Joker 2: Trapped in an image of entertainment
Joker 2, at first glance, appears to be a romantic story about Arthur and Lee, but the central theme revolves around Arthur's identity: Is he Joker, or is he Arthur?
Joker 2, at first glance, appears to be a romantic story about Arthur and Lee, but the central theme revolves around Arthur's identity: Is he Joker, or is he Arthur?
The film presents two versions of the protagonist's identity: one is Joker, the right-wing hero and comedic star who rose to fame on television. He puts on clown makeup, laughs hysterically on screen, and executes bankers and talk show hosts representing the upper class without a trace of guilt or fear, as if it were just another joke. The other version is Arthur, a melancholic, middle-aged man abandoned by society. He's been discarded by his job, society, and family, suffered sexual abuse as a child, can't find a partner or friends, and is treated as a freak, even a threat, by strangers. This duality of identity was already present in the first film: as an unknown, ordinary person, he was ignored by everyone, but his hysterical behavior led him to be molded into an entertainment star by the media. His on-air murder of a talk show host transformed him into an anti-establishment, right-wing populist icon for helpless and violent crowds – they cheered for him, violently freed him from the justice system, and hailed him as a hero.
At the beginning of Joker 2, Arthur continues his "comedic star" persona (Joker) in prison/asylum, where guards ask him to perform "jokes" and even sign autographs. Crowds on the streets, outside the courthouse, and even in prison see him as a hero and support him. More importantly, he meets Lee, a person who seems willing to do anything to get close to him. But he is constantly forced to choose between the two roles – as a mentally ill, middle-aged man who has suffered violence and abandonment, he is clearly more likely to receive sympathy and forgiveness from the justice system, and his lawyer wants him to present this image to the media and the court. However, his fanatical supporters (the masses and Lee) adore him for his anti-establishment, violent, populist icon image. Encouraged by his fervent supporters, Arthur doubles down on his Joker persona. He fires his lawyer and, in court, avoids discussing his good character and the abuse he suffered. He doesn't defend himself but instead puts on a show like an entertainer, criticizing the guards' actions, as if he absolutely killed it in court. In his fantasies, he dances and sings with Lee as Joker in a red suit, as if he were a real star.
But back in prison, reality kicks in: he is stripped naked and sexually assaulted by the guards, his cellmate is easily killed by them, and he is forced to confront his past trauma and the impact of violence and chaos. The truth is, Arthur is a victim of violence. His violence was initially a stress reaction to violent threats; his actions on the subway weren't born from a love of violence but from his fear of it. In prison, when faced with the institutionalized violence, the unarmed, poor Arthur is left to feel absolutely powerless, and the violence leaves him only with fear and trauma. The Joker persona is defeated, shattered. He can no longer continue as a right-wing violent icon; only Arthur's sad and lonely shell remains.
And when his right-wing hero image fades and he remorsefully confesses his crimes, his supporters, including Lee, abandon him, as if they too despise this pathetic, worthless middle-aged man. This is perhaps Arthur's tragedy: he is either trapped in the entertainment persona crafted by television media, receiving fanatical, irrational adoration for a cause he doesn't fully endorse, or he is just another boring, pathetic victim, failing to gain recognition and support from the majority of society who share his plight.
The film's weaknesses are obvious: long, tedious musical segments (imagine Arthur and Lee lip-syncing on their way to court, the camera never leaving their faces, or cutting to a montage), weak dialogue (for example, Lee repeatedly saying "We are gonna build a mountain"), unconvincing vocals (Arthur's singing voice is over-processed in places, sounding unnatural), and most importantly, the monotonous discussion of Arthur's character.
The film seems to repeatedly and directly ask, "Is he Joker or Arthur?" through dialogue and court arguments. On the one hand, there are more "indirect" ways to present the discussion of a character's identity, rather than repeatedly mentioning it directly in dialogue; it's just meandering and confusing. Moreover, with so much talk about identity politics, the complexity and multiplicity of a person's identity should be common sense to people. The identity of the protagonist should not be a simple choice between two options. While watching the film, I wrote the following:
"Is the protagonist Joker or Arthur? The film talks about this a lot but apparently he's not just Arthur or Joker. He likes to laugh hysterically, he is psychotic, he is always a victim of other people’s abuse and neglect. He is Joker.
But the lawyer wants to portray him as a guy with mental issues but is self-conscious. But is it him? It will paint him as someone without the rage, just a sad guy. But he has been through too much to just be sad and normal. He is crazy and hysterical and angry and violent. That’s who he is."
Perhaps Joker is an exaggerated entertainment persona, not inherently "real" in the traditional sense, but it's undeniable that Arthur himself has psychotic and violent tendencies. Maybe Joker simply liberated the violent traits within his personality. I think it's hard to say the protagonist "is Arthur, not Joker," or "he is Joker, not Arthur." You can see this isn't a black-and-white answer; there should be room for ambiguity. The film could have shown the contrast between fantasy and reality, which would have been enough to demonstrate the disillusionment of the Joker persona, rather than engaging in this failed discussion through tedious, repetitive dialogue.
(阅读本文中文版)