is essentially a caricature of a rich guy, almost like Mr. Peanut Both Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy are genius-level accredited scientists within their fields of study Bane’s as smart as he is buff and tough Harley Quinn is a licensed psychiatrist who used to work at Arkham Asylum Prof. Hugo Strange is a brilliant psychologist and expert in many other fields Catwoman’s a world-class jewel thief Scarecrow is also a brilliant psychologist and biochemist The Court of Owls are pretty much the secret society of snobs who run Gotham This whole “Batman’s a fascist elitist rich guy who beats up poor people” sneer is just nonsense, including the claim that he’s callous and cruel towards the mentally ill when he, in fact, shows sensitivity towards them like with Baby Doll. Bruce gives so much of his time, money, resources, peace of mind, and physical and mental well being to help Gotham City and the world at large. The character isn’t above criticism, of course. Case in point, getting young kids like the Robins and Bat Girl involved so directly in his vigilantism. Still, Batman’s no one to be truly reviled.

[@makcity7850]

Spot on. It always amazes me that "intellectuals" dissect Batman without knowing anything about the character but "rich, white man."

[@TakumProti]

@@makcity7850 Thanks.

[@zubrycky]

A very interesting analysis! Thanks for the food for thought. That said, to be honest, I've always thought it was incredibly stupid (and a first World problem as well) 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.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

Good thing, then, that instead of throwing a tantrum, Todd Phillips went on to create another piece of art. Thus, I got 2 great Joker movies instead of just 1. 😊

[@G_Kchrst]

I dont think its whining, its conversation with the audience. Art is a mirror, a path to someone's mind. The creator does accept that his movie takes out something dark from the audience, he just doesn't like it and he answers to it.

[@Kwolfx]

Perhaps a minor point, but one thing Damien Walker got dead wrong is Zack Snyder doesn't have many fan boys any longer. The director's cut of Justice League may be more coherent and more interesting than what was originally released, but that wasn't a very high bar to clear. And Rebel Moon is a complete and utter failure. As a film maker, Zack Snyder is a spent force and everyone can see it. Well, almost everyone. On the positive side, I now have a reason to watch Folie à Deux and make up my own mind.

[@JCIce007]

Yeah, Rebel Moon and Army of the Dead really burned away most of the good will he had garnered. Like, yeah, Warner Brothers did him dirty regarding Justice League...but his "original" ideas since have been awful. And his filmmaking style isn't impressing anyone anymore. If anything, he's gotten worse.

[@anderslarsen4412]

Snyder's only 2 "really good" movies were both based on amazing comic books that looked like finished storyboards which he could simply copy wholesale. I haven't seen anything original of his that was worth the time I spent watching it.

[@TheRealPotoroo]

@@anderslarsen4412 But sloooooo-moooooo is cooooool...

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

​​​@@anderslarsen4412The only "good" movie by Snyder was "Watchmen", and he has Alan Moore to thank for that, and whoever picked the score which worked well as a commentary to the developing plot, not unlike a choir in an ancient Greek play. Nothing else was original about that film, apart from replacing the teleported aliens with an atom bomb. Even "300" fell flat when it came to accuracy, instead of getting what was militarily decisive and most effective about the hoplite tactic of a closed advancing line (which was accurately depicted in the comic), he showed the warriors breaking their one single advantage over the Persian army outnumbering them without any reason at all - something any Spartan would probably have been killed for on the spot without a court martial. On top of that blunder, Snyder gave the Spartans superhuman strength and defiled the entire point of the myth of the Thermopylae by taking away its core: The heightened celebration of Spartan discipline even if faced with certain death. Talk about not getting a story's central point...

[@dariuszzukowski5244]

Joker would be much more impactful without the burden of the comic stories associations. I wouldn't call "Joker" 1 a movie inspired by of "Taxi Driver" - it's almost the verbatim reworking of "King of Comedy" (starring DeNiro as well).

[@GWhit-z8c]

Astute observation.

[@davidcrandall5794]

And this is why it's "hated" you're running ads like this will be a Joker movie, doing your usual box office shtick and then you give the audience the middle finger and pretend it's all too deep for them. Sure these deeper details are interesting but the whole thing is a walking contradiction.

[@verigumetin4291]

@@davidcrandall5794 the masses were expecting a circus, instead they got shakespeare. musical shakespeare.

[@happinesstan]

@@davidcrandall5794 Most comic book fans imagine themselves to be superheroes, but in reality they're just Artur Fleck.

[@duvetboa]

Its a very prescient story so I appreciate Joker reintroducing those ideas in the zeitgeist, even if its somewhat derivative. Its a good stand alone film and not everybody has or will see Taxi Driver.

[@fabianhammer2864]

consider the fact, that its not without precedent, that filmmakers, writers etc have spoken out against the interpretation of their respective movies, take fight club, for instance, from which many young men took a similar message and arguably missed the same point- or more recently, breaking bad- phillips just went one, or rather several steps, step further, because not only did he attach an original IP to it, but during folie a deux, theres several moments, that lead the audience on a bit.... i saw people walk out, during different points in the movie and though i think, it was mostly due to them, having had enough of the singing portions, it was clear to me, that many thought, until arthurs confession in court, even up to the prison rape, that this will bring out joker/they will get what they fucking deserve.... and as a fan myself, i can understand why some might feel righteously pissed, it didnt happen, but also, because they probably dont want to admit, they were invested, up to a point, in the now so popular narrative of critics, that it hates its fans....its made really clear, that this regards only a certain sub-set of the first jokers fan base and it mostly gets addressed directly, after the court explosion.... not a whole lot of time is devoted, to showing how unhinged some of his followers are, so i dont buy into the movie existing purely out of spite, i think phillips may have actually trusted his audience too much, because he gives several chances for an out, only to pull you back in- the unfortunate thing about that is, that it really only works once, thankfully it worked for me, that first time and that i rewatched the movie today- i think some fans are taking it so personal, that they take too much of the narrative, at face value, theres a lot more going on here, underneath what some assume is the reality, within the movie.... i can explain, for anyone who is interested, but for now, let me just say, that neither the argument that this movie exists only to spite people (it was joaquins first oscar win and his first sequel and he wouldnt have done it, if he hadnt known about the risk), as a cynical cash grab, its simply too big of an outlier and the claim, that the character of arthur ends, exactly where he started, really makes me question if we watched the same movie

[@laurencehubbard5240]

Glad to see a contrary opinion on the seeming unbridled hate across the board. Have been pondering a rare visit to the cinema for this one.

[@JimFarrand]

It's weird how movie and TV reviewing has become a mob activity. People seem to watch KZbin videos and then go and spam whatever they heard into IMDb. You see the same catchphrase pop up in review after review.

[@DamienWalter]

Yes. The internet is a groupmind.

[@martineldritch]

So true. It's also true about music reviews where critics cater to the whims of their broadest base rather than describing their own subjective experience with the album in question..they don't even allow themselves a subjective experience when it can be overridden by negative bias. Enjoyment is weakness, negativity sells

[@tomphillpotts]

Yes it's like social media has made everyone much more tribal and combative

[@RobertWScott523]

bravo. this is why I listen.

[@stilltoomanyhats]

"If you're trapped in the dream of the other, you're fucked"

[@kairamh]

the best thing is that the subtitles (CC) automatically generated calls Joaquin Phoenix "wackin Phoenix".

[@kairamh]

calling Arthur Fleck "alphaflex" is also awesome.

[@saintcalibre]

Definitely a lot to ponder in this video. I would disagree with your categorizing Joker as being hated for a long time to come. I can see that fate for the sequel, but the first one is thought of very highly. It has maintained high audience reviews and the critic reviews, while still being generally positive are a bit more critical, are offset by the film getting 11 academy award nominations and winning two, including Phoenix for best actor. Joker is far from hated.

[@JCIce007]

I'm curious to see if the sequel hurts ths original's reputation. I suspect it won't; Jaws, The Matrix, Jurassic Park, Terminator, Halloween, etc...; all have famously terrible sequels (not always the 2nd one), but the original films are still highly regarded.

[@aldrichuyliong8143]

I think people are being too hard on this film. It's actually surprisingly good and a clever concept despite critics. I think most of the hate is coming from either macho incels who think "musicals are gay", hipsters allergic to anything they deem "edgy"/"cringe", and/or people who shat their panties at the first one bec they thought it was going to inspire a global incel uprising or something. Relax. The virgins remained in their mom's basement after the first movie so go out and touch grass. Anyway I think after the moral panic die down people will look back on this film fondly. It's actually a really good musical in a demented sort of way. And the Joker's iconic glasgow smile makes a return. #JokerFolieADeux

[@hobbybobley]

Thank the high sky you published it!!! 🎉

[@juliandavidac]

I just love how this movie at first (joker one) sells the *fantasy* (build up the joke) as a critique to elites and how, just like taxi driver, the forgotten ones can be an anti-hero against the system. The Proletariat's fantasy, and then *reality kicks* in Joker 2; it's a punchline, and the joker from the comics would love that and say, "the jokes on you". Since the first one, I say this isn't the Comic's Joker it's a whole new thing, but the whole world thinks that this was the real joker, and he was going to fulfill their escapism. That's why they are in grief. There is some production decisions that are bad as hell, like the end leaving the doubt about the dude laughing and cutting his face? nobody talks about that (it's a reference that this dude was heath leadger's joker, and doesn't make any sense) uggh just warner doing a "warner" again, there is an internal conflict in that part trying to be and not to be, a lot of flaws, but as a whole it's pretty interesting

[@DamienWalter]

Great comment, thank you

[@Itisjustasaganow]

Maybe, and it could be much better, with a better punchline than this

[@garethmiguel]

Marvellous observations. I was fascinated by the movie and youve articulated some of the reasons why. The scene where 'Joker' cross-examines his old work companion was the most searing. There's a lot happening there!

[@ggir9979]

Just got to see the movie, and something striked me that I have not seen really discussed anywhere. The actual trigger of the events of the movie, the mover of the plot, is a TV-film. This movie is central in the attraction that Harley Quin feels for Arthur, to the persona of the Joker and how the outside world relates to it. This centralility seems to indicate that the author was trying to make a point, that it is not a random plot element. It could just be a generic reference to the impact of modern culture on our psyche, but I think there is a deeper meaning to be found. This tv-film can be seen as a meta-reference to the first Joker film, and Folie à Deux then viewed thematically as a critic of how the first film, Joker, was misunderstood. At least Todd Phillips' view on how the general public did not get it his first movie. Joker was a story of mental illness and coping, a story of a good man (great scene in court with his former colleague where Arthur's real personality is reminded to us) seeking relace in a world of fantasy. A man pushed to the brink by a life of abuse and despair, the story of Arthur Fleck and his invented persona of the Joker. It was not the origin story of a super-villain. In Folie à deux, Harley and the Joker's followers are us the general public. We saw this movie about Arthur Fleck, and thought that this Joker personna was cool. We saw this figure sticking it to to the powerfull, wanting to blow up society, and that resonated with us. We rooted for the Joker, and really want this second movie to be about the Joker blowing stuff up. Our experience is to mirror Harley's experience, that this story is about Arthur. There is no Joker, just Arthur Fleck. This is his story. And like Harley, we are going to be disappointed. This never was this kind of story. At the end of the movie, the director gives us what we want, the "real" Joker. It's not pretty. We hate it. We are not supposed to root for a psychopatic mass-murderer.

[@Torbu6286]

Hell yeah, the tv show being a reference to how Joker 2019 was received is genius, gosh. And to think Joker is a single dude who's anarchist and blah blah in fact the same kinda joker mindset is what the majority (the joker "fans") is about, they think they are the minority I guess. You know ironically the minority who gets this film will feel like the ideal Joker right now, cuz that's how I feel, it's insanity around us...hahahahaha

[@ggir9979]

@@Torbu6286 We could add that Harley Quin is a phoney, a fake, a thrill seeking bored little rich girl. She could not care less about Arthur, or the fate of the downtrodden in general. She is not an agent of societal change, she just wants to see stuff burn to keep her out of her existencial boredom. Basically, she is us

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

Another great moment in the movie is when the judge lectures Arthur on how "this court is not a stage" - while being on live broadcast TV! 🤡🤯

[@msamil679]

Well, you just summed up everything perfectly. But sadly, this movie is somehow too complicated for the majority to understand. F**king stupid.

[@SoonGone]

I don't think anybody is actually complaining that she's not a sexy Margot Robbie kind of Harley Quinn. Except perhaps for dummies that hadn't seen the first Joker. You'd have to be dumb af to think that's a problem. However i do think that a lot of other criticisms will be valid. I haven't seen the movie yet though so i can't tell, however what i do know is that i never, even slightly thought that Joker needed a sequel.

[@GWhit-z8c]

This is an intelligent and well thought out review that is flawlessly delivered.

[@AlbertaMartian]

Thank you for a well delivered intelligent review. Now I can go to see it and likely enjoy it as much as I did the first one for all the reasons you mentioned, very specifically because it’s NOT more MCU pablum.

[@mayatrash]

A bad film is a bad film.

[@JF-cd5hc]

Who tho, was asking for Joker, the musical? Who is this movie for? Who is the target audience?

[@damiantirado9616]

And the joker 2 is not a bad film.

[@duvetboa]

​@@JF-cd5hcWho cares about the target audience? Let the film speak for itself

[@alessioatta762]

​@@JF-cd5hc Idk i see lots of negative video in italy here too but honestly i look at that movie and i loved it more then the previous one

[@steveb9713]

Interpret it how you want, the movie still seems half baked, and doesn’t seem to have found an audience

[@findJLF]

You delivery is your trademark; in your considered reviews and deep references, are your value. Excellent viewing.

[@okamifang4059]

Very VERY well done 👍🏼👌🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@Swanzy89]

I will come back to finish this video as soon as I see the movie

[@terencemiguana]

I loved this movie. I saw it as a fine tribute to the bleak musicals of the great Bob Fosse with Gaga even singing part of a song from his 1969 classic Sweet Charity which also appeared as a poster for the original stage version in the animated intro. That too was also a story of the futile pursuit to find love. Great channel. Excellent video

[@thunbergmartin]

Really enjoyed this video! What a great insight!

[@new_memeplex]

You are on fire, Damo. Top, top stuff.

[@Starborne398]

I actually did like the movie for the most part, but I 'd wished it took a different route with the ending of the relationship between Arthur and Lee as well as the last scene. The acting is really, really good, the atmosphere is super dense, but I don't like the disenchantment of the character, especially the scene where he gives up the Joker persona...that comment on madness as a product and a dangerous escape could have been made differently.

[@jamesomeara2329]

I am not looking to change the subject exactly, but I was looking to ask a question of sorts. I feel Todd Phillips is deeply rooted in film beyond the comic book era. Mr. Walter is onr of several who hit the similarities with Taxi Driver. That said, the second Joker between the courtroom and dance numbers reminds me more of the era of thirties mystery films. I don't recall the name immediately, but Ginger Rogers was in a film akin to this, she's accused of murder, there's a trial, a number of music skits. Do folks think one reason the film didn't attract the audience is because it uses a narrative medium of another era, that few know these days?

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

Being trapped between Gen X and Gen Y in my plunge into this world and not an expert on movie history, I don't know which works you are referring to, but partly "Joker: Folie a deux" reminded me of the 2002 film adaptation of the 1926 musical "Chicago". Todd Phillips might just as well have called it "Folie a deux: A Gotham City Tale" to allude to the fact that it is just as much a story about the place that breeds Joker fantasies of power and violence as it is a story about the victims of such power-tripping.

[@nedjimb0]

Wait, there's people who think Stefanie Germanotta isn't hot? Maybe they're the crazy ones.

[@JCIce007]

I actually think Stephanie Germanotta looks much more attractive than Lady Gaga usually does, if that makes sense.

[@6HauntedDays]

She isn't. She's so basic and meh. What I call plain Jane "attractive" ya know? She's got that typical face 100% u cant say of WHAT, but ya know what I mean. So sick of the pathetic society I live in now....

[@chaueter1041]

Another brilliant analysis, thank you!

[@NRG-yo8nr]

It's just too controversial for mainstream Joker fans. Fans of the first film are just too easily offended.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

I liked the first Joker movie much, and I am not easily offended by a movie. Then again, I also like the second Joker movie. The Joker in the DC comics can be an interesting foil to Batman, but these two movies did something new: Showing what a place would breed the Joker persona, enriching the lore of Gotham City as bringing out the worst in people, and doing all of that from the perspective not of a supergifted, privileged being, but through the eyes of an everyman who just got dealt the wrong cards in life to begin with and is then sent over the edge by his outsider status making him easy to exploit and discard when there is nothing more left to exploit out of him.

[@LiminalSpaces03]

Great review!

[@LateBoomer-sl1dk]

Reminded me of anti-vigilante The Batman. I also thought of Von Trier's Dancer In the Dark.

[@JCIce007]

@@LateBoomer-sl1dk The Batman isn't anti vigilante. He stills saves the day at the end via his Batmanning. There is criticism of him being too detached from the people and too vengeful, and his arc is learning to improve on that. Ultimately, he's starting to become more like the traditonal comics Batman (or Nolan's) by the end.

[@LateBoomer-sl1dk]

@@JCIce007 he can't be completely anti-vigilante. It would be the end of the franchise. That's my point. He can't change. It's boring.

[@JCIce007]

@@LateBoomer-sl1dk that's any genre convention. Sherlock Holmes has to be a detective, he's not Sherlock if he's the world's greatest deep sea fisherman. Batman has to be a vigilante, but within that he can be challenged morally, even spiritually, as well as physically.

[@IgnisDaemonicus]

My interpretation of Arthur Fleck in the first Joker movie was of a mentally ill, weak, pathetic and downtrodden man who was a 'victim' in every way. Nobody respected him. He tried to make others happy, tried to keep a happy smile on his face... a literal clown and comedian to make other people happy. The emergence of 'Joker' was Arthur finally integrating his Jungian shadow and accepting who he really is behind the facade and fantasy of what society expected him to be. An angry, violent, disturbed individual with music in his soul and nothing to lose. His painful, uncontrollable laughter at the beginning and throughout the movie when put in an awkward/anxious situation was his true self forcing its way through his persona - the darkness he tried so hard to repress. By the end of the movie we are lead to believe he was come to that realisation and embraced himself fully, hence Joker. Joker was not supposed to be a fantasy, everything else was. Now the second movie decides the flip all that upside down.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

The 2nd one doesn't flip it upside down, it just shows a process of progression in Arthur Fleck's personality: By the end of it, he has learned not to give his shadow full reign over him after failing to suppress him, and he also manages to integrate his shadow and take full accountability for his entire life, including what he did while under the influence of said shadow. From an unaware child throwing temper tantrums whenever blindly following rules on "how to be good" in the eyes of his surroundings and therefore merely reacting to it, Arthur Fleck finally grows up and accepts adult responsibilities. Too bad this self-actualisation comes too late in a place where this is neither noticed nor cherished in a person: Gotham City.

[@IgnisDaemonicus]

@@elevenseven-yq4vu It comes across more as a regression of Arthur Flecks personality than a progression. He simply becomes a victim again. What they attempted to do with the film could have been interesting, but it doesn't really work well. Just my opinion.

[@AarmOZ84]

That's the terrifying part in the whole movie.... Arthur Fleck realizing Joker is just a fantasy to carry out his darkest desires. He killed those people simply because he wanted to kill them. I kept thinking Lady Gaga was Arthur's fantasy as well, but it turned out she was a real person playing out a fantasy until reality finally hit hard.

[@obsidiantain]

Superb stuff, you’re on a run!

[@midnightmosesuk]

Thank you for this. I knew there was more to the film than the baying mob who hate it. It's great to have an alternative take on it.

[@brasidas33]

Dude: you’re overthinking it. They needed to make a movie about the Joker for people to want to watch it. Making a movie about a psychological cripple and some loser Mark (Gagagaga) was never gonna sell.

[@DamienWalter]

You're not thinking about it at all, you're just repeating some silly idea you heard elsewhere.

[@voitteq]

​@@niva9090 Keep in mind Warner is almost 40 billion dollars in debt. I doubt they greenlit this out of generosity.

[@markwarrensprawson]

This was the very first balanced perspective I feel anyone has offered me regarding "Folie a Deux", and I'm very grateful for it. I've not seen the film yet, as I feel most haven't, but the first resonated with me in ways than most films produced nowadays every do, and it was for the very reasons outlined here. I remain hopeful that "Folie a Deux" is, in fact, simply too gritty and real for most filmgoers who are looking for escape through dumbed-down, CG-saturated celebrations of the victory of hyper-normality over aberration. I look forward to it. I'm reminded of the cruelty dealt toward Lady Gaga for her portrayal of the villainous gold-digger in "House of Gucci". It was a long movie, and I didn't love it, but I found her compelling in the role all the same. Perhaps her Italian accent wasn't all that, but then, Dick van Dyke is still picking up flack for his Cockney accent in "Mary Poppins". As much as people might not like his failure to nail the accent, Burt is probably one of the most memorable roles in film to date. Audiences are fickle and all too often overlook the good in things after having been too easily distracted by trivialities. Thank you, Damien Walter. You've a new subscriber.

[@TheRealPotoroo]

I saw J2 today and I liked it. I confess I hadn't considered Gaga's Harlequin as being insufficiently Margot Robbie but obviously my predilections aren't universal. I do see Gaga's Harlequin as a stand-in for every power fantasy fan out there though - fan after all is derived from fanatic and getting herself certified in order to get into a mental hospital to be closer to her criminal idol is fanatical. And the way she dumps him at the end is crystal clear: there is no Joker therefore there is no us. At that level I fundamentally agree with your analysis. I am undecided though on the viability of the musical numbers as signifiers of their shared delusion though. It's logical enough but it also runs smack into the history of musicals, especially American ones, which tend very heavily towards whimsy. The Bandwagon was obviously chosen as an excuse to use That's Entertainment but at the same time it's also a perfect exemplar of the American musical as light, escapist fare. Genuinely dark musicals are few and far between - Dancer In The Dark might be the exception that proves the rule. I'm going to ponder this for a while but at this moment it is the artistic choice I am least convinced by. Ed: one thing another site mentioned I think is valid is that the marketting really did make it look like the movie was going to be about Joker and Harlequin going berserk on Gotham. Not only were a number of advertised scenes including Gaga cut but yes, the story was obviously radically different. People are right to be upset about that.

[@Brunoburningbright]

Excellent analysis rather than review. The "reality on our plate" line reminds me of William Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" - alas, more revered than read - and I suspect this film will experience a similar fate, more referenced than watched.

[@brianhotaling5849]

excellent work. love these!!!

[@Dehmigaahd]

I was redirected to Watch again after your post about the performance of this critique. I think what you provided here is Brilliant and courageous. Certainly, critiques of “the message” have been appropriate; where that is the substance of the film, the substance of the criticism is earned. However, true cinephiles are hungry for thoughtful, complex, nuanced, and well considered perspectives. Good film itself, in the face of oversimplified and monomythological criticim needs what you are providing as a counterpoint in order to survive. That you did it now is more essential than doing it later. Now is exactly the time to differentiate yourself. Stand alone and many will follow.

[@Freakshow1996]

An incredible take i could that this movie was trying to tell me something the entire time, and it wasn't until I finished it that I finally had the thought that the lack of power was the point. Incredible video thank you so much!!

[@omnologos]

I’ve been arguing for this movie and finally found someone else who understood it

[@jim-stacy]

I never thought about batman being an unnacou table enforcer of an authoritarian state preying on the broken and vulnrable of gotham. Not entirely comfortable with that thought either TBH!

[@franciscomap75]

@@benjamindover4337no. Batman is the good guy. If you can’t se that than you just don’t understand the movie. But hey this view is much more edgy huh!

[@ianpepper4240]

In truth it's not a brilliant film - it has faults such as being too slow in places, the script being a little ropey at times and it being overlong - but it's a really interesting, challenging film with real substance to it and some valuable ideas. I'll take that any day over most movies which are just watchable yet forgettable

[@jordonleigh174]

Thank you, Damian. You have the ONLY SPOT-ON review of this film in the present Social AEther. It's truly sad how "critics" are nothing more than escapist male fanboys with an entitlement syndrome or a deep need to lash out at literature or cinema that they are incapable of grasping. Thank you, Damian.

[@RealityCheckNumero_Uno]

Or maybe... There are people who neither liked nor cared for this movie simply and only because it was poorly written AND badly directed. But I guess any "deep dive" that helps YOU make it through the day is good enough, right?

[@orionhodges4073]

Nice...

[@MrBoJangles]

What was poorly written about it?

[@tomphillpotts]

If you are going to say 'poorly' and 'badly' you have to back that up with substance, otherwise all you're saying is: "I didn't like it but I don't know why"

[@franciscomap75]

@@tomphillpottshe doesn’t have to do anything, he owes you nothing

[@darklight2.1]

Interesting analysis. Thanks.

[@jamesholland8057]

Arthur lives in a delusional fantasy. Whole first movie was that. Batman lives in a fantasy also.

[@georgecisneros5281]

@@jamesholland8057 Anything fictional “lives” in a “fantasy”. That’s kind of implicit in the format of storytelling.

[@jamesholland8057]

@@georgecisneros5281 yes. A fantasy within a fantasy.

[@williansatencio-rn1hl]

Awesome deconstruction. 👏

[@Dubronze]

Not complex, just a horrible movie.

[@BakMei1003]

Joker 2 is not too complex. People understand it's anti fantasy, that doesn't mean they have to LIKE it People have been inundated with pretentious, vindictive "meta" content for a decade at this point. People are tired of deconstructions, especially when they're terribly executed like this movie is The major issue with the "This movie is too smart for y'all" crowd is you seem to be ignoring that at it's core Folie A Deus is just a bad movie. The negative reception is not the response of people that don't understand intent, it's a response of frustration at this project wants to be a cynical deconstruction vehicle before it wants to be a good movie

[@aesop1451]

The first one can be seen as a deconstruction or "woke." Comic book Joker's only motivation is to "break" Batman. A solo movie with comic accurate Joker doesn't work. He needs Batman.

[@swanwen]

Too many people seem to have this idea that Todd made this movie out of spite. He didn't. He is on record saying, many times, that he loved Arthur. I do agree that he is somewhat of a sick bastard who crushed my heart into a million pieces with this film, but calling it 'vindictive' is plain wrong. The film is a tragedy, one where Arthur manages to keep his humanity, but loses everything else, and it is terribly heart-breaking, but it is also beautiful.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

So, what exactly is "terribly executed" from your point of view? Several paragraphs in, and still you haven't given any examples.

[@Aivottaja]

When I realized this joker was being serious

[@TheOrangutan01]

This sequel is a pathetic course correction that apologises for the original film. The plot and character progression are paper thin.

[@mariacorner100]

It left me with the impression that it’s a 2024 film version of Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote from the 1600’s. Some flaws, yes, but brilliant.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

Interesting comparison, you might be onto something. Which parallels would you point out?

[@marjo09]

The sequel's representation of Arthur feels like a profound disservice to the character and to the message of the original film, effectively erasing the empathy and understanding that the first installment valiantly aimed to promote. Also, i believe that instead if applying morality, people should remind that first, what he did was wrong but preventable, and second, you cannot repress, suppress your shadow. No folks, you cannot escape The Shadow, it will always pop up when you least expect it and put you in your place, just to make sure you know your rank in the hierarchy of all sentient beings. As it turns out, engaging with the darkest parts of our psyche is the remedy that sheds the most light on our half-examined lives. And with treatment, more empathy, it can be integrated. Let me spell out that everyone has a Shadow. The less you are willing to admit it, the greater, the denser, the heavier your Shadow. We are simply selectively unconscious and we disown parts of ourselves as a result of social conditioning. You cannot get rid of your Shadow. Even more, if you deny the existence of it, you are repressing a big chunk of yourself. You are inadvertently making your Shadow darker and denser, just like a strong Italian espresso. If i can answer, integrating shadowself means fostering self-awareness, practicing mindfulness, and seeking support, you can learn to integrate your shadow self in a way that minimizes harm to yourself and other. But i need to add that accessible treatment is needed, less individualization of the problem, and more restorative justice. Personally, this misrepresentation resonates with me on a deep level, as I find echoes of my own struggles reflected in Arthur's journey. Critics who dismiss the discontent surrounding the sequel often label those voicing concerns as toxic fans clinging to a perceived 'masterpiece.' However, I contend that many of these individuals resonate with the depiction of struggle and chaos within the film because they have faced similar challenges in their own lives; conversely, some detractors possess the privilege to disregard these experiences altogether. My dissatisfaction with the sequel stems from its failure to harness the fundamental empathy that was so pivotal in the first film. Rather than inviting viewers to engage thoughtfully with Arthur's complex psychological landscape, the sequel seems to encourage audiences to delight in his suffering and subsequent downfall, reflecting a concerning societal trend of celebrating the calamities of flawed characters while neglecting to acknowledge the deep-rooted struggles they endure. This portrayal undermines the intricate nuances of Arthur's shadow self, which he himself grapples to comprehend, as it seems the sequel neglects the crucial theme of looking beyond superficial judgments to recognize the underlying trauma that shapes a person's identity. Additionally, I feel it is essential to promote broader awareness surrounding the neuroscience of trauma and mental health, particularly in challenging prevailing misconceptions about psychopathy and other mental health conditions. The people calling him psychopath reinforces these misunderstandings, inaccurately framing the character as a psychopath, when in truth, he embodies the complexities born from deep-seated trauma and the universal pain we experience as human beings. This lack of depth in character exploration not only diminishes the richness of the narrative but also reinforces detrimental stereotypes; moreover, the sequel's poorly developed plot exacerbates this issue, resulting in a superficial portrayal that strips away the profound essence of a character who initially represented much greater depth. In considering the narrative universe of these films, it’s crucial to distinguish that while Arthur may not perfectly align with the traditional "THE Joker" from comic lore, he nonetheless represents a layered version of the Joker archetype within this specific storyline, a notion that should not be dismissed. My video, "My Life, Intertwined with Joker," captures my own experiences with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and illustrates the striking parallels I see with the 2019 film's themes. It reflects how the original movie catalyzed significant change in my own life, inspiring me to advocate for improved rights and foster a more nuanced understanding of multifaceted identities. Through storytelling, I aspire to promote social change, sharing my lived experiences to elevate the voices often overlooked. Ultimately, this approach aims to nurture a more empathetic dialogue surrounding mental health and trauma, urging audiences to reflect on and potentially reassess their own moral frameworks. I also want to add that the movie deeply hurt me. The pain and trauma Arthur experienced resonated profoundly with me, what im going through in my severe poverty, facing jail time because of injustice trying to survive, constant bullying, lack of access to care with my autism, post concussion syndrome, schizotypal, sexual abuse, social phobia. The lack of understanding and empathy from the people around him was devastating. Furthermore, I felt that the film missed crucial opportunities to convey important messages. Despite this, I did appreciate certain aspects of the movie, such as specific scenes, songs, and the cinematography that i will rewatch in videos of scenes alone. However, I must admit that I cannot bring myself to rewatch the movie in its entirety. The ending, in particular, left me feeling unsettled, and I couldn't find any justification for it. No argument or explanation could make me accept that conclusion. As a result, I've decided to take matters into my own hands and explore alternative storytelling through fan fiction. I'm remaking the ending and creating a new narrative that focuses on empathy, understanding, compassion, and prevention. My goal is to craft a story that delves deeper into the complexities of Arthur's character, acknowledging the trauma he experienced and the support he desperately needed. By doing so, I hope to create a more nuanced and thought-provoking exploration of the themes and characters that resonated with me. I completely understand if others liked it, but i really dont get why so much shame towards us who didnt. m.youtube.com/watch?si=Px3so6OMk19zjakv

[@MDrishad-td9xj]

Great vid man! I subbed

[@JEEDUHCHRI]

“A child of God much like you perhaps.”

[@evilsoap7835]

"Fleck finds the moral courage to let go of Joker and the power his fantasy could grant him." This is why the movie failesd. movie failed. There is no catharsis, only failure. It's depressing. It may have had a complex message, but it is still an insufferable mess. I didn't enjoy almost any part of it. Even with your analysis it still feels disjointed and deliberately obscure. Many other movies question reality without being this convoluted. It does not have any use whatsoever, not even as a placebo. Its just a movie that is meant to be explained, like conceptual art. What a terrible thing to do to art. Art should exceed conceptual boundaries, not be a product of them

[@DamienWalter]

Why would you expect to enjoy madness and death?

[@evilsoap7835]

@@DamienWalter Why wouldnt you? Im sure Foucault has a quote on expanding the range of our enjoyment. Also because its fiction.

[@DamienWalter]

@@evilsoap7835 Think like an average consumer, that's how you'll end up.

[@kostantza1]

Maybe then the story shouldn't be called Joker and advertised as being part of the Joker lore. Joker isn't a blank slate. He has a cornerstone as a character. They didn't rewrite the archetype, they wrote over an existing character. Good movie, interesting movie, bad Joker movie, and can't blame the Joker fans for not getting Joker.

[@DamienWalter]

"lore"

[@kostantza1]

@@DamienWalter The Joker as a character has decades of presence in comics and comic-related media. I don't get the dismissive tone. Are we supposed to scorn the very same medium we're deconstructing? Are comics not a valid form of art and entertainment?

[@DamienWalter]

​@@kostantza1 Lore. What is good for? I answer your point in the essay. Most of what you think of as Joker / Batman came out of Vertigo anyway.

[@kostantza1]

@@DamienWalter I must have missed it then because the question didn't feel answered. I will rewatch. And lore is literally what makes the character a character. Just because the Joker doesn't have an established past, and wisely so, doesn't mean he's a blank slate.

[@andrewharris1344]

I’ve been saying this for a while if these movies where their own thing not tied to DC it would be more acceptable, but no instead you attracted an audience you had no interest in and then made a film going against the audience you attracted. It’s like making a horror film for horror fans, but the villain never kills or hurts anybody and your excuse is “ Well Realistically” or “ It’s subversive”. Like I’m not gonna give you flowers just because your subversive, it has to be done well.

[@EerieV23]

This review hurt. It exposed my power fantasy dreams for what they are. A dream. I am not an all powerful god and I never will be. There is no path to get to this goal. I have know this of course, but still the dreams persist. If only...

[@Falstaff0809]

Brilliant! Joker ll is hated because it won’t play t[he game.

[@rrsjr]

Thank you for an actual, informed, salient review. The 2 Phillips Joker movies are not superhero or comic book movies, and that's why there are the negative reviews. They're cinema. The expectations of comics fans are not met by them.

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

As a comics lover I feel slightly offended - not by these fine films, but by you making the assumption that one cannot appreciate comic books AND cinema. As a Gotham City tale these Joker movies are just as valid as a portrait of Arthur Fleck and a critique of the society that abandoned, raised and judged him but never saw him for who he was.

[@victorapolinario2766]

I watched the movie yesterday when it came out on digital because people were talking so badly about it that I wanted to save the money on going to the theater. I don't know if I went with my expectations so low or what, but I swear I can't see the bad in this movie. I thought it was GENIUS. I don't want to be overbearing and say “oh, but you didn't understand” because I can perfectly understand those who didn't like the movie, but I understood the meaning and the layers throughout. Maybe it's me philosophizing beyond the film itself, trying to justify the scenes, but idk, I thought it was great. Almost all the songs had a reason and few sounded out of tune. Okay, sometimes they went on too long, but most of them made sense with the story they wanted to tell. And the movie takes a heavy turn after the scene with the guards when they rap... Arthur. It seems that the film breaks Arthur and shows everyone who projected themselves onto the Joker in the first film that he's just some guy projecting himself above what he was and in reality he's an extremely broken and traumatized guy. I thought the ending was valid, after all, if he didn't die, what would he be? He'd go to jail?! But I thought it was a bit random that the guy killed him. But I think it must be some kind of metaphor that I didn't catch. Edit: I saw some people saying that it could be heath's joker who killed Arthur and I went back to review the scene and I think it's a valid interpretation. I thought the ending was better now but I personally would make Arthur stay stuck in the miserable arkham like he was, that way we would see Arthur at the beginning of the movie stuck in a miserable state, being manipulated to rise as something he is not (joker) so that in the end he only ends up in the same state he started, stuck in a miserable state. Again, I don't want to be overbearing because I understand those who didn't like the movie, but I personally thought the criticism was so explicit that everyone would pick it up And just to conclude: that part of the trial where they say “you spent less than 2 hours with Arthur and you think you know him” he is an TERRIFIC meta commentary

[@harryrodd4383]

It still amazes me how people think they are owed a particular movie. Fair enough if you don't like something but to be this upset about really says something about or society today. I thought they were brilliant.

[@RocketRacoon717]

5:34 Bro really just snuck in that’s Cristian Bale diss like that

[@Kryssthealien]

Joker 1 cost around 50 Million. For Joker 2, Tood, Joaquim and Gaga got paid 50 Million. That's all I need to know...

[@silviomartinez8607]

Money is fantasy

[@franciscor390]

It was a big fat pay day nothing else than that.

[@crisvelundertale2159]

they didnt get paid that much tho, so stop upping the numbers to match your narrative, also i think its only fair to pay well the actors in a movie thats character focused

[@Kryssthealien]

@@crisvelundertale2159 " stop upping the numbers": Joaquim 20 Million, Todd 20 Million, Gaga 12 Million. That's 52 Million, DUMBO! "its only fair to pay well the actors" Bro, I'm I upping the salary or were the salary fair? you contradict yourself in only one sentence, lol. Yes, it was a money grab. The studio baited the actors because they wanted a sequel. Todd and Joaquim sweared that this would be the only movie, they folded and ruin their own shit. Joaquim Phoenix is still one of my favourite actors. No matter what direction they choose for the sequel, it still had to be quality and interesting, you can't pretend to make a shit movie (and there is a consensus) on purpose. The story, editing, and even the musical acts everything was weak, admit it.

[@fabianhammer2864]

for anyone interested, i have been asked to defend my takes, to some people, who just wanted to start shit over the movie and i tried my best, to explain my reasoning and watched the movie again, to do so- some things are now clearer to me and for other scenes, ive come up with my own interpretation, which might clear up your own thoughts, regarding the last scene with harley. it is just my reading and theres certain scenes i chose not to include here, because im still making up my mind and continue to draw different conclusions. for now, this is it, for the purpose, of possibly keeping a civil discourse and feel free, to share your own thoughts/interpretations- so here goes.... regarding the rape scene....after my second viewing of the film its even made less ambigious, that not only did this happen, it didnt just happen to arthur- pretty much near the beginning of the movie, theres an inmate called bullock (of all the names) who refuses, to come out of his cell and the guards carry him away, jackie telling them, to taking him to the other cell block, while the guy is kicking and screaming- after arthurs assault, the same guy yells out of his cell, arthur, what did they do to you, or something to that effect....i think its commonplace with the inmates, that step out of line- all of the above is mostly based on a feeling, but whats clear to me, is that the killing of arthur was indeed, without a doubt, an idea, by the guards, to get rid of him....jackie mockingly tips his hat to him, sings we three (me echo, my shadow and me), another one of the cops tells him not to sing that song (in a way to suggest, that its unnecessarily macabre)....after hearing the lyrics to build a mountain more clearly this time, i think the whole harley pregnancy, was always just meant, to foreshadow (pun intended) the arrival, of the inmate, taking over for arthur....the lyrics are Ah, what a fine young son to take my place and that part cuts back to new proto-joker (i think its the last, or second to last line, that arthur sings, while imagining harley shooting him) also convinced that the narrative of the movie was either severely changed up, during the editing, or theres at least three harley scenes, two of them in close proximity to each other, that are in arthurs mind alone and not distinctly marked, as delusion....pretty sure, that despite phillips course correcting, by explaining, that certain scenes were real (which he also did, after the first movie) you cant take all of the surface story, at face value- one of the more obvious examples is harley telling him, shes pregnant and after the close to you sequence, hes dancing inside his cell, in a way, that this time around, suggested he might imagine the song in his head, due to the way, it cut immediately from the song, to the shot of arthur, dancing in dreamlike manner (and i think his delusion stars with the sex scene, hes thrown into solitary confinement, imagines them dancing on the rooftop, shes already there, when he wakes up, he makes it a point, to tell her, hes not taking his meds anymore, before they have sex and later on, in the courtroom, what causes him to snap and fire mary anne? the suggestion, during sophies testimony, that arthurs a virgin)- i also picked out, that at least half the time, if not more, the next song title, or a lyric, is suggested in the dialogue, by a person, that usually isnt arthur, or lee (an example would be mary anne, telling him she knows, what its like to love somebody, after telling arthur about lee and then him dreaming up the performance of to love somebody, during which arthur is shot)

[@entropy696]

Fantastic analysis! When the movie is being psysiopathic towards the audience. And the audience didn't realised that they got Joker-ed. XD

[@LateBoomer-sl1dk]

Joker fans who can't take a joke. How funny is that? 😂

[@PiterburgCowboy]

@@LateBoomer-sl1dk The movie is a masterpiece, the investors find that their $200m turned lemon just to ridicule the plebs equally funny.

[@LateBoomer-sl1dk]

@@PiterburgCowboy I predict eventual cult classic. They're never successful on first release.

[@EerieV23]

@@LateBoomer-sl1dk actually pretty funny. It is no wonder they turn to violence when disappointed.

[@SudamaniMuth]

My goodness! I wished all reviews were as educated and educating as yours. Thank you for the pasacaglia from Beethoven's seventh symphony in the background. This video was a joy to watch.

[@vincenta8652]

Unfortunately, it's true and the sad part it's not even that complex. First movie we were outside observers and now we are inside Arthur flex mind seeing exactly what he sees for the first time I've seen someone noticed that even up until the end everyone looks right by Arthur because as he is laying there were two preoccupied with what's going on in thr background This movie was a deconstruction with our fetishization of the concept of the Joker and how we can relate to him it's not a compliment and we shouldn't want that

[@RobinLiljenberg]

Well done! This is a great review and analysis of the Joker movies. I found both of them great movies, and are not surprised by the anger of everyone expecting the second film to be a story depicting the revelation of their revenge fantasies on whatever social structures they feel has let them down.

[@alfeersum]

I haven't seen it (and don't fancy it myself). But _is it_ actually a good movie, and 'fans' are just sh!tting on it 'cos that's what they do when they're unable to articulate genuine critique?

[@elevenseven-yq4vu]

It's a good movie, maybe not perfect, but interesting enough to keep me engaged while, for the most part, being a slow burn and utterly depressing.

[@wuthichaiauomsin6237]

i like how todd make joker as an idea and that idea outgrow everything beyond it start.

[@NeterRafi77]

You keep forgetting that Superheroes are power fantasies

[@fredklier]

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not!

[@StarSapphireComics]

In my opinion Gaga did a great Job as Harley. Big budget movies flopping hard at the box office is the trend of 2024. So we shouldn't single Joker 2 out for that. But yeah this movie might be too deep for a lot of people. A lot of people just won't understand or get this movie. This is one of those watch multiple times to understand type movies.

[@Dehmigaahd]

This is the pitfall of the canned anti-anything review: it works so well so often precisely because the art it critiques is just as vacuous as the criticism itself. In this case, any analysis requires that those paradigms to be jettisoned. There are interesting parallels for various real world social conditions as well, for which each side of the political aisle has its canned criticisms.

[@kevinwallace8879]

So, a lot to unpack here. 1) Are and have been living in a new "Telefoni Bianchi/white telephone" age of cinema - yes and ye sit is driven by CGI technology. 2) is the lamentation about Gag vs Robbie misogynistic claptrap - yes. 3) Does Joker Folie A Duex represent a new way of looking at the character - I'd argue - no, no it does not. We'll come back to this. 4) is the film too complex for the alleged comic book fan base on the internet - debatable. Let's start here. Joker was not a comic book movie. Yes it's the Joker and yes its Gotham city. But no it's not a comic book story at all. And yes I agree with Damien - it is a Foucauldian story. Its also Lacanian but perhaps the most interesting frame to look at how its Lacanian is through Christian Metz. Cinema as a collective dream, or nightmare. On a wider point, does the Joker (archetypically) represent proletarian rage - no but the sleight of hand card trick he pulls makes him seem so. Just as Batman's sleight of hand makes him appear as a someone driven by justice or law. Frank Miller's Batman, a crypto-fascist, who realizes he (and superheroes in general always were) criminals is the truest realization of a version of Batman that accepts the truth. Joker Folie A Duex manages that with Arthur Fleck. It also emphasizes this is not a comic book movie - this is not a JOKER film neither is the first one. You could read them both as delusions of Gotham, delusions of Joker, in a world explicitly without Batman. Also, Joker doing musicals has been a thing since Mark Hamill. The musical element of the movie is thoroughly appropriate - if executed in a grating way. But it's grating because the film is trying to be anti-phantastic, and I would argue for that spelling Phantasy rather than fantasy. While it is true that Arthur and Harlene and the outraged audience are conscious of their desires for a) who they want to be, b) how they want Joker to be and c) what they want the story to be. What's not conscious is their understanding of why. Arthur's anagnorisis in Joker 2 is tragic in the sense of it being from Tragedy. And we has an audience have been fed a dose of what the Greeks called Comedy - that's not funny stories per se, just ones the end happily. American audiences HATE tragedy stories (except as celebrity falls from grace) and yet the world we all share is driven by the fundamental logic of tragedy, what Raymond Williams calls the tension between the individual and society. That's the core of Arthur's story in this duology, even more than it is a critique of a society that revels in the p*rnography of violence that CGI has produced and uncomplicated narrative closure that corporations demand.