What if Joker were real?

"Joker": The ambiguous ending explained

“Joker” seems to end with an almost perfect shot of the famous Batman villain: Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) dances on the bonnet of the crashed police car while the Joker imitators, incited by his actions, cheer him on. Arthur lifts his head and, with the blood that runs out of his mouth, traces the blood-red clown grimace on his face.

This is where director Todd Phillips could have let “Joker” end, but he opts for a kind of epilogue: In another scene we see Arthur in white inmate clothing at Arkham State Hospital talking to a psychiatrist or caregiver. A scene that is very easy to understand - or isn't it?

First of all, the obvious: the psychiatrist asks Arthur what he thinks is so funny, to which he replies that she wouldn't understand the joke he was thinking about anyway. Then we see him strutting through the corridors of Arkham and running away from a pack of guards, leaving red footprints.

So it is clear: Somehow Arthur managed to free himself from his handcuffs and murder the caregiver - the red footprints are from her blood. Apparently Arthur has finally changed from the misunderstood outsider, pushed around by society, who suddenly becomes a symbol of resistance and kills out of self-defense or affect, to the crazy, murderous Batman villain known from the comics.

But there is also a second possible interpretation: The plot of the whole film may have been fictitious. It is very possible that Arthur was actually sitting at the table in Arkham the whole time telling his supervisor the completely fictional story we see in "Joker".

There are enough clues for this in "Joker" without question. Already in the film, based on the scenes with Sophie (Zazie Beetz), it is established that not everything is as it seems, because the shared scenes with the two only existed in Arthur's imagination. And don't we find out at one point that Arthur was imprisoned in Arkham in the past? So it is possible that the hospital never left, but was there all the time.

Director Todd Phillips wanted opposite the LA Times Incidentally, do not confirm either of the two readings. "There are many ways in which one could watch this film. For example: 'This is just one of his multiple choice stories. None of that happened. ‘"

He didn't want to say which interpretation was the right one, Phillips continued. “But a lot of people I've shown the film to have said,“ Oh, I see. He made up a story. The whole film is a joke. Just something this guy hatched at Arkham Asylum. Maybe he's not the joker at all. ‘"

So the finale is not that simple and self-explanatory. How did you understand the end of "Joker"? Which possibility do you think is more likely? And do you think Arthur Fleck is the Joker in "Joker"?

That's why there is no post-credit scene in "Joker"