Did “Joker: Folie à Deux” get what it deserved?
Photo by Courtesy of Warner Bros - © Warner Bros.
By nearly every metric, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a catastrophe. The long-awaited sequel grossed only $37 million domestically in its opening weekend, a staggering decline from the original’s $96 million, and suffered a historic 81 percent revenue drop in its second weekend. Even worse, it earned a D grade from Cinemascore, a research firm that collects reviews from moviegoers as they leave the theater on opening night. It’s remarkably rare for a film to earn such a low grade — even Sony’s internet punching bags “Madame Web” and “Morbius” scored higher. With yet another inflated budget and disastrous reception, “Folie à Deux” joins the rapidly growing list of failures in DC’s cinematic portfolio, including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s pet project “Black Adam” and mega flop “The Flash.”
So why did “Folie à Deux” spur such harsh rejection from audiences and critics alike? The biggest culprit is undoubtedly its genre — believe it or not, the movie is a jukebox musical. The plot follows the relationship between Arthur Fleck, reprised by Joaquin Phoenix, and Harleen Quinzel, a fellow inmate played by newcomer Lady Gaga, as their romance blossoms in duets set to classic showtunes. Such a dramatic shift was bound to be controversial, and the film’s dreadful performance reflects that. After all, “Joker” fans who didn’t want to watch a musical stayed at home, and the new approach baffled those who had no idea what they were getting into, leading to a lot of unhappy customers and unfavorable word of mouth.
On paper, having the lead actors break out into song in the middle of a grim, psychological drama is an absurd idea. In execution . . . well, it could have been a lot worse. Given it follows two psychotic criminals who escape into a delusional fantasy world, the musical interludes justify their existence well enough, and for what it’s worth, the scenes are well-performed and choreographed. Gaga naturally excels under the spotlight, and Phoenix bridges the gap with emotional twitches that shatter the dreamy facade and keep the scenes grounded in the reality of his character. Unfortunately, these bursts of surrealism happen far too often in the second half of the script and rarely advance the plot in any meaningful way, leaving the impression that at least half of these bursts should never have made it into the final cut.
That carelessness speaks to a deeper issue with “Folie à Deux,” as it often feels more like an epilogue to the original film than a fleshed-out story in its own right. Industry insiders may find the lack of narrative direction unsurprising given reports that Phoenix, Gaga and director Todd Phillips frequently tore up scripts and rewrote them on napkins in the middle of production. No matter how the crew tried to spin it, those kinds of last-minute pivots are almost never a good sign.
All problems aside, “Folie à Deux” has nearly everything that made the first film special, albeit in a slower-paced, more experimental format. For starters, the production values are excellent, highlighted by striking cinematography and another haunting score from Oscar-winning composer Hildur Guðnadóttir. More importantly, it stays afloat with magnetic performances from the two leads and a cast of well-realized supporting characters, some of whom twist the established lore of the DC universe in intriguing ways. It doesn’t match the first film’s nail-biting intensity of watching a man’s real-time descent into madness, but the twists and turns are compelling, and the courtroom scenes simmer with drama akin to watching someone defuse a bomb, knowing that a cacophony of violence could erupt at any moment.
Whether it ultimately delivers on that suspense is a different matter, because the ending is another major point of contention. The finale is unsatisfying by design, deliberately swerving from the crowd-pleasing tropes of a comic book origin story in favor of something entirely unexpected. Rather than presenting the bloody coronation that the world’s most popular supervillain demands, the final scenes settle into a bleak resolution that leaves nothing but hollow confusion as the credits roll. It’s either an admirable artistic risk or a blatant attempt to pull the rug out from under the viewer, but no matter what, it doesn’t quite stick the landing. At the very least, it grants Phillips immunity from sequel temptations and shareholder demands, because even if “Folie à Deux” had been another smashing success, its ending all but ensures that this bizarre little corner of the Batman universe will never be seen again. Maybe that was the plan all along.
Above all, the fate of “Folie à Deux” is a stark turnaround from its predecessor, and that’s the real tragedy. 2019’s “Joker,” which arrived at the peak of Hollywood’s superhero craze, was nothing short of a phenomenon. Thanks to its modest budget and record-breaking box office — the first R-rated movie to pass the coveted billion-dollar mark — it still stands as the most profitable comic book film of all time, and its many iconic scenes endure in the lexicon of pop culture. Just ask residents of the Bronx who had to barge through crowds of influencers at the so-called “Joker Stairs” in the months following its release. And while critics were divided on its themes and originality, the character study was captivating enough to earn Joaquin Phoenix an Oscar for Best Actor, a feat achieved by no other comic book adaptation before or since.
“Folie à Deux” was always going to face an uphill battle as the follow-up to a beloved film that never called for continuation. The creator himself echoed this sentiment, as Phillips repeatedly stated that “Joker” was crafted as a standalone story with no plans for a sequel. But as it turns out, money talks — especially when the dollar sign is followed by nine zeros. At the time, Warner Bros. executives likely viewed greenlighting a sequel as a way to capitalize on their limited success and preserve DC’s dwindling reputation. However, given the film’s overwhelmingly negative buzz and commercial failure, it may have been better for everyone involved if “Folie à Deux” had never been made in the first place.
Despite its many faults, “Joker: Folie à Deux” isn’t terrible — even “bad” feels too harsh. Overall, it’s a flawed, unsettling and occasionally confounding film that thrives on conflict between the ambitions of its creative leads and the expectations of its audience. Clearly that friction was off-putting to the majority of viewers, and it amounted to yet another financial loss for WB and another stain on DC’s tarnished image.
For better or worse, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is one of a kind. Mainstream cinema may never see anything quite like it again.