SPOILERS AHEAD
The sequel to the highly acclaimed “Joker” movie has received mixed reviews, but they seem predominantly negative. This is a stark difference compared to the first movie, which received overwhelmingly positive reviews. Most people see this as a common occurrence with sequels, assuming they simply dropped the ball on this second film. I am of the belief that the stark contrast of the sequel to the original was intentional by the creators, and is a response to the reactions from the original.
The first “Joker” movie created a rise of a specific type of fans. The movie left off with a positive view on Joker’s murderous actions. It portrayed Joker as the underdog suffering from the horrible realities of an uncaring society. There are many accuracies in the film that mirror the real world despite being set in the fictional crime-ridden city of Gotham. It focused on the way different classes are treated, with a focus on those suffering from mental illness. Of course, this resulted in people struggling with these issues relating to the character and his inevitable outburst to a world that treated him so poorly.
The first movie was an original take on this character, making him extremely sympathetic, and allowing us into the mind of a villain. This adds dimension to a character that can easily be written as purely evil and left at that, with all the focus going to the hero. Seeing as the resolution of the first film is Joker lashing out and making a statement, one could see that the reaction of fans who relate to this character would be to lose faith in the system as Joker does in the film. Though entertaining, and accurate to the character, it’s not exactly a positive forward-moving outlook when implemented to the real people watching. There’s no debating that it’s a negative film, as it’s intended to be.
The second movie takes the first movie and its fans and tries to essentially destroy what was done in the first movie. The fans are unhappy with the sequel “ruining” this character that they related to in his powerlessness and then were inspired by in his revolution. They brought Arthur back down from this throne he seemingly ended on. A man that was acting as he was, putting on this act in hopes of feeling the love he so desperately yearned for, would never last as such. Only a true psychopath could be and remain the Joker, as we see in the final scene of the sequel. We see this behavior that could be viewed as sympathetic finally being portrayed as what it is: wrong. We should not be viewing these actions of lashing out at the world and society for mistreatment through murder as positive and revolutionary. However, working to understand these individuals to stop these issues at the source makes sense. But to relate to them and frame this behavior as positive, as the first movie may have inadvertently done, is not good, and the sequel seems to try to break this idea down.
Lee, representing Harley Quinn, represents fans of the Joker. She seemingly loves him, finally providing him with the thing he desired the whole time. This love is not real and is completely conditional on the fact that she views him only as the Joker. She loves him as the anarchist, not the suffering man, as many fans may have taken from the original.
The first movie is only realistic as an introduction to Arthur, not as an ending, as he would never be able to survive as the psychopathic Joker. As mentioned above, his true motivation and goal was to be loved and known, which he was destined to never truly receive as the Joker. Despite the attention and praise he received, it was for the Joker, not Arthur. This did not solve his problem, and just as he couldn’t remain a clown trying to bring joy to this world despite being mistreated, he couldn’t remain the Joker, because he didn’t truly want to see the world burn. He realizes this after hearing a true first-hand account from someone impacted by his actions that he actually cared about. When Puddles described the anguish he had been in constantly since the Joker “spared” him, Arthur realized that what he has done is not admirable, it is not doing any good and he is not making people like him feel better or safer. Puddles was like Arthur, he says so in his testimony where he says the same thing Arthur did, that he was the only one who was nice to him and everyone else treated him as less than. This shows an aspect that I believe was very well done in the sequel. The progression of Arthur giving up is the only end to him as the Joker. Seeing the base that was established in the first film shows us that he is not suitable to last as the Joker, and when he was confronted with someone who he didn’t view as a bad person, his persona broke down.
I can understand the desire to try to undo any perceived harm you may have caused from a previous film, and if that was the sole goal of this movie then I can’t say it was bad or unnecessary. Do I agree with the mocking of the fans of a character? No, as a fan myself, I don’t believe mocking people who found relatability in a character, even if said character is morally bankrupt, is good. However, I don’t think this film is necessarily mocking fans, at least I didn’t feel mocked by it. As for fans of the comics, this franchise wasn’t originally closely tied to the comic character, despite sharing the same name and look.
So why do I claim this sequel is not good or bad? Well, it’s not good in the sense that it wasn’t extremely entertaining and lacked the appeal of the first film. I didn’t walk out of this film feeling impacted. It’s not bad because it was seemingly done intentionally so as to deter fans of the first film from viewing this character as someone to look up to or relate to. It also is an accurate end to Arthur as the Joker. It’s also entirely possible that any deeper attempt to erase the impact of the first film was done unintentionally and they truly just didn’t have the heart and excitement that went into the first film. If done intentionally, it was well done for its goal, but still not a great movie, whether because of its lack of entertainment value or because of the way that it ostracized fans of the character.