Theory about JFAD's plot, ending and message (spoilers)

[StrawberryBlond 13,948]

HUGE ENDING SPOILERS AHEAD, AS IS OBVIOUS BY THE TITLE.

Like many people, I didn't like the ending to the movie. But I have tried over the last few days to try to extrapolate more meaning from it to at least try to understand what the creators were trying to do. I noticed there were some theories being offered up on the wiki page so thought I'd throw my hat into the ring. Here is my take what the whole concept of JFAD was (there's a tl;dr at the end btw):

The first movie, as great as I think it is, did become beloved by a small but concerning group of people, namely, incel misogynists. While I don't think it was Todd's vision to appeal to these people, a lot did. Here is where I must add that it is entirely possible to love this film and not be one of these people (I'm a woman and a feminist and I think the first film is a masterpiece). I dislike how the film's fans are stereotyped into being from these groups and think it's such an overly simplistic way of looking at things. However, it's pretty much true that while you don't have to be an incel misogynist to love this movie...every incel misogynist did love this movie. There were also concerns that the movie encouraged mob mentality, uprisings and violence with some news outlets even worrying within the first few weeks of the movie's success that there were going to be mass shootings inspired by it (especially after the shooting in a cinema in Colorado in 2012 during a showing of The Dark Knight Rises, a movie which does not feature the Joker character but he is present in that universe). What with all the negative stereotypes about the film's fanbase, Todd decided to go in a very different direction with the sequel to garner a more acceptable fanbase.

So, he formulated a plot where Joker finds a girlfriend in Harley, meaning he would no longer be the poster child for incels who wanted nothing to do with women as retaliation for constantly being rejected by them. Through having his first relationship, no matter how twisted it actually was, is proof that even the biggest sad sack on the planet can find love and that women can still want a man even if he isn't 6ft, handsome and rich. In addition to this, the entire show is a musical, which is even more incel repellent and (apparently) straight male repellent as well. The entire movie is meant to deliberately take your expectations after the first movie and throw them against the wall. Joker himself even says during one of the musical numbers: "I got this sneaking suspicion that we're not giving the people what they want." How true this turned out to be. Gaga immediately following this up with "It's ok, baby. Let's give the people what they want" in the trailer followed by scenes of brawling, explosions and violence seems to lull the audience into a false sense of security, believing that it's going to be more of what we came to expect in the first. But it was all a deliberate bluff to get people to see it and realise they were duped.

Throughout the movie, Harley is meant to represent the fans of the first film - she falls in love with this psychotic character and maybe even recognises some of herself in him. Whenever Arthur doubts her love for him and how much she truly values him or if she's just in this for her own gain, she reels him back in. This represents the audience giving him a second chance, hoping the movie will get better. This is especially evident during a musical number where Harley points a gun at him and as Arthur freezes in fear, she hands it to him in a "just kidding" move which represents the audience thinking "ok, maybe this moment isn't too bad" considering that the The Joker musical number was indeed quite a barn stomper.

When Arthur caves in eventually and admits in his televised trial that he isn't this crazy Joker persona, the real him is just a depressed loner who hates himself. Harley is immediately turned off and leaves, along with several of his supporters. This is a Harley abandons Arthur because she realises that he's not the man she thought he was, just the way that fans of the original wanted Arthur to be his triumphant, unrepentant Joker character. In the final scene between Arthur and Harley, he assumes she wants to rekindle things but she tells him that they cannot be together and what they had was all just a fantasy. This is how a lot of us original fans felt at this point because we expected a very different outcome and were overall let down with the movie and were re-evaluating if the original was all that good to begin with or if it was just a fluke. Either way, we are disillusioned with the entire Joker character and all this franchise stands for. With that, Harley walks away, just like many people were leaving theatres.

Finally, Arthur is killed by an inmate and in his dying moments, he thinks back to an earlier fantasy he had where Harley unexpectantly aimed a gun at him just as he was feeling on top of the world and he feared in that moment that one day, she may betray him. This time, the scene is extended and she full-on shoots him and he crumples to the ground. This represents the audience feeling at this point that they are done with the entire movie, Joker character and the entire franchise. She kneels opposite him, looking him in the eye as he ebbs away, taking in what she once loved for the last time. Arthur dies as himself, not as his Joker persona, having lost his girlfriend, potential freedom and inevitably, his life, considering he is now primed for the electric chair. The movie then ends with Gaga singing That's Life, meaning the audience got the final say in the end.

So, the message to all this? That people who are clearly mentally ill and murderous should never be idolised or related to. You can sympathise with what led them to this point, but you should never be entertained by them or think they should spearhead a movement. As Arthur found out, when you're the idol for a lot of sick people, it leads to distress and destruction on a wide scale, which is why he seemed to want to leave his persona behind, he was starting to feel guilt for what he was causing. And usually, such leaders end up meeting an early death due to being killed by one of their own followers, whether accidental or intentional. Be a corrupting force and you will end up being corrupted. The film serves as a sobering reminder to anyone wishing to murder to become a media sensation or to start an uprising - you may experience your demise sooner than you think and have nothing to show for your life. In the words of true crime YouTuber, Bailey Sarian: "*Get*better*idols!"

Maybe I'm just tripping, but it's just my perspective. So, Todd's message was maybe one involving a more noble message than we first thought. But it seemed to be a lot of risk for very little reward. He lost a lot of original fans with this and while the aim was a make a whole bunch of new ones, that doesn't seem likely. Do I think this message makes the movie a misunderstood masterpiece? No, but it does help me understand it a bit better if this is indeed what he was going for. I hope my analysis helped you understand better too.

TL;DR: It was Todd's entire intention to create a movie that would subvert what the original film's fans wanted, holds a mirror up to ourselves to realise that we shouldn't be idolising a very troubled man and acts as a warning to anyone who ever tries to become a real life Joker that they'll most likely meet a grisly end. 

[Future Lovers 6,430]

I don’t know that I’d call this a theory. This is pretty explicitly what the movie is about. 

The problem is that, while this is on paper a very cool idea, Todd Phillips and Scott Silver were seemingly incapable of approaching this theme with the subtlety and nuance that it requires. It is a film that is all idea born from a specific agenda that never attempts to engage with that idea in any insightful or meaningful way.

That is ultimately why I think this movie is a failure creatively. 

Rather than aiming this film squarely at the incels who embraced it, the film aims it’s criticism at the entire audience. It doesn’t play like it’s trying to undo incels view of Arthur, it plays like Todd Phillips thinks the audience as a whole was too stupid to understand that Arthur was not a figure to be idolized.

Absolutely there was a pocket of people that did, and if you want to address them then by all means. But he doesn’t stop there. He openly antagonizes anyone and everyone who liked the first film, even those who got it. He treats this film like a punishment for its audience.

You can’t just spend two and a half hours lecturing the audience and wagging your finger in their face if you’re going to say what you have to say in such an uncurious and shallow way. He waxes poetic about why no one should idolize Arthur and yet doesn’t even bother trying to explore any reasons why that happened, doesn’t bother trying to even take a look at how his own storytelling choices enabled certain things. It puts a whole lot of ideas on the table and explores none of them. 

He criticizes the audience’s lust for violence while dragging Arthur through more cruelty than he ever faced in the first film, even going so far as to have Arthur r*ped in prison by the guards. In his pursuit to criticize an obsession with sensational violence, he presents more of it than he did the first go around and he doesn’t even treat it seriously (Arthur makes a joke before he is r*ped, all while standing in smeared makeup made to look like tears).  

There are many ways to brilliantly and intelligently approach the theme that Todd is working with here. It’s a good idea for a movie. But this film just doesn’t do that.

It spends it’s time going out of it’s way to make it’s audience suffer and never even has the decency to give a reason why. None of the cruelty ever matters, it never shapes the story, it’s just there to dehumanize the vessel he chose to inflict it all on (Arthur) in a pursuit to make the audience feel dumb for ever having enjoyed the other film. 

It never really explores the idea of gang mentality. It never explores why people like Harley are susceptible to this stuff. It never explores the societal failings that create these people. All it has to say is “dear viewer, I hate you”. 

I see people on here trying to say that people hate the film because they don’t get it. No, they get it. It isn’t subtle or sly (Phillips is incapable of it). They hate it because the filmmakers chose to go about discussing their points in the messiest, most formless, uncurious, disinterested, shallow way possible. The film is a mess of half baked ideas and big concepts that ultimately serve the story very little. 

Edited October 8 by Future Lovers

[tigerteeth 565]

20 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

I don’t know that I’d call this a theory. This is pretty explicitly what the movie is about. 

The problem is that, while this is on paper a very cool idea, Todd Phillips and Scott Silver were seemingly incapable of approaching this theme with the subtlety and nuance that it requires. It is a film that is all idea born from a specific agenda that never attempts to engage with that idea in any insightful or meaningful way.

That is ultimately why I think this movie is a failure creatively. 

Rather than aiming this film squarely at the incels who embraced it, the film aims it’s criticism at the entire audience. It doesn’t play like it’s trying to undo incels view of Arthur, it plays like Todd Phillips thinks the audience as a whole was too stupid to understand that Arthur was not a figure to be idolized.

Absolutely there was a pocket of people that did, and if you want to address them then by all means. But he doesn’t stop there. He openly antagonizes anyone and everyone who liked the first film, even those who got it. He treats this film like a punishment for its audience.

You can’t just spend two and a half hours lecturing the audience and wagging your finger in their face if you’re going to say what you have to say in such an uncurious and shallow way. He waxes poetic about why no one should idolize Arthur and yet doesn’t even bother trying to explore any reasons why that happened, doesn’t bother trying to even take a look at how his own storytelling choices enabled certain things. It puts a whole lot of ideas on the table and explores none of them. 

He criticizes the audience’s lust for violence while dragging Arthur through more cruelty than he ever faced in the first film, even going so far as to have Arthur r*ped in prison by the guards. In his pursuit to criticize an obsession with sensational violence, he presents more of it than he did the first go around and he doesn’t even treat it seriously (Arthur makes a joke before he is r*ped, all while standing in smeared makeup made to look like tears).  

There are many ways to brilliantly and intelligently approach the theme that Todd is working with here. It’s a good idea for a movie. But this film just doesn’t do that.

It spends it’s time going out of it’s way to make it’s audience suffer and never even has the decency to give a reason why. None of the cruelty ever matters, it never shapes the story, it’s just there to dehumanize the vessel he chose to inflict it all on (Arthur) in a pursuit to make the audience feel dumb for ever having enjoyed the other film. 

It never really explores the idea of gang mentality. It never explores why people like Harley are susceptible to this stuff. It never explores the societal failings that create these people. All it has to say is “dear viewer, I hate you”. 

I see people on here trying to say that people hate the film because they don’t get it. No, they get it. It isn’t subtle or sly (Phillips is incapable of it). They hate it because the filmmakers chose to go about discussing their points in the messiest, most formless, uncurious, disinterested, shallow way possible. The film is a mess of half baked ideas and big concepts that ultimately serve the story very little. 

Can we pin this comment? Been saying this since I saw the movie - don’t insult your entire audience and make a bad movie just to prove a point. Todd has the subtlety of an elephant…. So much potential wasted

[Juniper 775]

1 hour ago, Future Lovers said:

It spends it’s time going out of it’s way to make it’s audience suffer and never even has the decency to give a reason why. None of the cruelty ever matters, it never shapes the story, it’s just there to dehumanize the vessel he chose to inflict it all on (Arthur) in a pursuit to make the audience feel dumb for ever having enjoyed the other film. 

It never really explores the idea of gang mentality. It never explores why people like Harley are susceptible to this stuff. It never explores the societal failings that create these people. All it has to say is “dear viewer, I hate you”. 

This.

[cELLO 53,424]

When I left the theatre after watching this film, I initially felt that the intention of it was to make Arthur appear even more like a sad pathetic loser. Completely agree with @Future Lovers take in that Todd trying to effectively teach us all a lesson against glorifying violence only did it himself but against Arthur, who is a loveable character whether he likes it or not. My main issue is Todd insulting his audience (and not just incels make a $1billion film). I understand the message he was going for but the execution of it couldn’t have been more hamfisted unfortunately 

[Ivy 11,566]

I think the ending is just showing that "The Joker" is an idea rather than a person 

It can be anyone, Arthur or the one who ends him. And at the same time it's actually no one because at the end it's just an idea that is basically false and created by society idolizing an idea

Tbh I don't get why people dislike the ending? It seemed like extremely close to what I expected 

[clementine 268]

My main problem was that I felt conflicted for sympathizing with Arthur in the first film (I didn’t really understand why I had a soft spot for a violent killer or an evil villain because I thought Arthur was the Joker) and then in the second film it’s revealed that Arthur isn’t the villain we thought he was (the Joker) and he’s truly just Arthur fleck, an abused mentally ill person society failed again and again (taking away his social services etc, bullying, etc) — it feels like a commentary on gun violence that comes up every couple months when there is a mass shooting or other gun violence in the u.s. and it turns out they were bullied for one reason or another or had a condition of some kind (I know I’m generalizing but idk!!!)

but the fact that Arthur isn’t who we thought he was in the first film is kinda like … he just watched a regular guy descend into madness while society and social services and the people around him abused him to no end and failed to help him when he needed it. It’s so sad  

[Mister G 9,971]

11 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

I don’t know that I’d call this a theory. This is pretty explicitly what the movie is about. 

The problem is that, while this is on paper a very cool idea, Todd Phillips and Scott Silver were seemingly incapable of approaching this theme with the subtlety and nuance that it requires. It is a film that is all idea born from a specific agenda that never attempts to engage with that idea in any insightful or meaningful way.

That is ultimately why I think this movie is a failure creatively. 

Rather than aiming this film squarely at the incels who embraced it, the film aims it’s criticism at the entire audience. It doesn’t play like it’s trying to undo incels view of Arthur, it plays like Todd Phillips thinks the audience as a whole was too stupid to understand that Arthur was not a figure to be idolized.

Absolutely there was a pocket of people that did, and if you want to address them then by all means. But he doesn’t stop there. He openly antagonizes anyone and everyone who liked the first film, even those who got it. He treats this film like a punishment for its audience.

You can’t just spend two and a half hours lecturing the audience and wagging your finger in their face if you’re going to say what you have to say in such an uncurious and shallow way. He waxes poetic about why no one should idolize Arthur and yet doesn’t even bother trying to explore any reasons why that happened, doesn’t bother trying to even take a look at how his own storytelling choices enabled certain things. It puts a whole lot of ideas on the table and explores none of them. 

He criticizes the audience’s lust for violence while dragging Arthur through more cruelty than he ever faced in the first film, even going so far as to have Arthur r*ped in prison by the guards. In his pursuit to criticize an obsession with sensational violence, he presents more of it than he did the first go around and he doesn’t even treat it seriously (Arthur makes a joke before he is r*ped, all while standing in smeared makeup made to look like tears).  

There are many ways to brilliantly and intelligently approach the theme that Todd is working with here. It’s a good idea for a movie. But this film just doesn’t do that.

It spends it’s time going out of it’s way to make it’s audience suffer and never even has the decency to give a reason why. None of the cruelty ever matters, it never shapes the story, it’s just there to dehumanize the vessel he chose to inflict it all on (Arthur) in a pursuit to make the audience feel dumb for ever having enjoyed the other film. 

It never really explores the idea of gang mentality. It never explores why people like Harley are susceptible to this stuff. It never explores the societal failings that create these people. All it has to say is “dear viewer, I hate you”. 

I see people on here trying to say that people hate the film because they don’t get it. No, they get it. It isn’t subtle or sly (Phillips is incapable of it). They hate it because the filmmakers chose to go about discussing their points in the messiest, most formless, uncurious, disinterested, shallow way possible. The film is a mess of half baked ideas and big concepts that ultimately serve the story very little. 

Okay you got that too because I was confused at one point wondering what was he really trying to say here because I suspected that we were going to get more backstory behind what drives people to romanticize the behavior that got Arthur arrested in the first place and his subsequent following. I understood the first and second but what I don't understand is why Todd felt the need to insult the audience. Granted he slightly touched on the why's in the first film, but even then not much substance because what pissed me off about JFAD is that we never got to see the real behind the scenes as to why Harley became obsessed with his character let alone the massive cult following he generated. And even with his past of abuse courtesy of his mother and the men she dated, there was still no real root cause prescribed to us that explains why people romanticized and idolized him killing 3 drunk bros on the subway, his mother, a previous coworker and then Murray Franklin himself. 
  
It felt very lazy sticking to the concept of "everybody gets what they deserve." True but why? I'm also convinced that he failed to really explore how Harley was almost functioning as the puppet master and once she felt betrayed when he recognized that's not who he wants to be, she turned against him and set him up to get what he deserved for abandoning this persona.  

[clementine 268]

15 minutes ago, Mister G said:

no real root cause prescribed to us that explains why people romanticized and idolized him killing 3 drunk bros on the subway

Well regarding this people idolized him for that and he garnered a cult following because of what was happening in the city at the time with the strikes, the state of the city, and the “eat the rich” mentality right? Those bros worked for Wayne I think that I guess the cult thought that he killed those guys to like Stick it to the Man™ but really Arthur didn’t care or even know that those guys worked for Wayne, he just knew that he was being bullied. Idk it’s so conflicting lol!!!! Because Arthur didn’t even kill Wayne but everything avalanched after the killings on the subway (and the fact that he murdered Franklin on live TV) because the cult thought there was that deeper meaning. But Arthur didn’t even intend to start something and didn’t cause as much destruction as the cult did I don’t think, he was even going to kill himself on Murray Franklin but somehow he decided to murder him instead. Idk very conflicting  this movie has me ****ed up

Edited October 8 by clementine

[Mister G 9,971]

15 minutes ago, clementine said:

Well regarding this people idolized him for that and he garnered a cult following because of what was happening in the city at the time with the strikes, the state of the city, and the “eat the rich” mentality right? Those bros worked for Wayne I think that I guess the cult thought that he killed those guys to like Stick it to the Man™ but really Arthur didn’t care or even know that those guys worked for Wayne, he just knew that he was being bullied. Idk it’s so conflicting lol!!!! Because Arthur didn’t even kill Wayne but everything avalanched after the killings on the subway (and the fact that he murdered Franklin on live TV) because the cult thought there was that deeper meaning. But Arthur didn’t even intend to start something and didn’t cause as much destruction as the cult did I don’t think, he was even going to kill himself on Murray Franklin but somehow he decided to murder him instead. Idk very conflicting  this movie has me ****ed up

I think the problem and I'm gonna ask @Future Lovers to keep me honest here, but I suspect that where this conflict arises is because of the fact that Arthur simply just wanted to be seen and not feel invisible. He was conflicted himself as an individual because he wanted off himself on live TV and instead went after Murray because he responded to the mockery in the only way he thought would make him feel more visible.
  
And why I believe the misogynists who have been bashing Gaga for this movie are livid because the premise of the cult enforcing "Kill The Rich" is parallel to what we see in U.S. Politics and even outside of the U.S. in other political landscapes. This concept that there are these men--usually cisgender white heterosexual men--that have been convinced society doesn't need you anymore and you are deliberately being left behind in favor for other people. But they feel to realize that the same society telling them they are being left behind is actively pushing variables into play that is leaving them behind and they are victims of a system that purposely oppresses others yet they are being told that the oppressed are really the ones oppressing them...even though it was clear that the aristocrats of Gotham City are the problem.
 
The reality is the movie falls flat trying to explain this and hyper focuses on this logic of "these people feel abandoned, we won't explain why cause you won't get it and instead we're just gonna throw it all at your face and maybe you'll figure it out". This movie might have been better received if they focused on what drives people down the path of madness and not starting off with okay everyone is mad but we can't tell you why.

Edited October 8 by Mister G

[StrawberryBlond 13,948]

I'd like to add another thing that I forgot about originally. For all that non-fans of the first say that it appeals to incels and misogynists, I really don't think Harley's character was actually made in a way that flew in the face of their ideas of women. Harley is the classic charming sociopath who gets away with her lies with her beauty, sexuality and charm and is just using Arthur for her own gain. This perfectly fits the incel misogynist's view that all women are gold-digging, clout chasing, lying whores who use their looks and bodies to get what they want and will dump a guy the second he doesn't live up to their high standards. When she dumps him in the end, all I could think was these same guys being like "these hoes ain't loyal." Not that I'm saying that I dislike the character and Gaga did a phenomenal job of playing her but Harley has never been the gold standard for women and certainly not here, when she's the one manipulating and abusing him for a change. It just seemed to further the idea of "the world is cruel if you're not the perfect guy" that incel misogynists subscribe to. Just saying it doesn't go quite against what that group wanted/expected if you know what I mean.

20 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

I don’t know that I’d call this a theory. This is pretty explicitly what the movie is about. 

Not everyone is completely aware of this concept, though. Some people can't see the full picture and just take things literally. Doesn't meant they're stupid, they just interpret art a different way. I agree with a lot of your analysis, though. 

15 hours ago, Ivy said:

Tbh I don't get why people dislike the ending? It seemed like extremely close to what I expected 

I did think there was a very high chance he was going to die at the end considering Todd had said beforehand that he had no intention of continuing the series but I expected Harley to do it, not some guy whose name we don't even know who was only a background character for a few seconds here and there. The build up to it wasn't great either. Very anticlimactic and an unworthy death for such a beloved character. 

[ThatsGossip111 211]

One of the best analysis’ I’ve read 👏🏻👏🏻

I understand to a degree being disappointed in the movie cuz I did leave with a big ? After it ended. But over all I still thought it was a good movie, I understood the message, and after time of reflecting grew to really respect what they were going for. 
I kinda think people are just over dramatic, everybody loves to hate the same thing lol 

Edited October 9 by ThatsGossip111