The Tragic Misstep of Joker: Folie à Deux

Send us a text

Have you ever witnessed something simultaneously brilliant and terrible? That's the puzzling contradiction at the heart of Joker: Folie à Deux, a film that delivers breathtaking visual artistry while completely missing what made its predecessor special.

The cinematography deserves nothing but praise – the lighting, color grading, and camera work create moments of pure visual poetry. One striking example: during Arthur Fleck's interview, the lighting falls just above his eyebrows, casting half his eyes in shadow. These thoughtful visual touches appear throughout, telling a more compelling story than the actual narrative. Joaquin Phoenix's physical performance remains astonishing, his body contorting as though "some monster is trying to get out of his skin," while Lady Gaga brings depth to Harley Quinn despite the script's limitations.

But these strengths can't overcome the film's fundamental flaws. The decision to transform Joker into a musical feels like a cynical cash grab following industry trends rather than an organic storytelling choice. Even more frustrating is how the sequel systematically dismantles what made the original Joker impactful. Where the first film ended with a clear transformation from Arthur Fleck into Joker, the sequel inexplicably reverts him to a state of identity confusion. It explains away mysteries that were deliberately ambiguous, stripping the character of psychological depth. As we discuss in the podcast, "This film was like an assassination of the first movie."

The result is a beautiful-looking film that leaves viewers feeling empty and confused – a 10/5 for cinematography paired with a 1/5 for storytelling. It's a fascinating case study in how technical excellence can't salvage fundamental creative missteps. Have you seen Joker: Folie à Deux? We'd love to hear if you experienced the same conflicted reaction or if you found something in the film that we missed. Share your thoughts in the comments!

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey everyone and welcome to another podcast movie
review.
Today's episode we're talkingabout Joker, folia 2.
That should have been the firstsign that this movie was gonna
suck, that it was so pretentiousit couldn't just call itself
Joker 2.
Nah, we're like really trendyand stuff, so it's Folia, adieu.

(00:23):
Anyway, this movie sucked us.
Look, I went in with an openmind saying, all right, I know
it's a musical, for whateverreason, don't know why doesn't
make any sense to the story.
After watching it now I'm likeit definitely did not need to be

(00:45):
the case and it was only one ofmany bad things about this
movie I.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
I thought it had all the ingredients to be absolutely
amazing.
It really did.
The mixed feelings I have withit is the cinematography was
amazing.
Yeah, the film was great.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
It just unfortunately had nothing to say.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
It was the perfect example of a cash grab but this
is so typical of the current andhopefully the ending of this
movie era of where, since 2020,it has gone to it is trying to
following a trend for the sakeof getting money.
Look at wonka, look at meangirls.

(01:25):
This is following the trenddoing musicals.
I don't know whose decisiondecision it was to make it a
musical, but production has afinal say stupid as f**king
decision you can make that we'renot giving the people what they
want.
Then you have the other side ofthe theme that makes this movie
so f**king amazing, which isthe.
It is the color, the rhythm,the acting is fantastic.

(01:47):
But you just see the divisionin the production of these kind
of things because you see thegreatness that sits behind it
and where it's limited becauseof the production side of things
, the financial, money-grabbingside of things.
It's the death of creativity.
You are no different than anyof those people that

(02:08):
underestimated me, andespecially in a movie that has
such potential such as this.
How about you?

Speaker 1 (02:13):
I was so intrigued to see a different actress play
harley quinn.
I thought this was going toright the wrongs of suicide
squad in that we were properlygoing to see the relationship of
Harley Quinn and Joker developand the the romantic interest
behind it and the complexity oftheir relationship, and that was

(02:33):
just completely thrown away inthis movie and completely wasted
.
I gotta say I I thought LadyGaga was excellent no, no, I no,
I'm not saying Lady Gaga wasn'tgood, just the character.
I'm saying the story of whatthey did with the characters.
Oh yeah, rakeen Phoenix.
The first shot where we saw him, the way the dude contorts his

(02:54):
body, similar to the first Jokerfilm, it's like some monsters
trying to get out of his skin.
It's fantastic.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
So much shape, he's fantastic.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
It's so misshaped it is great.
It's just the direction.
The creative whole of whatthey're doing with these
characters is fucking terrible.
The musical idea bad, notneeded, and at one point even
Joker tells Harley Quinn like no.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
I don't want to sing anymore.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
I don't want to sing anymore.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Stop singing.
Talk to me, talk to me.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
And I was clapping in the cinema.
I was like fuck, yes, tell herno more singing damn it.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
The thing that made it worse is that every time they
started singing, the entireorchestra came with it.
It's just a conversationbetween two people, with a
f***ing piece of glass inbetween, with a couple of holes
in there, and that's the onlytime you hear them.
The point is that you can havethe orchestra, but you're
delivering two types of singingscenarios.

(03:58):
One it's all an imagination,it's a fantasy.
They just both disappear fromreality and they create this
fantasy world right, which isthe justification for all the
singing.
But then you also have thesecond scenario, where they're
singing and they're in realityand people are looking weird at
them.
It's like why the f*** are theysinging?
It's like cool, awesome,beautiful.
Have them Like.
I love the people acting weirdtowards them singing because it

(04:20):
is f***ing weird.
Don't have the orchestra, Don'thave the instruments that
appear out of nowhere.
If it's in their fantasy, sure,you can create, You've got
imagination, but if it's inreality, you don't have that.
So don't have the orchestra.
It didn't make sense.
I think that would have alreadymade it a lot better.

Speaker 1 (04:37):
You were saying after , when we watched this, you were
like, oh, if he took themusicals out, it would be like a
10 out of 10 film.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
I think it could, and then I was like nah, I don't
think so, man.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
The story of this is let's take Joker to the
courtroom and dissect all thecool shit that happened in the
first movie and talk about ituntil there's no mystery left.
This film was like anassassination of the first movie
, pretty much.
You liked that about the firstfilm.
F*** Kill it.
Kill it right now.
What you had an interestingtheory about.

(05:13):
You know the ambiguity of thefirst film.
Nah, kill it.
This is exactly how it was.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Here's a good analogy for you.
Here's a funny joke.
You like that one?
Let me explain it to you.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Actually, joker gets noopportunities in this film to
actually be the villain that hebecame at the end of the first
film.
Yeah, from the end of the firstfilm, a clear distinction, a
clear decision was made.
He has become the Joker.
He is no longer Arthur Fleck.
How about you, arthur?

(05:47):
Do you still think you're astar?
But for some reason, follier Dudecides, follier Huck Du
decides let's just ignore thatpart.
He doesn't know who he is yet.
He's conflicted about becomingthe Joker and it's like he
doesn't have multiplepersonality disorder.

(06:07):
He had already become the Joker.
Why not just make a story thatcontinues down that path of him
being the full-fledged criminalkind of underworld boss that we
know he is going to become?
That was a completely f***ingstupid decision mate.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
Let's break down a few aspects a little bit more.
When it comes to cinematography, camera angles, the color
grading, the lighting, all thatkind of stuff technical side of
things it's a 10 out of 10.
But what's the point if there'sno message behind it?
No, I agree, and this is why Ihave such mixed feelings about
this movie.
I appreciate the immense amountof layers that these actors

(06:46):
have Brendan Gleeson, lee Gilland Joaquin Phoenix, if I
haven't said his name already.
For example, the first liveinterview with Arthur Flack.
With Steve Coogan, yes, did yousee the lighting?
The lighting came from aboveand it just over his eyebrows
and just marks half his eyes.
Half was in the shade and halfwas in the light.

(07:07):
Those tiny little things.
Oh, I just told so many things,tiny little things.
Oh, I just told so many things.
But the reason I get so manymixed feelings about it is that
how can it give me such a greatfeeling as if it's a masterpiece
, while the message is garbage,while the story arc is garbage,
the payoff for the setup that ithad garbage.

(07:28):
The music I expect over the ageterrible.
But for some reason thecinematography just created an
illusion as if it's an amazingpiece of work.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
It is sad that the DOP will not get his proper dues
because the film as a whole isjust not up there.
When I think of the first film,there's moments I go oh f***, I
love that scene, I love thisscene, I love that quote, I love
that moment.
I don't have any of that withthis, to the point where I was

(08:00):
so out of it I was like I wasliterally dozing off and then
addy like tapped me, like, oh,something happened.
Something happened.
It was near the end of the ofthe movie and I saw it and I
felt nothing.
This pivotal moment happenedthat I should feel something.
It happened and I just went.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
I don't care.
Yeah, it was not impactfulwhatsoever.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
And then that decision meant nothing in the
grand scheme of things anyway,because the character ended up
back where we started anyway.
They really let him down.
They let the Joker characterdown as a whole.
Well, he's not Not as bad, butit reminded me of the Matrix 4

(08:47):
in that it felt like someonecreatively is self-sabotaging
this movie.
Because how can you makedecisions this stupid unless you
purposely want to assassinatethe character or the or the
world?
Warner brothers probably wantedthe sequel.
Todd phillips was like we don'tneed a sequel.

(09:08):
Joker was great as a one-offand at one point he changes his
mind and says all right, youwant a sequel, I'll give you a
sequel and it's gonna be so shit, you'll never f***ing bother me
again to make a sequel.
I don't know, creative peopleare weird sometimes.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
I'm still so confused by what I should feel about
this movie.
It's so confusing.
I'm just so confused, soconfused.
So One to five, sorry, from azero to five stars, how many
would you give it?

Speaker 1 (09:36):
Folia Two Gets Two hot twos out of five from me.
This reaffirmed to me why Ihate sequels.
I didn't want to believe thereviews.
I was hoping that this wassimilar to the original joker in
that all the reviews come backnegative.

(09:56):
You go see it and you're likeblown away, like wow, this is so
different to everything elsethat's going on in the movie
landscape, especially in theworld of DC, where you have an
actually good film that was welltold, took chances with its
lore but respected the character.
All of that was completely lostwith this sequel.

(10:19):
What was your final reign?

Speaker 2 (10:21):
and I would give it a one out of five for the uh, for
the message of the story, but Iwould give it a f***ing 10 out
of 5 for cinematography.
I just can't get over it.
I could just see so many littledetails that they really
thought through that are just soimpactful.
It's like, oh, the story is sof***ing clear and it's so good.
Only if there was more of astory.

(10:42):
I think I'll average it out andI'll give it a three and a half
out of five and I just I I'mjust so confused, man, I'm just
so fucking confused I, I, I feelthat there was only one scene
in this movie where I said tomyself there is some heart in
Sol.

Speaker 1 (10:59):
This is what I wanted more of.
There's a scene with Lee Gill,who reprises his role from the
first Joker, and it wasphenomenal man, he was f***ing
awesome.
Also, don't tell this toyourself, it isn't him.
He's got some great moments andthe story is actually allowing
him and Joker to have somemoments where I'm feeling some

(11:22):
emotions, where something hascarried over from the first film
.
It was only like two or threeminutes, unfortunately, but it
was more saddening to see thatand be like there was potential
for this.
Why is this not there?
You had it and you f***ed it.
You f***ed all of us over.

(11:43):
Puddles was really good.
Yeah, puddles was f***ingamazing.
Anyway, that's uh.
Yeah, that's us guys,unfortunately.
Who would have thought a badsuperhero movie, right?
Wow, the sarcasm is great.
I mean, now that I think aboutI'm what a d***head I am Like a
superhero movie.
That's also a sequel.

(12:04):
Why would this fail?
And it's Warner Brothers.

Speaker 2 (12:08):
I wish the signs were there.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
How did I have any expectations?
All right, that's us guys.
If you enjoyed this podcast,please leave a comment below.
Let us know your thoughts onJoker 2.
And like, share and subscribefor more videos like this.