Todd Phillips’ 2019 film Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix, remains one of the most debated psychological dramas of the last decade. Praised for its raw portrayal of mental illness, social isolation, and the descent into chaos, the film also planted a powerful question in the minds of viewers: How much of it was real? Could the entire story—or significant parts of it—have been imagined by Arthur Fleck, the man who becomes the Joker?
This ambiguity isn’t accidental. Phillips and Phoenix crafted a narrative that thrives on subjective perception. As the story unfolds, visual and narrative clues begin to suggest that viewers may not be witnessing objective events but instead the fragmented, distorted inner world of its deeply troubled protagonist. Examining these signs reveals why the theory that Joker is largely a fantasy imagined by Arthur remains a compelling interpretation.
The unreliable narrator
Arthur Fleck is introduced as a man living with a mental illness that includes delusions and hallucinations. He takes medication, receives therapy at a public clinic, and is explicitly described as having a disorder that causes uncontrollable laughter. These markers already establish him as an unreliable narrator. The audience is placed squarely within his perspective, and little is offered outside of his viewpoint to verify what’s real.
Unreliable narrators are not new to cinema. Films like Fight Club and A Beautiful Mind have explored the gap between perception and reality, leading viewers to question what they’ve seen. Joker adopts a similar approach, often subtly blending hallucination with reality so seamlessly that the line becomes difficult to define.
The imaginary relationship with Sophie
One of the most blatant indications that Arthur’s perspective is untrustworthy is his imagined relationship with his neighbor, Sophie, played by Zazie Beetz. Throughout the film, viewers see her attending Arthur’s comedy show, spending time in his apartment, and accompanying him during pivotal moments of his life. But in a crucial sequence, it’s revealed that none of it happened.
When Arthur enters her apartment unannounced, Sophie is startled and clearly unfamiliar with him, indicating that everything the audience had been shown before was a product of Arthur’s mind. This twist forces a reassessment of prior scenes and calls into question how much of the narrative can be accepted at face value.
Multiple moments lacking external confirmation
Several key scenes lack witnesses or external grounding. For instance, Arthur’s transformation into the Joker culminates in his appearance on the Murray Franklin Show, where he delivers a chilling monologue before shooting the host on live television. This sequence is shocking and powerful—but also curiously theatrical. Some fans argue it’s staged too perfectly for a man who has failed at every aspect of life until then. The cinematography is almost dreamlike, and Arthur’s composure is uncharacteristic of his earlier behavior.
Another example is the riotous crowd that lifts Arthur from the police car wreckage, positioning him as a messianic figure amid a burning Gotham. This imagery feels metaphorical, almost mythic. Given the film’s interest in Arthur’s fantasies of grandeur and recognition, it’s plausible that these moments are wish-fulfillment rather than reality.
The scene in the asylum
The final scene of the film takes place in Arkham State Hospital, where Arthur is seen laughing to himself during a therapy session. When asked what’s funny, he replies, “You wouldn’t get it.” The camera then cuts to him walking down the hallway, leaving bloody footprints behind.
This moment is jarring because it’s set apart from the rest of the film visually and tonally. Some interpret this as a flash-forward, implying that Arthur has been institutionalized after the events of the film. Others, however, see it as a signal that the entire narrative was imagined from within the asylum. Arthur could have constructed the whole origin story of the Joker as a coping mechanism or delusion, giving himself purpose in a world where he feels invisible.
Echoes of classic cinema
Phillips has acknowledged the influence of films like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, both of which focus on alienated men descending into violence and delusion. In The King of Comedy, the protagonist fantasizes about fame and recognition, blurring reality and imagination.
By modeling Joker after these films, Phillips invites viewers to question the truth of what they’re seeing. It becomes less about what happened and more about what Arthur believes happened. The film doesn’t offer a definitive answer, and that uncertainty is part of its impact.
Symbolism and intentional vagueness
The film contains layers of visual symbolism that further support the ambiguity of Arthur’s reality. Clocks, mirrors, and staircases—common symbols of fractured perception—appear repeatedly. The recurring motif of dancing, especially in moments of crisis or transition, suggests Arthur’s growing detachment from external reality and immersion in his inner world.
The ambiguous timeline also contributes to the confusion. Gotham appears both modern and outdated, the clothing styles span decades, and details about Arthur’s childhood and parentage remain elusive. This vagueness doesn’t anchor the story in a clear historical context, reinforcing the idea that it could be a constructed fantasy.
What this interpretation changes
If much of Joker is imagined by Arthur, the film becomes less about a literal rise of a villain and more about the interior collapse of a man desperate for meaning. His fantasies of connection, recognition, and rebellion provide him with a story where he’s not a victim of neglect but the architect of chaos.
This shifts the tone of the film. Rather than viewing the riots and transformation as societal commentary, they become personal projections—Arthur’s way of giving himself significance. His suffering becomes mythologized in his mind, turning him into a symbol, even if that symbol only exists inside his head.
Artistic choice or open-ended invitation?
The filmmakers have deliberately declined to clarify the reality of the events depicted in Joker. This decision respects the intelligence of the audience and preserves the psychological tension that defines the story. Joaquin Phoenix’s performance thrives on that ambiguity. His portrayal of Arthur is layered with contradictions—timid yet explosive, detached yet desperate—which supports both interpretations: one grounded in literal events and another born from internal fantasy.
The open-ended nature of the narrative allows for ongoing conversation. It avoids clean resolutions, favoring a storytelling approach that reflects the instability of Arthur’s mind. Whether the events truly happened or not, the emotional and thematic impact remains undiminished.