ICEBreaker 003 - Joker 2 Joke Harder

Is Joker 2 "anti-content", or is it just a challenging watch?  Join us for a quick ICEBreaker to discuss our first impressions of the film, and some thoughts that have crossed my mind in the day since.  Consider this a spoiler warning.

Transcript

"This is anti content". That was my impression after leaving the theater having finished watching Joker 2, Follie A Deux. And given the reviews, I don't think that's necessarily spoilery, but from here on in, on this Icebreaker episode of the Implausipod, oh my, there will be spoilers.

Now, I don't think Joker 2 Joke Harder is a bad movie per se, but it's not one that's trying to win the audience's approval, which is kind of meta when you really think about it. And I think that kind of subverts the audience's expectations, which is why everybody's coming away from it having a bad time.

I found myself enjoying parts of the film, I laughed, I cried, but it is a difficult watch. But being a difficult watch doesn't inherently make a movie bad, and given the skill of everybody involved, I wonder if there's a lot of intentional choices that went into the way the movie is. And this is why I feel that in Joker 2 Laugh Hard Cry More, director Todd Phillips is doing this a bit to disenchant the rabid fan base and distance himself from the character a little bit.

The best comparison I can think of is The Wire in season 5, with the death of Omar Little. He kinda dies like a chump, unexpectedly, out of nowhere, like your, uh, Vinnie Vegas and your Boba Fetts. And I think that these directors all knew what they were doing, you know, David Simons and Quentin Tarantinos.

That this is one of the ways that you can curb the mystique of an out of control antihero. But there's a bit of a slip there. Joker didn't actually start losing until he gave up on the dream. Gave up on the enchantment. That's when he went back to being just Arthur Fleck, and lost the girl, took another L on the trial, whiffed on the escape attempt, and subsequently lost his freedom, or at least the chance of freedom.

And the fact that that slip back to being just Arthur came after what I read as the implied SA by the prison guards in the shower, seems to me that Phillips was really trying to say something here. So it was clearly done with intent, and because we're seeing so much of that intent coming from behind the lens in Joker 2, Insane Clown, Posse Comitatus, I think it's really clear that this is what the creators were going for.

The fact that this is one of the least kill-y Jokers we've ever seen on screen. I mean, outside of the clearly delineated fantasy sequences, there's no on screen deaths attributed to either Joker or Arthur Fleck, or at least directly, that I can recall. So why would Phillips intentionally make an unpalatable movie and risk finishing off a billion dollar franchise?

Well, like I said, to end the mystique. But you gotta do it in the right way. And everything looks good on paper here for Joker 2 A Scar is Born. That one I yoinked from the hell site. Like, Lady Gaga was great, and the progression she brought to the evolution of Harley Quinn was really fantastic. You got a proven Oscar winner in Phoenix, and a proven track record with everybody involved.

And Hollywood will tolerate a dud now and then, especially if you got a couple billion dollar movies behind you. But the one thing they don't tolerate is being embarrassed. So Phillips has some plausible deniability by saying, Oh, it didn't go right. The stars weren't aligned. Uh, who knew people didn't like musicals anymore? La La Land did great a few years ago. 

And there's some really fantastic craftsmanship that went into the production of the movie. The use of colors to distinguish between the fantasy and the reality. The lighting and set design, the diegetic sound, which I guess we expect for a musical, but it's still there. And I'm not going to go back to check, but even the degree to which the stars are singing on tune and on the beat at different points in the movie seems to rise and fall throughout it.

And there's a few very well done subtle character bits too, like Joker's facade starting to crack a little bit after the courtroom scene with Gary Puddles, where Gary tells him that Arthur was the only one who ever treated him right and didn't make fun of him. And we see Arthur start to break through a little bit.

And the moment where Arthur asks Harley to stop singing near the end and the audience, or at least the audience that was left, kind of nodding in agreement. However, it is a hard watch. I can't really recommend the movie, but there is something there. I'm sure future film studies students or movie critics or academics will examine this once again in due time and dive deep into it, but that is on them, not on me.

For Joker 2, ha ha ha ha. Or Joker 2 Ha Ha Hacienda. Or Joker 2, The Jokening. I think that's all the ones I had written down. I can't recommend it, but if you do want to check it out, go in with an analytical eye and an open mind and pay attention to the details because I do think it was made with intent and there's things that are there for a reason.

And maybe you'll find it something for you, but perhaps not. Until next time, this has been Dr. Implausible on a bonus episode of the Implausipod, an icebreaker, so to speak. We'll catch you again soon on the main channel as we talk about the California ideology. Take care and have fun. Ha ha ha ha.