MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > An out-there theory that actually has su...

An out-there theory that actually has supporting evidence: Arthur and his mother, Penny, are the same person!

posted 5 years ago by Geff (453)
30 replies | jump to latest

As far as I know, I'm the first to notice this. Please give credit if you spread it.

Penny is Arthur's alter-ego. Penny transitioned to Arthur during her/his stay at Arkham Asylum. In Arthur/Penny's disturbed mind Penny transformed from being his former self, to becoming his mother.

Supporting evidence:

1. Arthur and his mother are never seen together by anyone else throughout the movie.

2. One of the bigger clues takes place when the two detectives approach Arthur outside the hospital where his mother is supposedly being treated after a "stroke".

The officers mention that they spoke to Arthur's mother because they couldn't find him. Possibly they spoke to her on the phone. They don't mention that they actually saw her. They say that upon speaking to her she began hyperventilating and fell and hit her head badly. She didn't actually have a stroke, this was a lie by Arthur.

Notice that the entire discussion with the officers is one lie after another. Afterwards as he tries to enter the hospital he mistakenly tries to enter the hospital through the exit. This might be a clue that he never went into the hospital before this. If he had come out of that hospital he would have remembered the exit.

I suspect that Penny's hyperventilating and hitting of the head that the detectives mention did actually take place. After Penny's (and Arthur's) head injury, the restraints on Arthur were removed because Penny's ego became silent. Later Arthur kills Penny and fully transforms into Arthur.

3. The confrontation between Arthur and Thomas Wayne at the Charlie Chaplin show is imagined. The beginning of the dream sequence mirrors the dream sequence where he meets the late night talk show host. He is looking at the protests on TV and suddenly he's there. The events leading upto the meeting with Wayne are very unbelievable. The dream sequence ends with him in the apartment standing with arms on kitchen counter mimicing his arms on the sink in the dream.

Both the "audience priming" dream sequence with the talk show host and the Wayne dream sequence end with heavy blue lighting in the apartment.

4. During the conversation with the clerk in Arkham, he clerk mentions "She was found guilty of endangering 'her own' child". The adoption paper was discovered by Arthur later, he is already primed to see this illusion due to his made up dream confrontation with Wayne. The adoption paper is likely not real.

Assuming that the clerk is reliable, Penny/Arthur did have a child. It's unbelievable that the child would be sent to Arkham. Possibly the child was taken away from her and put up for adoption and she became Arthur as a coping mechanism for losing her child.

It is doubtful that Penny actually worked for Wayne. Alfred probably knew about her due to news surrounding her incarceration. She built up an illusory strong attachment to Wayne just as Arthur built up an illusory strong attachment with both the TV show host and Wayne (again, as his new self). As Penny, Wayne was an illusory lover, as Arthur, Wayne became an illusory father. The psychological root of this is probably from a desire to have a wealthy happy life.

5. A couple other hints: Before killing Penny, Arthur mentions "I always hated that name." Referring to the name Penny Fleck. A possible reference to the idea that it was his own name and he prefers his new name, Arthur.

Arthur and his mother shared a bedroom. During the scene prior to the killing of work friend, he is putting on white makeup infront of what clearly looks like a female's dressing table (Penny's/his own). He takes a picture of young Penny and crumples it symbolizing that after killing Penny he has become entirely Arthur.

6. When Arthur is speaking to the social worker early in the film he is asked "have you thought more about why you were locked up?" to this Arthur responds "who knows". It is clear to me that Arthur was locked up as Penny. She transitioned during her stay there, possibly as part of her treatment.

Also, remember this: When he is talking to the Arkham clerk he asks something like "How does one end up here" as if he wasn't there already. Infact, he was there before as Penny. As he is losing his Penny-self due to lack of meds and also possibly due to head injury, he is forgetting his old self. Arthur was not in Arkham, Penny was.

[–] AdamS (336) 5 years ago

That was well explained, very well thought out, and completely tin-foil hat time.

The only things 'imagined' in the movie were...
His fantasy relationship with his neighbor, his being in the audience on DeNiro's show, and (maybe) his victory dance on top of the wrecked cop car.

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

The thing is wearing a tin foil in movie analysis actually makes sense. Everyone learned in fiction writing class that everything you tell in any fictional narrative has to have a purpose. In well written movies every single scene, every single line is telling you something. Everything has a purpose, nothing should be without a reason or without any significance to the overarching themes. I pointed out a few clues that have a purpose if taken together.

Tin foil analysis of real life events ofcourse doesn't make sense because in real life events oftentimes don't have any purpose or meaning or some grander story it's trying to tell.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I believe the victory dance was an hallucination, really don't think that the Ambulance deliberately crashed into the cop car to save Joker, they were real ambulance people that pulled Joker out of the car not ones in clown masks, that whole part was an hallucination of grandeur.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

nah

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Penny was real there was no Arthur is like a Norman Bates character in Pyscho going on there.

That photo Arthur crumbled up of a young Penny was her with Thomas Wayne and it had a message on the back from Thomas (hence the TW initials on it), Randall and Gary also came to Arthur's flat to make sure he was okay after hearing about Penny's passing.

Also when Penny passes out/has a stroke due to the Cops visiting, when Arthur returns home he sees her being taken by gurney past a whole heap of people (some likely residents of the building he is in). When he goes to look at her the Ambulance people pushing the gurney even ask who he is to which he answers her son and then he goes off in the back of the ambulance with Penny and an Ambulance person in the back of it...that is clearly all not an hallucination of his.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

If Penny was real and there's no Arthur then why did Randall and Gary come to make sure he was okay after hearing about Penny's passing?

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

Good catch. I didn't pick up on this.

Also, added another key piece of evidence in the original post. See number 6.

[–] AdamS (336) 5 years ago

Because Arthur imagined the things he wished were true, he imagined everything?
No.

We were shown what was imagined.

Was he imagining the footprints he left behind at the end? That he didn't even see?
No... that was blood from the shrink he just killed... killed her gruesomely enough, tht there was so much blood on the floor he stood in and tracked it down the hall.

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

Was he imagining the footprints he left behind at the end? That he didn't even see?
No... that was blood from the shrink he just killed... killed her gruesomely enough, tht there was so much blood on the floor he stood in and tracked it down the hall.

Please quote where I mentioned anything about this scene, or where I mentioned that "everything" is imagined.

We were shown what was imagined.

Early in the film Arthur is called from the audience by Murray and later given kind words and a hug. Was this imagined or was this non-imagined? How did Arthur end up in the audience suddenly. He was looking at the TV. After the scene, there is an abrupt scene transition to where he is back in his apartment.

Arthur looks at the TV where he is seeing protests, then suddenly he is in the middle of the protests. After Thomas Wayne hits him, suddenly he's back in his apartment. How could it be more obvious. Furthermore, he just sneaks into the theater without any resistance and he he dresses up as a worker. All the rich are watching Charlie Chaplin. This is a pure fantasy in Arthur's mind about how the rich behave.

Every scene that is NOT imagined, the film makes a point of showing Arthur taking a bus/subway to the location or physically going there somehow. His visit to Arkham is NOT imagined, he takes the bus there. The scene in the bathroom after the murders is NOT imagined, he runs there. The scene where he kisses the neighbor IS imagined, he teleports there. The scene in the theatre where he confronts Thomas Wayne IS imagined, he teleports there. The date with the neighbor IS imagined, he teleports to the date after the stand up act. Him reading he documents of Penny(his former self) is NOT imagined, he runs to the stairwell. The scene of meeting with Bruce is NOT imagined, he takes the bus to the Wayne manor. He travels by walking/dancing and then by subway to the interview with Murray, NOT imagined.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Yeah... that got me thinkin. Why would rich people be watching Charlie Chaplin in 1981 while being protested? When I watched it I felt this is weird, but meh, maybe they had some contracts to promote Chaplin remastered Blu-Rays or something (product placement stuff.) But now it's making more sense.

[–] GrimGreyGhost (2) 5 years ago

maybe he did imagine being in the theatre. there's that shot in the trailer of him being i guess kicked out, and falling down the stairs of the theatre. that's not in the film.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Hmm... I need to re-watch the trailers then. Nice catch!

[–] TheFoxcatcher (59) 5 years ago

Every scene that is NOT imagined, the film makes a point of showing Arthur taking a bus/subway to the location or physically going there somehow. His visit to Arkham is NOT imagined, he takes the bus there. The scene in the bathroom after the murders is NOT imagined, he runs there. The scene where he kisses the neighbor IS imagined, he teleports there. The scene in the theatre where he confronts Thomas Wayne IS imagined, he teleports there. The date with the neighbor IS imagined, he teleports to the date after the stand up act. Him reading he documents of Penny(his former self) is NOT imagined, he runs to the stairwell. The scene of meeting with Bruce is NOT imagined, he takes the bus to the Wayne manor. He travels by walking/dancing and then by subway to the interview with Murray, NOT imagined.

Nice observations & thoughts!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Never said Arthur wasn't real just he wasn't acting as if he was his mother, like Norman Bates did in Pyscho (book and film).

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Ah, I see.

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

What makes you think this?

There are two ways to view the movie. One is Arthur and Penny are telling the truth and Thomas Wayne and Alfred are telling a lie. Another is Thomas Wayne and Alfred are telling the truth and Penny and Arthur are telling a lie. Based on what we know about Arthur and Penny and what we know about Alfred and Thomas Wayne from the lore BEYOND this film (this film is deceptive because it's from a certain deluded perspective), who is likely to be telling the truth and who is likely to be telling a lie?

Even if you believe that Arthur and Penny is not the same person, according to the Arkham clerk one of the diagnosis of Penny was psychosis, can it not be the case that Penny herself wrote the message and the TW initials?

If you read Paradise Lost, which is from the perspective of the devil, at the end of it you might think that the devil is the good guy and God is the bad guy. Similarly, if you believe everything that Penny and Arthur says, you will see them as the benevolent subjugated while the wealthy are evil deceptive subjugators.

Also, note that an undertone in the film is that Arthur/Penny not only indirectly created Batman through their actions, but they also created the city of Gotham as we know it in the comics. The movie depicts the early stages of the decent into the corruption and mayhem. Are the benevolent subjugated really that benevolent or are they lying?

The movie The Wailing takes a similar approach. At the end of the movie all the villagers are dead. There are two ways that you can interpret the movie, one is that everyone is dead because they weren't sufficiently cautious about the spirit's warnings. The other (in my opinion, correct) way to interpret is that that everyone is dead because they were fully convinced by the spirit's false rumors, so much so that they were having visual hallucinations that matched the lies in their heads.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I believe Joker is the real person and Arthur is the one he says he is and/or thinks he was.

The ending to me is Joker finishing telling the shrink/social worker his story, it was almost The Killing Joke line not said say after the shrink/social worker asked Why are you laughing? Joker could have easily said: "Well you see sometimes, I remember it one way, sometimes another...if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! My point is...my point is, I went crazy when I saw what a black awful joke the world was...I went crazy as a coot!"

However he said you wouldn't get it instead and we saw a young Bruce at the scene of Thomas and Martha's murder, to which Joker is likely laughing at and thats the joke. Now in that scene the shrink/social worker is the same person we see Joker talking to at the beginning of the film only older now (so we're in the future), what if that is Joker laughing because he now knows of Batman now and feels the irony of creating him. His story is of causing those riots and at that point the Wayne's were killed, being crazy as a copy he may believe he did it after reading that the Wayne's were killed by someone in a clown mask or clown makeup (remember in the subway killings both those were reported).

Now I know it was said that this movie is it's own story however there are things that connect it to others, in fact this film is like a big cauldron and takes bits and pieces from other ComicVerses and cooks it into one. So with that in mind and that the film was Joker telling his story I feel he made Arthur who he was to garner sympathy, to make it seem like his lust for violence and his blood lust where because he is the perpetual victim.

Joker likes to play the victim, if you look at how the story of Harley Quinn she was Harleen Quinzel and first met the Joker in Arkham Asylum as his therapist, until he twisted her mind through their sessions and she begun to see Joker as just another victim. So creating an alternate personality like Arthur is his way of twisting things for his own agenda, perhaps yes Penny was schizophrenic and had delusions and they may have got passed onto Arthur even "if" adopted. Even in a loving home an abused child by the actions of one Uncle or Aunt can turn into an abuser themselves, so Arthur could have been Joker from a young age maybe starting by pulling the wings off flies, burning insects through a magnifying glass and progressed from there torturing others because he was himself.

What if some of the things happening around Gotham are just Joker delusions, what if they weren't all protests and some where just people fleeing from Giant Rats in the subway (and Joker hallucinated them as protesters), certainly I believe it was ambulance people who pulled him out of the vehicle and not masked clowns come to rescue him...why would they at that point after he just shot a TV Host.

There is an Earth One Comic where Thomas Wayne is running for Mayor against a corrupt Mayor in Oswald Cobblepot, Oswald plans to kill Thomas but doesn't as Thomas and Martha end up being killed by a random mugger. So for this a similar twist is at play, Joker wanted to kill Thomas however they were killed by a random mugger and Joker read that or heard it on the news. So in his telling of the story of who he is he turned that random mugger into one wearing a clown mask because he wanted to feel responsible to satisfy his ego, just like he turned the Ambulance crashing into the Cop Car a rescue attempt by people who looked up to him in Clown Masks.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

With number 6 in that full bit with Arthur speaking to his social worker, he mentions how he thinks he was better off when he was hospitalised. The social worker then asks him if he’s given any more thought about why he was hospitalised, it's then Arthur dismisses it with the “Who knows?" so he knows he was hospitalised as Arthur, however seems vague or dismissive on why he was in there.

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

Ofcourse, he doesn't want to remember his old self because he has repressed it. It's troubling for him to remember that he lost his child due to being institutionalized.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Or he chooses not to remember why he was locked up before for violent acts whether to others or self. As that would break his justification to himself of his like of the blood lust he so craves and that he is not really a victim of circumstances like he pretends to be (which he does admit in the end when off the meds).

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

I'm talking about the conversation at the very beginning of the movie. He was not locked up due to any violent acts, certainly not any violent acts that the viewer is aware of. It is not shown explicitly by the movie what he was locked up for before the beginning of the film. My position is: he was locked up as Penny due to her diagnosed psychosis and narcissistic personality disorder and her son was taken away from her, also due to the aforementioned disorders. She transitioned to Arthur during her stay at Arkham, it is not known how long she was in Arkham.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

So am I and it was as I said in full: Arthur is speaking to his social worker, he mentions (first) how he thinks he was better off when he was hospitalised. The social worker then asks him if he’s given any more thought about why he was hospitalised, it's then Arthur dismisses it with the “Who knows?"

So at that point for mine to us the film viewer he knows he was hospitalised as Arthur because we never knew anything about Penny at that point.

So yes we are not told it is due to violent acts, however in that scene there is a flash of remembrance from Arthur of him banging his head on a white door with safety glass just before he says Who knows? So my conclusion at that point in the film was as outlined above in him having a possible violent past in some form due to the scene of him banging his head on a door in what looked like a mental institutions room.

The viewer at that point is also not aware that Penny had been locked up for what she was, your conclusion is in hindsight after finding out about Arthur's mother being locked up much much later on in the film.

For me my conclusion at that early point in the film that he had been violent in some form before was reinforced by Arthur banging his head on the glass of the phone booth in the same manner as he did in his recollection of doing it on the white door with safety glass when talking to the Social Worker Debra Jane the very first time (the two instances gelled together at that point in my mind).

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

your conclusion is in hindsight

Yes, why is this illegal?

I only discovered that Arthur and Penny are the same person upon my send viewing. I missed most of the clues during my first viewing. In particular, the didn't realize that the scene at the theater with the confrontation with Thomas Wayne was a dream sequence. But, if you look at how the scene starts (him watching TV) and how it ends (hard transition to him in apartment), there can be no doubt that this is a dream sequence. The delivery exactly mimics the TV show dream sequence.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Nope of course it is not illegal.

In fact I am saying we both are looking in hindsight and that my part in that is I thought back to that first interview as he banged his head on the phone booth glass and the two gelled as one common thing he did when stressed (showing violence to himself), you from knowing Penny was institutionalised later on. You are using "It is not shown explicitly by the movie what he was locked up for before the beginning of the film," to counter my viewpoint, I am simply pointing out that very same sentence can be said of your thoughts as they are of mine, no judgement it just is.

The only thing in the whole film that says he may have acted in a violent manner in the past are the tablets he is taking and that is really also only known in hindsight because of when he is off them. So that also made me wonder if that was why in that first interview he asked for more drugs thinking they weren't working as well as he felt he was slipping back to what got him locked up the first time (and possibly put on those meds then).

Now my view is that Joker is telling his story and that is what we are seeing in this film up until the end scene, if it turns out I am wrong I will happily admit it, as pointed out in another thread Todd Phillips says he will someday answer theories in this interview:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yX94qLX9Pv0

Basically I feel yours doesn't hold up because for one it's Joker telling the story so all those parts about Penny are his telling of who she was as is everything else, yes he really did kill Murray and those guys on the train, did he stab Randall and let Gary go not sure (jury is out). I believe he uses himself as the victim to try and manipulate others, so may put a few embellishments on his story so Arthur is his creation of who he is/was and even claim things he did that he didn't.

In the end I think we'll have to agree to disagree as we'll just keep going around in circles, I will never come around to your thinking and doubt you will waver from that thinking and come around to mine...so yeah.

[–] huwdj (4562) 5 years ago

Well Geff that certainly is a very interesting idea but I'm afraid our session time is over and it's time for you to take your meds and go back to the ward :)

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

I hate these fan theories that are popular on Youtube. They're retarded and disrespectful to the creators of these movies. They imply that anything that is not explicitly laid out in the movie is subject to distortion and mutation in order to create entertaining "what-ifs". I can't see how any true movie lover would engage in this kind of bullshit as a hobby

What purpose would a mainstream Hollywood writer have for burying such a silly plot twist so deep into a story? It would totally undermine everything that the movie was obviously trying to say. What it was SCREAMING at the audience. Penny was one of the main progenitors of Arthur's misery. She allowed him to be abused in his formative years. That's a real thing that many mentally ill people experience, that their parents are the very first people to expose them to traumatic experiences

Todd Phillips clearly wanted to send this message. It's a standard storytelling "trick". Start the story off with Fleck being a loving, doting son. He bathes his mom, dances with her, humors her fantasies. But then he realizes that she was one of the main causes of all his suffering. The doting son kills the one person who it seemed he truly loved. it's shocking, it's transgressive, it's a Holy Shit moment. It would be totally undermined if they went with the cheap twist of "X was imagining Y all along"

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

Some of the best films have a hidden narrative. The Wailing is another film that harbors a hidden narrative. Here is the feature that both movies share. There is an unexplained mystery in the film, atleast one, and you, the audience, have to do detective work to unravel the mystery leading to a reanalysis of your original view.

In joker there are a couple mysteries. One is why was Arthur at the Asylum prior to the events of the movie. The movie does not explicitly tell you this, or the movie's explanation does not make any rational sense. Why would Arthur be interned with his mother just because his mother "endangered him" (this is according to the clerk's reading of the report before Arthur snatched it). Note, the clerk doesn't mention anything about the son being interned along with the mother, or any of the other details that Arthur adds.

The second mystery is a bit more meta: What is the purpose of the hallucinatory scenes leading upto Arthur's confrontation with Thomas Wayne in the bathroom and the bathroom scene itself. There must be a *reason* why this dream is included. If you look at how the scene starts, Arthur looking into the TV, and how it ends, Arthur back in his apartment, and similaraties between this dream sequence's beginning and end and the beginning and end of the dream sequence with Arthur in Murray's audience, there can be no doubt that this is infact a dream sequence.

In fiction everything has a purpose. Everything serves the narrative somehow. The writer would not include it otherwise.

Why does the movie depict him looking at protestors on TV and teleporting there instead of depicting him going there normally. Why does the movie take time to show Arthur taking the train, bus, subway or running to various non-dream locations, a striking contrast to him teleporting to both the TV audience and him teleporting to the protests.

[–] exatera (3942) 5 years ago

What do you mean Arthur and his mother are never seen together by anyone else? What about when she was taken away in an ambulance?

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

This scene is anomalous and unexplained. It's a piece of evidence against my theory. I grant that this is a stretch, but it may be a dream, or Arthur hit his head and was taken to the hospital, just the physical duality was imagined.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

That's too much of a stretch.