Most men involved in heated hetero relationships have two personas — (a) the dynamic achiever, performer, stick-man and breadwinner, which usually satisfies or at least placates wives and girlfriends, and (b) the young lad or adolescent child who wants to be loved unconditionally, as he might be by his mother or, in sexual terms, by an exceptionally passionate lover he’s only been with a short while.

All men of maturity understand that the young lad kind of love is a dream, even if most men long for this kind of thing in their heart of hearts. And yet most fellows of experience realize they can’t hold onto a girlfriend or wife for very long unless unless they achieve and perform and go into an impressive song-and-tapdance now and then…rules of the game.

Joker: Folie a Deux is about a man with two personas — Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), the abused and traumatized child who wants to be loved and adored for who he is deep down, and the giggling sociopathic showboat known as “the Joker” (also Phoenix).

Both Arthur and his alter ego delight in fantasies of singing and dancing with his new lover (Lady Gaga‘s Harleen “Lee” Quinzel). Alas, Lee is primarily in love with the dynamic criminal, clownface sociopath and crazed performer of legend.

The big emotional climax of Joker: Folie a Deux arrives when Arthur Fleck confesses who he really is and that “Joker” is an inauthentic, sensationalized media persona, and subsequently realizes that Lee doesn’t have much of an attachment to the traumatized child and is entirely attracted to the eccentric and generally venal Joker.

The only portions of the film that deliver feelings of peace and serenity are the musical dream sequences with Arthur and Lee singing and dancing to a series of classic love songs.

The thematic import of Joker: Folie a Deux is a hard one. You could call it cruel. Todd Phillips and Scott Silver‘s film is essentially saying that glorious, fanciful, all-accepting love — the kind that young naive men might long for — is a nice dream but basically for the birds.

Because women tend to prefer the rogue, the conqueror, the operator, the headliner, the charismatic personality. This is the basic way of relationships, the film is saying.

Joker: Folie a Deux is therefore a massive downer of a movie, and yet it has to be respected for its refusal to entertain (except during the song-and-dance sequences) and for the general integrity of the scheme.

It’s a movie that’s impossible to love, but you can’t accuse Phillips and Silver of not dealing straight cards. It really is a “fuck you” to the escapist attitudes of D.C. fanboys, and I for one respect what it’s up to. It’s a serious art film, defined by a certain morose integrity. It’s going to be hated by almost everyone. But it’s not trash. Far from it.

For me, a shorter length would have improved matters. 110 or 115 minutes as opposed to 138.

Incidentally: I was more than a little bothered by Phoenix’s cigarette smoking in the film. In almost every damn scene he’s got one going, and I suspect this is because Phoenix himself is a heavy smoker, and that he collaborated closely with Phillips and that before anyone realized it Folie a Deux had become a lit-cigarette movie with ashes dropping all over the place.

Hollywood Elsewhere is about to attend a late-afternoon screening of Todd Phillips and Scott Silver‘s Joker: Folie a Deux. Let the chips fall, but this is what my day is about…please allow me to find my way into this, God…I don’t want to join the throng of haters.

Less than six months hence we’ll all be hate-watching Marc Webb‘s Snow White (Disney, 3.21.25). God, I really can’t wait.

Two or three days ago the writers of five scripts where honored as recipients of the 2024 Academy Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting. A total of 5,500 scripts, from 80 countries, were submitted for the 2024 competition. Please scan the following quickie synopses of the five winning scripts and tell me there isn’t something in the water that’s causing strange behavior. Please indicate which screenplay you think will turn into the most painful film.

1. “Miss Chinatown”, written by Alysha Chan and David Zarif (Los Angeles, CA). Capsule description: Jackie Yee follows in her mother’s footsteps on her quest to win the Los Angeles Miss Chinatown pageant.

2. “Fake-A-Wish”, written by Colton Childs (Waco, TX). Capsule description: Despite their 40-year age gap, and the cancer treatment confining them to their small Texas town, two gay men embark on a road trip to San Francisco to grant themselves the Make-A-Wish they’re too old to receive.”

3. “Gunslinger Bride”, written by Charmaine Colina (Los Angeles, CA). Capsule description: “With a bounty on her head, a young Chinese-American gunslinger poses as a mail order bride to hide from the law and seek revenge for her murdered family.”

4. “If I Die in America”, written by Ward Kamel (Brooklyn, NY). Capsule description: “After the sudden death of his immigrant husband, an American man’s tenuous relationship with his Muslim in-laws reaches a breaking point as he tries to fit into the funeral they’ve arranged in the Middle East. Adapted from the SXSW® Grand Jury-nominated short film of the same name.”

5. “The Superb Lyrebird & Other Creatures”, written by Wendy Britton Young (West Chester, PA). Capsule description: “A neurodivergent teen who envisions people as animated creatures, battles an entitled rival for a life-changing art scholarship, while her sister unwisely crosses the line to help.”

…about Will and Harper, posted a couple of days ago on Facebook by Robert Hofler:

“I’m glad Josh Greebaum made the doc and I’m glad I watched it, but like a lot of reality TV, it’s a tad dishonest. Harper Steele is afraid how the middle-of-the-country types will treat her, and the doc makes clear that they are actually very accepting. Occasionally in the doc, Steele enters these establishments without companion/costar Will Ferrell, but there is always a camera present. Obviously.

“That camera presence, no doubt, inhibits people from expressing their real, deep-down opinion. Often in the doc restaurant servers and others call Steele ‘sir’, and she has to correct them. But if she weren’t sitting next to a movie star, how would these people react? The camera is too strong and unrecognized a force in this narrative. Then again, would I have read a memoir titled ‘Harper Steele’? No.

“The doc made me like Ferrell a lot. There’s a sadness, though, in how often he tells Harper that she is ‘pretty’ or ‘beautiful.’ Did he ever feel the need to tell the previous male version of Steele that he was ‘handsome?”

…for acknowledging in an ad what everyone has been saying since last May , which is that Francis Coppola‘s Megalopolis is more nuts than audacious. This is called “getting in front of the controversy, and then owning it.” This is a little bit like MGM marketing’s decision to acknowledge the fact that counter-culture viewers of 2001: A Space Odyssey were tripping (in some cases literally) through the lightshow finale, and adopting an audience-friendly slogan: “The Ultimate Trip.”

I had rsvp’d to a Joker: Folie a Deux screening in Manhattan, but given the almost bizarrely negative reviews this far plus the fact that I can see it tomorrow evening locally via my AMC membership, it didn’t seem worth the train fare.

I am actually looking forward to liking this film, and that’s largely due to my understanding that it’s highly dismissive of typical D.C. fanboy expectations. This in itself turns me on.

Australian critic Peter Gray: “In the same way that it was quite the baffling result that 2019’s Joker ‘laughed’ its way to a billion dollar haul at the box office, Joker: Folie à Deux and all its ‘fuck you’ energy to WB fandom and mainstream appeal is a strikingly anti-audience effort that deserves praise for being so bold with its mentality, but not for its final result as a narrative we can invest in.

“Whether or not writer/director Todd Phillips has anything intentional to say or not with his off-putting psychological drama is best left to the audiences to decipher, but the fact that he’ll no doubt [attract] said audiences to theatres this weekend for a film that’s so aggressively subversive and oppositional to what the fans expect is the biggest laugh of all; and it’s the only one this taxing sequel is going to get.”

THR‘s David Rooney:

“Todd Phillips and Scott Silver deserve credit for going their own way with a canonical DC character. But it’s difficult to imagine hard-core Batman universe aficionados being thrilled by a movie that — OK, this is definitely a spoiler — would seem to wipe out an entire future for a key nemesis enshrined in comic-book mythology, rendering him a sad, broken man.”

The only voters who will explore or even casually scan special prosecutor Jack Smith‘s 165-page filing, which has been publicly released and which focuses at length upon Donald Trump‘s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, are those who are already in the pro-Harris, anti-Trump tank.

Pro-Trump, red-state bumblefucks won’t even glance at it, of course, and will hail Trump as a martyr and say that Smith’s filing is a grossly unfair attempt to influence the 11.5.24 election, etc.

Here’s the whole 165-page, partially redacted filing, courtesy of Judge Tanya Chutkan and the N.Y. Times.

Yesterday Olivia Nuzzi filed a civil lawsuit against ex-boyfriend Ryan Lizza, claiming that Lizza, desperate to somehow prod or manipulate her into re-starting their sexual relationship, fed details to reporters about her provocative (if non-physical) relationship with RFK, Jr.

New York‘s Herb Scribner reported the story today. The things that jilted ex-lovers will do to keep things going. Nuzzi’s lawsuit is unproven but would Nuzzi have filed it if she didn’t have the proof horses that affirm her argument and then some?

There are two sides to every breakup saga.

…in a family relationship film, co-written by DDL and his twentysomething, red-haired son Ronan Day-Lewis and directed by the latter. But dear God, the title of the film is so precious-sounding, so dandified, so high-falutin’and Charlie Kaufman-esque (remember Anomalisa?) that it will probably repel or elude 97% of potential moviegoers or streaming viewers out there….trust me.

It’s called Anemone, and while the word signifies a kind of flower, to most people it will probably sound like an exotic disease.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m delighted that DDL is back on the stick. I’ll probably watch Pheromone…sorry, Anemone at least two or three times theatrically. I love pretentious-sounding titles and the movies they adorn, seriously, and I’m literally humming with excitement about this one. Even though we all understand that this is purely DDL’s gesture of love and support for Ronan, which makes you wonder how good the script is.

There’s been a slight press dispute about the title. It’s almost certainly called Anemone (according to Variety and other outlets) but if you’re inclined to believe Daily Mail reporter Amelia Wynne, it may instead be called Avelyn.

Who’s betting on Avelyn? Not me. I’m just presuming Wynne made a rookie mistake, even though her story was updated last night at 6 pm eastern.

If you ask me the Day-Lewis clan probably wants the Anemone title to repel or elude or at least sightly confuse. It’s their way of saying “we’re too sensitive and attuned to the invisible, spiritual beauty of life to use a schlubby common-man hot dog title, and if you don’t like our decision….well, sorry.”

There would be more interest in this film among the schmoes, trust me, if Anemone was called Flapdoodle or Manchester Soup or Sod Off, Dad! or Advanced Toenail Fungus.

Either way DDL, 67, is back in business after retiring from acting in 2017, when he turned 60.

DDL’s Anemone costars are Sean Bean, Samantha Morton, Samuel Bottomley and Safia Oakley-Green.

Variety‘s Owen Gleiberman is a staunch ally of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, but in a Variety essay penned late last night he had the moxie to step back and coolly assess who performed “better” in the Walz-Vance debate. I don’t like his verdict — I think the vp debate was a draw so I don’t fucking agree with it — but his words nonetheless put a chill into my system.

I wrote last night that Walz “is a smart, decent, honorable fellow, but J.D. Vance is a taller, smoother operator with blue eyes and a nicely trimmed goatee. They’ve both indicated that they respect each other. Hell, they almost even like each other. Nobody’s doing any bitch-slapping here.

“I think the debate was a draw. Walz closed strongly, especially when discussing he Affordable Care Act and the criminal chaos of Jan. 6th. Vance did a little bit better, I think, during the first half-hour. Vance’s lying aside and attempts to sane-wash the crazy, it was a reasonable discussion for the most part. I don’t think it changes the Presidential race at all.”

Gleiberman was having none of this. He declared Vance the winner.

“Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are fighting to save America,” Gleiberman wrote. “Yes, they are, and I believe they’re the ones to do it. But the way you save America is by winning the election. And on that score, JD Vance gave an astonishingly impressive performance that was all wrapped up in the aura of a winner.

“With those piercing eyes and that perfectly coiffed hair, his FM-DJ-meets-Fox-News voice, and his absolute refusal to get riled about anything, even if it was one of his pet ideologies (like the evils of immigration), he worked the debate stage with remarkable panache.

“Vance had confidence; he had calm; he had a Mona Lisa smile that allowed him to stay above the fray. And, to my surprise, he had a touch of what Ronald Reagan did — the ability to make all his statements sound like a form of assurance. That was true even when he was selling pure malarkey.”

HE to Gleiberman: You’re basically saying that Walz is a better, more humane and highly principled man and a Minnesota straight-shooter but last night he put out antsy, nerve-jangled body and facial signals while Vance is a fucking liar who’s serving a total sociopath criminal beast but he lied in a very smooth and confident and well-coiffed Reaganesque way. So yay Vance!

Vance was mainly running for the 2028 MAGA presidency.”

Okay, Owen wasn’t actually saying “yay, Vance!” He was trying to discuss the thing that woke media never talks about: what actually wins elections. The fact that they don’t talk about this enough — and that the Republicans do — is part of the reason Kamala may, believe it or not, lose in a squeaker. Owen was trying to call the debate in a reality-based, non-woke way, and ‘yay Vance!’ has nothing to do with it.

9:05 pm: Bad camera decisions…we missed the walk-ons, the handshakes…Walz’s forceful reply on Israel-Iran is used to lob grenades at Vance. Vance replies with a generic, this-is-who-I-am stump speech, which then segues into an attack on Biden’s foreign policy.

Vance: “Donald Trump consistently made the world more secure”…WHAT? Walz furiously scribbling notes. Love that deep, raspy voice. Vance is lying and misrepresenting, but he’s younger, taller and thinner than Walz & his delivery is cool and measured. He’s doing okay. Walz is also doing well. Frank-sounding, lots of statistics, forthright delivery. And then right back to his notes.

9:17 pm: How many solar panels are being made in China, and how many here in the U.S.? Southern border immigration, “stop the bleeding”, fentanyl smuggling.

Walz: Trump torpedoed a Mexican immigrant bill “because he wanted a campaign issue to run on.” A verbal scuffle between Vance and moderators….Vance won’t stop yapping it up while the moderators are trying to adhere to structure and procedure.

Vance is really running for himself as a 2028 MAGA candidate — he knows Trump won’t be running in ’28, and he’s better at this than Trump ever has been or will be.

Frank Luntz focus group: Walz and Vance are better at digging into the issues than Harris and Trump were. Vance is a bigger liar — Walz is less combative than he could be. He’s a straight shooter, but he’s too decent of a guy to go in for the kill.

9:35 pm: Walz’s defense of Biden-Harris’s economic record is fast, vigorous and factual. Walz is reviewing his career. Travelling to China 35 years ago, but he “misspoke” about the timing of the visit. “I’ve learned a lot about China…now look, my community knows who I am…I’ve not been perfect but my commitment has been there from the beginning.”

9:45 pm: Vice-presidents don’t make policy. The vice-presidency “isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit,” as John Nance Garner once said. Vice-presidents are ceremonial figureheads. They control nothing — strictly backup.

Walz is recounting the story of the late Amber Thurman, who died due to a slowup of procedure due to the absence of Roe vs. Wade regulations.

My head is spinning. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat….ratta-ratta-ratta. I can’t keep up with all the point-counterpoint…whew. But these guys are evenly matched. Nobody’s losing or winning.

10 pm: Should parents be held responsible for school shootings? The easy availability of automatic weaponry is obviously at the root of this.

Walz: My 17 year-old son witnessed something violent close by. In Minnesota we enacted “red flag laws, backup checks.” Finland doesn’t allow these horrible things to happen. We can keep our weapons and still make this work. Sometimes it’s just the [availabilty of] guns. Death from at-home suicides. Kids getting guns and accidentally shooting themselves.

Vance is making an excellent case that despite his lies and evasions, he’s a better, more issue-oriented and mature-minded debater than Donald Trump.

Walz: Kamala Harris will stand by Obamacare (i.e., the ACA) and you will not suffer if stricken by a disese because of the pre-existing conditions clause.

Tim Walz is a smart, decent, honorable fellow, but J.D. Vance is a taller, smoother operator with a nicely trimmed goatee. They’ve both indicated that they respect each other. Hell, they almost even like each other. Nobody’s doing any bitch-slapping.

I think the debate was a draw. Walz closed strongly, especially when discussing he Affordable Care Act and the criminal chaos of Jan. 6th. Vance did a little bit better, I think, during the first half-hour. Vance’s lying aside and attempts to sane-wash the crazy, it was a reasonable discussion for the most part. I don’t think it changes the Presidential race at all.