For this article, we will look back over other sequel examples that have changed genre from the first. We will analyse whether Joker: Folie à Deux can succeed and look at other franchises that could benefit from taking a different track.

Changing Beats

Film franchises regularly shift focus over time. By King Kong’s third feature appearance, the series had morphed from a fantasy horror adventure to sci-fi-inflected action. Aliens famously changed its series from horror to more of an action focus. Many serious series have also become more comedic and vice versa (the Evil Dead trilogy and the recent Ghostbusters films).

These genre shifts happen for many reasons (creative and financial) but do these changes land well at the box office? After all, it can be alienating for fans to see a movie series built on one genre’s principles suddenly shift to another. While also seeming confusing for general audiences.

Generally, it’s impossible to say. Sometimes a genre shift can go down well if the prior film was already successful (Alien and Aliens) or if it shakes up a fairly predictable franchise (Ghostbusters). However, even films with solid fanbases can see a genre change undercut their success financially (Return To Oz) or in terms of reception (Halloween 3). So there’s no guarantee that a genre change would automatically yield failure or success for a sequel.

A Different Devil

But regardless of financial success will this change suit Joker’s dark world? Well from a talent perspective, it could certainly work. Both Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix have experience with singing and dramatic roles (A Star Is Born and Walk The Line). Director Todd Phillips and cinematographer Lawrence Sher also have experience making films based on music. Phillips directed Phish’s concert movie Bittersweet Motel and Sher shot a Dua Lipa music video. So the talent is there to make the film work.

Additionally, the series change can work tonally. One of the first film’s highlights was the stair dance sequence, which shows that music and theatricality are nothing alien to this Joker. Joker also trades on us not knowing whether something is real or in Arthur Fleck’s head, making for a perfect excuse to make the film a musical.

This doesn’t mean it will definitely be a success. Musicals are struggling to draw box office numbers, genre changes are unsure things in franchises and the conceit could not work from a story perspective. This merely means a genre change isn’t necessarily a bad idea.

Change The Record

Lastly, for fun, here are three film franchises that could benefit from a genre change. 

Batman (Main Series)

For decades, it feels like DC has been afraid to let Batman have some fun in his main cinematic releases (only seeming to lighten up in spinoffs). With every new adaptation upping the Bat-misery a comedic Batman film would be very welcome now. All they would need to do is have Batman and a version of Robin fight a villain without the fate of Gotham being at stake and have a laugh with the universe.

Knives Out

The Knives Out series has successfully updated the murder mystery formula for modern audiences but unlike other franchises it hasn’t gone outside its genre wheelhouse (like A Haunting in Venice). Writer/director Rian Johnson has often upended expectations, and with the series having fantastic casts and social commentary the films could easily switch to another sub-genre while keeping it based in modern times so long as it has something to say. Imagine Benoit Blanc investigating a musician’s death leading into a musical story about how the music industry exploits radical images for profit. Who wouldn’t watch that?

Halloween

After so many lacklustre sequels and requels that all boil down to Michael Myers stabbing people Halloween should return to its long-abandoned anthology idea. Just give the brand name to an up-and-coming creative team and let them do something different in any horror sub-genre they want.

Do you think Joker Folie à Deux’s genre change will work well or hinder its success? And what film franchises do you think would benefit from a genre change?

Also Read: The Perfect Batman: A Look At The Actor & Director Duos Behind The Films

The post Reinventing the Franchise: Will Joker: Folie à Deux’s Musical Twist Succeed? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Colin Farrell played Alexander the Great, Daniel Day-Lewis Abraham Lincoln, Cate Blanchett Queen Elizabeth I and in some ways making these films is like adapting a popular book or graphic novel, the filmmaker borrows on the existing interest and glamour. Much like with Shakespeare, the three above-mentioned biopics are simply one-word names – there is no need to elicit further interest with a catchy title. After all, if a filmmaker wants a story that has war, love, disaster etc, they can simply make one up…but then it isn’t Napoleon, and even a film that is historically inaccurate (no judgment on Napoleon) would have that name.

An interesting aspect of Napoleon is that it stars Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon, and over twenty years ago Phoenix was the villain in Gladiator, the emperor Commodus. Spoiler for those who haven’t seen the Napoleon trailer or know Napoleonic history but Napoleon eventually declares himself emperor. Commodus and Napoleon are very different people. The latter was by all accounts a genius – for years seemingly unbeatable, victory followed by victory – and these were impossible victories. Napoleon wrote new law codes that lasted long after his death and redrew the map of Europe.

Commodus was not a genius and is often ranked as one of the worst emperors in Roman history and quite possibly insane. If anything Gladiator underplays just how unhinged Commodus was; as he would sometimes wander around Rome with a giant club pretending to be Hercules and hitting people. The only son of Marcus Aurelius who survived to adulthood (considered one of the best Roman emperors) he was born into unbelievable wealth and privilege. The Napoleon trailer says that Napoleon came from nothing, which is not quite true, being a very minor Corsican aristocrat, but certainly, his success was very much due to his work and talent. For all of his genius, Napoleon was someone who installed themselves as a dictator and then emperor waged endless war across Europe and relentlessly pillaged those he conquered of wealth and art.

Phoenix was fantastic as Commodus, the petulant, cruel, hurt, unloved, who wanted the love of the people. For all of his power he felt unable to act against the public mood, he clung to his sister as one of the few people he cared for and seemed to want her to be more than just his sister. The madness of Commodus taking on Russell Crowe’s Maximus in the arena makes sense when viewed through this lens, he could have killed him a thousand different ways but his desire was to defeat Maximus and gain the adoration of the people that had fallen on Maximus. Historically and narratively we know things will not end well for Commodus (in reality not killed in the arena but assassinated). Phoenix is receiving positive reviews for his performance as Napoleon, again playing someone we know will ultimately lose – again history spoiler – not because of insanity or incompetence but maybe their hubris.

Whatever the success of Napoleon there is a never-ending demand for these sorts of films and there will be more of these huge historical epics.

Also Read: War Films: Horror and Glory

The post Napoleon & Films About Prominent Historical Figures appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

MASSIVE SPOILER WARNING FOR THE DARK KNIGHT & JOKER

Why So Serious?

For me, The Dark Knight trilogy is the high-watermark for superhero films, with The Dark Knight being the best. Superhero films are made great not by the hero but by the villain and Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker is the prime example of this. It was a stunning and memorable performance. Every scene with the Joker is fantastic and adds depth and understanding to the character. Whether it’s the Joker’s ever-changing scar-origin story, to his attack on his police convoy in which for most of it he has no lines but still conveys what is going on with the character, to the perhaps ad-libbed confused look when the hospital fails to explode, Ledger is amazing. Moving the character away from a criminal who just wants money to the agent of chaos was genius and it allowed the character to work against both Batman and the mobs he originally worked for. Ledger’s Joker became a cultural icon with some much of the design of that character becoming part of fashion and wider culture.

Can You Introduce Me As Joker?

Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker is a very different character. There is much debate about this character and whether it is even meant to be the Joker, but coming from the world of comic books having radically different origin stories is perfectly normal. Joker is an origins story but not just for the Joker but for many, many villains – indeed, it tries to show that this is how many real-world problems are created. South Park did an episode in which they argued Trump’s treatment of immigrants was simply creating “jokers”, people who were treated badly and would grow up angry and have a problem with America. Phoenix’s Joker is not a supervillain, he has no powers, no henchman, he’s not even very capable of committing a crime. He is simply a damaged man with nothing to lose. This Joker deals with lies, betrayal and abuse from those closest to him and complete strangers. The wildness of this character at the end of the film is hard to watch and riveting at the same time especially when compared to his passivity in other sections of the film. Some people warned of fans copying the violence in the film but most people just seemed to copy him dancing downstairs.

Phoenix’s performance is exceptional and the character does seem to go through a transformation and become a different person by the end of the film. I would argue Phoenix is the only actor who is genuinely the lead, in the Godfather films the focus is always on Michael and in The Dark Knight obviously it’s on Batman. Whilst there are a number of great actors in Joker it is Phoenix’s film and its success or failure is on him.

Two Characters Four Oscars

So why did these characters get more than one Oscar – what do they have in common? The first thing is that they are all great performances, truly Oscar-worthy acting. Brando was already an acting legend when he played Vito and De Niro is one of the most respected actors in Hollywood. Ledger was a great talent whose life was cut tragically short and Phoenix still seems to be very much at his peak. De Niro and Brando both won Oscars for other performances and both Ledger and Phoenix have given other Oscar-worthy performances.

De Niro and Phoenix both won for origins stories. How did Vito Corleone become such a powerful figure and where did his complicated moral system come from? Things are more complicated with Joker as I don’t think Phoenix’s character is meant to be seen as the same person as any of the Jokers we’ve seen on screen, more just the origins of how you would get to be someone like the Joker.

Both characters are criminals, albeit very different types, Vito has become the archetype old fashioned Mafia boss, whereas the Joker in these two films is more like an agent of chaos, not interested in financial gain or power.

Ultimately though the reason these characters resulted in Oscar wins is a collection of a number of great artists coming together – actors, writers, directors, cinematographers and more, that is what makes these characters great. And with the Oscars, there is a great deal of luck and many of the best performances ever were not rewarded with Oscars. For prime evidence of this Al Pacino did not an Oscar for his role as Michael Corleone, who I think gives the best performance of anyone in those films.

Also Read: Oscar Worthy Characters : Vito Corleone

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Oscar Worthy Characters [Part 2]: The Joker appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Warning – major spoilers for Joker below

Not A Superhero Film

Joker is many things. In my opinion, it is a great film, an intense film, a controversial film but it’s hardly a superhero film at all. There is very little of the comic book about it – no superpowers, no gadgets and absolutely no heroes. Joker has far more in common with Taxi Driver than The Dark Knight and that film is evoked often. The titular character is Arthur Fleck, a man who is struggling to survive in Gotham City. He lives with his mother who is in poor health, he works a poorly-paid job where his colleagues laugh at him when he rarely tries to reach out to anyone it does not go well. Arthur also has very serious mental health problems for which he sees a court-appointed therapist as well as taking lots of medication. At the beginning of the film, Arthur seems to be trying to stay on a positive path but that is proving increasingly difficult.

The “origins” of Joker are the grim, horrible circumstances of what such a person, in reality, might have. While still cinematic Gotham is a seedy, dirty, city, a million miles from the Gotham of the Bale or Affleck films. If we were still in the Affleck-Batman world there could be no way of integrating these two characters or these two universes (the same would be true of the Nolan films). Not a successful way of doing it anyway, but they may well have tried. And while the Robert Pattison Batman is an unknown quality it would be hard to imagine a Batman that would work with this Joker. The instant the batmobile made an appearance would cause some terrible schism of the comic book universe where such a vehicle could happen and the brutal and dirty universe where such a thing is plainly ridiculous and impossible.

Too Many Jokers

But some of you might say well we have a perfectly good Joker right here…well, a Joker anyway, in the shape of Jared Leto from Suicide Squad. I was quite forgiving of this incarnation of the Joker, yes, it was bad, but trying to follow the iconic performances of Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger was going to be damn-near impossible. Leto’s IMDb page still has an Untitled Joker film in the works but such was the rancour directed at his portrayal I doubt we’ll see him reprise the role. I have heard some people suggest that Joaquin Phoenix’s character is not the Joker but rather perhaps an inspiration for him, with that being said could both Leto and Phoenix’s Joker appear in the same film? I can’t see how this would work, already comparisons between the two different portrayals have not been kind to Leto and putting him in scenes with Phoenix would only make it worse.

A Billionaire Playboy

An interesting facet of Joker that I had not at all anticipated was the anti-wealth aspect. When Fleck kills three stockbrokers many of the citizens of Gotham see someone striking back against the greedy upper class. Thomas Wayne is shown as an unsympathetic character, harbouring his own prejudices against the poor and his murder was motivated less for material gain than as a political killing. What type of figure would Bruce Wayne be in this world? There has been a meme going around for years that said if Bruce Wayne really wanted to help Gotham he would use his vast wealth in more orthodox ways. Would we get a Batman who delighted in attacking the less fortunate who had resorted to crime because of their circumstances rather than criminal insanity? Those denied essential services, with no opportunities to improve their lot, that would hardly seem heroic.

I still think of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy as the pinnacle of superhero films, a genius director, a fantastic cast and the money to make it happen. For me, and many people, Batman Vs Superman was an outright disaster and I was so disillusioned I didn’t even bother with Justice League, but undeniably it has a different feel to Nolan’s films. So coming up with a whole new distinct world might be difficult, especially so as I hope Joker is quarantined and kept safe from any other DC films. Joker is a brilliant film and should be allowed to be that and not just the first part of another story.

The Next Villain

As we now know Robert Pattison is taking over the role of Batman and very recent news seems to suggest the villain will be The Riddler (played by Paul Dano) so it may be that the DCEU lets the character of the Joker rest a little while. However, I’m sure they will return to the character, after all, he is best-known and most iconic Batman villain.

Also Read: Joke’s On You: The History of Batman’s Arch-Nemesis

The post Batman & Joker: The Future of the DCEU appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

From party clown to murderer

Welcome to Gotham City in the ’70s. It’s a time during which a massive economic and political crisis is threating the city, that’s crumbling down completely. Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is one of the people who have to endure those uncertain times. He’s having mental health problems, a cigarette addiction and when his social worker won’t give him medication, life becomes even worse. His job as a clown and his ambition to become a stand-up comedian bring a little bit more laughter to his life. Most of the time way too much laughter as Fleck has to deal with his uncontrollable laughter decease. Despite his troubled and dark life, he’s trying to give his mother (Frances Conroy), with who he lives together, the best life possible. He’s cooking her food and watching her favourite show “The Murray Franklin show” together.

His life gets even darker when he is fired from his job and when his comedy act isn’t working. When people are making more and more fun of his incurable decease, something in Fleck’s mind snaps. Ready to take revenge on those who mock him and those who neglected him when he and his mother needed them the most (such as Thomas Wayne). What happens when his anger, frustration, and vengeful feelings are being enhanced by the troubled society? Well, then Fleck becomes the Joker!

Give the man an Oscar

You probably have seen joker in multiple shapes (Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger,…) and many different films (Batman, The Dark Knight,…) but no one or no film comes as close as the real thing as this one by Phillips.

The main reason is without a doubt the stunning performance from Phoenix (Walk the Line, You Were Never Really Here). Having to portray a broken, confused, desperate but also vindictive, violent and determined man must have been extremely hard to do. Phoenix pulls it off extraordinarily. He’s shy, reserved and insecure as the comedian but strong, violent and reckless as the Joker. We can still hear his hard and cruel laugh. By the end of the film, he made us feel confused, uncomfortable and astonished, all in a good way though. We certainly need to applaud Phoenix’s stunning psychical transformation.

While Phoenix does rise above everyone else, this is not a one-man show. As the entertaining, suave and typical talk show host, we see captivating and intriguing Robert De Niro (The Irishman, Silver Linings Playbook). It might not be his best work but the last scene with Phoenix makes up for that big time. That talk and everything around it shows the best of the best of both actors and will leave you breathless way after the film ended.

The motherly emotions are being brought to life by the great and captivating Conroy (American Horror Story (TV series), Mountain Rest) as the sad, confused and naïve Penny. More wonderful supporting performances come from Brett Cullen (Ghost Rider, The Dark Knight Rises) as the egocentric, powerful and forceful politician Thomas Wayne and from the fine and delighted Zazie Beetz (Lucy in the Sky, Deadpool) as Fleck’s neighbour who’s a little spark of light in his life.

More than just a comic

While watching Joker, you might even forget that this movie is based on the DC Comic characters. Phillips made such an immensely mature movie. Instead of focussing on the superhero side, Joker becomes a psychological study of a damaged and mentally ill man. Phillips wasn’t only able to create this via the brilliant acting performances but also via the impressive cinematography from Lawrence Sher (The Hangover, Godzilla: King of the Monsters) and the bombastic music from Hildur Guðnadóttir (Chernobyl (TV series), Sicario: Day of the Soldado).

Phillips and Sher already worked together during The Hangover films and their partnership is again spot on. While Phillips brings the Joker story to life by work, Sher does it with dark, enigmatic and mysterious images. Images of which you ask whether they’re happening or whether they’re just Fleck’s imagination. That very last scene is really the highlight of their corporation. If you add the grandiose, over-the-top and disturbing musical score from Guðnadóttir to it, you feel the gloomy, dark and disturbing vibe coming out of the (IMAX) screen instantly.

Who’s laughing now?

Well, pretty sure it’s director Phillips. Since the world premiere during the Toronto Film Festival, both critics and audiences fell in love with Joker. Not so hard to guess why. This brilliantly made, perfectly performed and spot-on dark character study will blow you away big time.

Rating: (4.5 / 5)

Also Read: Joke’s On You: The History of Batman’s Arch-Nemesis

The post Review: Joker appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.