Is Tarantino Right About Joker 2?

Quentin Tarantino has spoken once again. While he isn’t currently filming his much-anticipated tenth and final movie, his voice hasn't quieted, and he remains very much engaged with contemporary films.

In a recent episode of the podcast hosted by acclaimed author Bret Easton Ellis, Tarantino opened up and shared many of his thoughts on 2024’s cinematic offerings. He discussed movies he has watched and loved, like Longlegs, ones he hasn’t seen but is eager to, such as Horizon: An American Saga, and others he has no interest in, including Dune 2 and popular TV shows like Ripley and Shogun. He remarked, “No thanks, I’ve seen David Lynch’s Dune a few times, and I’ve also watched the 1980 TV adaptation of Shogun along with a few Ripley films. I don’t understand why they would remake The Talented Mr. Ripley, a story that’s already been adapted twice, given there are so many other Ripley novels.”

As usual, Tarantino’s remarks stirred up controversy. However, the most contentious opinion he expressed during the podcast was about Joker: Folie à Deux. He said he absolutely loved the film (even more than the first one), calling it a true anarchist masterpiece. He praised Joaquin Phoenix’s performance as one of the best he’s ever witnessed, and he found the musical segments incredibly moving, despite the actors’ lackluster singing abilities.

Nearly everything Tarantino said flew in the face of the consensus surrounding Joker 2 after its release. Most viewers and critics considered it a flop; many found its musical format dull and self-indulgent, and Phoenix’s portrayal was widely seen as an unchecked repetition of his performance in the first Joker.

So, this leads us to wonder: Is the general public wrong, or is Tarantino mistaken?

Here's a bold statement: Joker 2 is nowhere near as bad as it’s currently perceived. Yes, its structure and the weight of its various elements are somewhat unbalanced. Yes, it can feel self-indulgent and drawn-out, and could have benefited from being trimmed by 15 to 20 minutes. Most importantly, it’s not the movie fans of the first Joker were expecting. People anticipated seeing Arthur Fleck’s full transformation into the Joker, not a return to his depressive and timid state, once again crushed under society’s unrelenting boot.

But director Todd Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix chose this less popular path. Not only is it bolder than pandering to audiences, but it also stays true to the character. Phoenix’s Joker is neither Jack Nicholson’s Joker nor Heath Ledger’s. He isn’t smart, isn't insane, doesn’t have the courage to let go of everything, and isn’t even truly evil. He’s simply a dull, cowardly, frightened young man with mental health issues, who was mistakenly hailed as a hero by the city’s underclass after murdering Murray Franklin. Just as Phillips and Phoenix may see the unexpected commercial success and fan love for the first Joker as a misunderstanding, they intend to shatter the illusion with Joker 2.

In Joker 2, Arthur is even more pathetic than he was in the first film. He’s locked up in an asylum, numbed by daily doses of antidepressants, with little hope of winning his legal battle. His only solace is his newfound friend, fellow inmate Lee Quinzel.

As the film progresses, we realize that Lee is not in love with Arthur himself but with the concept of the Joker he represents. In fact, Lee’s character is clearly an allusion to the fans of the first Joker movie. At one point, Lee says to Arthur, “I’ve watched that TV movie about you a dozen times; it’s amazing.” Much like the real-life Joker fans, Lee projects her dissatisfaction, anger, struggle, and despair onto the Joker’s image, without truly caring about the man behind the mask.

And it’s not just Lee. Arthur’s defense attorney, Maryanne, appears to genuinely care for him, treating him almost like a mother. Yet even her actions are tainted with mercenary motives. She manipulates Arthur into accepting her narrative of him having schizophrenia, ostensibly for his own good, but really as part of her lawyer’s gambit. She doesn’t truly understand what Arthur wants—Arthur is tired of self-deception. He wants to face the truth, along with all the consequences it entails: he isn’t the Joker. And when Lee, unwilling to accept reality, abandons him, he is doomed to a path of despair and destruction.

Joker 2 is a bold and honest work. It dares to confront the miserable reality of a self-loathing depressive instead of sugarcoating it with an easily digestible package. It refuses to satisfy the audience’s desire for easy catharsis, instead forcing them to confront their own flawed beliefs. Compared to its prequel, it is also less self-pitying. I believe that over time, it will be judged more fairly: its artistic quality and legacy will surpass those of the first Joker.

This uncompromising, unflinching attempt makes Joker 2 closer to the works of Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy) that the first film sought to pay homage to. Joker 2 stands as a remarkable creation against the tide: in this era of escapism, few are willing to witness the raw exposure of a humble soul, yet this film does just that. It does not shy away from staring into the darkest, most fragile parts of human nature, nor from exposing the creators' own most shameful facets to the world. These efforts may be hard for audiences to digest, but in my view, they fully deserve the applause of true cinema lovers.