#also this is the second time i've seen efforts to humanize the joker come at the expense of making harley quinn more evil

[thought-bubble-doodly-doo]

Joker: Folie a Deux Thoughts and Spoilers

So, did I enjoy the movie? Yes. Was it a good movie? ....It's complicated. I get really rambly now. Just FYI.

I really appreciated what Joker 2 was trying to do with the musical elements. Arthur is retreating into a fantasy world to help him cope with the bleak reality surrounding him. It's an idea that's been used in the musical before (and to better effect) in things like Chicago (2002) and most especially Pennies from Heaven (1981). I would, in fact, be quite surprised if the creative team behind Joker 2 hadn't seen Pennies from Heaven.

Academically, this is often how musical numbers are interpreted. It's not that the characters happen to live in a world where they are diegetically breaking out into song and dance. Rather, the musical numbers are a nondiegetic representation of the character's emotions and psyche. So the idea of Arthur imagining a musical number when he feels lonely or in love fits in perfectly.

However, the film does not take full advantage of its musical aspects. With few exceptions, most of the musical numbers are performed with minimal accompaniment and diegetic set pieces. I think the film would have hit a lot harder if when Arthur is having these mental breaks, he's not just suddenly dancing in the mental asylum, but instead he is teleported to a fantasy world that's more bright and colorful and CONTRASTS with his bleak reality. I think the most powerful moments in the film are when the movie chooses to take this direction: the fantasy wedding, the fake variety show, and most especially the courtroom scene.

(Again, very Chicago.)

The moment he "breaks" and the Joker personality takes over is probably the best moment in the film. Because the musical style is emphasizing the point/question the movie asks to both the audience and the jury. Is Joker another personality or is it just Arthur? His defense is trying to argue Arthur had D.I.D. (Disassociative Identity Disorder), and thus is not truly guilty of his crimes, because he was not in control of his body when he committed them.

From the very beginning, the film creates this idea of "two" in regards to Joker/Arthur. The opening animated bit casts Joker and his Shadow, a darker side of himself that is nonetheless inherently connected to him. Even the title, Folie a Deux is about shared delusion, about a mental bond of some sort with another person. Of course, Harley is the person that is superficially experiencing Folie a Deux with Arthur, but if he does indeed have D.I.D, could it not be suggesting that Arthur has Folie a Deux with himself????

Anyway, so the lawyer is trying to say that Arthur and the Joker are two separate identities. Also, musical numbers and the plot that surrounds them are two separate realities. So when Arthur finally snaps and the Joker personality takes over, this is represented by him singing a song about being a fool. This is good cinema! The form is following the function! Good job, movie! WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THIS MORE?!

Because oh my GOSH did they WASTE Lady Gaga. I was SO EXCITED to hear Lady Gaga was going to be Harley Quinn. Even after it came out that she was going to be a completely different kind of character from the Harley we know, the anticipation was HIGH. Gaga is an excellent performer, and she would KILL in a musical. But literally 90% of her performances are those realistic, minimally accompanied numbers I was discussing before. She is constantly singing off tune and amateurishly, and it's not like Lady Gaga suddenly became unable to sing. She was clearly directed to sing that way, and it disgusts me. You have one of the greatest performers of a generation, and you give her 2 real songs and NO DANCE NUMBERS?!

Harley in this film is a corrupting force to Arthur. She literally tells him to stop taking his medication. She is actively making him worse, encouraging him to live in that fantasy world Joker resides in. She is also first introduced with music. She's a mental patient who sings in the Arkham choir. So easily, the film could have made the musical elements a symbol of Arthur's declining mental health. She could have introduced those first moments of spectacle and nondiegetic song into his life, and the more he sings and plays along, the more the two are getting wrapped up in each other.

Admittedly though, Joaquin Phoenix is not a very good singer. That's another problem I have with modern Hollywood musicals. Actors can't sing. I know it's already incredibly difficult to get good enough at one kind of art to compete at a professional level, so asking Oscar winners to pick up singing lessons might be asking for a bit much. But just DUB THEM! DUB THEM! We used to do it all the TIME, even to people who were already good singers! Rita Hayworth got dubbed over in Gilda (1946), and we couldn't dub over Joaquin Pheonix???

Anyway, back to the whole question of Joker/Arthur and the validity of that... I do think it's still a question. Arthur does eventually end the film admitting to the Jury and by proxy the audience, that the Joker does not exist. He is indeed a fantasy, a character. He admits to killing those people during his closing statements. Thus, he is found guilty on all counts, having been judged mentally capable to stand trial and mentally sound enough to take responsibility for his actions. And the prosecutor's claim that Arthur's D.I.D. wasn't a real diagnosis seems to be proven true.

However, we, as the audience, are privy to moments in Arthur's head that the lawyers and jurors are not. We see him retreat into musical numbers. We see him have that mental break when the Joker takes control. We see him fire his lawyer and represent himself in clown make up. It doesn't seem like a sane thing to do.

Several witnesses claim Arthur and the Joker are one person, but the final one, Mr. Puddles says that this is not who Arthur is. This does seems to suggest that Arthur and Joker are not the same.

Does he have D.I.D.? I don't know. Probably not, at least not as textbook DM5 meeting criteria D.I.D., but this idea of the Joker as separate from Authur is an interesting one to explore. Because the Joker was born out of Arthur's untreated mental illness. The abuse he suffered from his mother, his identity issues, the failures of the systems around him, they all contributed to what Arthur became. And of course he has a level of responsibility to his actions, but the Joker is Arthur as his very worst. He was man pushed off the edge and became a monster. Is the 'truth' of a human's identity found in who they are at their worst? Who among us hasn't said a cruel word when we were cranky? Or snapped at someone when we had a rough day? Obviously, Arthur's crimes outweigh these minor sins several times over, but the idea still stands. Are the best and worst versions of ourselves the same identity?

Ultimately, the Joker duology is a tragedy. Even if Arthur was 100% sane and responsible for his crimes, he's still a very, very hurt and abused man who spent his entire life being failed by those around him: his mother, the system, the guards, the courts, etc. Even if he did kill six people, does he deserve getting beat and possibly raped by Arkham guards? Does being a bad person revoke you of your humanity? Does being a criminal mean you don't deserve basic decency? Arthur hurt people, but Arthur was hurt... And by the end of the film, he doesn't even have fantasy to retreat to any longer. He's given it up for the bitter reality that kills him. It's sad. I'm sad.

I really liked what Joker 2 was going for with these ideas and the musical aspects, but I just think it didn't push hard enough. It wasn't grand enough.

The cinematography was wonderful though. I can say that.

[lokiarsene]

I've seen some people saying that Akechi's redemption arc cannot actually be called "redemption arc" and more like him getting off easy after the crimes he committed. Also that he never wanted to even redeem and even if he would he would still feel it being his personal journey and him not wanting the PHs being part of it. I was curious to know what would you guys think about this.

Mod Krist: A lot of this boils down to “we don’t know enough yet, so we have to wait to see how it goes.”

We don’t know how the redemption arc/Akechi joining the PT is going to be handled because we don’t know how P5R will address it. We don’t know how Akechi will be treated for what he did while under Shido’s power because we don’t know how P5R will address it. We don’t know how Akechi feels about joining the PT after the truth is out because we don’t know how P5R will address it.

All the PT have personal stakes in what they do. They just happen to align with each other–and even then they argue constantly about their true goals. It’s why Mona fucks off and joins Haru when Ryuji can’t shut his mouth about wanting his dick wet because he’s a Phantom Thief. It’s why the PT have a moral event horizon when Haru’s father dies. It’s why they all have a good hard think when Akechi gives them the ultimatum of disbanding after Sae’s Palace. They all have personal reasons to fight that they constantly examine and then pool together as a group to unite for the same cause. Akechi should have personal reasons for fighting when he joins the PT.

As for redemption and whether Akechi wants it, this is kind of a dual concept. The first layer is redemption in Persona 5 is as a concept in the game, and the second is redemption as a storytelling device in the narrative. For the first layer, I think as we know him in P5 Vanilla, Akechi equates redemption (or Joker’s idea of justice) with completely changing the hearts/minds/true essence of a person–and as that’s something that goes against his sense of justice, that repulses him to his core. He mentions repeatedly how the Phantom Thieves’ methods is what truly bothers him, but it’s clear that something happens in P5R to change Akechi’s mind. This could be where the second layer of redemption (as a storytelling device) will come into play. He and Joker may have to reach a middle ground understanding of what justice means to them both, and how there needs to be a balance. Akechi’s redemption could come from that synthesis.

That’s just speculation on my part, but I base it on something simple from the original game. Akechi wanted to be understood and accepted. Most specifically, he wants Joker to understand and accept him. So the way I see it, if Akechi is ever going to accept Joker’s idea of justice (and thus be redeemed), it will be because Joker is also accepting Akechi’s idea of justice.

mod sirea: i have to echo mod krist’s statement that i’m unable to make any sort of decisive analysis about akechi’s redemption arc without actually seeing it first. once we actually get the game, i’ll be able to break it up piece by piece and point out what makes his redemption arc good or bad (like i did for rufus shinra in my one post about redemption arcs that’s been circulating around), but until then it’s really hard to give a concrete response.

but like in the same vein, that means that people who are already shitting on it actually have no basis for their argument and shouldn’t be asserting things that can neither be proven nor disproven at this point in time. these people are, as we say in the business, fuckin stupid and should be ignored at all costs.

in terms of redemption arcs in general though, i’ve stated in the past that a villain’s redemption is ultimately not about them, and i’m going to stand by that statement. copypasted directly from there: a villain’s redemption arc should exist to reinforce the righteousness of the hero’s position and to better support the themes of the story.

also, all of the villains that i talk about in that post? none of them actually wanted to be redeemed. vegeta especially didn’t want to be redeemed and backslid pretty fuckin hard into evil in the buu saga by going majin and killing like 200+ innocent people just to do it, and then he immediately followed it up by giving goku a long monologue about how he felt like he’d lost his sense of identity and purpose ever since becoming a good guy, how he didn’t recognize himself anymore and resented it, and how wanted to go back to being hated and feared as a force to be reckoned with in the universe because that was the only time he’d ever felt like he was somebody.

redemption is very rarely something that a villain chooses and strives for on their own due to some kind of “come to jesus” moment. redemption is just something that kind of happens to them, usually over time and without their knowledge or consent. no one wants to be knocked off their high horse. no one wants to feel like their effort and/or life’s work up until that point has all been meaningless, pointless, or misguided. it’s normal for a redemptive villain to struggle against their redemption or push back on it for a while at first.

either way, anyone who tries to assert that a redemption arc for akechi is just a way to allow him to “get off easy” makes an alarming statement on how they view the concept of a criminal justice system in general. in getting my two degrees in criminal justice, every single one of my professors stressed that the idealistic goal for the system is prevention of crime and reformation of the guilty. to view a prison system solely as a tool to dish out punishment is so fucking medieval -- it's such a blatant disregard for basic human compassion and human rights -- that it borderlines on cruelty.

so this idea that akechi or any villain for that matter needs to be punished in some tangible way is just sheer ignorance, malice, and hypocrisy. a redemption arc forces a character to look their own awfulness in the face, address it, learn from it, and change it. and... that’s the ideal of criminal justice that i just stated above. so what the fuck is the point of a prison sentence, then?

it also smacks of these people not understanding that the entire fucking point of persona 5 in general is reformation. reformation of society, reformation of the guilty, reformation of the truly cruel and wicked. punishing akechi just to punish him doesn’t actually do anything, and it directly contradicts the core themes of the story itself.

these people want to punish akechi because it’ll make them feel better, not because akechi (or society at large or the actual story itself) would benefit from him being punished. if punishment is inflicted solely to make the punisher feel better and serves no real tangible purpose beyond that, then it no longer qualifies as discipline or lesson-teaching -- it’s abuse.

and hasn’t akechi already been abused enough?