Wouldn’t keeping the Joker alive jeopardize the Dent cover-up?

[Dagenspear]

I think DK has a couple of plot weaknesses that are pretty glaring. Bruce created Batman as a symbol to fight the establishment without having to answer to the boundaries that would face a public figure exposed to the limitations of his property, friends, family, and reputation as open targets. The problem Nolan creates is this idea that Batman IS a public figure. In the first film, Batman is portrayed as something that is more myth than fact. Only the criminals and detectives working certain cases understand there is another entity involved. That's the concept working as it should. But in Dark Knight you suddenly have people imitating him like crime fighter cos-players.

I think that's just Nolan playing in the pool of realism. If Batman has a batsignal by the police, who targets the mob, there's no way the character would be looked at by the public at large as a myth. We're at the point in TDK where Batman has been Batman for at least a year. It's pretty reasonable that he would go from myth to known figure.

How is Batman suddenly that well known when his existence is still compared with Bigfoot and Gordon won't even confirm the existence of the Batsignal, choosing instead to describe it as a malfunctioning light to the prosecuting attorney? Even the public imitators have somehow duplicated  Batman's cowl with uncanny accuracy like he is a licensed product. I can accept some of this to simply advance the plot line since we're watching a superhero movie. But Nolan insists on leaning on this logic to drive the story which takes me out of the film because he's asking me to weigh it at face value which doesn't work.

Gordon won't confirm it to officials, but it exists and everyone knows it. Batman isn't really compared to bigfoot. Bigfoot being a batman suspect, along with Abraham Lincoln felt like, to me, that it was a crack that the cops aren't even trying to figure out who batman is.

If Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on? Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause?  That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.

The authorities do know what side Batman is on. Gordon works with Batman. Joker's job that he's hired for is to get rid of Batman, not to make people hate him. No one knows Batman's motivations or values. Joker thinks he does, but doesn't get it until the end. Batman doesn't get it about the Joker until Rachel dies. The mob doesn't know jack about Batman, they just figure out how he works, which isn't a leap. The Joker doesn't try to play on Batman's morality until the interrogation scene.

And why would Bruce Wayne feel any inclination to fall for the Joker's obvious bait to turn himself in since he already understands the Joker is not working from principle and Batman is not supposed to be a public figure? And how does anyone know Batman has a no-kill clause? When did he give an interview? When did he come out of the shadows to even offer his mission statement? That is such an impossible leap in assumption, it never works. And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway. You can apply all the subtext and analysis you like to what you believe was intended here. The bottom line is the framework of the character does not fit the forced conclusion to cave to the Joker's demand.

Bruce doesn't understand the Joker though. Alfred is does. Bruce is utterly flabbergasted on how to deal with it. Bruce is willing to turn himself in because he doesn't know what else to do. This isn't analysis or subtext. This is in the movie. In the interrogation scene Bruce calls Joker garbage who kills for money. Bruce doesn't understand until after Rachel dies. No one knows Batman has a no-kill clause and no one says that they do. Moroni says that people have become wise to the fact that Batman has rules. It's just basic understanding of Batman at this point. He works with the police. He doesn't actively kill people. He has rules.

The second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to  force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society.  It gets even funnier when you realize Batman was supposed to be created from the corruptible element of mankind. It leaves the solar system of logic when you realize the basis for his training and conditioning comes from a radical group with militia intentions. So everything in that story plot is completely unbelievable. Nothing established in that world (and certainly nothing in the real world) would EVER get you to that moment of rationale. Painfully contrived and not remotely believable.

Actually, there's no structure of real greater good presented. In the movie, the majority votes to blow the criminals up, but no one chooses to do it. On the criminals boat, its run by cops and no criminal can do a thing without getting killed. The one who does something is someone willing to take a stand, who wouldn't be afraid of getting killed. If anything, the movie more or less splits the difference between people doing good and people doing bad. The scene could have been done better, but it's not constructed in as black and white a way as you say. More than anything, the movie seems to point at the idea that people as a whole aren't boiled down to completely good or completely evil. We see a man doing good on the boat and we Harvey doing evil after that. Actually, I'd say the movie points to Batman being wrong about the people at his perception that he doesn't accomplish good and that Harvey is the city's true hero. Bruce believes the city's goodness is conditioned on whether or not Harvey is good and that's simply not true. If anything, Batman has a cynical view of the city. He thinks they're ready to believe in good, by his own words and he seems to hope they will do good, but he doesn't believe they're good. He thinks they can only do good and have hope with Harvey Dent, which is false.

And Nolan is a perfect fix when I want an all encapsulating profile on the psychology of Bruce Wayne as Batman. Nolan creates real drama in his stories and for me took the most daring of moves by giving Bruce Wayne a happy ending. I respect that because it's nice to see all that turmoil and angst find resolve and peace.

I agree in a sense. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Andrew]

If Batman is suddenly a brand name from which the public can distinguish his motivation and purpose, how effective can he truly be anymore? He now has a reputation to foil. So why does the Joker need to kill people to make him turn himself in? Why not just muddy the image? Why not commit crimes in his image so that even the authorities have no idea what side Batman is on?

He considers it more fun to actually corrupt Batman and/or not lie per se to the city but have the city turn against Batman even thinking he's a good guy but indirectly causing more harm.

Why this morality play on Batman's "no-kill" clause?  That is the problem with this entire story. Everyone is gifted with the ability to know the motivations and values of one another even though Batman is supposed to be more enigma than personality.

I guess it's a contrivance but reasonable that he deduced it from him being a vigilante and yet not killing criminals (he may also assume that someone who isn't sadistic like him and fights for society must have a lot of society's restraints in general).

And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway.

Yeah that felt like a rather phony dilemma.

The second glaring plot weakness is the boat sequence between the two stereotyped groups. First, it's way too self aware as a plot device because it's Nolan once again preaching while he tries to  force feed some pretentious notion that Batman has a pulse on the good in society and that only he understands the will of what the average person would do. It's completely preposterous because once again it leaps off the charts of reason and makes this universal claim of understanding the greater good of society.

That scene is pretty weird-Batman interprets it as the public proving the Joker wrong but really most of the civilians wanted to blow the other up, and were close to though they ultimately didn't, and only one criminal decided against doing so.

[Dagenspear]

And to see Bruce just give in doesn't line up with his reason for being Batman nor his knowledge that the Joker is going to keep killing anyway.

Yeah that felt like a rather phony dilemma.

Honestly, it falls pretty neatly in line with Nolan Batman's structure of morality and actions. He never tries to kill someone unless there's immediate danger in play. Harvey was trying to kill a kid. Blowing up the monastery was the only way he could escape the LOS, who'd just told him they were planning to destroy Gotham and were telling him that he must kill someone to prove his worth to them and there was no turning back. Even then, the monastery was just a distraction so he could escape that gets some LOS members killed. Crashing the train was the only way to stop it and Batman tried to stop it manually and would have if Ra's hadn't stabbed the console.

[Wayne49]

[Honestly, it falls pretty neatly in line with Nolan Batman's structure of morality and actions. He never tries to kill someone unless there's immediate danger in play. Harvey was trying to kill a kid. Blowing up the monastery was the only way he could escape the LOS, who'd just told him they were planning to destroy Gotham and were telling him that he must kill someone to prove his worth to them and there was no turning back. Even then, the monastery was just a distraction so he could escape that gets some LOS members killed. Crashing the train was the only way to stop it and Batman tried to stop it manually and would have if Ra's hadn't stabbed the console.

All of these events mentioned only support why this is a weak plot contrivance. Wayne has already been in several circumstances where he's had to kill or chosen not to do anything which results in someone being killed (in theory). So now we're into situational ethics where Bruce decides life and death. With the Joker, he is already known to be a ruthless killer which exempts no one, not even his own kind. He's telling Batman on television (like he's a public figure) that he will continue doing what he has always done if Batman does not turn himself in. How exactly is that a dilemma? Anyone in that situation with an ounce of common sense knows the Joker is simply trying to remove his primary threat, which is Batman. So why would Bruce give him that? Because the Joker will keep killing people like he does already? What has the Joker introduced that is different here? The fact he's saying it on television and Batman has a reputation to protect? No. So which is it? Is he being selfish or is he simply stupid because he HONESTLY thinks the Joker will stop killing people because he turns himself in? I just don't think there's any rationale that gets you to the decision he made. It feels very forced and undermines all the risk he has taken to fight for the "greater good" of the public he wants to defend. How is the public served if he turns himself in and the Joker overruns the city with death and more crime?

[Dagenspear]

All of these events mentioned only support why this is a weak plot contrivance. Wayne has already been in several circumstances where he's had to kill or chosen not to do anything which results in someone being killed (in theory). So now we're into situational ethics where Bruce decides life and death. With the Joker, he is already known to be a ruthless killer which exempts no one, not even his own kind. He's telling Batman on television (like he's a public figure) that he will continue doing what he has always done if Batman does not turn himself in. How exactly is that a dilemma? Anyone in that situation with an ounce of common sense knows the Joker is simply trying to remove his primary threat, which is Batman. So why would Bruce give him that? Because the Joker will keep killing people like he does already? What has the Joker introduced that is different here? The fact he's saying it on television and Batman has a reputation to protect? No. So which is it? Is he being selfish or is he simply stupid because he HONESTLY thinks the Joker will stop killing people because he turns himself in? I just don't think there's any rationale that gets you to the decision he made. It feels very forced and undermines all the risk he has taken to fight for the "greater good" of the public he wants to defend. How is the public served if he turns himself in and the Joker overruns the city with death and more crime?

The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own. All these moments I cited were when Bruce's only option to save a life, even his own, was something that would cause a villain's death. Nothing like that happens with the Joker. Ruthless killer or not, killing the Joker without defense of himself or others isn't comparable to any of those other moments. Doing that would be essentially execution, which is what Bruce stated to Ra's he wouldn't do. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[thecolorsblend]

The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own.

You mean aside from the Joker blowing up cop cars with bazookas? If Batman had killed the Joker, those casualties either would've been mitigated or else avoided entirely. Not to mention the other people the Joker kills after that sequence.

[Dagenspear]

You mean aside from the Joker blowing up cop cars with bazookas? If Batman had killed the Joker, those casualties either would've been mitigated or else avoided entirely. Not to mention the other people the Joker kills after that sequence.

There was never a moment there for him to kill the Joker. I suppose you're suggesting that he wreck the truck, but I'm not sure he had the opportunity. He has to stop the tumbler to activate the weapon's system and his first action in that chase is to take a missile hit, which puts him out of action for a minute and allows the Joker to keep going. When he finally catches up, he's very much in a position and takes it by wrecking the truck, but Joker lives and then just stands there, waiting for Batman to hit him, which wouldn't be defensive if he did. But you seem to be talking about preventive, not defensive. I'm talking about defensive. Batman in Nolan's movies tends to generally take defensive actions.

[Wayne49]

The movie never has Batman in a situation where killing the Joker is an action needed to save a life/lives at any moment, even his own. All these moments I cited were when Bruce's only option to save a life, even his own, was something that would cause a villain's death. Nothing like that happens with the Joker. Ruthless killer or not, killing the Joker without defense of himself or others isn't comparable to any of those other moments. Doing that would be essentially execution, which is what Bruce stated to Ra's he wouldn't do. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

But you're stating it's a natural reaction to turn himself in because he's perceiving his surrender as a life saving action. I'm saying it makes no sense because the Joker is a known killer that does so indiscriminately. How does Bruce save lives if he takes Batman out of the picture? The elementary answer is he doesn't. So what is the dilemma that leads Bruce to turn himself in? Where's the logic?

[Dagenspear]

But you're stating it's a natural reaction to turn himself in because he's perceiving his surrender as a life saving action. I'm saying it makes no sense because the Joker is a known killer that does so indiscriminately. How does Bruce save lives if he takes Batman out of the picture? The elementary answer is he doesn't. So what is the dilemma that leads Bruce to turn himself in? Where's the logic?

Bruce isn't thinking with logic. He's thinking with guilt. He blames himself for the Joker's actions. Bruce doesn't understand that the Joker is an indiscriminate killer. In the interrogation scene he still thinks Joker is someone who kills for money. Bruce doesn't get what the Joker is until after that scene. His actions are all he thinks he can do at the time. He's thinking through a guilty conscience and even to an extent what the people think of him. He's wrong of course and the movie slaps him down hard for that.

[GoNerdYourself]

TDK's ending has always bugged me. There's something more well-rounded that could have been done with Dent, more so than turning his legacy into a cover up that turns into a law that miraculously removed the entire criminal underworld from Gotham. It might've worked better if they removed the cover up idea from the ending and let it end with a somewhat downbeat, gritty note with a touch of hope.

The thing is, this situation was the Kobayashi Maru. The moment Two Face started killing people, the "white knight" thing went kaput. The characters lost before the climax. The Joker won in that aspect. That's the ending. The cover up feels too much like a storyteller trying re-direct the natural progression of the story.

But another thing that really bugs me about the final confrontation is everyone ignores the elephant in the room. Two Face is blaming Gordon and Batman for Rachel's death. These are the people who tried to save her. No one addresses that. Also left out was a moment of self-realization, a moment where Two Face becomes Harvey again, which is something I feel like the story and this particular version of Harvey Dent needs. When he is killed, it feels like the character has unfinished business. I feel like a logical outcome was Harvey Dent beating Two Face instead of Batman, that Harvey realized the monster he had become and in a moment of self-reflection, he flips his coin, looks at it, points the gun to his head, and tries to kills himself or maybe does.