It is clear that “Folie à Deux,” the sequel to Joker, is underperforming both commercially and artistically. Commercially, the film has underperformed at the box office, while artistically, many viewers have not embraced its musical approach or accepted the reinterpretation of the character. Arthur Fleck is not perceived as the Joker by audiences, despite this discrepancy. While there is much discussion about the commercial failure of the film, it remains to be seen if these initial reviews are justified. For example, in France, after just one week of release, the film has recorded 602,000 admissions, which is a million fewer than the original Joker (which drew 1.6 million viewers during its opening week in 2019), but it is still far from being considered a flop. With 602,000 admissions in France within one week, it has become the top film there. Of course, factors such as novelty appeal and curiosity will play roles, and it remains to be seen whether negative word-of-mouth will impact future attendance. It’s important to note that the first Joker concluded its run with 5.61 million admissions in France. While it is unlikely that “Folie à Deux” will match this figure, it is worth monitoring its performance closely.
Folie à Deux, the sequel to Joker, is encountering both commercial and critical challenges. Despite underperforming at the box office and receiving mixed reviews for its musical approach and character deconstruction, it has still managed 602,000 admissions in France within a week, placing it as the top film. Although this number is significantly less than the first Joker’s opening week (1.6 million), it falls short of being considered a predicted flop. The long-term impact of negative word-of-mouth remains to be seen.
In the United States, the film opened its first weekend with approximately $40 million, while predictions had ranged from $70 to $80 million. This figure is noteworthy given that the budget for the original “Joker” was $55 million. For this sequel, Warner Bros. invested substantially more, reportedly spending around $200 million, a significant amount typically reserved for major blockbusters with extensive special effects. According to Variety, when promotional costs are included, an additional $100 million should be factored in, bringing the total budget to $300 million, which is quite substantial. The cast also received considerable compensation; Joaquin Phoenix earned $20 million and Lady Gaga $12 million, with Todd Phillips likely receiving a significant paycheck as well, though the exact amount remains undisclosed. These figures are substantial, and given the film’s underwhelming opening weekend performance and poor audience reception—earning a D grade in the U.S., making it one of the lowest-rated comic book movies recently—the likelihood of recouping these costs appears slim. The negative word-of-mouth is also particularly severe. Despite the potentially intriguing premise, the musical aspect has been a point of contention among audiences, raising questions about the film’s artistic direction and execution.
NOLAN, THE BOSS
Regarding Christopher Nolan, who is currently regarded as one of the most fashionable filmmakers today, some consider him the new Steven Spielberg. It has been disclosed that he had the final say in the production of the first Joker film. In an article exploring the commercial failure of “Joker Folie à Deux,” The Hollywood Reporter conducted its own investigation and interviewed several individuals involved with the film, some of whom preferred to remain anonymous. One such individual revealed that Christopher Nolan, while still working amicably with Warner Bros., changed the ending of the first Joker movie. The original script had Arthur Fleck cutting his face in front of an applauding audience at the end of the film. However, Nolan opposed this idea from the start and requested a different ending. According to him, only his own portrayal of the Joker, played by Heath Ledger, should have the right to such self-mutilation. This decision is somewhat unusual since “The Dark Knight” does not show the Joker cutting his face; instead, he bears scars from this mutilation which he uses to tell various stories each time, creating confusion about his enigmatic smile. Consequently, we now have an answer to a significant question raised in “The Dark Knight”—the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger indeed self-mutilated his face…
ARTHUR IS NOT THE JOKER
Since Christopher Nolan had a falling out with Warner and is now working with Universal (where he released Oppenheimer), Todd Phillips was able to proceed with the concept he originally envisioned. In Joker: Folie à Deux, the scene finally comes to fruition. I mentioned this in the spoiler section of my review; at the end of the film, Arthur Fleck is killed by a fellow inmate from Arkham Asylum. This inmate received a close-up shot midway through the film, hinting that something significant would occur involving him. True to expectation, we see him carving his face and primarily his mouth with the same knife used to kill Arthur Fleck. He is shown at the edge of the frame, blurred as the camera zooms in on Arthur Fleck’s corpse. Todd Phillips has explained this ending, stating that the true origin of the Joker is inspired by Arthur Fleck’s actions.
According to Todd Phillips, “Arthur Fleck has come to terms with the fact that he is always Arthur Fleck. He has never been this thing, this idea that Gotham people have placed upon him. Fleck has become an icon despite himself; they have imposed this identity on his back, and he no longer wants to carry this false persona; he desires to be who he truly is.” Everyone mocks Arthur Fleck, as people are only interested in the Joker character, particularly Lee, portrayed by Lady Gaga. She never refers to him as Arthur in the film, except when she pushes him down the famous stairs from the 2019 Joker movie. It is difficult not to wonder what Joker 2 could have been had Christopher Nolan vetoed the idea of scarification. Would Todd Phillips have acknowledged that Arthur Fleck is indeed the Joker and not a figure idealized for social rebellion? This question merits consideration.
Regardless of what happens, even if Todd Phillips had not envisioned a sequel, The Hollywood Reporter’s investigation reveals that had he and Warner executives Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy refused to proceed, they would have become the laughingstock of Hollywood, especially after generating a billion dollars at the box office. However, things did not go as planned, and the mistake made by Warner’s leaders and Todd Phillips was their refusal to screen test showings, allegedly to avoid spoilers. This decision is hard to believe given that the film does not have particularly spoiler-heavy plot points, and even movies like Avengers: Endgame had multiple test screenings. After all, when you generate a billion dollars from a $55 million film, you instantly become someone in whom there is complete trust.
Who are the responsible parties for this commercial failure? A well-known producer who wished to remain anonymous stated that “Joker 2 is a collective failure, but it was the right decision to make this film,” as Todd Phillips is a brilliant director who has earned billions for Warner with the first Joker and the Very Bad Trip trilogy. Moreover, no one would refuse to make a sequel to a film that was both a critical and commercial success, especially when new Warner executives were trying to reverse their fortunes after shifting most of their programming to HBO Max streaming service.