The ending of Joker (2019) is deliberately ambiguous, leaving viewers to question the reliability of Arthur Fleck’s narrative and the true nature of the events depicted. While he is shown back in Arkham Asylum, seemingly recounting the events of the film to a therapist, it is heavily implied that much of what the audience witnessed may be a distorted, subjective interpretation of reality.
The Ambiguous Reality of Arthur Fleck’s Joker
The power of Joker lies in its uncertainty. Unlike typical origin stories, it doesn’t present a definitive account of how Arthur Fleck transforms into the iconic Batman villain. Instead, it offers a psychological study of a man struggling with mental illness, societal neglect, and the consequences of violence. The film’s conclusion reinforces this ambiguity, leaving viewers to grapple with the question of what actually happened and what was merely a figment of Arthur’s disturbed imagination.
The Arkham Asylum Setting
The final scenes show Arthur in Arkham Asylum, years after the events of the film. He’s talking to a therapist, recounting a joke that he says she wouldn’t understand. The conversation is cut short by a flashback of Arthur walking through the asylum, leaving a trail of bloody footprints, suggesting he has just committed violence. This final sequence raises more questions than it answers. Was the entire film a fabrication within Arthur’s mind? Did he truly lead a revolution in Gotham, or was it a delusion fueled by his mental illness?
The Unreliable Narrator
Arthur Fleck is an unreliable narrator. He hallucinates, misinterprets social cues, and struggles to distinguish between fantasy and reality. His romantic relationship with Sophie Dumond (Zazie Beetz) is revealed to be entirely imaginary, showcasing the fragility of his perception. Given this, it’s plausible that the entire film, or at least significant portions of it, are filtered through his distorted lens. The riots, the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, and even his own transformation into the Joker could be exaggerations or entirely fabricated events.
The Symbolic Nature of the Ending
Even if the events depicted are not entirely factual, the ending still carries significant symbolic weight. It represents Arthur’s complete descent into madness and his embrace of the Joker persona. The blood he leaves behind can be interpreted as a symbol of the violence he has unleashed upon Gotham and the destruction of his former self. Regardless of the veracity of the events, the ending signifies the birth of the Joker as a symbol of chaos and anarchy.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Here are some common questions that arise after watching the ending of Joker, along with answers to help you better understand the film’s complexities.
FAQ 1: Is the entire movie a figment of Arthur’s imagination?
It’s certainly a plausible interpretation. Director Todd Phillips has stated that the film can be interpreted in multiple ways, leaving room for the possibility that the entire narrative is a product of Arthur’s delusions. The unreliable narration, the inconsistencies in the timeline, and the surreal nature of some scenes all support this theory. Ultimately, the answer is left to the viewer’s interpretation.
FAQ 2: What is the significance of the bloody footprints at the end?
The bloody footprints are a powerful visual symbol of Arthur’s descent into violence and madness. They represent the path he has taken to become the Joker, a path paved with bloodshed and destruction. They also suggest that his violence is ongoing, even within the confines of Arkham Asylum.
FAQ 3: Did Arthur really kill Thomas and Martha Wayne?
The film doesn’t explicitly show Arthur killing the Waynes. The identity of their killer is left ambiguous, although the rioter wearing a clown mask strongly implies a connection to Arthur’s movement. Whether or not Arthur directly ordered or participated in their deaths remains unconfirmed, contributing to the film’s ambiguity. This allows the audience to question the level of responsibility Arthur bears for the societal breakdown.
FAQ 4: How does the ending connect to the Batman mythos?
The connection to Batman is intentionally loose. While the film explores the origin of a character who could become the Joker and shows the death of Bruce Wayne’s parents, it deliberately avoids a definitive link. This allows the film to stand on its own as a character study, rather than being solely dependent on established Batman lore. The ending reinforces this independence by leaving Arthur’s story open-ended and ambiguous.
FAQ 5: What’s the joke Arthur tells the therapist?
The joke is never revealed, adding to the film’s mystery. However, the implication is that the joke is something dark, disturbing, and incomprehensible to someone who doesn’t understand Arthur’s mindset. It’s a joke that only the Joker would find funny, highlighting the vast gulf between his twisted perspective and that of the outside world.
FAQ 6: Is Arthur the real Joker?
The film deliberately avoids providing a definitive answer. While Arthur embodies many of the Joker’s characteristics – chaos, nihilism, a disregard for social norms – the ambiguous ending leaves open the possibility that he’s just one version of the Joker, or that he’s an inspiration for the real Joker who appears later in the Batman timeline. This maintains the enigmatic nature of the Joker character.
FAQ 7: What does the ending say about mental illness?
The film’s portrayal of mental illness is controversial and has been subject to much debate. The ending, in particular, raises questions about the link between mental illness and violence. While it’s crucial to remember that the vast majority of individuals with mental illness are not violent, the film explores the potential consequences of societal neglect and the lack of adequate mental healthcare.
FAQ 8: Is Arthur responsible for the riots in Gotham?
While Arthur’s actions certainly contribute to the chaos and unrest in Gotham, he is not solely responsible. The riots are a culmination of societal problems – poverty, inequality, and a lack of opportunity – that have been simmering for years. Arthur acts as a catalyst, but the underlying issues are far more complex.
FAQ 9: Does the ending suggest a sequel?
The ending is intentionally open-ended, leaving room for a potential sequel. However, Todd Phillips has stated that he has no immediate plans to continue the story. While the possibility of a sequel remains, the film functions effectively as a standalone piece, leaving the audience to contemplate its themes and ambiguities.
FAQ 10: What is the overall message of the movie and its ending?
The movie doesn’t offer a single, clear message. Instead, it presents a complex and multifaceted exploration of societal issues, mental illness, and the consequences of violence. The ending reinforces this complexity by leaving the audience with more questions than answers, encouraging them to reflect on the themes presented and draw their own conclusions.
FAQ 11: How does the film’s score contribute to the ending’s impact?
Hildur Guðnadóttir’s score is crucial to the film’s overall atmosphere and particularly impactful in the ending. The increasingly dissonant and unsettling music mirrors Arthur’s descent into madness. In the final scenes, the score creates a sense of unease and uncertainty, further amplifying the ambiguity of the ending and leaving a lasting impression on the viewer.
FAQ 12: What is the significance of the phrase “Smile” throughout the film?
The phrase “Smile” takes on multiple meanings throughout the film. Initially, it represents the forced positivity that Arthur attempts to project, despite his inner turmoil. As he transforms into the Joker, the smile becomes more sinister and menacing, reflecting his embrace of chaos and violence. By the end, the Joker’s smile is a symbol of his complete detachment from reality and his embrace of his new identity. It’s a mask he wears, both literally and figuratively, to conceal the darkness within.