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

Started by The Laughing Fish, Mon, 23 Mar 2015, 11:22

Previous topic - Next topic
The point is discussing how art makes us feel. That's not child's play. It's real and it's honest and you probably wouldn't be arguing if the movie didn't make you feel something. (And, for the record, I am not talking that forced soap opera-esque stuff, but the genuine and powerful thoughts and feelings a movie/book/graphic novel can inspire.)

What a filmmaker does to illicit emotions, finding relatable imagery, subtle little things to jumpstart something in our brains, that can be very fascinating. 

I think the Star Wars films are a good example. There's a powerful moment in Return of the Jedi, where anger takes hold and Luke attacks Vader, only to cut off Vader's hand and see the wiring of Vader's severed mechanical hand, and comparing it to his own. For us, it feels great. Yeah, get him Luke! Take that Vader! And then, you see in his eyes, Luke's self-reflection, he sees his father in him. The movie takes simple, but relatable thoughts ("What have I become?" "I don't want to be like my father?") and uses them to its advantage. In comparison, on paper, the prequels have a lot more story, a lot more character motivations and political commentary, but the way it's handled is rather lifeless and dull at times and the pivotal moments are nowhere near as powerful or meaningful. They are just things that happen.

It's not just the story, it's how it is told. One movie can have a lot of story and flounder while another movie can have less story, but be more potent and effective, or it can be vice versa. It really does vary from film to film, from filmmaker to filmmaker, and from person to person. That's art. It's subjective.

The film might have been better and more interesting, although I'm sure some viewers would initially think it was blasphemous, if the Joker had died in TDK and Two-Face had killed him (although in/right after the ferry climax rather than the hospital scene, not have the hospital scene and instead somehow else Harvey becomes more devoted to the role of chance).

I think what a lot of the critics of Two Face's depiction in TDK mostly forget is that ultimately TDK is a story about Batman and the Joker. The narrative serves those two characters. That means other characters might occasionally get short-changed but that's cinema. The definitive live action Two Face eludes us, which isn't a bad thing. It gives us something to look forward to.

Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:21 #63 Last Edit: Sat, 9 Dec 2017, 09:45 by The Laughing Fish
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Nov  2017, 21:10
I think what a lot of the critics of Two Face's depiction in TDK mostly forget is that ultimately TDK is a story about Batman and the Joker.

Come on man, you know that's not particularly true. The story was also a rise and fall of Harvey Dent (in fact, I'd argue more so), which was shoehorned horribly into this movie. If the story remained only about Batman and the Joker, it would've made TDK a much better film.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 27 Nov  2017, 21:10
That means other characters might occasionally get short-changed but that's cinema. The definitive live action Two Face eludes us, which isn't a bad thing. It gives us something to look forward to.

I can only speak for myself, but the criticism has nothing to do with this movie's version of Two-Face fails to live up to being the definitive yet. I criticise this version of Two-Face because it's an incredibly badly written character arc that insults the intelligence. Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse. It's disgusting.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 09:21Come on man, you know that's not particularly true.
With respect, I know no such thing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 09:21The story was also a rise and fall of Harvey Dent (in fact, I'd argue more so), which was shoehorned horribly into this movie.
The rise element was an organic development which happened in-universe. The fall related to the character's own feet of clay combined with the machinations of the Joker. Ultimately that part of the story is supposed to speak to the Joker's true nature rather than be an awesome Two Face story. I understand if that's frustrating to some people but I think Nolan's creative decisions in this matter are perfectly valid.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 09:21If the story remained only about Batman and the Joker, it would've made TDK a much better film.
Maybe. Maybe not. We can't really know for sure about what didn't happen. All we can do is talk about what did happen.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 09:21I criticise this version of Two-Face because it's an incredibly badly written character arc that insults the intelligence. Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse. It's disgusting.
Understandable. The way I see it, Two Face was lashing out at the people he held responsible for the tragedies he'd suffered. Whether or not he picked the right targets is open to debate.

From Two Face's point of view, Gordon still associated with dirty cops even though Dent had warned him about them.  If Gordon had acted upon the information he'd been given, Dent and Rachel couldn't have been sold out to Maroni and the Joker like they were. His thinking on that adds up for me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 14:34
With respect, I know no such thing.

I find it hard that you truly believe that, but moving on...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 14:34
Maybe. Maybe not. We can't really know for sure about what didn't happen. All we can do is talk about what did happen.

And what did happen was utter garbage. I can't imagine the alternative to be worse.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 14:34
The rise element was an organic development which happened in-universe. The fall related to the character's own feet of clay combined with the machinations of the Joker. Ultimately that part of the story is supposed to speak to the Joker's true nature rather than be an awesome Two Face story. I understand if that's frustrating to some people but I think Nolan's creative decisions in this matter are perfectly valid.

Again, I wasn't asking for a perfect Two-Face story, but I was expecting one that actually made sense, and made me feel a bit of sympathy for him. This certainly doesn't come anywhere near in reaching that criteria. It's bad enough that the film tells you he's the best thing to happen to the city in a long time despite he doesn't do anything to justify this reputation. But to have him then become a foil for the hero to make a terrible decision in the end? No. I can't accept that garbage excuse for storytelling.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 14:34
Understandable. The way I see it, Two Face was lashing out at the people he held responsible for the tragedies he'd suffered. Whether or not he picked the right targets is open to debate.

From Two Face's point of view, Gordon still associated with dirty cops even though Dent had warned him about them.  If Gordon had acted upon the information he'd been given, Dent and Rachel couldn't have been sold out to Maroni and the Joker like they were. His thinking on that adds up for me.

I actually said the same thing about Gordon elsewhere, if he hadn't shown such blind faith to those corrupt cops, maybe Dent and Rachel might've survived. But that still doesn't justify Two-Face's rationale for sparing the Joker. He knows very well that Joker was a conniving psychopath who made numerous attempts at his life and Rachel before eventually succeeding in destroying their lives. His justification that "Joker was a mad dog, I'm going after the ones who let him off his leash" still doesn't wash given the fact he knew Joker was manipulating him, and he just lets him do it. And by the time Two-Face threatened to murder Gordon's innocent family, I couldn't believe nobody would feel contempt for him. How could anybody feel sorry for him after that, is just beyond my comprehension.

In any case, it goes to show none of the supposed good guys in this film, particularly the ones who had fallen, are particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Dec  2017, 01:44I find it hard that you truly believe that, but moving on...

And what did happen was utter garbage. I can't imagine the alternative to be worse.
You stating things that aren't facts like they are here is something I don't understand.
QuoteAgain, I wasn't asking for a perfect Two-Face story, but I was expecting one that actually made sense, and made me feel a bit of sympathy for him. This certainly doesn't come anywhere near in reaching that criteria. It's bad enough that the film tells you he's the best thing to happen to the city in a long time despite he doesn't do anything to justify this reputation. But to have him then become a foil for the hero to make a terrible decision in the end? No. I can't accept that garbage excuse for storytelling.
The whole point is that he hasn't done anything to justify it, just like the only real effect of Dent's death is political, I think. Dent's a false martyr from back to front. Of course also, Dent's viewed by the city the way he is because of his idealism, which is said in the movie. The thing is that his idealism is only half of the story. He's not only that. He's a human being capable of choosing to do the wrong thing. Also, in Gordon's own words, he doesn't have blind faith, as he says, "I don't get points for idealism. I have to do the best I can with what I've got." He may not believe his cops are dirty, but that doesn't mean he has blind faith. You haven't given reasons why the story didn't make sense.
QuoteI actually said the same thing about Gordon elsewhere, if he hadn't shown such blind faith to those corrupt cops, maybe Dent and Rachel might've survived. But that still doesn't justify Two-Face's rationale for sparing the Joker. He knows very well that Joker was a conniving psychopath who made numerous attempts at his life and Rachel before eventually succeeding in destroying their lives. His justification that "Joker was a mad dog, I'm going after the ones who let him off his leash" still doesn't wash given the fact he knew Joker was manipulating him, and he just lets him do it. And by the time Two-Face threatened to murder Gordon's innocent family, I couldn't believe nobody would feel contempt for him. How could anybody feel sorry for him after that, is just beyond my comprehension.

In any case, it goes to show none of the supposed good guys in this film, particularly the ones who had fallen, are particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy.
Harvey gives Joker the same chance he gives anyone else. He flips the coin. The good guys in the movie are viewed by you as not particularly likable, competent or deserve any sympathy, but batfleck, who tried to murder Superman because he existed, is those things to you?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 09:21
Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse.

Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 10 Dec  2017, 16:40Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.
I agree. TDKRises even has Jim call him a madman.

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 10 Dec  2017, 16:40
Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.

A lot of the Two-Face stories I've experienced, whether it may be the two-part BTAS episode or the comics such as The Eye of the Beholder tend focus more on a backstory that was linked in the present time; gradually showing Dent going through downward spiral that leads to his insanity. For my money, they made sense and made him sympathetic.

Mind you, I'm not saying Two-Face must always be a sympathetic character. All I'm saying is, the better interpretations tend to be the ones where his downfall took time, which made insanity believable. The way TDK handled it not only was far too quick for its own good, it was too much of a leap to believe his actions. Still, you'd be surprised by how many people described how much sympathy they had for him.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei