The Harvey Dent Act/Following up TDK's Dent Ending (SPOILERS)

[The Dark Knight]

But whatever, it's done.

Indeed. I think I'm over talking about TDK Rises, actually.

I watched B89 again, and what a solid gold classic. That is a movie with good pacing, scene after scene something interesting is going on. A rather simple, easy to follow plot - or just a few plot threads at a time, can do wonders with a movie.

[riddler]

I really wish Harvey was a character in all three films since his character development perfectly lends itself to a trilogy and would've given them a lot more room to explore his character and make his transformation into Two-Face less rushed.  Using Year One, Long Halloween, and Dark Victory as broad templates, there's Film 1 introducing him as a frustrated ADA who becomes Batman's first ally, Film 2 giving him the DA position and showing his descent over the edge and becoming Two-Face, and Film 3 having him in full Two-Face mode and exploring the ramifications of Batman and Gordon having to fight their former friend/ally.  Instead, we got all of the Harvey Dent story in one movie.

Apparently Goyer's original outline set up Harvey Dent in TDK and his transformation in what became TDKRises. You and I wouldn't be the first to propose that TDK is too busy, too many characters, too many moving pieces on the chessboard, all that. Assuming that rumor (and I swear to think I read the sourced reference from the Wikipedia page but that may not have been it) is true, to me it says that TDK truly was too crowded. I don't think different pacing would've radically improved my enjoyment of these films but it is still interesting to consider how things were originally conceived. I can't help but thinking the original structure would've ultimately been more satisfying.

Besides, there was already a district attorney in Batman Begins. One wonders why the crap he couldn't have been Harvey from day one. But whatever, it's done.

Thats what fans originally thought too. As soon as it was revealed Harvey Dent would be in the dark knight, the assumption was it would set up two face for the third film. The debate would be whether or not the scarring of dent would happen in the second film or third. It was eventually revealed it would happen in the second. Nobody actually predicted two face would die in that film.

Contrast this to another comic film; spider-man 3. In that film it was known Eddie Brock would be a character and spider-man would have the symbiote which leads to venom. Again the debate would be whether Brock became venom in that film or the next film. Eventually it was revealed Venom would appear. He was brought in for about 15 minutes and then killed off. There was huge backlash of how such a popular villain was brought in for basically an extended cameo and then killed and why they couldn't have devoted an entire film to him? So why did Raimi take so much heat for doing that to Venom when Nolan took very little for doing the same to two face?

Sorry for bringing this into another thread but I also question why Nolanites keep claiming that Burton had no right killing the joker yet Nolan had every right to bring two face in for a few scenes and then kill him?

[thecolorsblend]

Sorry for bringing this into another thread but I also question why Nolanites keep claiming that Burton had no right killing the joker yet Nolan had every right to bring two face in for a few scenes and then kill him?

It's something the majority of them probably hadn't even thought much about until David Goyer mentioned it in some interview before BB came out, after which it became a popular meme for arguing the inevitable superiority of the Nolan version. But after what all happened to Ra's al Ghul, Two Face, Bane and Talia, I'm guessing we won't hear them repeat that argument very often anymore.

[BatmAngelus]

I really wish Harvey was a character in all three films since his character development perfectly lends itself to a trilogy and would've given them a lot more room to explore his character and make his transformation into Two-Face less rushed.  Using Year One, Long Halloween, and Dark Victory as broad templates, there's Film 1 introducing him as a frustrated ADA who becomes Batman's first ally, Film 2 giving him the DA position and showing his descent over the edge and becoming Two-Face, and Film 3 having him in full Two-Face mode and exploring the ramifications of Batman and Gordon having to fight their former friend/ally.  Instead, we got all of the Harvey Dent story in one movie.

Apparently Goyer's original outline set up Harvey Dent in TDK and his transformation in what became TDKRises. You and I wouldn't be the first to propose that TDK is too busy, too many characters, too many moving pieces on the chessboard, all that. Assuming that rumor (and I swear to think I read the sourced reference from the Wikipedia page but that may not have been it) is true, to me it says that TDK truly was too crowded. I don't think different pacing would've radically improved my enjoyment of these films but it is still interesting to consider how things were originally conceived. I can't help but thinking the original structure would've ultimately been more satisfying.

Besides, there was already a district attorney in Batman Begins. One wonders why the crap he couldn't have been Harvey from day one. But whatever, it's done.

You're not wrong.  Here's the source:

Writer David Goyer talks about possible sequels and says (spoilers ahead), "The next one would have Batman enlisting the aid of Gordon and [Harvey] Dent [aka Two-Face] in bringing down the Joker... but not killing him, which is a mistake they made in the first one." The article then says that "In the third, the Joker would go on trial, scarring Dent in the process."

http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/88561-premiere-features-batman-begins
Though I suppose that, since Goyer spilled the beans to the magazine, he, Nolan, and his brother decided to go in a different direction.

They also tried to fit Harvey into Batman Begins, according to their introduction to Absolute Long Halloween, but "didn't think [they'd] do him justice."

Goyer did have a mention of Harvey in his original draft in the scene between Rachel and her boss, but even that was cut:

RACHEL
That was then- but now he's
importing drugs, everybody knows it, let's take it to Harvey Dent and-

FINCH (looking around)
Keep your voice down.

[greggbray]

While Harvey was willing to bend the rules, he was never the type to outright support the removal of rights such as parole. It makes you wonder just what else has been taken away in the name of enforcing law and order, especially unrest and protests similar to the Occupy movement seem to be a central part of TDKRises' conflict. If the government and the heroes have "saved" the city through extreme order, then it's no wonder that Bane seems to be rallying together his own army of citizens in response. [...]

If the people in that poster as well as this one indeed are angry Gotham citizens rather than Bane's (or perhaps Ra's, maybe possibly?) own private army, then it looks like the reckoning that Bane represents is the response to the oppressive war on crime that Gordon and Batman have waged in Harvey's name.

And that's when I thought of something which actually gave me chills. If my deductions are correct, then maybe, just maybe, Nolan still has something to say about Harvey after all. If all this is true, then the real legacy of Harvey Dent is a city at war with itself, on the verge of being torn in two.

Holy. Crap.

^ That would have been incredible.

In all honesty I'm more interested in Harvey Dent's journey to becoming Two-Face, than in him actually being Two-Face.  Some of Rucka's writing and the material in No Man's Land softened my view on this a bit (especially Two-Face putting himself on trial, being prosecuted by Harvey Dent) but other than that he becomes a bit too (two?) gimmicky.  The tragic resonance present in Two-Face's appearances (in particular post-Long Halloween and in the Animated Series) is rooted in who he *was* not necessarily what he is now. 

For me, Two-Face in TDK was handled quite well. The white knight--the public image of justice that needed not to be tarnished.  It's a bit on the surface, but I dug it.

Keeping Dent alive for TDKR or, perhaps, really exploring what his legacy has done to the city would have been far more interesting than a throwaway line about the Dent act in the beginning and a conveniently (I mean, the LEVELS of convenience) place papers in Gordon's pockets for Bane to find when Gordon *happens* to stumble into his subterranean hideaway. 

[riddler]

i guess i kind of can respect the fact that Harvey was a symbol of a white knight wh gave Gotham hope that good can triumph over evil and one person can make a difference. The flaw to that theory though is the same could have been said by Batman. Though I'll give Nolan the benefit of the doubt on this one; Batman was inspiring negativity including other copycat viginalntees, forcing the mob to up the stakes and get desparate (essentially giving the joker his power) and forcing the police to use some of their resources on him instead of the true criminals- his return in TDKR helps Bane and Catwoman to an extent as the police start chasing him instead.

[The Laughing Fish]

I've seen a couple of people elsewhere online who claim that the Dent Act, and its uncovering as a sham, shows that Batman and Gordon covering up Two-Face's crimes was a mistake.

Well, yeah. That's common sense, and anybody with half a brain would've thought it was the worst thing that Batman could've done under the circumstances. So where were the scenes that showed Batman realizing that he made a mistake?

Gordon did show regrets because he felt sickened to cover up a madman who nearly murdered his son, which is why he wrote that letter in the first place. But even he never acknowledged that telling that lie Dent was the wrong thing to do. As a matter of fact, while Bane was exposing the cover-up, Gordon tried to justify himself to Blake by arguing he had no other choice. He and Batman were afraid that Dent's crimes could release every crook he ever put away and they thought the entire town would lose hope (despite this going against everything that Batman said about the city being ready to believe in good, when everybody had the strength and compassion to not kill each other by the end of that stupid boat scene. But never mind).*** The last sentence in the dialogue with Blake shows that he had some gratitude over Batman's "bravery" to frame himself:

When structures fail, when rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bad guy getting ahead. One day you may face a moment of crisis and in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did. To plunge their hands in filth, so you can keep yours clean.

And despite dismissing Gordon's excuses, Blake suddenly sees Gordon's point of view in the end, following his confrontation with the army officer on the bridge:

You know what you said about structures becoming shackles. You were right and I can't take it.

Yes, the film showed us the terrible consequences when Gotham City was told about Harvey Dent's crimes. But not once did the film ever imply that Batman and Gordon's decision to cover up Dent's mess was a mistake. It was presented that they were forced to do it because of the corrupt and flawed justice system.

In any case, it wouldn't matter to me even if the movie presented us the message that the Dent Act was wrong. I still regard Batman and Gordon's handling of the Dent situation not really as a mistake, but rather, an act of pure negligence. It gave the citizens of Gotham a false sense of security, and put them in harm's way when the truth eventually comes out. It's unacceptable.

***NOTE:*** I agree with riddler when he said in this thread earlier on, and in the 'Your Version of The Dark Knight' thread (which he explained in even greater detail) that the whole excuse that Batman had to sacrifice himself to protect Two-Face's reputation is bogus because Dent's crimes had nothing to do with his work as a DA. Lawyers get caught red-handed for committing crimes in the real world, but their prosecutions of criminals don't get overturned, unless they were found to be tampering with evidence or rigging verdicts.

Another excuse I see some people try to use is that Batman had to frame himself to protect Dent because he became a fugitive by the SWAT team after he fought them during that reckless attempt to save the Joker's hostages, and nobody would believe him if he told the truth. But that too doesn't make any sense because Batman was involved in a highly dangerous Tumbler-car chase with the cops in the first film, and he was extremely lucky that he didn't kill anyone. If an incident like that didn't make Batman become Public Enemy #1, then I see no reason why his fight with the SWAT team would immediately make him a fugitive, especially not after spending a whole year establishing himself as a crimefighter.

[Dagenspear]

I've seen a couple of people elsewhere online who claim that the Dent Act, and its uncovering as a sham, shows that Batman and Gordon covering up Two-Face's crimes was a mistake.

Well, yeah. That's common sense, and anybody with half a brain would've thought it was the worst thing that Batman could've done under the circumstances. So where were the scenes that showed Batman realizing that he made a mistake?

There were scenes doing that. They weren't completely extensive certainly, but Alfred has that line about how it's time that stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have it's day.

Gordon did show regrets because he felt sickened to cover up a madman who nearly murdered his son, which is why he wrote that letter in the first place. But even he never acknowledged that telling that lie Dent was the wrong thing to do. As a matter of fact, while Bane was exposing the cover-up, Gordon tried to justify himself to Blake by arguing he had no other choice. He and Batman were afraid that Dent's crimes could release every crook he ever put away and they thought the entire town would lose hope (despite this going against everything that Batman said about the city being ready to believe in good, when everybody had the strength and compassion to not kill each other by the end of that stupid boat scene. But never mind).*** The last sentence in the dialogue with Blake shows that he had some gratitude over Batman's "bravery" to frame himself:

Bruce's feelings about the people being ready to believe in good was based on Harvey. It's developed in the film that Bruce sees batman as something that hurt gotham.

And despite dismissing Gordon's excuses, Blake suddenly sees Gordon's point of view in the end, following his confrontation with the army officer on the bridge:

He sees the point of view about the structures becoming shackles. He doesn't mention the lie.

Yes, the film showed us the terrible consequences when Gotham City was told about Harvey Dent's crimes. But not once did the film ever imply that Batman and Gordon's decision to cover up Dent's mess was a mistake. It was presented that they were forced to do it because of the corrupt and flawed justice system.

The situation itself shows that it was a mistake.

In any case, it wouldn't matter to me even if the movie presented us the message that the Dent Act was wrong. I still regard Batman and Gordon's handling of the Dent situation not really as a mistake, but rather, an act of pure negligence. It gave the citizens of Gotham a false sense of security, and put them in harm's way when the truth eventually comes out. It's unacceptable.

There isn't anyway either of them could've predicted what would happen.

***NOTE:*** I agree with riddler when he said in this thread earlier on, and in the 'Your Version of The Dark Knight' thread (which he explained in even greater detail) that the whole excuse that Batman had to sacrifice himself to protect Two-Face's reputation is bogus because Dent's crimes had nothing to do with his work as a DA. Lawyers get caught red-handed for committing crimes in the real world, but their prosecutions of criminals don't get overturned, unless they were found to be tampering with evidence or rigging verdicts.

As I understand it, the idea was that it would call his character into question and make it more easy for the system to be tampered with, or so they thought.

Another excuse I see some people try to use is that Batman had to frame himself to protect Dent because he became a fugitive by the SWAT team after he fought them during that reckless attempt to save the Joker's hostages, and nobody would believe him if he told the truth. But that too doesn't make any sense because Batman was involved in a highly dangerous Tumbler-car chase with the cops in the first film, and he was extremely lucky that he didn't kill anyone. If an incident like that didn't make Batman become Public Enemy #1, then I see no reason why his fight with the SWAT team would immediately make him a fugitive, especially not after spending a whole year establishing himself as a crimefighter.

That isn't the reason. The way I see it is that Bruce blamed himself for what happened to Harvey and Rachel and saw batman as bad for the city, so he turned the cops on himself.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[The Laughing Fish]

Over the years, many people have defended the TDK's ending and the need of the Dent Act because the moral of the story was supposed to be Batman inspires violence and psychopaths, and Gotham City needed to look up to a political hero so the town could begin social reform.

Yet TDKR ends with the Dent Act abolished because it was based on a lie and Blake takes the mantle as Batman. As long as a Batman is needed, Gotham City can't ever stop being a dysfunctional town, can it?

Great storytelling there.

[thecolorsblend]

Over the years, many people have defended the TDK's ending and the need of the Dent Act because the moral of the story was supposed to be Batman inspires violence and psychopaths, and Gotham City needed to look up to a political hero so the town could begin social reform.

Yet TDKR ends with the Dent Act abolished because it was based on a lie and Blake takes the mantle as Batman. As long as a Batman is needed, Gotham City can't ever stop being a dysfunctional town, can it?

Great storytelling there.

Was it repealed? I don't recall that in the movie but it's been a while since I've seen it.

ETA- Upon reflection, that is a fair point. There wasn't a need for Batman after TDK thanks to the Dent Act. If Blake becomes Batman, you'd think there'd be a need for it. So that might imply the Dent Act was repealed. I just don't remember it being made explicit in the movie, that's all I'm saying.