An issue I had was at the end of the first movie he kills or attacks the lady in the psych ward so everyone was expecting him to be fully embracing the Joker persona, but then we are supposed to believe he is just a mentally ill person? It literally goes against everything the first film did.
19:47 the commentary made using Harley was that people fall in love with symbols. She didn't love the guy she loved the symbol. She was constantly putting his makeup back on him. The entire movie was basically about how people glorify a symbol while ignoring the person beneath it for better or for worse.
Harley Quinn in the comics has killed countless people. She was a villain until people cosplayed her to death and DC realized they could make more money giving her more time in the comics. The fact that she needs to be a victim who struggles to overcome the Joker's abuse while some forget that she is in fact a mass murderer is absurd. How is the fact that she has her own agency a step backwards or insulting? How can someone be so upset that Harley can be the same villain she started out as without being victimized? This is an elseworlds movie that is meant to be its own thing it doesn't have to be the same thing we have seen countless times. Martha Wayne has been the Joker. Was that terrible? If movies have to stay closer to the original source material than wouldn't we see Captain America being rather terrible towards Japanese people?
Honestly it feels like viewing her as a hero is exactly missing the point of both joker movies and the idea of propping up people who don't deserve it because you want to project your own image of something you want them to be onto them. Harley is a very interesting character with many layers, but it's interesting to say she has some untouchable character arch especially when it comes to being a victim of abuse. Being abused does not preclude you from being an abuser or being a horrible person. Saying you can't tell a story with a character that isn't painted so black and white like a cartoon is so limiting.
And who looks at comic book villain, as an adult, and connects to them so much that you can't enjoy a movie. Women just as equally as men manipulate and abuse, this isn't a documentary, its a movie!
I will never understand how an individual watch a movie and proceed to ignore the entire premise the director intended for the movie but hate the movie because it’s not the version that was created in their head. …..Love or hate the movie for exactly what the director intended.
The creator of any art doesn’t get to decide how it’s understood. if something someone doesn’t like about a painting ruins it for them it wouldn’t make sense for the painter to say “that’s not the part of the painting you should be looking at” or “ you can only look at it from this one angle otherwise you’re interpreting the art wrong.” Art is meant to be understood differently by different people and to say you have to analyze it one way and one way only doesn’t make any sense
@@GamingGambini I fully agree with you but I think you are saying something a little different. I’ll give an example; Todd Phillips intentionally made a musical, but an individual as a critic watched the movie, then Proceed to criticize the movie because that individual did not want the movie to be a musical. I am simply saying “was it a good musical or not?”
Hey Ryan , great video. Personally I felt the film did a great job showing the consequences of the first film , Arthur’s reality in prison. To me the film is about a man who was abused and failed by social services, who grew up conflicted and emotionally stunted. He never understood what healthy (good) relationships looked or felt like. So he could never recognize them in adulthood. His lawyer understood this. She fights for him yet he doesn’t see it and begins to distance himself and eventually kicks her off the defense. Anytime in the film where he receives a compliment (by the guards or by Harley) he is filled with ecstatic optimism. There are many people living like this unfortunately. They can’t see who’s trying to help them. I appreciated the movie for its honesty in what happens to folks like this.
32:59 The idea as well that the Joker can die, but is reborn over and over until society fixes itself, is so interesting. Joker as Batman’s nemesis makes sense, because Batman is trying to save Gotham, but the joker will always exist not because Batman doesn’t want to murder, but because he can’t solve what causes the joker with more violence.
I'd like to see a Batman comic where a Bernie Sanders type progressive comes to Gotham and enacts free health care, taxes the wealthiest their fair share, increases the minimum wage, cancels student debt, free elementary school education with free meals, etc which rehabilitates poor working class into middle class and puts Batman out of business.
20:16 Harley isn’t being a stalker in this. She is based on the very well documented and real cases of girlfriends and female fans of convicted serial killers.
@@EatSleepEmpire i wonder if there’s any famous instances of a serial killer groupie becoming disillusioned when they actually got close to their idol, like arthur and lee here
One, never force Todd Phillips to make a sequel. He will flip the studio the bird. Two, Brianna is ironically being Lee Quinzel. I, fan, should be able to dictate what a public character should be and how they are portrayed. Phillips creates Lee to be the main POV of the irl fans who think Joker was a cool anti-hero and the in-universe stans who turn on him for not being the persona. Most people who are mad about it are mad because the sequel didn't fit their preconceived notions. WB wanted the usual money grab sequel. Artistically, I don't think the character arc started in the first film could end any other way.
i'd like to quote something i read from someone and thats stuck into my head cuz its realy the best i read about the movie "It's ironic that this movie's main message has been completely proven true by how many people disliked it. Many people wanted to see the Joker villain from the Batman movies, but instead they got poor Arthur Fleck. But isn't that exactly what Arthur was complaining about his whole life? That no one ever cared about him, who he really is. But the moment he became the Joker, then they paid attention to his alter ego. But the real Arthur is killed instead, the same way the critics killed this movie. Too bad. This movie is genius."
So true. I remember coming out of the first film (I've still only watched it that once) and I was told that it had been controversial because people thought it glorified violence. I just thought that was such a bizarre take. I thought it had been brilliant in showing a person's despair as a result of a society and system that didn't care. In my mind, the violence was not positive in any way. Just sad, desperate, lost. In FaD, there was a lot of violence committed by people for their own gratification, but Arthur remained on the sidelines, a victim again or a witness to the idea people had of him rather than who he really was.
12:01 what fresh hell is she talking about? To say that women don’t prey on men or can’t be manipulative especially when these films are drastic retellings is absurd. Just because you don’t stick with an old trope doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s the perfect twist on the character for this limited film series.
I watched it last night. My date and I thought it was incredible. (I’m a comic book fan from the 80s for point of reference.) As someone who once struggled with mental health and survived, I quite enjoyed the cinematic portrayal Todd and company presented.
Ryan doesn’t want his channel to get blacklisted and wants to continue to receive early review access to shows and movies so he can make content. We get it but it’s soooooo painfully obvious it makes it cringe to watch.
Ryan isn’t an optimist at all, he’s a shill. In 2-3 months when the studios don’t care anymore, he will be bashing the hell out of this movie like the rest of us. He’s incentivized to pretend this is a great movie, so he does… until he doesn’t. He’s done the exact same thing with She Hulk, Quantummania, and every other terrible show that has come out the last 4 years.
The girl's perpective is only that. She grew up with the latest version of Harley. Meanwhile, people who have been around long enough, are able to appreciate the obsession Harley has for the "idea" of the Joker persona. She dislikes Follie's Harley for the same reason fanboys dislike Joaquin's Joker. Some people just like seeing mentally tough sociopaths. The just shouldnt cry when an artist flips a concept on its head. Art should equally impress as it defies expectations.
Meh. I remember Harley at her inception. Making her a rich girl who manipulates an abused and emotionally and mentally challenged man for kicks …..and therefore would need no emancipation. It’s just not the same character except in name and because he went to college to study psychology. I don’t think that she needs to be abused by the joker. But there is none of the characteristics that make us see things from her perspective like Arthur Flek is given in the first film. Ultimately I didn’t like the movie because to me the story was lacking. Also, knowing what folie a duex means ……just ugh…no. I didn’t like the Harley Quinn version just because I didn’t enjoy the character.
How can it be bad to make Harley the villain when she literally is? Yeah, she sided with Batman recently and became more of an antihero, but for the vast majority of her fictional existence she’s been an absolutely evil villain who has done unspeakably cruel things to innocent people. But don’t make her the villain of the story…
Everyone is so brainrotted by Margot Robbie’s adaptation of Harley even tho that’s not the original adaptation of the character. She just made HQ annoying lol. Lady Gaga was was better imo
@@c.s3369 villainy isn’t perspective based. If you do the things she’s done to innocent people, you’re a villain. And if you didn’t notice this isn’t a “Joker” storyline. Just a fake out of one
@@crossettiHarley Quinn in Birds of Prey was still a villain of sorts. In the same way that an anti-hero is still a hero of sorts, with some moral ambiguity, Harley Quinn in Birds of Prey is an anti-villain, with moral ambiguity: because next to the other villains and supervillains Gotham City has to offer, in THIS story, she seems comparably less villainous. Seems is another keyword, though, because she is the narrator, and the movie makes it clear by how she tells the story that she can't be fully trusted. She is constantly trying to make herself look more heroic than she actually acts. I like Margot Robbie's portrayal of Quinn just as much as Lady Gaga's Leen character. The strength of DC's Gotham lore has always been variation and toying around with its characters, themes and tropes, be it in comics or on the screen. Not every story is for everyone, but on the whole DC movies are much more daring than the MCU ones. That alone keeps them interesting.
I really don’t understand how giving Harley the agency to be the one that manipulates her historic oppressor could ever be interpreted as offensive. Very strange take.
i was thinking the same thing lol like if you think about it, who identifies with a victim and actually just wants her to remain the victim every time they see her character portrayed. people have imaginations.. this concept isn't something far fetched.
I don't think it's offensive. It's just not the character. Colton's theory that HQ was driven crazy by the idea of Joker is plausible, but the end indicates that she's not crazy, just a bit rebellious. The journey of HQ (going back to the original animated series where she was created) is to go from a respectable doctor to a lunatic sidekick, because she identifies with Mr J and he deludes her into letting go of any inhibitions, as she falls in love with him. The abuse comes later and isn't as critical to the origin. None of that is presented here, and so she kind of is the villain, certainly an antagonist to Arthur. Amazingly, the original Suicide Squad did more of the true origin than this film. To take HQ and make her the manipulator of the person that we at least have been told is Joker is not Harley, it's just someone else.
Harley is no saint; no woman deserves abuse, but the character of Harley Quinn is capable of dishing it out, too. Batman Beyond Return of the Joker displays this very well.
What the hell is going on? Gaga deserves an Oscar. Brilliant film and it stands on it's own away from the Scorsese fetishism of the first. Phoenix's utterly broken humanity when the mask slips and he starts crying in the courtroom for what he's done to Gary, his one and only real friend. This film is heartbreaking and also weirdly joyful at the same time. Harley Quinn is monstrously evil in this movie. She makes Margot's Harley look, ironically, like a cartoon. The ending that elevated Arthur from gun toting psycho to 'the ORIGINAL Joker', a god among maniacs, a religious figure the Bat can never dislodge or capture and who was most likely his brother. I like it more than the first
18:30 Harley in this want even that abusive or evil. She lied to joker, but for the most part she inspired him and supported him. She just liked him in a more superficial way than he liked her. And if domestic violence is such an important issue to be discussed through comics, then it’s just as important to use that character to talk about the same issue from a different angle. Men are often treated like crap in relationships where the power imbalance is in favor of the women. Children are often weaponized.
I kinda disagree with her. There definitely can be a Harley Quinn story where she is the dominant person/abuser, it just seems this movie didn't do it right. The Telltale Batman game sorta did it, and it came out as a relly interesting take.
The audio drama Harley Quinn and The Joker: Sound Mind does this too while still sticking closer to the source material. Their entire relationship in Arkham is her using the Joker to get what she wants until she finally snaps and turns into Harley Quinn
There are ways they can switch it so they both abuse each other in different ways, bringing out the worst in each other. There is wild wild wild potential in Joker and Harley stories. But here we are making the worst movie of all time instead
Why is everyone taking it so personally? It wasn't done to you. The director wanted to tell a story. He did that. You've projected yourselves onto him and harley, and when they dont live up to your expectations, you turn on it and say it's trash. exactly how his fans and lee left the courtroom after arthur said he was never joker. highlighting the quote he said that no one cares about him, just the joker. you dont want a story of a mentally/physically abused delusional loner and the gritty of it. you wanted a character to idolize. the director didnt wrong anyone.
100% this movie separates the sociopaths from the regular person. People hate having a mirror placed in front of them, telling them that they’re the psychos.
Because asking someone to part ways for your product is a personal thing. If we don't like it we have a right to voice it. Besides I haven't heard anyone personally attack Todd Phillips. Just his crappy movie. It makes it worse when the fans feel like they're being antagonized. Also didn't like the 1st one either. Neither one of these character studies should have been made if he's not going to study the character.
It's almost as if the audience got that mindset of Harley. Harley broke up with Arthur because to her, he is not THE JOKER.... everyone broke away from seeing this is a good movie because they think they're got THE JOKER, but just Arthur instead.
Based on her analysis , it’s like she’s projecting through a lens. Maybe she experienced domestic abuse and was blamed for it for whatever reasons. Hope she’s okay.
This girl is reeeaaaaly over thinking this. 🙄 No one is hating on this version of Harley for being the “abuser” here except her. The people I know just didn’t like them turning the Joker into a man that doesn’t want to be the Joker.
@@hollywooda111 psssttt yeah I get the story he was telling. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. Cus you know they sold these movies as him being the Joker. 🙄
People don't seem to understand that the movie isn't making fun of fans of the first movie. It's making fun of the people that didn't understand what it's actually about, which is a mentally ill man tearing apart the system that failed him. This movie shows Arthur is still being taken advantage of, except it's not by society anymore, it's by his own "fans" that expect him to be something he's not. You can harp on about comic accuracy and all that, but comic accuracy really only matters if they're adapting a storyline by the same name, which this movie isn't. If you want a Joker origin story about The Joker, watch The Killing Joke
You know what this reminds me of 2 very specific things that are basically the same thing. The "I didn't do it episode" of the simpsons and anyone who gets vidal fame eg the hatchet guy, hawk tuah backpack kid, the island boys. It all starts out well and organically, but in every case people who want to take advantage/ride that viral wave try to piggyback on that moment and in doing so they want to kind of shape the narrative the way they want and what happens is you notice the further said person gets from the viral moment that was this organic natural thing it becomes this cheap disposable catchphrase that waters down those people into products/props. What happens when those people try to move away from the catchphrase? The very people who built them up are the same who try to pull them down because they don't want them to be a complete individual, so they get mad at them for not being the thing the media sort of warped them into.
@@Sarahmint The Killing Joke as a whole is an Oracle origin story, yes. I suppose I should have mentioned more specifically the section in the comic or animated movie where we see his past
I felt like if this girl didn’t get so upset at Harley for being “the abuser” she could open her mind to the possibility Harley is supposed to be filling in as Arthur’s mother doing psychological damage to him, he never wanted to be the joker they say how he wasn’t joking anymore at the beginning of the movie but once she comes into his life everything changes
Yeah I couldn't stand that girl. I mean, she is telling "now Harley is evil then the hate incels have looks justified", under that asumption no movie could ever picture a girl like a villain ever, which is shallow, pandering, and most important, UNREALISTIC: Harley isn't a hero in her histories neither most of the time (except in the most recent ones where she basically becomes another character), is a person with faillures and shortcomings, and that's the most relatable thing that the girl in the video seems almost scared to see or discuss.
Possibly. But we are not here to judge these characters, are we? Good writing doesn't judge its characters. Good writing allows its characters to simply exist and experience the consequences of the world they live in. Harley leaves because Arthur Fleck comes back. She's only interested in Joker because she desires that power. You could argue that Harley Quinn is seeking to be dominated and that's why she projects it onto Arthur. Bullies always project themselves onto their victims. The powerlessness that they feel is the abuse they project onto others. You could argue that we are all doing this to everyone around us. You could even argue that this has to do with her relationship to her parents (perhaps her father is like this). Who knows? Who cares? The most significant aspect of this relationship is that everything that occurs is a direct result of consequences. In order for Arthur's "shadow ego" Joker to not destroy himself, he needs to come back to Arthur Fleck. In doing so, he loses Harley Quinn. This shatters him so much that he literally kills Arthur Fleck. He invents an villain in his head to destroy his own ego so that his shadow can dominate. Then he kills the social worker at the end of the first movie and escapes. *Did you notice that they left out her death as if it never happened? In the original film, he actually kills seven victims. They only mention six. Why would Todd Philipps intentionally leave this death out of the film?
“Victim of the Joker identity” is right. Same with Harley Quinn: if you’re criticism of the movie is that it doesn’t portray a comic book criminal as a good guy because that’s what main stream media has done to make her more popular and justify liking her….. That’s just proving this movie’s entire point. I don’t think the director, who had free reigns to do what he wanted, intended to make the movie bad to shame fans. I think he had a spot on message to say: that comic book movies have turned into mind numbing entertainment that old Hollywood musicals were, and that Hollywood and media has turned these IP into something potentially toxic and personally ideological to some folks.
Ryan is not the only one who enjoy the movie. Even I cried for the situations that Arthur Fleck lived in both movies. This man was abu**d and being a joke all of the time, and he was mentally ill at the point it can't can't take it anymore and the Joker was a expression of it. Now, a woman broke his heart just because is not following the fantasy the clown (the shadow) represents. But I totally understand the reasons because the people don't like or don't understand the movie, anyway! 👍
11:00 the thing about Harley's portral in this movie is that she was a true crime nut who fantasized about Joker as a symbol and not the man. Which is a real thing. We see serial killers get married while serving life sentences to super fans who mythologize their legends, I feel like Brianna is just mad they portrayed a woman as the manipulator, which women are capable of being, and women have done in real like with real criminals. There wasn't anything wrong with that part of the movie atleast. Men do get abused, manipulated and stalked. Men rarely can speak out. Arthur was a man abused by everyone around him and Harley attempted to take advantage of the mythology and became disillusioned with him when he gave up. You can tell that kind of story.
It’s a masterpiece! & I don’t think people are deep enough to truly appreciate it. Arthur fleck is Batman’s half brother & Batman’s dad ironically created the inevitable real joker( the man who kills Arthur fleck). Arthur never experienced love , not from his mom or anyone, that sadness that loneliness and utter despair is the entire point. Arthur is a good person a victim , someone we all had empathy for in part 1 and throughout. He bottled up his emotions and trauma tried to laugh it off as his mom would try and have him do calling “happy” , but those emotions never went away , it could go to suicide or outward aggression and in part 1 he chose outward aggression. Something he is eventually remorseful for in part 2 . The Folie a deux is French for two crazy people delusional together . He’s delusional believing harley truly loves him for who he is as Arthur Fleck, and she’s delusional for loving the joker side of him even tho that’s not really him because he’s a good guy deep down inside because his true self is not the “joker “ psychopath , and not even the real joker after all. The midget even said you were always good to me. It was Arthur’s redemption, to be honest and true self, but when he went searching for Harley the tragedy is she doesn’t love who he really is and Arthur ends up dying alone never experiencing love. Just when you feel good for him that he finally is being loved. Arthur doesn’t make the direct connection that maybe he could get fake love if he continues the fake self joker persona and is never presented that opportunity, maybe he would have kept being the joker just to please her if it meant he could be fake loved by Harley, maybe that would have caused him the anger he needed to turn into the real joker, we will never know. At the end of it that’s all Arthur ever wanted , love. When he sees Harley his make up is faded away as Arthur fleck this weak man who came out at closing statement emerges as his true vulnerable unattractive true self to Harley, that’s why she left him alone in the courtroom as she herself realizes in the end that it was all a fantasy & he isn’t the joker, she studied to be a psychiatrist and realizes what he really is and leaves him & turns him in to the cops. Arthur betrayed and symbolically shot by Harley in the stomach comes to fruition. In the end he is the origin story & inspiration of the real joker , the guy who kills him in the end and cuts smile on his face in the background, which is the perhaps the Keith ledger Joker character who battles Batman not Arthur fleck. We all are him angry at the film angry at Arthur not giving him love and stabbing him to death. Even some happy he dies for being this weak man nobody loves. The musical aspect of the film is fitting since no singing occurs until he falls in fake love with lady Gaga, he never sings in his delusions prior to this, and he even sings in his real life in fitting and funny moments to his cell inmates. Singing is his delusional state feeling the perceived notion of love that he truly never receives and I don’t mind the music since he’s crazy singing to himself most of the time. We are the audience that hates him for not being funny , the point of this film is not to like him for being weak and vulnerable, that’s why you don’t like it, Arthur fleck still not being loved. The film is deeper then we think and horrible if you come in to it with pre conceived notions of what you thought it should be. In due time I hope people appreciate the beauty of the film and don’t look at it through a superficial lens.
20:30 i mean Harley Quinn is evil. As you said, she's amazingly funny in her own movie, from her perspective but she outside her view she kills and hurts hundreds of parents and many people who had no part of even "doing anything bad" to her. She's not meant to be a symbol of what everyone that's a woman should be or do cause she's not mentally all there either. Why does it have yo be men that are the only problem and in a movie that's tainted from a mentally unstable person, why can't she be bad in his perspective? What if his alter ego wanted to get off and turns her "hey i know you, what medicine are you on" could be turned into something not logical or healthy? I believe anyone is capable of being "evil" and to tell people they can't be bad means they won't be careful which part of their lives they feed
youre actually addressing something, that ive noticed, during my second viewing, not everything were meant to see as a delusion, is actually shared and not all of the reality of the narrative, that isnt distinctly marked as being a delusion, is to be taken at face value. though lee was in love with the idea of joker, theres strong evidence, especially in the way some scenes are cut, that arthur, to some degree, did the same thing, he did with sophie, in the first one. theres at least two scenes with lee, that can easily be read, as only being in arthurs mind and id also argue, that the very last scene between arthur and lee, is actually faux lee and that she did kill herself.
15:28 people need to understand that just because something has source material, doesn’t mean it has ANY right to be loyal to it. Whatever product is being made, it exists on its own. If the character makes sense in the film, then it works, despite its source material.
Believe me Ryan, you’re not alone! The hate for this film (especially online) is becoming ridiculous. I honestly believe in many ways it’s slightly superior film to the first… it’s certainly the next logical step / only resolution for Arthur Fleck. The musical element was incredibly important in Joker, so the fact it spills out even more into the sequel works - although I think many people expected more Singing In The Rain than Dancer In The Dark. J:FAD is in my Top 10 for 2024.
Those that are hating on it for not living up to what they wanted is exactly the point the film is making. Lee and all the Joker fanatics have made up their own narrative on who Arthur was (some master mind criminal, fed up with society) when really he was a guy who went through so much trauma that just needed help. That's what these movies are about.
As said in both films, "you get what you fucking deserve." We got two super unconventional films that functioned more as an arthouse thought experiment than the blockbusters we're used to. They're uncomfortable, weird, creepy, and beautiful. Its not what I wanted and thats exactly why I love them.
No one believes him to be a master mind? He's lititerly a unreliable narrator and insane, what people liked about him was his trauma and the life he went through, it resonated with people and saw the sadness of him breaking down and killing which the majority of people know is bad, and what they didn't like (besides bad courtroom drama and it being a musical which I'm sure alot of the first movie fans probably aren't into, which is supported by the movie not doing well in theaters) it feels like it's going through some of the same beat as of the first movie but with a different ending. The fact the movie trys to prove the fans wrong in this way is a waste of millions of dollars and is a disgrace.
Thank you for actually having your own opinion about this movie, it's frustrating to see so many people just bandwagon and say it's bad because Arthur didn't turn into a edgelord like they wanted
Correct. How many times do people have to be reminded this is JOKER. Not THE Joker. I always took this guy as an inspiration. Never thought something would snap in his head and make him a criminal mastermind. I see many disappointed it wasn't an origin story...I think becsuse there hasn't been one really. But it kind of was...
Creatives should be free to tell whatever story they want to tell. They shouldn't be bound by someone's preferred take on a character. To say that it's problematic to have a woman as the abuser falls on deaf ears for me, especially when considering the reverse in this context: we have a grounded narrative where our "Joker" is a mentally ill person. To create a narrative where a genuinely mentally ill person is an evil manipulative monster seems equally problematic given the reality that mentally ill people are more likely to be victimized than they are to victimize others. I get wanting an adaptation to be more in line with what you personally like, but creatives should be free to tell the stories they want to tell. Fleck was never the Joker of the comics and same for "Harley". It's an original story with an original take on these characters. I don't think the director was interested in the DC universe so much as he was interested in this particular character study and social commentary about the systems that failed this particular mentally ill person. And that's fine! The question should be whether the story the director was aiming for was well executed or not, not whether it's in line or not with one's own vision of how a character is 'supposed' to be. A lot of people like Superman. Does that mean we should never get evil superman stories? It's silly, especially when we're already inundated with so many stories we've seen before; let's see something new!
I also don't really buy the idea that it's a middle finger to the reactionary weirdos who thought the Joker was 'based' or what not. These people fundamentally misunderstood the first film and I'd bet most hadn't watched it. Had they watched the original, they'd see things which go against their read of the movie which is what they're now criticizing as some 'subversion.' There is no subversion. It's entirely consistent with the first film. The only thing it subverts are these fools interpretations of it. And in many ways, that runs parallel to the major theme at play in the film: no one is seeing Arthur Fleck as the mentally ill victim that he is. They're seeing him instead as a legend.
It's such a weird take. I don't understand what Harley fans want from her. Do they want her to become a hero, anti-hero, super villain? It's very weird to me.
@@DarthTheron They can't be of one mind since Harley has changed from her roots already, and the idea of an "emancipatef Harley Quinn" who is still Harley Quinn doesn't make any sense if that persona is the Joker's creation - if the narrative is she became Harley Quinn under the Joker's influence, she is now free of the Joker's influence but she is still the person the Joker made her into - it's an incoherent have cake and eat it development, and to use the excuse of "Stockholm syndrome" (a phenomenon that may not even exist irl) in order to ignore the hybristophillic elements of the character as the current mainstream depictions do, is a half-hearted sanatisation to make the character role model worthy when she shouldn't be a role model anyway; she was never intended to be a role model by her original creators.
Contradict yourself much, Harley fangirl? What Heath did as Joker, and I'll even throw in What Danny DeVito did as Penguin, was literally no different from what Lady Gaga did with Harley. You're damning her because her portrayal was different. NOT bad. DIFFERENT. Also, Joker 2 is better than D&W by default. The former is an actual movie with something to say. The latter was an R-rated toddler cartoon. Nothing mattered, everything is done for cheap laughs (BTW, never laughed ONCE) and the hero is always right and gets his way because Gary Stu, Silver Skeeter, God Mode ACTIVATED! Joker 2 isn't a masterpiece by any stretch, but it was incredibly different and interesting. Something most blockbuster franchise films nowadays can't claim. Looking at you, D&W, Bad Boys 4, Godzilla Minus One and John Wick 4. Viewers LOVE mediocrity, but when a series tries to do something out there and different, it's falsely labeled as bad or "worst film ever".
I love that this channel is willing to make strange connections and far out observations with no shame or fear it will sound stupid to some. so often it makes me think about something in a different way. Keep up the great work gang!
I agree with McCheeseincakes the best movies are the ones with a horrible truth behind them..... Woman do manipulate men ALL THE TIME and it never gets brought up in movies
HOLY FICK THAT GIRL TRIGGERED ME, literally just wants Harley Quinn to be manipulated like her comic, but joker isn’t joker from comics. Or the fact that she’s saying about all the women being blamed for domestic abused etc stfu it goes horrible for both both ways
I think you made a mistake having only comic book fans discuss this with you. There’s a few personality traits that make them hard core comic fans. Many almost feel a sort of ownership of the material and need that continuity of the characters on the big screen. This movie ia more of a social study disguised as a comic book adaptation, the only use these characters have is to set a narrative and then flip it around on its feet to make the audience uncomfortable, unfortunately for the director these (not that he cares) ultimately the fans of the joker are not looking for this kind of experience
I think people were pissed because the story actually ended the way it started ... Arthur is not who people see. The Joker is Nameless ... a symbol. Arthur wanted to have personal attachment to people
I don't agree that Harley Quinn's past trauma exempts her from being a villain. In fact, if you look at Carol from The Walking Dead you can trace back through her marital abuse, losing a child, trauma after trauma and the creators were not afraid to have Carol do some atrocious acts...There is room in the cannon for Gaga's Harley.
Why is Brianna so hurt?? lol why is everyone hating on this movie. This is exactly what the movie is about. People are so sick that they want to see more of the same than to keep an open mind and embrace something different
Shitty musical numbers that didn't drive the plot forward but felt like a musical commercial break besides one song, pacing was SHIT and Harley was ruined. The movie ended off where it started and no progress was made from the last movie. It just fell flat, it could have been a 20 minute episode on Amazon.
I believe Lady Gaga perfectly represents the public's reaction to "Joker 2." When she discovers that "Joker" is just Arthur, she discards him, much like how many viewers dismissed the film when they realized it wasn't the traditional Joker. The movie is a masterpiece.
These people cannot even make there own thoughts clear they dont understand thete own thoughts . The female part of the character is saying its wrong that the female lead is not a powerful one she is saying that Harley Quinn is a battered women from a horrific relationship what a shocker that women can be evil and nasty it has nothing todo with any of that stuff its art it suppose to create thought . The female speaker is merging dark night with the joker films ,she is way off the mark . Thete are so many real issues that you can support in real life to expect to get your fixes in art and to turn this film in to a women hating film its ridiculous as the femake lead in the joker 2 is the star and tells the story off the whole concept , im afraid to make a new film in my life and i make docos as i do t know how to edit things anymore as just showing an image brings up thoughts that i just dont get.. This film has brought out how mixed up the world is with its identity. What a crazy bunch of people to talk about anything rather than a film , its crazy so crazy CRAZY
Because that's not even Harley Quinn. That's like making a samurai game and then making the main character black and having hip hop lofi as the battle music.
Joker 2 IS a masterpiece. I enjoyed it very much and am completely satisfied with this ending. Loved the music and the development of the character over two movies.
I get where Brianna is coming from, but I think her reasoning is really strange. There are hundreds of adaptations where Harley is portrayed as a victim of the Joker, and there are plenty of adaptations where this dynamic is flipped or otherwise changed. Why is she being so adamant that Harley can only ever be portrayed as a victim?
her take was dumb and made no sense , how is harley’s interpretation any different from the jokers different interpretation. she has elements from the original harley quinn but is a lot different
Leave it to comic books fans to complain when they do the same story over and over again and then gat mad when they do a different story. The first story was briliant in reimagening the Joker story in real life and the second film does it even better. And finally we have a beautiful woman who is a lead actor and she is the same as a a man. She is not a victim and she is not a hero. She is deeply flawed human. And she fits in this Jocker's story like a glove.
Saw this on Fan Event IMAX and the audience who saw it with me, we all loved it. We applauded when credits came on. Really really loved the complete de- construction of Joker and Arthur Fleck, and the special look at a deranged mentally unwell individual.
You're the problem here. You're part of hive mind. Majority decide on something and you all blindly follow it. I want to hear your arguments on why it's bad movie lol
@@WilbertMoore Funny how so far none of the haters could give me proper reasoning of why it's bad movie. Only few did and they all said bul#### like "He's not the real Joker" and I can already tell they didn't even bother to watch the movie
@@MrSiriusAB And yet none of you have proper arguments. The comments didn't even bother to prove the creator wrong. This movie is the proof media literacy is officially dead. Majority decides what's good or bad without proper explanation
Fyi. Woman abuse men much more than what is reported and men have little to no recourse. She acts as if its a bad thig to show men getting abused because it "doesnt happen" but it does. I am actually really annoyed by her.
Yeah I couldn't stand that girl. I mean, she is telling "now Harley is evil then the hate incels have looks justified", under that asumption no movie could ever picture a girl like a villain ever, which is shallow, pandering, and most important, UNREALISTIC. Harley isn't a hero in her histories neither most of the time (except in the most recent ones where she basically becomes another character), is a person with faillures and shortcomings, and that's the most relatable thing that the girl in the video seems almost scared to see or discuss.
She’s js coping tbh, the guys ain’t tryn make a deal outta it but half her statements were easy rebuttals imo. Her arguments is the same concept as people who say women make less money than men, or they get less income off the dollar than men… Statistically yes, but go into finer details and there’s statistically evidence on why men make more money. But hey I’m js a sexist narcissistic boy who has toxic masculine traits and realistic awareness.
She was lore accurate just not the old Harley but more like new 52 crazy. She manipulated him with her psychology, and used her body to seduce him because he is mentally ill. She knew it would work
Harley was a doctor that was manipulating her patients. If you're looking at HQ as a hero or a victim you obviously don't understand her character 🤡. Just like the edge lords that put the joker character on a pedestal because they think he's a victim. The movie was amazing and I bet people will slowly change their minds over time
I just wanted to add to the conversation that we shouldn't forget somebody dressed up like a version of The joker and shot up a movie theater that was showing the dark night back in 2008. I think making a movie criticizing the toxic fans of the original movie was a good call. These filmmakers had an impossible task. Which was to make us relate to Arthur and alienate us from the Joker. All while debating if they were one and the same. I think this movie does a better job with that task.
It was 2012 and it was the Dark Knight Rises (which doesn't have the Joker in). It was the media that made out he was cosplaying as the Joker, but the only parallels were he was angry at society and had dyed (orange) hair. So, yes let's not forget that completely inaccurate and largely fabricated story.
Moviegoers have always loved an antihero, maybe because it speaks to the version of ourselves that wants to act out violently against the injustices of the world. To see an antihero essentially crumble and eventually get killed by his own ideology, it’s a challenging concept. I get why most people have rejected it. But you’re 100% right that it reflects more on society than anything else.
@@nathanhartono91 have you perhaps missed 90% of gangster movies? they were all about that and people still loved them, this was just a bad movie, simple as that.
I understand the critics thats says that the characters doesn't feel like the original ones or that the film wasn't what fans were waiting for. But what is the point of portaying again and again the exact same characters ? I think it's great that Todd Philipps used elements from the DC universe to create something new. And if that frustrated or disturbed the audience, good. The purpose of art isn't just to entertain or to "give people what they want", it's to challenge our personal and collective narratives. The cult of personnality is a social issue that keeps people away from self-acceptance. It's even more problematic when the worshipped personalties are antisocial ones. We need films like this one that challenges this personality cult.
See I thought that the point of the movie was that it was Arthur was responsible for his own actions, not some supposed split personality known as joker. Too often people excuse terrible actions such as murder by saying “That person is mentally ill, maybe society is to blame for their actions”.
People liked that the first joker was a real movie disguised as a comic book movie but now people don’t like that this movie strays too far away from the comics? Seems like people pick and choose what’s okay to change and what’s not.
I had this realization yesterday that despite seriously rewriting the Joker origin, there’s still a chance for surprising comic book accuracy. Walk with me. The Joker is Batman’s first foe in the comics, like the very first Batman comic, he faces Joker. In the Joker movie, they showed the cannon event of Bruce’s parents being shot and killed, but it was by a man in a clown mask. Which I’m sure is burnt into little Bruce’s memories forever. Then people praising Joker, rioting and causing mayhem in clown masks and makeup are everywhere as the Joker movement becomes a thing. Bruce is constantly reminded of the night his parents are killed and motivated by the growth of the Joker movement. So let’s say the guy who Kills Arthur at the end of the movie who then cuts a smile into his mouth becomes the actual Joker who leads the movement and eventually faces Batman when Bruce Wayne finally comes of age and sets out on his mission to avenge his parents death and stop this Joker movement in Gotham. Circling back to Batman comic number 1, with Joker being Batman’s first foe.
10:46 how does this film hate musicals or comic books? Just because it doesn’t soak itself in the classic tropes of those genres doesn’t mean it hates them. It shows these characters with more depth than any other iteration.
Me too! To me "Joker: Follie a deux" is brilliant for how it takes Arthur Fleck's story as told in "Joker" to its logical conclusion. It also is a visceral, at times surreal, anti-escapist trip into Arthur's psyche as well as into Gotham City's heart of darkness before any supervillains or superheroes are even around. And it is all of that done with cinematic panache and in grand style. My interpretation of the entire duology is this: Arthur's delusion of grandeur, his moment of fame / infamy shown by the end of "Joker", simply could not go on forever, because - unlike THE JOKER - he isn't supergifted with high intelligence, quickwittedness, social awareness and the power to manipulate other people's psyche and make it bend to his will, a ruthlessness to only do what he pleases no matter the cost, a proclivity to plan in secrecy and use stealth to reach a goal, a genius to improvise an escape if needs be. Arthur Fleck is naive to his surroundings in a degree bordering on delusion, he desperately seeks attention and validation by others, a return of the friendliness he himself extends to people, and only if he isn't given this over a long stretch of time but is set under pressure on top of it, violence becomes his last resort. All of that we got to see in "Joker", and "Joker: Follie a deux" merely takes up this pattern again and looks at it from another angle. "Joker" was about Arthur Fleck being driven over the edge by Gotham City being a shitty, latently evil, violent place, a movie about him not understanding himself and the world he lives in, not being able to find his place in it, him fleeing from a traumatic past into delusions of grandeur, until reality overwhelms him and he finally snaps, releasing all his frustrations in one bad moment of losing control while being under the delusion he still were in control. It's like: Social drama blended with "King of Comedy" blended with "Falling Down" blended with "Taxi Driver" (but without the heroism) blended with Arthur collaterally escalating the vitriol and violence already present in the streets of Gotham City from the get-go. A movie about a vicious circle, about how Gotham City is a place with a mean spirit, where it's just a matter of time until THE JOKER we don't get to see yet, will rise and be greeted with enthusiasm by some. The tie-ins with a yet not existing BATMAN and the theme of a yet not existing THE JOKER were not really needed for this story to be told, but they did make it also into an interesting movie about what GOTHAM CITY might have been like before there were iconic and supergifted villains and heroes in it. In "Joker", GOTHAM CITY really does come alive, and in a way the city itself is turned into a character. As a GOTHAM CITY tale it is a welcome expansion of DC lore, because ultimately it gives us a view of Gotham not from the perspective of overpowered superheroes or supervillains, but from a social pariah, an underdog with less than average capabilities and resources. Where "Joker" was about Arthur's descent into a flight from reality, into delusion and violence, about losing touch with himself and the reality of his surroundings, up to a point of deluded mania; "Joker: Follie a deux" is a movie about the inevitable harsh comedown, about a very real depression after Arthur's flight from reality leading up to a mania caused by his mislead life-dream and delusions of grandeur. It is also a movie about a relapse, about a toxic relationship that sets him back and makes him vulnerable to manipulation, about the backlash of the seeds of further violence he had planted by letting Murray reap what Gotham City had implanted in Arthur: A senseless rage, desperately seeking for an outlet. It's a movie about what psychological projection, co-dependency, an atmosphere of violence and an addiction to spectacle, narcissistic egocentrism and narcissistic violation can do to not only a person - but also to society at large. At heart, "Joker: Follie a Deux" is movie about solipsism as the breeding ground of evil. To insert a bit of DC lore again: The devil is lurking in all of us, but it takes two to tango under the pale moon light. In being that, "Joker: Follie a deux" is merely an afterthought, an epilogue to the themes dealt with in "Joker", but it is all of that on a larger scale, and a bit more nuanced after the melodramatic spectacle of its predecessor. Apparently it's not what people wanted, but I think it's what people need in an age of narcicissm and spectacle, as a cautionary tale and as a wake-up call, and it truly is what people deserve, especially if they didn't get it the first time around. Bravo, Todd Phillips and team!
Wow what a great analysis and panel. I personally loved the film but I really appreciated the thoughtful perspectives of the folks on here that didn't, and I also really appreciated the thoughtful discussion - it really helped me think about some aspects of the film I hadn't even thought of. I also really appreciate Ryan's effective panel management - it's important to give everyone time to state their perspectives and I felt like this was a really well-managed panel where I really got to hear everyone's thought-out perspective. I hate watching panels where people get steam-rolled or certain people get too much air time so really great job here. Finally, I felt really good watching both this and the ending explained video - I have no problem with thoughtful people just not enjoying the film for their own reasons, or having problems with it. I find it really interesting to listen to, actually. What I am really having a hard time with is all these reductionist "ha ha you made a musical and now it bombed" just rehashed and remixed over and over again and echoed back at each other. I find it really demoralizing, particularly when, like Ryan mentioned at the end, what is more Joker than creating this brain-rocking, critic-scattering explosion of a film? And having it be a great film to boot! I really admire everyone involved with the project, including the studio financing it - they were not duped. If I was the executive and I green-lit this, and I saw what all was happening, I would: A.) Have pretty much expected this (how could you not?) B.) Be incredibly proud, even if it doesn't break even, because this is making a huge splash and sometimes making art is about making art, and they shot the moon with Joker 1 anyway, so let's roll. Anyway, thanks again for this great panel, it really felt revitalizing and rejuvenating in the face of a lot of knee-jerk negativity.
I think the Harley Quinn arc could definitely still fit into her established canon arc. Since Arthur dies at the end and presumably a new Joker takes his identity, there's still room for that whole arc to take place. If anything it makes it even more of an interesting arc from having seen her relationship with the original Joker. Of course the abusive relationship aspect of it isn't in itself 'interesting,' but it does make this juxtaposition between Harley Quinn and the two jokers.
The MYSTERY GUY at the end... YES, he's the obvious answer. But he's also YOU. The Toxic Fan who HATES this movie. (speaking from the filmmakers' POV, as I don't know any of you, and relax - it's just a perspective. Not accusing you of anything) - But .... You're disappointed in the film, let down by the character, you had wildly misguided expectations about this film, and character.. despite this being 100% the only sequel Joaquin and Todd would have ever made... Despite either film EVER being a "comic book movie". And I love how the guy at the end slices up his face, just like Heath Ledger, aka, it's the filmmakers saying "you trolls only want THE SAME THING over and over. you don't understand filmmaking, and here... Now you're stabbing the movie with your low scored. The filmmakers knew you were coming. You're predictable. Now, take your easter eggs, and take the same character we've already seen, and have that... but the rest of us, will be here, on the ground with Arthur.
@@WilbertMoore this take, about the movie existing, only to spite fans, really only concerns the last act of the movie- consider that the rabid joker fan boys were arguably portrayed, as more unhinged, even before the joker became their symbol- this time, its because arthur stops being the joker, just like bruce wayne stopped being batman, in the dark knight rises. and sure, we knew john blake better, than the inmate at the ending, but id argue that doesnt sell the idea of blake becoming batman, who as a symbol is more specific to bruce, than the joker to arthur, any better. the hate for this one is mostly due to the fact, that a. it has too many musical sequences for most and b. the last act is designed, to very quickly change the narrative back to being arthurs story- that doesnt mean he regresses, or has no character arc. ive watched the movie thrice now and its telling, that during the more analytical second viewing, i noticed the most common reasons, for the walkouts and part of that, is of course many people feeling, like they were being played. but even without phillips outright saying, that arthur could be the inspiration for the real joker, even without the clues in the trailers and the writing being on the wall, regarding this movies theme, from the very beginning, in its animated intro- despite all that some folks still seemed to be invested, until the third act and thats an especially bitter pill to swallow, because its harder to admit, how long it takes, for the reality to set in, which oddly mirrors arthurs character arc- he also thought, he made a positive change for the city and took a stand against the oppressors and only started to see the reality of it, after garys trial, when it suddenly wasnt funny anymore. previous to that, we had a courtroom scene, with arthurs delusion reaching its peak, during his performance of the song the joker- arguably the most classic comic version both movies portrayed. after garys testimony however, it all happens rather quickly- the guards quickly show him, being joker doesnt mean hes in control and his effect is driven home further, by killing ricky. i admit, that choice is controversial, for a reason- but what im getting at here, is even up until that point, i had a viewer behind me whispering, that now the guards will get, what they fucking deserve- they still counted on arthur going full joker, with about 25 minutes of the movie left and after his courtroom confession, the atmosphere in the cinema noticably changed, during every viewing. so its safe to say, that a majority of people have very specific reasons, for disliking this movie, with phillips blatantly spelling out, that nobody cares about arthur fleck and neither this movie, nor the first, wouldve been made, without loosely connecting it, to the mythos- and as a fan, i get the righteous anger. 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, its writer and later on its director, tried to make- or more recently, breaking bad- phillips just went one, or rather several steps, step further, because he intentionally attached an original IP to it. (yet, it was always pitched that way and hes been transparent about both that and the end goal) i disagree, however, with the notion, this exists, just to spite, what amounts to a very specific, rabid fan base of the first and the movie is really only about them, for a short time, after the courtroom explosion goes off.....if you happen to be in the majority of those who didnt like it and im on the other end of the spectrum, lets meet halfway here, i wont argue about the films quality, or try to convert you, i think time will be kinder to this movie, than has been the case, in the last couple of days- but consider the alternative, that maybe phillips didnt try to just piss everybody off, by addressing his issues with the originals reception, maybe he actually trusted his audience a bit too much, in that they would see things his way and arthurs confession was supposed to hit different- i know, it did for me. whatever his intent was, im only trying, for some civil discourse to take place and those above me and would like to believe thats possible, even if we ultimately only agree, to disagree.
TRUE AND BASED. finally, a non-stupid take. people that hate this movie are the same people that complain hollywood is too uncreative and only want to dish out unnecessarily long milked franchises, even though the hate towards this movie proves that that's what they wanted all along.
@@WilbertMoore maybe instead of crying about not getting what you wanted, maybe have some sympathy for poor ol Arthur and his last glimmer of hope slowly fading away :((((
Woman can be Domestic abusers as well. The idea that it's ONLY men. And that this movie is "disrespectful" to portray a woman as manipulative and the abuser is wrong.
Personally, I never saw the first Joker film as an "incel film" if anything, I think Fight Club portrays that better with the line, "We're a generation of men raised by women, I'm wondering if another woman is really the thing we need." And while I do agree that Lee/"Harley Quinn" is the main antagonist as she wants Arthur to try to be "the Joker" when he just wants to be Arthur Fleck, then I guess Lee would still lose. Since Arthur gets killed by the inmate, it's perceived that he would just become the "real" Joker and Lee would gravitate towards him. I really think this film fails because it spits on its previous film and the core audience it had. The first Joker film did not need a sequel.
Incorrect about Fight Club. That line is really about Marla Singer. As many how gathered now she’s also a figment of the narrators imagination. Thus, Tyler not wanting another (person) woman to share with the narrator.
Feels absurd to critique Lee’s character because she wasn’t being abused by Arthur. I think the big thing to recognize is that Arthur isn’t this Joker in the same way he might’ve been in Dark Knight. The point of his speech at the end is that he is Arthur and Joker is just a mask. He can’t abuse her because his relationship with her isn’t real. Lee wanted the Joker that’s not who he is. Joker in this world is more a symbol maybe to be embodied by a different person. I also don’t think it’s fair to call Lee the villain because we don’t even know how much of their interactions were real. As far as we are concerned Arthur interpreted Lee as the villain while Lee wasn’t attached to Arthur she was attached to the mask
Preach! I watched the movie today and although I wasn't certain about some choices at the time, thinking about it as an Arthur movie like it was intended literally opened my eyes to how good this movie is
Also to the Harley take from Brianna, look at the Caped Crusaders take on Harley Quinn, she wasn't abused but she used her status and position to take advantage of the The Upperclass. That's a scary villain when your psychiatrist is using your darkest secrets in confidence as a weapon against you.
I don't think they were going for Harley coming to realize Arthur is not a good guy, I think Harley realizes after trying to manipulate him and relate to him by lieing, she realizes Arthur is not the villian she wanted him to be, and she ends up leaving him to be alone again after manipulating him. He didn't even run away after the explosion, he went to find her
My man, Colton, coming through again with the smartest take on the subject matter in question! I've been saying similar things about this film all week. Well done, Screencrush. This film is a masterpiece!
Lots of great critique here. I think Brianna was right about this seeming like the woman is the villan to Incells, and that Tod Phillips messed up Harley. But, I also think that this movie, like Joker and his message, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I think the ideas were there, but the movie was executed poorly.
@@Manteo1984 Yes I enjoy tapping in with this and other channels for that reason, different opinions. I can count on screen crush to stand out from the rest
@Manteo1984 He does. In the other video about this movie he so badly wanted to interrupt Matt and disagree with him on things. You could see his expression.
Quick task for the audience who actually liked the first film: Justify Arthur killing Murray. Because he laughed at his stand up? Because he's mentally unwell? You can't justify it. He just does it and people loved it. Why? Why did so many people resonate with a homicidal maniac killing people for no reason? The subway kills aren't even justified, just because he was being attacked doesn't mean you hunt them down and kill them.
I actually loved this movie quite a lot and felt it was even better than the first one, especially in how it told it's message. I did not feel it had at all undermined the message from the first one at all, but had instead built upon it and had further developed it into a more nuanced discussion. However, I do think Brianna is onto something here, and it's not something I had really considered until she pointed it out, so honestly thank you Brianna for bringing it up! No message ever lives within a vacuum, and when we provide these reinterpretations and reimagnings of characters we are not doing so in a vacuum either, we are impacting, changing, and evolving the messages and meanings of the original story's and the characters within them. I personally, did not view Harlee in Joker Folie à Deux as being a villian who was manipulating and abusing Arthur. I instead viewed her as someone who was seeking connection and a relationship with the idea of who she thought the Joker was. To me it looked more like trauma bonding where both Arthur and Harlee were feeding into and fueling, the issues, both characters were facing. This is a level of complexity that is often found within a lot of relationships where family harm (domestic violence) is involved, and it could have been a great way to raise awarness if these complexities were properly explored within the film, but it wasn't.
To clarify, the reason why I do not feel this complex issue was appropriately explored within the film, has to do predominantely with perspective of how this story is being told, and who is telling the story, and yes I do think gender plays a very big role in what perspective this film is developed and told through. In the first film the story is predominantely told through the perspective of an unreliable narrator Arthur Fleck, a white male living in poverty with mental health issues, and is continuously experiences differing forms of abuse from an array of people. There were definitely reasons why it was told from solely this perspective, however, a series of issues had become appearant stemming from how this story was told. I feel Todd Philips began to address a lot of these issues within this sequal through expanding the scope of the story outside of just the main characters perspective. I feel this would've been the perfect place to also begin to view the story of other characters perspectives including Harlee, and this is where the story fell short, and I think a big part of why this is, has in huge part to do with who is telling the story, ie Todd Philips, a white male, just as I, a white male, was unaware of the potential ramifications this new interpretations of Harlee could have. While on the other hand Brianna was able find out these issues straight away, perspectives matter, not just for what characters these stories are being told through, but also by who is writing these stories, whose directing them, and who is acting them. Overall, I think the story was well done, but not without it's flaws, and I do want to thank Brianna for helping make all of us more aware of the potential ramefications this story could have.
12:40 Harley Quinn was also reinterpreted as being more sinister in the Caped Crusader show, but that's made by the creator of Harley in the first place who was actually friends with Arleen Sorkin, so I'm fine with it. The problem i think stems from the fact that Todd Phillip used the character as just a name without any care to make it meaningful.
I was deeply affected by the movie. The first one used the Joker's mental illness as a lens to analyze political issues, and the second one reversed that framing, with all the social forces galvanized in the first movie being used as a lens to analyze the experience of mental illness. You described this as "the consequences of being seen," but I think the more salient point is that there *still* isn't anyone who sees Art - instead, he's either treated as an entertaining novelty or someone for others to channel their worldviews into. It doesn't matter how Art tries to portray himself or who it does or doesn't appeal to, nobody will *ever* see him as a human being, because that's how people treat the mentally ill. Harley never saw Art as a person, nor do any of the people he inspired a movement in - he's the Joker, and his value to them is predicated on him continuing to espouse the message they like as the character they like. The wardens never saw him as human, even when he seemed to be bonding with them - as soon as he said something they didn't like, they responded with overwhelming violence. Even the arguably most sympathetic person to Art as his own entity, his lawyer, could only frame his value in terms of who he *could* be if he got treatment. And even that dehumanizing level of acknowledgement was too much for most people to swallow. It didn't sway the public and it wasn't gonna keep the jury from executing him. Harley only cared about the statement - she wasn't doing anything to keep Art from getting executed. And ultimately, even one of the other psychiatric patients murders him and steals the Joker identity. It wasn't ever something special to Art - he was just there to be projected onto. I imagine the new Joker and Harley will get on fine.
Since when are artists expected to "respect" what has came before? What happened to respecting taking risks and having something new? Also noticing the guests keep saying "it doesn't feel like X," if we simply reiterated prior done material in our art our society would truly know no growth.
Okay.... it's simple. If somebody want's a cheeseburger and they get a taco instead, sure it's food but it isn't the food people wanted. This MOVIE didn't give the fans what they wanted, it went off to a shit direction.
@@Kanoog Yeah going to reiterate that "giving fans what they want" is not and should not be the sole purpose of any art, including this. (I'm also a die-hard MCU and DC fan)
All the time. Sequels are supposed to coherent. Character motivations are not supposed to 180 and your not supposed to ambush your audience WITH A MUSICAL 😂
@@c.s3369 Besides the musical element (which I completely disagree with because the first film literally ends with Arthur singing "That's Life" and dancing but okay), in what ways did you feel the film was not coherent with the first?
This is one of the best, most intelligent discussions I've seen about this film. I really appreciate these nuanced takes, and the levelheaded discussion about art and the many ways it can be interpreted. The internet seems incapable of this most of the time.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to tryfum.com/SCREENCRUSH or scan the QR code and use code SCREENCRUSH to get your free FÜM Topper when you order your Journey Pack today.
I thought it was awesome!
An issue I had was at the end of the first movie he kills or attacks the lady in the psych ward so everyone was expecting him to be fully embracing the Joker persona, but then we are supposed to believe he is just a mentally ill person? It literally goes against everything the first film did.
19:47 the commentary made using Harley was that people fall in love with symbols. She didn't love the guy she loved the symbol. She was constantly putting his makeup back on him. The entire movie was basically about how people glorify a symbol while ignoring the person beneath it for better or for worse.
Harley Quinn in the comics has killed countless people. She was a villain until people cosplayed her to death and DC realized they could make more money giving her more time in the comics. The fact that she needs to be a victim who struggles to overcome the Joker's abuse while some forget that she is in fact a mass murderer is absurd. How is the fact that she has her own agency a step backwards or insulting? How can someone be so upset that Harley can be the same villain she started out as without being victimized? This is an elseworlds movie that is meant to be its own thing it doesn't have to be the same thing we have seen countless times. Martha Wayne has been the Joker. Was that terrible? If movies have to stay closer to the original source material than wouldn't we see Captain America being rather terrible towards Japanese people?
Honestly it feels like viewing her as a hero is exactly missing the point of both joker movies and the idea of propping up people who don't deserve it because you want to project your own image of something you want them to be onto them. Harley is a very interesting character with many layers, but it's interesting to say she has some untouchable character arch especially when it comes to being a victim of abuse. Being abused does not preclude you from being an abuser or being a horrible person. Saying you can't tell a story with a character that isn't painted so black and white like a cartoon is so limiting.
And who looks at comic book villain, as an adult, and connects to them so much that you can't enjoy a movie. Women just as equally as men manipulate and abuse, this isn't a documentary, its a movie!
I will never understand how an individual watch a movie and proceed to ignore the entire premise the director intended for the movie but hate the movie because it’s not the version that was created in their head. …..Love or hate the movie for exactly what the director intended.
I wish I could tag all the Star Wars sequel haters.
The creator of any art doesn’t get to decide how it’s understood. if something someone doesn’t like about a painting ruins it for them it wouldn’t make sense for the painter to say “that’s not the part of the painting you should be looking at” or “ you can only look at it from this one angle otherwise you’re interpreting the art wrong.”
Art is meant to be understood differently by different people and to say you have to analyze it one way and one way only doesn’t make any sense
@@GamingGambini I fully agree with you but I think you are saying something a little different. I’ll give an example; Todd Phillips intentionally made a musical, but an individual as a critic watched the movie, then Proceed to criticize the movie because that individual did not want the movie to be a musical. I am simply saying “was it a good musical or not?”
Hey Ryan , great video. Personally I felt the film did a great job showing the consequences of the first film , Arthur’s reality in prison. To me the film is about a man who was abused and failed by social services, who grew up conflicted and emotionally stunted. He never understood what healthy (good) relationships looked or felt like. So he could never recognize them in adulthood. His lawyer understood this. She fights for him yet he doesn’t see it and begins to distance himself and eventually kicks her off the defense. Anytime in the film where he receives a compliment (by the guards or by Harley) he is filled with ecstatic optimism. There are many people living like this unfortunately. They can’t see who’s trying to help them. I appreciated the movie for its honesty in what happens to folks like this.
32:59 The idea as well that the Joker can die, but is reborn over and over until society fixes itself, is so interesting. Joker as Batman’s nemesis makes sense, because Batman is trying to save Gotham, but the joker will always exist not because Batman doesn’t want to murder, but because he can’t solve what causes the joker with more violence.
I'd like to see a Batman comic where a Bernie Sanders type progressive comes to Gotham and enacts free health care, taxes the wealthiest their fair share, increases the minimum wage, cancels student debt, free elementary school education with free meals, etc which rehabilitates poor working class into middle class and puts Batman out of business.
20:16 Harley isn’t being a stalker in this. She is based on the very well documented and real cases of girlfriends and female fans of convicted serial killers.
@@EatSleepEmpire i wonder if there’s any famous instances of a serial killer groupie becoming disillusioned when they actually got close to their idol, like arthur and lee here
@@nickymoBuddy if they're a groupie for a killer then they're already delusional
@@rynor2691 probably why i’ve never heard of anything like that before. Makes for an interesting story though.
She not even harley. Shes lee
@@GZP1023 she is Harley, when he imagines a talk show for the two of them, it’s says the Harley and Joker show. They just call her Lee as a nickname.
One, never force Todd Phillips to make a sequel. He will flip the studio the bird. Two, Brianna is ironically being Lee Quinzel. I, fan, should be able to dictate what a public character should be and how they are portrayed. Phillips creates Lee to be the main POV of the irl fans who think Joker was a cool anti-hero and the in-universe stans who turn on him for not being the persona.
Most people who are mad about it are mad because the sequel didn't fit their preconceived notions. WB wanted the usual money grab sequel. Artistically, I don't think the character arc started in the first film could end any other way.
i'd like to quote something i read from someone and thats stuck into my head cuz its realy the best i read about the movie
"It's ironic that this movie's main message has been completely proven true by how many people disliked it. Many people wanted to see the Joker villain from the Batman movies, but instead they got poor Arthur Fleck. But isn't that exactly what Arthur was complaining about his whole life? That no one ever cared about him, who he really is. But the moment he became the Joker, then they paid attention to his alter ego. But the real Arthur is killed instead, the same way the critics killed this movie. Too bad. This movie is genius."
So true. I remember coming out of the first film (I've still only watched it that once) and I was told that it had been controversial because people thought it glorified violence. I just thought that was such a bizarre take. I thought it had been brilliant in showing a person's despair as a result of a society and system that didn't care. In my mind, the violence was not positive in any way. Just sad, desperate, lost. In FaD, there was a lot of violence committed by people for their own gratification, but Arthur remained on the sidelines, a victim again or a witness to the idea people had of him rather than who he really was.
12:01 what fresh hell is she talking about? To say that women don’t prey on men or can’t be manipulative especially when these films are drastic retellings is absurd. Just because you don’t stick with an old trope doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s the perfect twist on the character for this limited film series.
I watched it last night. My date and I thought it was incredible. (I’m a comic book fan from the 80s for point of reference.) As someone who once struggled with mental health and survived, I quite enjoyed the cinematic portrayal Todd and company presented.
I like how how ryan is like this is a good movie and 2/3 guest are like no this movie is awful
2 of the guests. Did you watch the last guest
Ryan is an optimist to a painful degree, but thats why we love him; always Mr. Brightside
Ryan doesn’t want his channel to get blacklisted and wants to continue to receive early review access to shows and movies so he can make content.
We get it but it’s soooooo painfully obvious it makes it cringe to watch.
@@BurritobanditsI honestly skip videos like this and madam web reviews 😭 just here for the comments
Ryan isn’t an optimist at all, he’s a shill. In 2-3 months when the studios don’t care anymore, he will be bashing the hell out of this movie like the rest of us. He’s incentivized to pretend this is a great movie, so he does… until he doesn’t. He’s done the exact same thing with She Hulk, Quantummania, and every other terrible show that has come out the last 4 years.
The girl's perpective is only that. She grew up with the latest version of Harley. Meanwhile, people who have been around long enough, are able to appreciate the obsession Harley has for the "idea" of the Joker persona.
She dislikes Follie's Harley for the same reason fanboys dislike Joaquin's Joker. Some people just like seeing mentally tough sociopaths. The just shouldnt cry when an artist flips a concept on its head. Art should equally impress as it defies expectations.
Meh. I remember Harley at her inception. Making her a rich girl who manipulates an abused and emotionally and mentally challenged man for kicks …..and therefore would need no emancipation. It’s just not the same character except in name and because he went to college to study psychology. I don’t think that she needs to be abused by the joker. But there is none of the characteristics that make us see things from her perspective like Arthur Flek is given in the first film. Ultimately I didn’t like the movie because to me the story was lacking. Also, knowing what folie a duex means ……just ugh…no. I didn’t like the Harley Quinn version just because I didn’t enjoy the character.
How can it be bad to make Harley the villain when she literally is? Yeah, she sided with Batman recently and became more of an antihero, but for the vast majority of her fictional existence she’s been an absolutely evil villain who has done unspeakably cruel things to innocent people. But don’t make her the villain of the story…
Everyone is so brainrotted by Margot Robbie’s adaptation of Harley even tho that’s not the original adaptation of the character. She just made HQ annoying lol. Lady Gaga was was better imo
Right lmao
Shes a vllian to to "batman". Harleys always obsessed with the joker so she probably shouldn't be the "villain" of a "joker" storyline.
@@c.s3369 villainy isn’t perspective based. If you do the things she’s done to innocent people, you’re a villain. And if you didn’t notice this isn’t a “Joker” storyline. Just a fake out of one
@@crossettiHarley Quinn in Birds of Prey was still a villain of sorts. In the same way that an anti-hero is still a hero of sorts, with some moral ambiguity, Harley Quinn in Birds of Prey is an anti-villain, with moral ambiguity: because next to the other villains and supervillains Gotham City has to offer, in THIS story, she seems comparably less villainous. Seems is another keyword, though, because she is the narrator, and the movie makes it clear by how she tells the story that she can't be fully trusted. She is constantly trying to make herself look more heroic than she actually acts. I like Margot Robbie's portrayal of Quinn just as much as Lady Gaga's Leen character. The strength of DC's Gotham lore has always been variation and toying around with its characters, themes and tropes, be it in comics or on the screen. Not every story is for everyone, but on the whole DC movies are much more daring than the MCU ones. That alone keeps them interesting.
I really don’t understand how giving Harley the agency to be the one that manipulates her historic oppressor could ever be interpreted as offensive. Very strange take.
i was thinking the same thing lol like if you think about it, who identifies with a victim and actually just wants her to remain the victim every time they see her character portrayed. people have imaginations.. this concept isn't something far fetched.
I don't think it's offensive. It's just not the character. Colton's theory that HQ was driven crazy by the idea of Joker is plausible, but the end indicates that she's not crazy, just a bit rebellious. The journey of HQ (going back to the original animated series where she was created) is to go from a respectable doctor to a lunatic sidekick, because she identifies with Mr J and he deludes her into letting go of any inhibitions, as she falls in love with him. The abuse comes later and isn't as critical to the origin. None of that is presented here, and so she kind of is the villain, certainly an antagonist to Arthur. Amazingly, the original Suicide Squad did more of the true origin than this film. To take HQ and make her the manipulator of the person that we at least have been told is Joker is not Harley, it's just someone else.
@@davidjsanders76 i can understand this take better than i understood it from the video, thank you.
Harley is no saint; no woman deserves abuse, but the character of Harley Quinn is capable of dishing it out, too. Batman Beyond Return of the Joker displays this very well.
Shes only in the movie at the end? Is a joke? A bad one?
What the hell is going on? Gaga deserves an Oscar. Brilliant film and it stands on it's own away from the Scorsese fetishism of the first. Phoenix's utterly broken humanity when the mask slips and he starts crying in the courtroom for what he's done to Gary, his one and only real friend. This film is heartbreaking and also weirdly joyful at the same time. Harley Quinn is monstrously evil in this movie. She makes Margot's Harley look, ironically, like a cartoon. The ending that elevated Arthur from gun toting psycho to 'the ORIGINAL Joker', a god among maniacs, a religious figure the Bat can never dislodge or capture and who was most likely his brother. I like it more than the first
18:30 Harley in this want even that abusive or evil. She lied to joker, but for the most part she inspired him and supported him. She just liked him in a more superficial way than he liked her. And if domestic violence is such an important issue to be discussed through comics, then it’s just as important to use that character to talk about the same issue from a different angle. Men are often treated like crap in relationships where the power imbalance is in favor of the women. Children are often weaponized.
I kinda disagree with her. There definitely can be a Harley Quinn story where she is the dominant person/abuser, it just seems this movie didn't do it right. The Telltale Batman game sorta did it, and it came out as a relly interesting take.
The audio drama Harley Quinn and The Joker: Sound Mind does this too while still sticking closer to the source material. Their entire relationship in Arkham is her using the Joker to get what she wants until she finally snaps and turns into Harley Quinn
There are ways they can switch it so they both abuse each other in different ways, bringing out the worst in each other. There is wild wild wild potential in Joker and Harley stories. But here we are making the worst movie of all time instead
I also felt like the roles of the relationship between Joker and Harley were reversed because of how her manipulation on a very sick man
@@davidcota1583totally!
Apparently Art doesn't matter... it's all about the vibes of those who are way too close to "the source material".
I’m glad he respectfully disagreed with them.
That dude who talked last took a entire weekend to justify liking this movie, it's like a lawyer trying to get P. Diddy out of jail.
@@KanoogI respectfully disagree
Why is everyone taking it so personally? It wasn't done to you. The director wanted to tell a story. He did that. You've projected yourselves onto him and harley, and when they dont live up to your expectations, you turn on it and say it's trash. exactly how his fans and lee left the courtroom after arthur said he was never joker. highlighting the quote he said that no one cares about him, just the joker. you dont want a story of a mentally/physically abused delusional loner and the gritty of it. you wanted a character to idolize.
the director didnt wrong anyone.
100% this movie separates the sociopaths from the regular person.
People hate having a mirror placed in front of them, telling them that they’re the psychos.
Yeah for real. Brianna seemed like she was honestly projecting her own insecurities onto her distaste of the film. The film is just a film.
Because asking someone to part ways for your product is a personal thing. If we don't like it we have a right to voice it. Besides I haven't heard anyone personally attack Todd Phillips. Just his crappy movie. It makes it worse when the fans feel like they're being antagonized. Also didn't like the 1st one either. Neither one of these character studies should have been made if he's not going to study the character.
It's almost as if the audience got that mindset of Harley. Harley broke up with Arthur because to her, he is not THE JOKER....
everyone broke away from seeing this is a good movie because they think they're got THE JOKER, but just Arthur instead.
@michaelfang1393 people wanting to see the joker in a movie named the joker is crazy
Is Brianna ok? I am serious. 😢
Based on her analysis , it’s like she’s projecting through a lens. Maybe she experienced domestic abuse and was blamed for it for whatever reasons. Hope she’s okay.
I respect her perspective.
You can't go through life as an adult and have that restricted view of things. You're just gonna keep banging into invisible walls.
This girl is reeeaaaaly over thinking this. 🙄 No one is hating on this version of Harley for being the “abuser” here except her. The people I know just didn’t like them turning the Joker into a man that doesn’t want to be the Joker.
Psssttt he isn't the Joker and never was, even in thr first film.
@@hollywooda111 psssttt yeah I get the story he was telling. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. Cus you know they sold these movies as him being the Joker. 🙄
People don't seem to understand that the movie isn't making fun of fans of the first movie. It's making fun of the people that didn't understand what it's actually about, which is a mentally ill man tearing apart the system that failed him. This movie shows Arthur is still being taken advantage of, except it's not by society anymore, it's by his own "fans" that expect him to be something he's not. You can harp on about comic accuracy and all that, but comic accuracy really only matters if they're adapting a storyline by the same name, which this movie isn't. If you want a Joker origin story about The Joker, watch The Killing Joke
You know what this reminds me of 2 very specific things that are basically the same thing.
The "I didn't do it episode" of the simpsons and anyone who gets vidal fame eg the hatchet guy, hawk tuah backpack kid, the island boys.
It all starts out well and organically, but in every case people who want to take advantage/ride that viral wave try to piggyback on that moment and in doing so they want to kind of shape the narrative the way they want and what happens is you notice the further said person gets from the viral moment that was this organic natural thing it becomes this cheap disposable catchphrase that waters down those people into products/props.
What happens when those people try to move away from the catchphrase? The very people who built them up are the same who try to pull them down because they don't want them to be a complete individual, so they get mad at them for not being the thing the media sort of warped them into.
The killing joke is an Oracle origin story, not a joker origin story afaik all joker said is he had "a very bad day"
Good for them, they failed.
You are so right. The movie is pretty obvious but people don't seem to understand it still.
@@Sarahmint The Killing Joke as a whole is an Oracle origin story, yes. I suppose I should have mentioned more specifically the section in the comic or animated movie where we see his past
I felt like if this girl didn’t get so upset at Harley for being “the abuser” she could open her mind to the possibility Harley is supposed to be filling in as Arthur’s mother doing psychological damage to him, he never wanted to be the joker they say how he wasn’t joking anymore at the beginning of the movie but once she comes into his life everything changes
There is a video called "The Magneto problem" that explains that some characters are ingrained in their origin story. I agree with her tbh
Yeah I couldn't stand that girl. I mean, she is telling "now Harley is evil then the hate incels have looks justified", under that asumption no movie could ever picture a girl like a villain ever, which is shallow, pandering, and most important, UNREALISTIC:
Harley isn't a hero in her histories neither most of the time (except in the most recent ones where she basically becomes another character), is a person with faillures and shortcomings, and that's the most relatable thing that the girl in the video seems almost scared to see or discuss.
Possibly. But we are not here to judge these characters, are we? Good writing doesn't judge its characters. Good writing allows its characters to simply exist and experience the consequences of the world they live in. Harley leaves because Arthur Fleck comes back. She's only interested in Joker because she desires that power. You could argue that Harley Quinn is seeking to be dominated and that's why she projects it onto Arthur. Bullies always project themselves onto their victims. The powerlessness that they feel is the abuse they project onto others. You could argue that we are all doing this to everyone around us.
You could even argue that this has to do with her relationship to her parents (perhaps her father is like this). Who knows? Who cares?
The most significant aspect of this relationship is that everything that occurs is a direct result of consequences. In order for Arthur's "shadow ego" Joker to not destroy himself, he needs to come back to Arthur Fleck. In doing so, he loses Harley Quinn.
This shatters him so much that he literally kills Arthur Fleck. He invents an villain in his head to destroy his own ego so that his shadow can dominate.
Then he kills the social worker at the end of the first movie and escapes.
*Did you notice that they left out her death as if it never happened? In the original film, he actually kills seven victims. They only mention six. Why would Todd Philipps intentionally leave this death out of the film?
@@felixthecat2786 you wrote an essay that went nowhere and had nothing to do with anyone’s point lmao
@@felixthecat2786Interesting take.
“Victim of the Joker identity” is right. Same with Harley Quinn: if you’re criticism of the movie is that it doesn’t portray a comic book criminal as a good guy because that’s what main stream media has done to make her more popular and justify liking her….. That’s just proving this movie’s entire point.
I don’t think the director, who had free reigns to do what he wanted, intended to make the movie bad to shame fans. I think he had a spot on message to say: that comic book movies have turned into mind numbing entertainment that old Hollywood musicals were, and that Hollywood and media has turned these IP into something potentially toxic and personally ideological to some folks.
👍
Ryan is not the only one who enjoy the movie. Even I cried for the situations that Arthur Fleck lived in both movies. This man was abu**d and being a joke all of the time, and he was mentally ill at the point it can't can't take it anymore and the Joker was a expression of it. Now, a woman broke his heart just because is not following the fantasy the clown (the shadow) represents. But I totally understand the reasons because the people don't like or don't understand the movie, anyway! 👍
Why are u censoring abused its not a bad word
@@efrainmendez8130 Just in case, hehehe. Nowadays I don’t know how many words are forbidden. 😅🤷🏽♂️
11:00 the thing about Harley's portral in this movie is that she was a true crime nut who fantasized about Joker as a symbol and not the man. Which is a real thing. We see serial killers get married while serving life sentences to super fans who mythologize their legends, I feel like Brianna is just mad they portrayed a woman as the manipulator, which women are capable of being, and women have done in real like with real criminals. There wasn't anything wrong with that part of the movie atleast. Men do get abused, manipulated and stalked. Men rarely can speak out. Arthur was a man abused by everyone around him and Harley attempted to take advantage of the mythology and became disillusioned with him when he gave up. You can tell that kind of story.
Thank you
Breanna’s performative “women can’t be villains” activism is exhausting and genuinely bad for any actual cause. Please don’t have her on any more.
It’s a masterpiece! & I don’t think people are deep enough to truly appreciate it. Arthur fleck is Batman’s half brother & Batman’s dad ironically created the inevitable real joker( the man who kills Arthur fleck). Arthur never experienced love , not from his mom or anyone, that sadness that loneliness and utter despair is the entire point. Arthur is a good person a victim , someone we all had empathy for in part 1 and throughout. He bottled up his emotions and trauma tried to laugh it off as his mom would try and have him do calling “happy” , but those emotions never went away , it could go to suicide or outward aggression and in part 1 he chose outward aggression. Something he is eventually remorseful for in part 2 . The Folie a deux is French for two crazy people delusional together . He’s delusional believing harley truly loves him for who he is as Arthur Fleck, and she’s delusional for loving the joker side of him even tho that’s not really him because he’s a good guy deep down inside because his true self is not the “joker “ psychopath , and not even the real joker after all. The midget even said you were always good to me. It was Arthur’s redemption, to be honest and true self, but when he went searching for Harley the tragedy is she doesn’t love who he really is and Arthur ends up dying alone never experiencing love. Just when you feel good for him that he finally is being loved. Arthur doesn’t make the direct connection that maybe he could get fake love if he continues the fake self joker persona and is never presented that opportunity, maybe he would have kept being the joker just to please her if it meant he could be fake loved by Harley, maybe that would have caused him the anger he needed to turn into the real joker, we will never know. At the end of it that’s all Arthur ever wanted , love. When he sees Harley his make up is faded away as Arthur fleck this weak man who came out at closing statement emerges as his true vulnerable unattractive true self to Harley, that’s why she left him alone in the courtroom as she herself realizes in the end that it was all a fantasy & he isn’t the joker, she studied to be a psychiatrist and realizes what he really is and leaves him & turns him in to the cops. Arthur betrayed and symbolically shot by Harley in the stomach comes to fruition. In the end he is the origin story & inspiration of the real joker , the guy who kills him in the end and cuts smile on his face in the background, which is the perhaps the Keith ledger Joker character who battles Batman not Arthur fleck. We all are him angry at the film angry at Arthur not giving him love and stabbing him to death. Even some happy he dies for being this weak man nobody loves. The musical aspect of the film is fitting since no singing occurs until he falls in fake love with lady Gaga, he never sings in his delusions prior to this, and he even sings in his real life in fitting and funny moments to his cell inmates. Singing is his delusional state feeling the perceived notion of love that he truly never receives and I don’t mind the music since he’s crazy singing to himself most of the time. We are the audience that hates him for not being funny , the point of this film is not to like him for being weak and vulnerable, that’s why you don’t like it, Arthur fleck still not being loved. The film is deeper then we think and horrible if you come in to it with pre conceived notions of what you thought it should be. In due time I hope people appreciate the beauty of the film and don’t look at it through a superficial lens.
20:30 i mean Harley Quinn is evil. As you said, she's amazingly funny in her own movie, from her perspective but she outside her view she kills and hurts hundreds of parents and many people who had no part of even "doing anything bad" to her. She's not meant to be a symbol of what everyone that's a woman should be or do cause she's not mentally all there either. Why does it have yo be men that are the only problem and in a movie that's tainted from a mentally unstable person, why can't she be bad in his perspective? What if his alter ego wanted to get off and turns her "hey i know you, what medicine are you on" could be turned into something not logical or healthy? I believe anyone is capable of being "evil" and to tell people they can't be bad means they won't be careful which part of their lives they feed
I don’t know if Phillips realizes it, but the subtitle is almost a perfect cognate of “Faux Lee, adieu.”
youre actually addressing something, that ive noticed, during my second viewing, not everything were meant to see as a delusion, is actually shared and not all of the reality of the narrative, that isnt distinctly marked as being a delusion, is to be taken at face value. though lee was in love with the idea of joker, theres strong evidence, especially in the way some scenes are cut, that arthur, to some degree, did the same thing, he did with sophie, in the first one. theres at least two scenes with lee, that can easily be read, as only being in arthurs mind and id also argue, that the very last scene between arthur and lee, is actually faux lee and that she did kill herself.
15:28 people need to understand that just because something has source material, doesn’t mean it has ANY right to be loyal to it. Whatever product is being made, it exists on its own. If the character makes sense in the film, then it works, despite its source material.
I loved this version of Harley. Arthur was taken advantage of.
Believe me Ryan, you’re not alone! The hate for this film (especially online) is becoming ridiculous. I honestly believe in many ways it’s slightly superior film to the first… it’s certainly the next logical step / only resolution for Arthur Fleck. The musical element was incredibly important in Joker, so the fact it spills out even more into the sequel works - although I think many people expected more Singing In The Rain than Dancer In The Dark. J:FAD is in my Top 10 for 2024.
Those that are hating on it for not living up to what they wanted is exactly the point the film is making. Lee and all the Joker fanatics have made up their own narrative on who Arthur was (some master mind criminal, fed up with society) when really he was a guy who went through so much trauma that just needed help. That's what these movies are about.
As said in both films, "you get what you fucking deserve." We got two super unconventional films that functioned more as an arthouse thought experiment than the blockbusters we're used to. They're uncomfortable, weird, creepy, and beautiful. Its not what I wanted and thats exactly why I love them.
OR maybe we just wanted a cohesive, entertaining movie 🤷🏿♂️
Consume.
Exactly!!
No one believes him to be a master mind? He's lititerly a unreliable narrator and insane, what people liked about him was his trauma and the life he went through, it resonated with people and saw the sadness of him breaking down and killing which the majority of people know is bad, and what they didn't like (besides bad courtroom drama and it being a musical which I'm sure alot of the first movie fans probably aren't into, which is supported by the movie not doing well in theaters) it feels like it's going through some of the same beat as of the first movie but with a different ending.
The fact the movie trys to prove the fans wrong in this way is a waste of millions of dollars and is a disgrace.
Thank you for actually having your own opinion about this movie, it's frustrating to see so many people just bandwagon and say it's bad because Arthur didn't turn into a edgelord like they wanted
Three Jokers kinda explains that ending, that The Joker is not 1 person, but an idea.
Yep
Correct. How many times do people have to be reminded this is JOKER. Not THE Joker. I always took this guy as an inspiration. Never thought something would snap in his head and make him a criminal mastermind. I see many disappointed it wasn't an origin story...I think becsuse there hasn't been one really. But it kind of was...
Creatives should be free to tell whatever story they want to tell. They shouldn't be bound by someone's preferred take on a character. To say that it's problematic to have a woman as the abuser falls on deaf ears for me, especially when considering the reverse in this context: we have a grounded narrative where our "Joker" is a mentally ill person. To create a narrative where a genuinely mentally ill person is an evil manipulative monster seems equally problematic given the reality that mentally ill people are more likely to be victimized than they are to victimize others. I get wanting an adaptation to be more in line with what you personally like, but creatives should be free to tell the stories they want to tell. Fleck was never the Joker of the comics and same for "Harley". It's an original story with an original take on these characters. I don't think the director was interested in the DC universe so much as he was interested in this particular character study and social commentary about the systems that failed this particular mentally ill person. And that's fine! The question should be whether the story the director was aiming for was well executed or not, not whether it's in line or not with one's own vision of how a character is 'supposed' to be. A lot of people like Superman. Does that mean we should never get evil superman stories? It's silly, especially when we're already inundated with so many stories we've seen before; let's see something new!
I also don't really buy the idea that it's a middle finger to the reactionary weirdos who thought the Joker was 'based' or what not. These people fundamentally misunderstood the first film and I'd bet most hadn't watched it. Had they watched the original, they'd see things which go against their read of the movie which is what they're now criticizing as some 'subversion.' There is no subversion. It's entirely consistent with the first film. The only thing it subverts are these fools interpretations of it. And in many ways, that runs parallel to the major theme at play in the film: no one is seeing Arthur Fleck as the mentally ill victim that he is. They're seeing him instead as a legend.
Listening to Brianna, this movie should have been titled "Joker- Double Standard".
It's such a weird take. I don't understand what Harley fans want from her. Do they want her to become a hero, anti-hero, super villain? It's very weird to me.
@@DarthTheron
They can't be of one mind since Harley has changed from her roots already, and the idea of an "emancipatef Harley Quinn" who is still Harley Quinn doesn't make any sense if that persona is the Joker's creation - if the narrative is she became Harley Quinn under the Joker's influence, she is now free of the Joker's influence but she is still the person the Joker made her into - it's an incoherent have cake and eat it development, and to use the excuse of "Stockholm syndrome" (a phenomenon that may not even exist irl) in order to ignore the hybristophillic elements of the character as the current mainstream depictions do, is a half-hearted sanatisation to make the character role model worthy when she shouldn't be a role model anyway; she was never intended to be a role model by her original creators.
Contradict yourself much, Harley fangirl? What Heath did as Joker, and I'll even throw in What Danny DeVito did as Penguin, was literally no different from what Lady Gaga did with Harley. You're damning her because her portrayal was different. NOT bad. DIFFERENT.
Also, Joker 2 is better than D&W by default. The former is an actual movie with something to say. The latter was an R-rated toddler cartoon. Nothing mattered, everything is done for cheap laughs (BTW, never laughed ONCE) and the hero is always right and gets his way because Gary Stu, Silver Skeeter, God Mode ACTIVATED! Joker 2 isn't a masterpiece by any stretch, but it was incredibly different and interesting. Something most blockbuster franchise films nowadays can't claim. Looking at you, D&W, Bad Boys 4, Godzilla Minus One and John Wick 4. Viewers LOVE mediocrity, but when a series tries to do something out there and different, it's falsely labeled as bad or "worst film ever".
@@JessicaChastainFan who are you talking to?
@@cpedersen474 I don't even think they know at this point. Screaming into the void?
I love that this channel is willing to make strange connections and far out observations with no shame or fear it will sound stupid to some. so often it makes me think about something in a different way. Keep up the great work gang!
Like the final summary there at the end?
Who cares if Harley Quinn manipulated some dude named Arthur Fleck, he's not The Joker that will eventually manipulate her. It's not rude at all.
Say you aren't a Harley fan without saying you aren't a Harley fan.
I agree with McCheeseincakes the best movies are the ones with a horrible truth behind them..... Woman do manipulate men ALL THE TIME and it never gets brought up in movies
Who says she’s even Harley
HOLY FICK THAT GIRL TRIGGERED ME, literally just wants Harley Quinn to be manipulated like her comic, but joker isn’t joker from comics. Or the fact that she’s saying about all the women being blamed for domestic abused etc stfu it goes horrible for both both ways
Yeap..
Oh yeah. I know first hand it goes both ways
I think you made a mistake having only comic book fans discuss this with you. There’s a few personality traits that make them hard core comic fans. Many almost feel a sort of ownership of the material and need that continuity of the characters on the big screen.
This movie ia more of a social study disguised as a comic book adaptation, the only use these characters have is to set a narrative and then flip it around on its feet to make the audience uncomfortable, unfortunately for the director these (not that he cares) ultimately the fans of the joker are not looking for this kind of experience
I think people were pissed because the story actually ended the way it started ... Arthur is not who people see. The Joker is Nameless ... a symbol. Arthur wanted to have personal attachment to people
Harley checked herself into the hospital and so was able to leave on her own. So she wasn’t “released”.
Not gonna lie this movie different from the 1st one but I liked it tbh💯
I dislike musicals, but I oddly found this movie… absolutely fascinating. I thought I’d hate it, but oddly, I loved it
I don't agree that Harley Quinn's past trauma exempts her from being a villain. In fact, if you look at Carol from The Walking Dead you can trace back through her marital abuse, losing a child, trauma after trauma and the creators were not afraid to have Carol do some atrocious acts...There is room in the cannon for Gaga's Harley.
Most villains become villains because of trauma, male or female
15:53 Disagree. It is a new take. The point of this movie is to see these characters differently.
Why is Brianna so hurt?? lol why is everyone hating on this movie. This is exactly what the movie is about. People are so sick that they want to see more of the same than to keep an open mind and embrace something different
Shitty musical numbers that didn't drive the plot forward but felt like a musical commercial break besides one song, pacing was SHIT and Harley was ruined. The movie ended off where it started and no progress was made from the last movie. It just fell flat, it could have been a 20 minute episode on Amazon.
I believe Lady Gaga perfectly represents the public's reaction to "Joker 2." When she discovers that "Joker" is just Arthur, she discards him, much like how many viewers dismissed the film when they realized it wasn't the traditional Joker. The movie is a masterpiece.
These people cannot even make there own thoughts clear they dont understand thete own thoughts .
The female part of the character is saying its wrong that the female lead is not a powerful one she is saying that Harley Quinn is a battered women from a horrific relationship what a shocker that women can be evil and nasty it has nothing todo with any of that stuff its art it suppose to create thought .
The female speaker is merging dark night with the joker films ,she is way off the mark .
Thete are so many real issues that you can support in real life to expect to get your fixes in art and to turn this film in to a women hating film its ridiculous as the femake lead in the joker 2 is the star and tells the story off the whole concept , im afraid to make a new film in my life and i make docos as i do t know how to edit things anymore as just showing an image brings up thoughts that i just dont get..
This film has brought out how mixed up the world is with its identity.
What a crazy bunch of people to talk about anything rather than a film , its crazy so crazy CRAZY
Because that's not even Harley Quinn. That's like making a samurai game and then making the main character black and having hip hop lofi as the battle music.
Joker 2 IS a masterpiece. I enjoyed it very much and am completely satisfied with this ending. Loved the music and the development of the character over two movies.
Absolutely 💯‼️
Yesss
I get where Brianna is coming from, but I think her reasoning is really strange. There are hundreds of adaptations where Harley is portrayed as a victim of the Joker, and there are plenty of adaptations where this dynamic is flipped or otherwise changed. Why is she being so adamant that Harley can only ever be portrayed as a victim?
finally a nuanced discussion about this movie instead of just hating on everything
Breanna's activism comes before her abilities to judge a character portrayed a new way.
Yea I didn't really get her point honestly
her take was dumb and made no sense , how is harley’s interpretation any different from the jokers different interpretation. she has elements from the original harley quinn but is a lot different
She literally related the majority of the fans of Joker to being Incels that hate women lol like actually wtf? I’m surprised they posted this
Colton is gonna try and justify joker on ice next. Never let him out of that damn t.v.
Leave it to comic books fans to complain when they do the same story over and over again and then gat mad when they do a different story. The first story was briliant in reimagening the Joker story in real life and the second film does it even better. And finally we have a beautiful woman who is a lead actor and she is the same as a a man. She is not a victim and she is not a hero. She is deeply flawed human. And she fits in this Jocker's story like a glove.
Saw this on Fan Event IMAX and the audience who saw it with me, we all loved it. We applauded when credits came on. Really really loved the complete de- construction of Joker and Arthur Fleck, and the special look at a deranged mentally unwell individual.
A secret masterpiece?
*Insert J Jonah Jameson laughing meme*
You serious?
You're the problem here. You're part of hive mind. Majority decide on something and you all blindly follow it. I want to hear your arguments on why it's bad movie lol
@@sammyboy_samik3554today I learned if I’m ever in the minority opinion, it’s just because everyone else is in a hive mind.
@@sammyboy_samik3554don't be a contrarian for the sake of not being "pArT oF a HiVe"
@@WilbertMoore Funny how so far none of the haters could give me proper reasoning of why it's bad movie. Only few did and they all said bul#### like "He's not the real Joker" and I can already tell they didn't even bother to watch the movie
@@MrSiriusAB And yet none of you have proper arguments. The comments didn't even bother to prove the creator wrong. This movie is the proof media literacy is officially dead. Majority decides what's good or bad without proper explanation
Fyi. Woman abuse men much more than what is reported and men have little to no recourse. She acts as if its a bad thig to show men getting abused because it "doesnt happen" but it does. I am actually really annoyed by her.
Agreed. Maybe they should find better contributors.
Funner fact: Most (by a large margin) Men do not report any domestic abuse due to social backlash.
Yeah I couldn't stand that girl. I mean, she is telling "now Harley is evil then the hate incels have looks justified", under that asumption no movie could ever picture a girl like a villain ever, which is shallow, pandering, and most important, UNREALISTIC.
Harley isn't a hero in her histories neither most of the time (except in the most recent ones where she basically becomes another character), is a person with faillures and shortcomings, and that's the most relatable thing that the girl in the video seems almost scared to see or discuss.
She seems incredibly smug.
She’s js coping tbh, the guys ain’t tryn make a deal outta it but half her statements were easy rebuttals imo. Her arguments is the same concept as people who say women make less money than men, or they get less income off the dollar than men… Statistically yes, but go into finer details and there’s statistically evidence on why men make more money. But hey I’m js a sexist narcissistic boy who has toxic masculine traits and realistic awareness.
"Woah, you can reimagine Joker, but you strayed too far from the Harley lore and that's bad." WTF am I watching?
Harley is comic accurate. She loves Joker not the man behind the identity lol. Once when Joker turned normal she tried to turn him into Joker again
Why does Harley or ANY character demand respect? Art doesn't exist so you can like a specific person, object, or idea.
@@dangerfly this !!!!!!
She was lore accurate just not the old Harley but more like new 52 crazy. She manipulated him with her psychology, and used her body to seduce him because he is mentally ill. She knew it would work
You misunderstood. There's a difference between having a unique take on a character and fundamentally changing what made that character begin with.
The fact you're using The Marvels as the standard for how "good" this movie is says all I need to know
🤣😆🤣😆
💀🤣
🤭😂
Harley was a doctor that was manipulating her patients. If you're looking at HQ as a hero or a victim you obviously don't understand her character 🤡. Just like the edge lords that put the joker character on a pedestal because they think he's a victim.
The movie was amazing and I bet people will slowly change their minds over time
I was angry at this movie for a day, but I'm starting to appreciate it. I think it will age very well.
I just wanted to add to the conversation that we shouldn't forget somebody dressed up like a version of The joker and shot up a movie theater that was showing the dark night back in 2008. I think making a movie criticizing the toxic fans of the original movie was a good call. These filmmakers had an impossible task. Which was to make us relate to Arthur and alienate us from the Joker. All while debating if they were one and the same. I think this movie does a better job with that task.
It was 2012 and it was the Dark Knight Rises (which doesn't have the Joker in). It was the media that made out he was cosplaying as the Joker, but the only parallels were he was angry at society and had dyed (orange) hair. So, yes let's not forget that completely inaccurate and largely fabricated story.
The hate for this movie is just ridiculous. It really exposes our society more than anything else.
Society
Or the movie was just a bad movie to majority of the audience.
Moviegoers have always loved an antihero, maybe because it speaks to the version of ourselves that wants to act out violently against the injustices of the world. To see an antihero essentially crumble and eventually get killed by his own ideology, it’s a challenging concept. I get why most people have rejected it. But you’re 100% right that it reflects more on society than anything else.
or maybe it was just a bad movie and people were mad they wasted 2 hours and money to see it xD
@@nathanhartono91 have you perhaps missed 90% of gangster movies? they were all about that and people still loved them, this was just a bad movie, simple as that.
“Haha you fail for the ole fake joker gag batman”- Arkham city
I understand the critics thats says that the characters doesn't feel like the original ones or that the film wasn't what fans were waiting for. But what is the point of portaying again and again the exact same characters ? I think it's great that Todd Philipps used elements from the DC universe to create something new. And if that frustrated or disturbed the audience, good. The purpose of art isn't just to entertain or to "give people what they want", it's to challenge our personal and collective narratives. The cult of personnality is a social issue that keeps people away from self-acceptance. It's even more problematic when the worshipped personalties are antisocial ones. We need films like this one that challenges this personality cult.
Well said, and I fully agree.
I want to know what Ryan is smoking and where can I get some? I thought Colton had the crazy takes!!
See I thought that the point of the movie was that it was Arthur was responsible for his own actions, not some supposed split personality known as joker.
Too often people excuse terrible actions such as murder by saying “That person is mentally ill, maybe society is to blame for their actions”.
It didn’t piss me off. I really liked it a lot
Yes I was also very surprised a lot of people didn’t like it,… because I also loved it!
People liked that the first joker was a real movie disguised as a comic book movie but now people don’t like that this movie strays too far away from the comics? Seems like people pick and choose what’s okay to change and what’s not.
I had this realization yesterday that despite seriously rewriting the Joker origin, there’s still a chance for surprising comic book accuracy. Walk with me.
The Joker is Batman’s first foe in the comics, like the very first Batman comic, he faces Joker. In the Joker movie, they showed the cannon event of Bruce’s parents being shot and killed, but it was by a man in a clown mask. Which I’m sure is burnt into little Bruce’s memories forever. Then people praising Joker, rioting and causing mayhem in clown masks and makeup are everywhere as the Joker movement becomes a thing. Bruce is constantly reminded of the night his parents are killed and motivated by the growth of the Joker movement.
So let’s say the guy who Kills Arthur at the end of the movie who then cuts a smile into his mouth becomes the actual Joker who leads the movement and eventually faces Batman when Bruce Wayne finally comes of age and sets out on his mission to avenge his parents death and stop this Joker movement in Gotham. Circling back to Batman comic number 1, with Joker being Batman’s first foe.
👍
10:46 how does this film hate musicals or comic books? Just because it doesn’t soak itself in the classic tropes of those genres doesn’t mean it hates them. It shows these characters with more depth than any other iteration.
Harley Quinn fell in love with her patient at a mental health facility for the criminally insane. She is hardly a girl boss icon.
I love both of these Joker films!👏👏👏
Me too!
To me "Joker: Follie a deux" is brilliant for how it takes Arthur Fleck's story as told in "Joker" to its logical conclusion.
It also is a visceral, at times surreal, anti-escapist trip into Arthur's psyche as well as into Gotham City's heart of darkness before any supervillains or superheroes are even around. And it is all of that done with cinematic panache and in grand style.
My interpretation of the entire duology is this:
Arthur's delusion of grandeur, his moment of fame / infamy shown by the end of "Joker", simply could not go on forever, because - unlike THE JOKER - he isn't supergifted with high intelligence, quickwittedness, social awareness and the power to manipulate other people's psyche and make it bend to his will, a ruthlessness to only do what he pleases no matter the cost, a proclivity to plan in secrecy and use stealth to reach a goal, a genius to improvise an escape if needs be.
Arthur Fleck is naive to his surroundings in a degree bordering on delusion, he desperately seeks attention and validation by others, a return of the friendliness he himself extends to people, and only if he isn't given this over a long stretch of time but is set under pressure on top of it, violence becomes his last resort.
All of that we got to see in "Joker", and "Joker: Follie a deux" merely takes up this pattern again and looks at it from another angle.
"Joker" was about Arthur Fleck being driven over the edge by Gotham City being a shitty, latently evil, violent place, a movie about him not understanding himself and the world he lives in, not being able to find his place in it, him fleeing from a traumatic past into delusions of grandeur, until reality overwhelms him and he finally snaps, releasing all his frustrations in one bad moment of losing control while being under the delusion he still were in control.
It's like: Social drama blended with "King of Comedy" blended with "Falling Down" blended with "Taxi Driver" (but without the heroism) blended with Arthur collaterally escalating the vitriol and violence already present in the streets of Gotham City from the get-go.
A movie about a vicious circle, about how Gotham City is a place with a mean spirit, where it's just a matter of time until THE JOKER we don't get to see yet, will rise and be greeted with enthusiasm by some.
The tie-ins with a yet not existing BATMAN and the theme of a yet not existing THE JOKER were not really needed for this story to be told, but they did make it also into an interesting movie about what GOTHAM CITY might have been like before there were iconic and supergifted villains and heroes in it.
In "Joker", GOTHAM CITY really does come alive, and in a way the city itself is turned into a character. As a GOTHAM CITY tale it is a welcome expansion of DC lore, because ultimately it gives us a view of Gotham not from the perspective of overpowered superheroes or supervillains, but from a social pariah, an underdog with less than average capabilities and resources.
Where "Joker" was about Arthur's descent into a flight from reality, into delusion and violence, about losing touch with himself and the reality of his surroundings, up to a point of deluded mania; "Joker: Follie a deux" is a movie about the inevitable harsh comedown, about a very real depression after Arthur's flight from reality leading up to a mania caused by his mislead life-dream and delusions of grandeur.
It is also a movie about a relapse, about a toxic relationship that sets him back and makes him vulnerable to manipulation, about the backlash of the seeds of further violence he had planted by letting Murray reap what Gotham City had implanted in Arthur: A senseless rage, desperately seeking for an outlet.
It's a movie about what psychological projection, co-dependency, an atmosphere of violence and an addiction to spectacle, narcissistic egocentrism and narcissistic violation can do to not only a person - but also to society at large.
At heart, "Joker: Follie a Deux" is movie about solipsism as the breeding ground of evil.
To insert a bit of DC lore again:
The devil is lurking in all of us, but it takes two to tango under the pale moon light.
In being that, "Joker: Follie a deux" is merely an afterthought, an epilogue to the themes dealt with in "Joker", but it is all of that on a larger scale, and a bit more nuanced after the melodramatic spectacle of its predecessor.
Apparently it's not what people wanted, but I think it's what people need in an age of narcicissm and spectacle, as a cautionary tale and as a wake-up call, and it truly is what people deserve, especially if they didn't get it the first time around.
Bravo, Todd Phillips and team!
Wow what a great analysis and panel. I personally loved the film but I really appreciated the thoughtful perspectives of the folks on here that didn't, and I also really appreciated the thoughtful discussion - it really helped me think about some aspects of the film I hadn't even thought of.
I also really appreciate Ryan's effective panel management - it's important to give everyone time to state their perspectives and I felt like this was a really well-managed panel where I really got to hear everyone's thought-out perspective. I hate watching panels where people get steam-rolled or certain people get too much air time so really great job here.
Finally, I felt really good watching both this and the ending explained video - I have no problem with thoughtful people just not enjoying the film for their own reasons, or having problems with it. I find it really interesting to listen to, actually.
What I am really having a hard time with is all these reductionist "ha ha you made a musical and now it bombed" just rehashed and remixed over and over again and echoed back at each other. I find it really demoralizing, particularly when, like Ryan mentioned at the end, what is more Joker than creating this brain-rocking, critic-scattering explosion of a film? And having it be a great film to boot! I really admire everyone involved with the project, including the studio financing it - they were not duped. If I was the executive and I green-lit this, and I saw what all was happening, I would:
A.) Have pretty much expected this (how could you not?)
B.) Be incredibly proud, even if it doesn't break even, because this is making a huge splash and sometimes making art is about making art, and they shot the moon with Joker 1 anyway, so let's roll.
Anyway, thanks again for this great panel, it really felt revitalizing and rejuvenating in the face of a lot of knee-jerk negativity.
Turned it off after the girl went on the Harley rant smh
I was finna leave after the quiet guy starting to defend this movie with his life.
I think the Harley Quinn arc could definitely still fit into her established canon arc. Since Arthur dies at the end and presumably a new Joker takes his identity, there's still room for that whole arc to take place. If anything it makes it even more of an interesting arc from having seen her relationship with the original Joker. Of course the abusive relationship aspect of it isn't in itself 'interesting,' but it does make this juxtaposition between Harley Quinn and the two jokers.
The MYSTERY GUY at the end... YES, he's the obvious answer. But he's also YOU. The Toxic Fan who HATES this movie. (speaking from the filmmakers' POV, as I don't know any of you, and relax - it's just a perspective. Not accusing you of anything) - But .... You're disappointed in the film, let down by the character, you had wildly misguided expectations about this film, and character.. despite this being 100% the only sequel Joaquin and Todd would have ever made... Despite either film EVER being a "comic book movie". And I love how the guy at the end slices up his face, just like Heath Ledger, aka, it's the filmmakers saying "you trolls only want THE SAME THING over and over. you don't understand filmmaking, and here... Now you're stabbing the movie with your low scored. The filmmakers knew you were coming. You're predictable. Now, take your easter eggs, and take the same character we've already seen, and have that... but the rest of us, will be here, on the ground with Arthur.
So they intentionally made a movie that the majority of ppl would hate just so they could come after the fact and shame us for hating it?
@@WilbertMoore this take, about the movie existing, only to spite fans, really only concerns the last act of the movie- consider that the rabid joker fan boys were arguably portrayed, as more unhinged, even before the joker became their symbol- this time, its because arthur stops being the joker, just like bruce wayne stopped being batman, in the dark knight rises. and sure, we knew john blake better, than the inmate at the ending, but id argue that doesnt sell the idea of blake becoming batman, who as a symbol is more specific to bruce, than the joker to arthur, any better. the hate for this one is mostly due to the fact, that a. it has too many musical sequences for most and b. the last act is designed, to very quickly change the narrative back to being arthurs story- that doesnt mean he regresses, or has no character arc. ive watched the movie thrice now and its telling, that during the more analytical second viewing, i noticed the most common reasons, for the walkouts and part of that, is of course many people feeling, like they were being played.
but even without phillips outright saying, that arthur could be the inspiration for the real joker, even without the clues in the trailers and the writing being on the wall, regarding this movies theme, from the very beginning, in its animated intro- despite all that some folks still seemed to be invested, until the third act and thats an especially bitter pill to swallow, because its harder to admit, how long it takes, for the reality to set in, which oddly mirrors arthurs character arc- he also thought, he made a positive change for the city and took a stand against the oppressors and only started to see the reality of it, after garys trial, when it suddenly wasnt funny anymore.
previous to that, we had a courtroom scene, with arthurs delusion reaching its peak, during his performance of the song the joker- arguably the most classic comic version both movies portrayed. after garys testimony however, it all happens rather quickly- the guards quickly show him, being joker doesnt mean hes in control and his effect is driven home further, by killing ricky. i admit, that choice is controversial, for a reason- but what im getting at here, is even up until that point, i had a viewer behind me whispering, that now the guards will get, what they fucking deserve- they still counted on arthur going full joker, with about 25 minutes of the movie left and after his courtroom confession, the atmosphere in the cinema noticably changed, during every viewing.
so its safe to say, that a majority of people have very specific reasons, for disliking this movie, with phillips blatantly spelling out, that nobody cares about arthur fleck and neither this movie, nor the first, wouldve been made, without loosely connecting it, to the mythos- and as a fan, i get the righteous anger.
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, its writer and later on its director, tried to make- or more recently, breaking bad- phillips just went one, or rather several steps, step further, because he intentionally attached an original IP to it. (yet, it was always pitched that way and hes been transparent about both that and the end goal)
i disagree, however, with the notion, this exists, just to spite, what amounts to a very specific, rabid fan base of the first and the movie is really only about them, for a short time, after the courtroom explosion goes off.....if you happen to be in the majority of those who didnt like it and im on the other end of the spectrum, lets meet halfway here, i wont argue about the films quality, or try to convert you, i think time will be kinder to this movie, than has been the case, in the last couple of days- but consider the alternative, that maybe phillips didnt try to just piss everybody off, by addressing his issues with the originals reception, maybe he actually trusted his audience a bit too much, in that they would see things his way and arthurs confession was supposed to hit different- i know, it did for me. whatever his intent was, im only trying, for some civil discourse to take place and those above me and would like to believe thats possible, even if we ultimately only agree, to disagree.
TRUE AND BASED. finally, a non-stupid take. people that hate this movie are the same people that complain hollywood is too uncreative and only want to dish out unnecessarily long milked franchises, even though the hate towards this movie proves that that's what they wanted all along.
@@WilbertMoore maybe instead of crying about not getting what you wanted, maybe have some sympathy for poor ol Arthur and his last glimmer of hope slowly fading away :((((
@@hoordeyah some people like pizza, some people don’t. And that’s ok.
Some people like movies like this, some people don’t. And that’s ok.
Woman can be Domestic abusers as well.
The idea that it's ONLY men. And that this movie is "disrespectful" to portray a woman as manipulative and the abuser is wrong.
Personally, I never saw the first Joker film as an "incel film" if anything, I think Fight Club portrays that better with the line, "We're a generation of men raised by women, I'm wondering if another woman is really the thing we need." And while I do agree that Lee/"Harley Quinn" is the main antagonist as she wants Arthur to try to be "the Joker" when he just wants to be Arthur Fleck, then I guess Lee would still lose. Since Arthur gets killed by the inmate, it's perceived that he would just become the "real" Joker and Lee would gravitate towards him. I really think this film fails because it spits on its previous film and the core audience it had. The first Joker film did not need a sequel.
Incorrect about Fight Club. That line is really about Marla Singer. As many how gathered now she’s also a figment of the narrators imagination. Thus, Tyler not wanting another (person) woman to share with the narrator.
Feels absurd to critique Lee’s character because she wasn’t being abused by Arthur.
I think the big thing to recognize is that Arthur isn’t this Joker in the same way he might’ve been in Dark Knight. The point of his speech at the end is that he is Arthur and Joker is just a mask. He can’t abuse her because his relationship with her isn’t real. Lee wanted the Joker that’s not who he is. Joker in this world is more a symbol maybe to be embodied by a different person.
I also don’t think it’s fair to call Lee the villain because we don’t even know how much of their interactions were real. As far as we are concerned Arthur interpreted Lee as the villain while Lee wasn’t attached to Arthur she was attached to the mask
Preach! I watched the movie today and although I wasn't certain about some choices at the time, thinking about it as an Arthur movie like it was intended literally opened my eyes to how good this movie is
Also to the Harley take from Brianna, look at the Caped Crusaders take on Harley Quinn, she wasn't abused but she used her status and position to take advantage of the The Upperclass. That's a scary villain when your psychiatrist is using your darkest secrets in confidence as a weapon against you.
I don't think they were going for Harley coming to realize Arthur is not a good guy, I think Harley realizes after trying to manipulate him and relate to him by lieing, she realizes Arthur is not the villian she wanted him to be, and she ends up leaving him to be alone again after manipulating him. He didn't even run away after the explosion, he went to find her
My man, Colton, coming through again with the smartest take on the subject matter in question! I've been saying similar things about this film all week. Well done, Screencrush. This film is a masterpiece!
I dont agree with Colton much but he was cooking in this one
Bc the guy literally sits in the screen waiting to have his say and he gets so little time...maybe that's why his wrap ups are so good. LOL
Lots of great critique here. I think Brianna was right about this seeming like the woman is the villan to Incells, and that Tod Phillips messed up Harley. But, I also think that this movie, like Joker and his message, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I think the ideas were there, but the movie was executed poorly.
Harley Quinn lets out a psychopath from confinement. Being a victim has a line and she crossed it long ago.
I do not understand the hate this movie has gotten. It is a truly heartbreaking, beautiful film
21:16 the man in the screen, 🔥💯
poured his heart out on this take!!
It was great to hear pushback in such a prolific manner! 📝🖤
Colton always has a good grounded sane take that I for one appreciate when all you hear from the trash people of the Internet is whining to grift.
@@Manteo1984He the only reason I tune in… side note his new hairstyle is comp
@@Manteo1984
Yes I enjoy tapping in with this
and other channels for that reason, different opinions.
I can count on screen crush to stand out from the rest
@Manteo1984 He does. In the other video about this movie he so badly wanted to interrupt Matt and disagree with him on things. You could see his expression.
@@Manteo1984everyone’s a grifter grow up
Quick task for the audience who actually liked the first film:
Justify Arthur killing Murray. Because he laughed at his stand up? Because he's mentally unwell? You can't justify it. He just does it and people loved it. Why? Why did so many people resonate with a homicidal maniac killing people for no reason?
The subway kills aren't even justified, just because he was being attacked doesn't mean you hunt them down and kill them.
Hold up. What the heck doug do to get banned from st Louis
That’s the one question I want answered.
I actually loved this movie quite a lot and felt it was even better than the first one, especially in how it told it's message. I did not feel it had at all undermined the message from the first one at all, but had instead built upon it and had further developed it into a more nuanced discussion.
However, I do think Brianna is onto something here, and it's not something I had really considered until she pointed it out, so honestly thank you Brianna for bringing it up!
No message ever lives within a vacuum, and when we provide these reinterpretations and reimagnings of characters we are not doing so in a vacuum either, we are impacting, changing, and evolving the messages and meanings of the original story's and the characters within them.
I personally, did not view Harlee in Joker Folie à Deux as being a villian who was manipulating and abusing Arthur. I instead viewed her as someone who was seeking connection and a relationship with the idea of who she thought the Joker was. To me it looked more like trauma bonding where both Arthur and Harlee were feeding into and fueling, the issues, both characters were facing. This is a level of complexity that is often found within a lot of relationships where family harm (domestic violence) is involved, and it could have been a great way to raise awarness if these complexities were properly explored within the film, but it wasn't.
To clarify, the reason why I do not feel this complex issue was appropriately explored within the film, has to do predominantely with perspective of how this story is being told, and who is telling the story, and yes I do think gender plays a very big role in what perspective this film is developed and told through.
In the first film the story is predominantely told through the perspective of an unreliable narrator Arthur Fleck, a white male living in poverty with mental health issues, and is continuously experiences differing forms of abuse from an array of people. There were definitely reasons why it was told from solely this perspective, however, a series of issues had become appearant stemming from how this story was told.
I feel Todd Philips began to address a lot of these issues within this sequal through expanding the scope of the story outside of just the main characters perspective. I feel this would've been the perfect place to also begin to view the story of other characters perspectives including Harlee, and this is where the story fell short, and I think a big part of why this is, has in huge part to do with who is telling the story, ie Todd Philips, a white male, just as I, a white male, was unaware of the potential ramifications this new interpretations of Harlee could have. While on the other hand Brianna was able find out these issues straight away, perspectives matter, not just for what characters these stories are being told through, but also by who is writing these stories, whose directing them, and who is acting them.
Overall, I think the story was well done, but not without it's flaws, and I do want to thank Brianna for helping make all of us more aware of the potential ramefications this story could have.
12:40 Harley Quinn was also reinterpreted as being more sinister in the Caped Crusader show, but that's made by the creator of Harley in the first place who was actually friends with Arleen Sorkin, so I'm fine with it.
The problem i think stems from the fact that Todd Phillip used the character as just a name without any care to make it meaningful.
I was deeply affected by the movie. The first one used the Joker's mental illness as a lens to analyze political issues, and the second one reversed that framing, with all the social forces galvanized in the first movie being used as a lens to analyze the experience of mental illness.
You described this as "the consequences of being seen," but I think the more salient point is that there *still* isn't anyone who sees Art - instead, he's either treated as an entertaining novelty or someone for others to channel their worldviews into. It doesn't matter how Art tries to portray himself or who it does or doesn't appeal to, nobody will *ever* see him as a human being, because that's how people treat the mentally ill.
Harley never saw Art as a person, nor do any of the people he inspired a movement in - he's the Joker, and his value to them is predicated on him continuing to espouse the message they like as the character they like. The wardens never saw him as human, even when he seemed to be bonding with them - as soon as he said something they didn't like, they responded with overwhelming violence. Even the arguably most sympathetic person to Art as his own entity, his lawyer, could only frame his value in terms of who he *could* be if he got treatment. And even that dehumanizing level of acknowledgement was too much for most people to swallow. It didn't sway the public and it wasn't gonna keep the jury from executing him.
Harley only cared about the statement - she wasn't doing anything to keep Art from getting executed. And ultimately, even one of the other psychiatric patients murders him and steals the Joker identity. It wasn't ever something special to Art - he was just there to be projected onto.
I imagine the new Joker and Harley will get on fine.
That's exactly it, you put it perfectly.
Since when are artists expected to "respect" what has came before? What happened to respecting taking risks and having something new? Also noticing the guests keep saying "it doesn't feel like X," if we simply reiterated prior done material in our art our society would truly know no growth.
Okay.... it's simple. If somebody want's a cheeseburger and they get a taco instead, sure it's food but it isn't the food people wanted. This MOVIE didn't give the fans what they wanted, it went off to a shit direction.
@@KanoogThat’s what gives the whole project BALLS. True art takes risks. Seems like you’ve been conditioned on Marvel ( And I’m an MCU fan)
@@Kanoog Yeah going to reiterate that "giving fans what they want" is not and should not be the sole purpose of any art, including this. (I'm also a die-hard MCU and DC fan)
All the time. Sequels are supposed to coherent. Character motivations are not supposed to 180 and your not supposed to ambush your audience WITH A MUSICAL 😂
@@c.s3369 Besides the musical element (which I completely disagree with because the first film literally ends with Arthur singing "That's Life" and dancing but okay), in what ways did you feel the film was not coherent with the first?
This is one of the best, most intelligent discussions I've seen about this film. I really appreciate these nuanced takes, and the levelheaded discussion about art and the many ways it can be interpreted. The internet seems incapable of this most of the time.
I also disagree with her on the whole anti women thing. Because the movie has a female lawyer who really cares about him.
Joker as a movement an d no one mentioned Gotham which kinda did that first