Fans Say ‘Joker 2’ Ending Was a Betrayal, But Was It Actually Its Finest Moment?

Is anyone out there laughing? It seems very few are, given the ’ , the follow-up to his $1 billion-it, (2019), which was nominated for 11 Oscars and won best actor and best original Score. A sequel with Phoenix reprising his role as Joker/Arthur Fleck, and Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn seemed like one of Hollywood’s safest bets this year, despite not setting up a narrative to be continued. So, what gives? The sequel hasn’t simply been met with disappointment, but a sense of betrayal from some fans of the first.

There are certainly issues upon which your mileage may vary: the film is at times sluggish, the jukebox tunes are largely mid-20 century tracks with multiple reprises, and Phillips demonstrates a lack of commitment to cinematic musicals (and an unexpected commitment to ’70s variety shows). But it seems much of that sense of betrayal, and anger comes from the film’s ending. There is, of course, no right or wrong way to feel about it, or the film as a whole.

What I’m offering here isn’t a defense of , but a perspective through which to consider the film, however you may land on it. And with that comes a means to contextualize the ending, which in my opinion is the film’s finest moment. *Crickets.

* Is this thing on? At the end of the film, Arthur Fleck renounces his Joker persona to the court, recognizing that he’s not some rallying cry, only a man who knew with full awareness what he was doing. He was only a nobody who wanted to be somebody, who wanted to b.